LECTURE XXXIV.

ON THE ANOMALOUS POSITION OF MASONIC

HISTORY.

"Masonic orders were not originally at all points what they now are; they have passed through many changes and modifications; and no inconsiderable part of their symbolic system has been the product of successive generations."-DE QUINCEY. May every Brother who has been lawfully and regularly entered into our society, which is both ancient and honourable, be duly instructed in its true principles."-SECTIONAL CHARGE.

66

THE real status of speculative Masonry with respect to a high antiquity, and its claims to a scientific origin, have been repeatedly called in question; and it is not very complimentary to the Order that eminent writers, both architectural and historical, when speaking on the subject, are accustomed, with quiet sarcasm or open animadversion, to ignore our pretensions, not only to an ancient origin, but also to a scientific knowledge of the art. De Quincey predicates that" among the outstanding problems in history, there are not many more irritating to the curiosity than that which concerns the well-known order of Freemasons. I am not aware of any work in our own language which has treated this question with much learning." Dallaway, in his historical account of the Master and Freemasons, says, "I

approach this investigation with much diffidence, confining it entirely to historical facts; and it would have given me satisfaction if I had gained more than to be referred to a modern work of high estimation; viz., Preston's Illustrations of Masonry.' The mysteries of the Masonic Order are there darkly shadowed forth, and hid from my comprehension.' Again, that with the Romans such fraternities (COLLEGIE), including the workmen (FABRI), who were employed in any kind of construction, were subject to the laws of Numa Pompilius, is an apparent fact. Need the modern Freemasons require a better authenticated antiquity, and not prefer a Roman origin to the mystified traditions of Jachin and Boaz ?"

Dr. Kitto, on inserting Bro. Bardwell's interesting description of the Temple of Solomon in his "Pictorial History of Palestine," accompanies it with the following protest, as a foot-note:-"That Hiram was a king we know; but that he was an architect is known only to the Freemasons. The reader will perceive throughout the above extract much Masonic phraseology and some historical facts, for which there is no authority beyond the Masonic archives, and that authority men of letters have not yet learned to respect." And again: "All this about King Hiram's operations, as distinguished from those of his clerk of the works, is very odd, and we do not recommend our readers to receive it as historical verity."

Hallam is equally civil and equally severe. His words are: "The curious subject of Freemasonry has

unfortunately been treated of only by panegyrists or calumniators, both equally mendacious. I do not wish to pry into the mysteries of the Craft, but it would be interesting to know more of their history during the period in which they were literally architects."

Professor Robison goes still farther; and says that "the writers on Masonry have not, in general, been persons qualified for the task. Scanty crudition, credulity, and enthusiasm appear in almost all their writings; and they have neither attempted to remove the heap of rubbish with which Anderson has disgraced his Constitutions of Freemasonry (the basis of Masonic history), nor to avail themselves of information which history really affords to a sober inquirer.”

And Professor Stuart, of Andover, one of the most skilful linguists and learned men in the United States, has endeavoured to show that the Legend of the Third Degree is an imposture, "since the names of the criminals are formed from the Latin language, and not from the Hebrew, to which they have no affinity whatever."

And, lastly, Mr. Charles Knight, in his "London," says: "There is a curious question connected with the building of St. Paul's, regarding the origin of Freemasonry. Herder, in one of his fugitive pieces, asserts that Freemasonry (meaning thereby modern European Freemasonry-the Freemasonry of St. John, as it is called) had its origin during the erection of the cathedral, in a prolonged jest of Wren and some of his familiar associates. Herder's story is, that on the stated days on which Wren was ac

It

customed to inspect the progress of the building, he and his friends usually dined at a house in the neighbourhood; that a club was thus formed which, by degrees, introduced a formula in symbolical language, derived from the Masonic profession. It seems rather corroborative of Herder's assertion, that while the biographers of Wren mention the attendance of the Lodge of Freemasons, of which he was the Master, at the ceremony of placing the highest stone of the lantern, no mention is made of their attendance at laying the foundation-stone. is also worthy of notice that every Lodge in Great Britain (and, we may add, on the Continent) is an offshoot from that one Lodge of which Sir Christopher was so long the Master, now generally known by the name of the Lodge of Antiquity. Should any zealous Mason grumble at our implied scepticism regarding the great antiquity claimed by his Order, we would respectfully remark, that Sir Christopher Wren is as respectable a founder as he has any chance of getting-that he may go farther and fare worse."

Thus do serious writers treat our pretensions with ridicule, and our pursuits with marked indifference and contempt. Nor is it surprising that such hostile opinions should be entertained by the uninitiated, because they are bound to consider Freemasonry as the embodiment of a series of pure historical facts. But that any well-informed Brother should embrace and promulgate the same unfounded delusions-(see Freemasons' Magazine, June, 1859, p. 1025, et pas

sim)-cannot fail to excite our astonishment, as a striking instance of unaccountable idiosyncrasy, which can scarcely be imputed to ignorance, because such critical writers profess to have acquired a fair knowledge of the general principles of the Order; and, therefore, must be aware, for it is inscribed on the very threshold, that Freemasonry, so far from being an embodiment of facts, is purely an allegorical system, with nothing real about it but its morality and benevolence; being simply and exclusively "a code of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." And, therefore, non-Masonic writers are not without sound reasons for their unbelief; as it must be confessed that our historical and legendary relations are not to be sustained by the evidence of accredited history. Under such circumstances we do not wonder at the public protest and declaration of Grand Master Dalcho, in one of his orations, where he says:

ઃઃ

"I candidly confess that I feel a great degree of embarrassment while I am relating to ministers of God's holy word, or to any other gentlemen, a story founded on the grossest errors of accumulated ages; errors which they can prove to me to be such from the sacred pages of Holy Writ, and from profane history, written by men of integrity and talents, and that, too, in a minute after I have solemnly pronounced them to be undeniable truths; even by that very Bible on which I have received their obligation."

The same Grand Master says in another place, "Neither Adam, nor Nimrod, nor Moses, nor