Masonic History And Historians.

MASONIC HISTORY AND HISTORIANS .

BY MASONIC STUDENT . Several questions arise out of previous statements of our Masonic writers which demand research and verfication , or else , as it appears lo me , they should be given up—for at present all these repetitions of so-called Masonic facts are nothing but " sheep walking . "

i . Can any one throw any light on the name of thc author of the " Complete Freemason ; a Multa Paucis for Lovers of Secrets ? " In my copy the binder has unfortunately cut off the printer ' s name ( if any ) , and all that remains is that the plate of the frontispiece is designed by Bro . Pewiss , and engraved by Bro . Larden .

The writer , whoever he be , seems to intimate in the preface that the " surprising progress" Masonry and architecture have made in Great Britain is owing to those remarkable architects " Inigo Jones " and " Sir Christopher Wren . " Is that so ? It is generally assumed , though I am not aware that there is any printed proof so ' far of the fact , that the work , from internal evidence , was published in 1763 . Is that the case ?

Whence did the author "Multa Paucis " derive his facts from ? It is quite clear that he had seen the Grand Lodge minutes , and a very interesting question arises if we can prove his personality . Assuming that he takes most of his facts from Anderson , though he differs from Anderson , up to 173 8 , where did he find the "data" he gives from 1738 to 1763 ? They clearly come from the Grand Lodge minutes .

But he also gives a very detailed statement of Grand Assemblies from 1618 , declaring that , in 1603 , James I ., being a Freemason and "Royal G . M ., " appointed Inigo Jones G . M ., " who continued in the chair for fifteen years . " In 1618 a Grand Assembly , was holden , and William Herbert , Earl of Pembroke , was appointed Grand Master . It then seems that they " demitted " until 1630 , when a Grand Assembly is said to have met under

Henry Danvers , Earl of Danby , as Grand Master , and Inigo Jones , Deputy Grand Master . In 1635 Thomas Howard , Earl of Arundel , is said to have presided over the Grand Assembly , and Francis Russell , Earl of Bedford , that of 1640 . In 1644 , after four years ' rest , Inigo Jones was re-appointed Grand Master ; and from 1644 until 1661 no Grand Assembly is said to have been holden , when Henry Jermyn , Earl of St . Albans , presided over it ; Sir John Denham , Deputy Grand Master ; and Sir Christopher Wren and John Webb being the Grand Wardens , " ut dicitur . "

There was another interval until 1666 , when Thomas Savage , Earl of Rivers , was Grand Master ; Sir Christopher Wren , Deputy Grand Master ; and John Webb and Grinlin Gibbons , Grand Wardens . There was , it is said , no Grand Assembly again until 1683 , when the Duke of Buckingham was Grand Master ; and in 1684 the Earl of Arlington was Grand Master . In

1685 Sir Christopher Wren was Grand Master ; Gabriel Gibber and Edward Strong , Grand Wardens . A Grand Assembly was again held in 1689 , under Sir Christopher Wren ; and again in 1695 , the Duke of Richmond , Grand Master , and Sir Christopher Wren , Deputy Grand Master ; and from thenceforward no meeting took place until 1717 . Such are the Statements of the author of " Multa Paucis . "

Thus we see that from 161 S to 1695 twelve Grand Assemblies are said to have been held under ten Grand Masters ; Sir Christopher Wren presiding twice . Are these statements true or false , to put the matter shortly and concisely ? They constitute a " crux " tor ail Masonic historians .

It is but fair to remember that , according to Anderson , who may have seen the original minutes of 1717 , which arc now missing , in the original resolutions of revival , previous Quarterly Communications are spoken of , though the word Grand Assembly is not used , as far as I remember now , except by the anonymous author of " Multa Paucis . "

It is also necessary to observe that the author of " Multa Paucis , " to go no further back , declares that Sir Thomas Sackvillc , afterwards Duke of Dorset , was appointed G . M . in 155 8 , and that St . John's Day , 27 th of December , 15 61 , Queen Elizabeth " sent an armed party to break up the G . Lodge assemblcd ~ at York . " Is this statement a reality or a myth ?

