A New History Of Freemasonry.

we judge from our brother ' s caustic remarks he has not been privileged to see . We would a . dvise him to thoroughly study the history of the Fraternity which he represents , and understand that the Masonic columns of the Dispatch are not used for pleasantry , but for Masonic information which can be vouched for . Study , my brother , and remember the commandment of the ancient sage'Hear muchspeak littleand weih well that which thou speakest . ' Se

, , , g defendendo . " JAMES B . GRANT . " We regret to learn that our brother was in sober earnest when he made the statement contained in the extract first above quoted . We thank him for his excellent advice to " thoroughly study the history of the Fraternity ; " that has been , and will continue to be , our constant endeavour ; and let him take his own medicine ! We have only to regret that he WILL NOT give us any

authority for his statements . Now , in order to bring this matter to an issue , we distinctly traverse all his alleged facts , and since the affirmative of the issue is with himself , it is for him to sustain it . WE POSITIVELY DENY ( 1 ) " That after the death of Charles I ., in 1649 , the Masons of England , and more particularly those of Scotland , laboured in secret for the re-establishment of the throne destroyed by Cromwell ; " ( 2 ) That " Charles II ., during his exile , was received as an Accepted Mason : "

( 3 ) That Charles II . was ever made a Mason ; and ( 4 ) That Charles II ., " in consequence of the benefits he derived from the Society , gave to Masonry the title of Masonic Art . " We are well aware that , by certain writers of the Andersonian school , loose statements have been made akin to those put forth by our brother ; but they are wholly unsubstantiated b y any reliable evidence . Indeed , the most that has been claimed has been that certain fabricators of so-called " hih degrees "

g , such as the Chevalier Ramsay , " fabricated degrees in the interest of the Stuart cause . To identify either Freemasonry or Freemasons with such a movement is wholl y unjustifiable . We assert , without fear of successful contradiction , that in neither England nor Scotland has Freemasonry ever identified itself with any political party or cause whatsoever . As to any such attempted identification prior to the revival of 1717 , it is absurd . Before that

time there was in Great Britain no Grand Lodge . All of the subordinate lodges were sovereign and independent . They were partly operative and partly speculative , being representatives of the older purely operative lodges , whose purpose had been the conservation and advancement of architectural knowledge and science . They would as soon have thought of identifying themselves with a scheme to open balloon communication with the moon as with one to revolutionize England in behalf of any political party . But let us have our brother ' s authorities ; if they exist they will speak for themselves , and may be readily refuted .

We quite concur with the able editor of the Keystone , and onl y regret to see reproduced in America , in 1881 , the chimerical theories of some foreign writers , which have long been given up as untenable by the thoughtful student and the competent critic . The Caroline revival , or origin of Freemasonry , was a French idea , started about one hundred years ago , and was always like the "baseless fabric of a dream . " It never had consistencyrealitor fact in itThe Jacobite

any , y , . revival and direction of Freemasonry is also a very debateable proposition . _ There is no valid evidence that Ramsay ever himself propounded his alleged High Grade Jacobite Masonry . Even the " Rite de Bouillon , " as his manipulation , is somewhat questionable . That it existed is probabl y true , that he arranged it , or patronized it " quod est probandum . " Recent researches place Ramsay ' s connection earlier than was generall y believed .