Freemasonry: Its Origin, History, And Design.

of which is founded on the assumption that Freemasonry is to be traced , for its prhnitiA'e source , to the Temple of Jerusalem . The investigations of the more recent or authentic school haA'e very nearly demolished this theory . All of this is now explained , not historically , hut symbobeally . - Ancl so important , and indeed essential , to specidative Masonry is the Temple of Solomon as a symbol , that to eradicate it from Masonic symbolism Avould be equivalent to destroying the identity of the Institution . " I cannothowever , agree with Bro . Mackey in terming Anderson a founder of the

, mystical—an appellation Avhich far more properly belongs to Hutchinson , as succeeded by Oliver . Anderson and Desaguliers were in no sense mystics . Anderson put into plain , readable Engbsh the legend of the OperatiA ' e Guilds ; and though he undoubtedl y assumed the reality and truth of the Solomonic tradition , he did so in its literal "import , and not in any mystical sense . I have very carefully studied Andersonand I can find

, no trace of credulity or mysticism . He seems to haA'e been a painstaking matter-of-fact Scotchman , Avho was told to do a certain thing , and he did it , and did it for the time well . He Avas bound doAvn by certain stipulations , and restrained AA'ithin certain limits AA'hich he could not oveipass , ancl I apprehend that no Masonic writer could have done more or better than Anderson did , in compliance Avith the Order of Grand Lodge namely , compose a modern ancl readable history of Freemasonry in 1723 .

As regards the connection of the Temple of Solomon with Freemasonry , it is confessedly a " Crux , " AA'hich cannot be got rid of by dogmatism or deprecation , by ridicule or sarcasm , by the "ipse dixit" of any one Avriter , be he Avho he may . Oliver , as it will be remembered , ' attributed the introduction of the legend ancl symbobsm of the " Temple " to a Avork called " Nau / ierpia . " It is , in fact , derived alone from the guild legends . But as I treat this subject later , I pass on . Mackey goes on to say : — " The theory of the ori gin of Freemasonry now most generallaccepted is that

y of the authentic school of Masonic history .. The leaders of this school in England are Hughan ancl Woodford ; in Scotland , Lyon ; in the United States , Dr . Mackey and Fort ; and in Germany , Findel . If a prodigality of credulit y ' has been the Aveakness of the mystical school , their riA'als may be charged AA'ith having sometimes exercised an excess of incredulity . They decline to accept any statement AA'hose authenticity is not supported by some Avritten or printed record , though they do not ( as some haA'e ) go so

far as to circumscribe the history of Freemasonry Avithin the narrow limits of that period AA'hich commences Avith the revival , or the foundation of the Grand Lodge of England , in the beginning of the eighteenth century ; but are much more sensible , ancl UOAV , as a general rule , their theory of the origin of Masonry has been accepted by the more intelligent members of the Fraternity , Avhile the fanciful and legendary speculations of the old writers are gradually giving place to the well-supported statements and the logical deductions of the authentic school . "

It is not quite correct to say that AA'hat is called the authentic school has entirely given up the "Solomonic Legend . " Some may do , but certainly not all ; ancl I for one cannot see AA'hy it is at all necessary to do so . The Temple of Jerusalem is , no doubt , not only a striking point in all the guild legends , but , as we knoAV , is eA'er to the fore in Masonic ritualism . I for one do not knoAV any very great difficulty either in the historical account or the matter of fact . On the contraryit seemsas the Germans haA'e a " standpunkt" Ave AA'ell observe

, , , may a standing " obelisk , " even before the Temple of Truth , iu the great Masonic desert of Time . It is quite clear that the Masonic legend of the Temple has nothing to do , as once erroneously thought , AA'ith the Templars or Hermetieism ; it is such as it is , for good or for eA'il , purely Masonic , and must be accepted and treated , critically if you like , accordingly . To the tradition there is no a priori objection ; it is indeed full y borne out by the significant silence of the Bibleon some of the main incidents familiar to us

, all as Master Masons , and I cannot concur Avith Bro . Mackey in thinking it at all a mark of the authentic school , that it absolutely discards all connection Avith the Temple . Indeed , I am quite sure Bro . Fort does not , ancl I more than doubt whether Bro . Hughan Avould do so . With this protest I pass on .