In 1567 , according to the same author , Sir Thomas Gresham was Grand Master , Lord Effingham in 1570 , and the Earl of Huntingdon in 158 S . Are these statements also "facts" or not facts ? It is notewoi'lhy lhat until 1618 the writer never talks of Grand Assembly , but of Grand Lodge . Does he mean to mark the difference between the Grand Lodge of York and the Grand Assembly ofthe South ? Curiously enough , too , he says , I note , that Chichely held a lodge at Oxford until he died , 1445 , not at Canterbury , as

it is generally said . See " Kcnning's Cyclopaedia " under " Molash ' for an explanation of this reference . It appears to me lhat the author of" Multa Paucis , " be he right or wrong , had access to some sources of information now no longer available , and his statements have to , be carefully considered in any history of Freemasonry . It wil ! not do to dismiss them at once as untrustworthy , the more so , as several sources of information havc yet to be searched , such as the State Paper Office .

The American P.M.'S Degree.

THE AMERICAN P . M . 'S DEGREE .

WILLIAM JAMES HUGHAN . My friend Bro . Whytehead has done well to refer to the position of brethren in this country who have taken the P . M . Degree abroad as preliminary to the Royal Arch . 1 lis informant , however , must surely have been in error as to the " Board of General Purposes " sanctioning the presence of such an one at a Board of Installed Masters E . C . on the ground of that

qualification . It should be remembered that in England , if we speak of the Degree at all , it is that of an Installed Master , not of a P . M ., and that the former is not a Degree simply , but marks an official position . The requirement is that those brethren " only are eligible to attend a "Board of Installed Masters" ( a ) who have been previously installed as actual Masters of lodges , or ( b ) who are in attendance to be installed in consequence of being

regularly elccled to that position . None others are eligible , and any else admitted will be in violation of our obligations and duties as Installed Masters . Neither would it be sufficient that a brother claiming admission had presided as W . M . of a lodge for twelve months under another jurisdiction . The point to be established as a sine qua tion is , that the brother

has been regularly installed ( as we understand it in England ) in a " Board of Installed Masters , " e . g ., there are many P . M . 's under thc Grand Lodge of Scotland who have never been installed in a Board , but only in thc presence of the whole lodge , though I am glad to state that arrangements havc been made of late years to secure regular installation as in this country .

The American P.M.'S Degree.

As the " Board of General Purposes " has deservedly the full confidence and support of the English Craft , and is composed of able and most intelligent members , I cannot believe that Bro . Whytehead has been correctly informed , and trust that his communication will be the means of drawing special attention to thesubject , sothataIiconcerned may know that no brother , unless regularly installed as a Master of a lodge , in a Board of Installed Masters , is eligible to attend as a visitor at the installation of a Master in the presence of Installed Masters only , under the the English Constitution .

Unjustifiable Fears.

UNJUSTIFIABLE FEARS .

It is undoubtedly true that man } ' intelligent minds are exercised with the idea that Masonry is a dangerous power in the community , inasmuch as its confessedly great influence is liable to be used in a way prejudicial to the best interests of society . Those who entertain such apprehensions are most likely candid enough to concede the fact that there is nothing in the fundamental law or principles of the Masonic Institution at varianceAith the public good , and that its well understood social and benevolent purposes are altogether

worthy of commendation . The class we have in mind will even go so far as to admit that Masonry has wrought effectually for human good , and that , as it exists to-day , the general character of the Institution is above reproach . But their thought is that the immense power wielded by the Masonic organisation may be diverted from its legitimate channels of exercise and used for improper ends . They fear the concentration of so much influence in a secret society , which might , if it should so elect , work incalculable mischief in the

community . In a recent conversation with a friend , who is by no means an alarmist nor a bigot , he declared to us ver } ' freely his opinion that this sort of danger must of necessity attach to Masonry , which is liable at any time to fall into evil hands and be perverted to base uses . In regard to such apprehended danger our friend expressed his thought substantially in this wise : " The

