Freemasonry Considered.

enmity to the Freemasons , who had resolved upon their destruction , in revenge for the ruin and slaughter of the Templars , whose successors they ( the Freemasons ) were . The proclamation denounces this as false , intimates the peaceful and

philosophic character of the Freemasons , * and repudiates all connection with the Templars . It gives a sketch of the doctrines which ruled the brotherhood , whom , it declares , formed three classes—Disciple , Fellow , and Master , the last ,

admitting of Elect and Superior Elect Masters . The document , furthermore , purports to emanate from "Elect Masters of the Venerable Society sacred to John , or of the Social Order of Freemasons , Rulers of Lodges or Tabernacles , constituted at London , Edinburgh , Vienna , Amsterdam , Paris , Lyons , Frankfort , Hamburgh , Antwerp ,

Rotterdam , Madrid , Venice , Ghent , Regimonte , Brussels , Dantzic , Middleburgh , and in the City of Cologne , in chapter assembled , in the said City of Cologne . " It is signed by seventeen parties , and among the signatures appears that

of Melancthon . The following certification is appended : — " Certified in form to the printed examplar , deposited into the Archives of the Gr . and Sublime Chap , of the Temples Interior , sitting in the East of Namur . The Gr . Chancellor of that

Chief Chap . J De Marchot . " It would occupy too much space to show the absurdity of this proclamation , by quoting and commenting upon its several clauses . It is sufficient for our present purpose to draw attention

to the causes which are said to have produced the document , the classes of the brotherhood , and the signatures attached .

1 . The Causes . —There is not the slightest historical evidence , nor the faintest Masonic tradition , that at this period the Masons were suspected of treasonable practices . It was only in 1788 that the first bull was launched against the Freemasons ,

who , previous to that , had enjoyed peculiar privileges under bulls of preceding popes . If , therefore , the Masons had been the subjects of suspicion at that time , some evidence must have come down to the present day , whereas there is none .

2 . The Classes . —It is an admitted fact by Masons who have studied the question , that the Master ' s degree was an invention of the end of

the eighteenth century . There is not a shadow of evidence to prove the existence of Elect and Superior Elect Masters in the year 1535 , or in connection with St . John ' s Masonry at any time . It must be remembered that a Master in ancient

times was not a degree but an office ; the brother was simply head , or Master , of the lodge . 8 . The Signatures . — Harmanius Carlton and Io . Bruce , we presume , are the London and Edinburgh Masters . It is very extraordinary that we

never heard of their names before . It is also very extraordinary that , in all accounts of Melancthon , there is no mention of his having been a Mason or Master of a lodge , although , at that time , he was one of the most conspicuous characters of the

day , and upon whom the eyes of the world were fixed . From what we know of him , it is quite evident that , had he been present at such a meeting , or put his hand to such a document , he would have made a more public defence of his

Order , and not have rested content with a proclamation which , it seems , nobody saw at the time . It would be difficult to tell who were the other subscribers , ' or bring evidence documentary or otherwise to show that such names belonged to Craftsmen .

There are many other points in the proclamation which support the views presented , but , as we have said , to go into them would occupy too much space . The copy of the proclamation is printed , and ,

from the certification attached to it , is in the possession of the " Chap . ' of the Temples Interior , sitting in the East of Namur . " Is it not possible to have the document examined by an expert , when the paper , type , and ink would verify or

falsify beyond cavil ( unless it be extremely cleverly forged , which is unlikely to be the case ) , the document ? It is extraordinary that no other copy has been preserved , when the document is of so important a nature . But without troubling an

expert , we have to pronounce the document a forgery , and to fix the date of perpetration ; for if the document be not a forgery , we will require to put away all our Masonic histories , and write by a new light , adopting the myths of the Rose Croix , and abandoning all our unchallenged historical landmarks .

The proclamation gives us the popular suspicion of the Freemasons , as successors of those who destroyed the Knights . This leads us to the conclusion that the document was forged after