Masonic Institution has the prestige of great age and of a world-wide establishment . As it exists in this country it is strong in numbers , resources , and moral power , and must wield a tremendous influence . " Its members are held together by a strong bond of sympathy . To a certain extent , and for certain specified purposes no doubt entirely commendable , they are pledged to stand by each other and obey the constituted authorities to which they are subject . Now , is there not a danger that the power of this vast organisation mav be

improperly used—that its potential agency may be directed in favour of some cause or movement which does not lead to the public good ? What is to hinder the leaders of this great organisation , if they should be ambitious , designing , and selfish men , from marshalling to their support , in the carrying out of some iniquitous scheme , the whole Masonic constituency , that constituency being held together by a secret bond which reaches to every lodge and every brother . "

Our friend followed along this line of thought , and whilst he commended the moral teachings and beneficent work of Masonry , he yet declared his feeling that thc grasping of so much power by a secret society must needs be an clement of danger to society and the State . He held the conviction that we are li ? . ble at anytime to find all the tremendous force of Masonry exerted

in some base , illiberal , or unpatriotic way . We cannot think that any such danger exists , nor lhat there is any sufficient justification for the fears which are often expressed as to what Masonry might do by an unwise use of its influence at some important juncture . The reasons are ample lo support the contrary view .

The history of Masonry in all English-speaking countries shows how successful it has been in steering clear of all entangling alliances . In these countries , at least , Masonry has always been found on the side of good citizenship , never a disturbing element in matters of politics or religion . It surely should count as something in setting at rest the fears of any timid souls that this record has been made , and that Masonry lias shown so happy a genius for attending to its own business .

The teachings and traditions of Masonry correspond in this respect with what its practice invariably has been . livery candidate is instructed that the questions relating to religious creeds or political parties cannot be discussed in the lodge room , whilst he is repeatedly told that

he loses nothing of his individual responsibility or freedom of action in these departments by his connection with our F ' raternity . Line upon line and precept upon precept does he receive the communications which reveal to him the determinations of Masonry to do its own proper work within the lines that have been marked out .

I he character of the men who belong to the Order shows very clearly that the danger alluded to cannot be great . Who make up the Masonic membership in this country ? Arc they not men gathered from all the walks of life and identified with every interest of the community ? Are they not tlic representatives of all forms of religious belief , and of all schools of philosophical thought and political economy ? Are they not intelligent citizens ,

known to have their various opinions regarding all matters of public concern ? Certainly it requires a very fruitful imagination to suppose these men so managed by the leaders , or so brought into co-operation regarding any outside movement , as to make their influence felt in a single direction . Masonic leaders may sometimes be very ambiuous , perhaps very selfish , and they may indulge in pleasant fancies as to their ability to use thft Order for

some unauthorised end ; but let them attempt to carry out such designs and they will soon awake to find themselves shorn of the glory of leadership and will become objects of contempt in the eyes of their brethren . The publicity that belongs to Masonic doings is another reason why there need be no fears in the direction alluded to . Masonic secrets , few in number , have reference , for the most part , to the ritual and the ceremony—to the

technicalities of the system , and not lo the general proceedings , which are made a matter of record and communicated to the public . Any attempt to make use of Masonry for improper purposes would in this land and age be known at once , and , therefore , would be resisted . Suppose an endeavour should be put forth to force Masonry into politics or the church , making its influence to count on the side of this party or that dogma , no such

endeavour could succeed until alter prolonged discussions—until li ght had been thrown upon thc movement—and with this publicity would come the end of all such endeavours . Only in a very limited way , and for the briefest time , can Masonry be prostituted to base purposes and made to serve unworthy ends . It wields its power in the prosecution of a sacred mission , and

there is no cause of fear that it will turn aside lo expend its energies on those interests which belong to other lines of movement . All that it is , all that it has , must be guarded and used for the beneficent work to which it is specifically bound . Beyond this , as an organised body , it will not seek to go in the exercise of that mighty influence by which it is so grandly glorified . — Freemasons' Repository .