The Charter Of Cologne.

'The Three most Ancient Memorials of the German Freemason Fraternit y' ( Aarau , 1819 ) In Germany , Stieglitz , Prof . Heeren at Gottingen , Krause , andMossdorf ( Lennings Encycl . ) immediately pronounced against them , which was confirmed by more recent investigation , . . . Writing in 1840 , Dr . Bobrik brings the following remarks to bear upon the genuineness of the deed . 1 . The motive for the supposed meeting does not exist . 2 . The purpose of the document and the form in which it is carried out do not agree together ; for , in order to refute a thing publiclwriting in ciher is resorted toand to conceal a matter the

y , p , signatures are written in common italics . Neither can we conceive any document legal ¦ without a seal . 3 . The signatures are suspicious in the highest degree . 4 . The assembl y of the nineteen individuals cited is extremely doubtful ; for Herman would have preferred the town of Bonn to that of Cologne , where he had many enemies . 5 . Melancthon ' s partici pation is especially problematical , as well as that of the other subscribers . 6 . The records of 1637 , which are cited , cannot suffice as proofs , as there is nothing to show that there existed a Lodge Vredendall at the period . Br . Bobrik is of opinion that Patriarch' is

a hint at the General of the Jesuits , especially if we transfer the forgery to the year 1816 when the Jesuits , after their restoration in 1814 , began to exert their influence anew , which in Holland could only be by indirect means . The title and the expressions 'congregati institutnm , ' & c , he considers as evidences of its having had a Jesuit for its author . " Br . Dr . Gustav Schwetschke remarks , "that after a careful

comparison ot the signature of Jacobus Praspositus at the end of the document and the handwriting existing of his and proved to be genuine , the most glaring discrepancy is apparent , as also the signatures of the Archbishop Hermann , and that here pointed out as his , are most dissimilar . " Kloss , G . H . M . Delprat , J . P . Vaillant : aud other equal eminent continental authorities , also regard the document as spurious . Herr Findel maintains that it was "put together" about the end of the last century . Of American writers , Br . Dr . A . G . Mackey betrays a strong leaning towards a belief in its authenticity . He professes to discover in the reference that is made in the Charter to

the Masonic patronage of St . John the Baptist " one of the evidences of its antiquity . " * It seems to us that this evidence is even more fabulous than the story it is adduced to support . The same writer also remarks , , "The assertion of the Charter that the Brethren of the Joannite Society adopted the Scots ritual practised in the Edinburgh Lodge has led Rhigellini very appropriately to remark that they should then have recognised the Templar Order and the Degrees of Chivalry , since these were , at that time , practised by the Scotch Lodges . " Statements of this kind , as to the Mason Craft having three centuries ago been the conservators of chivalric rites , are not now received as historical facts , except by the

more superstitious of the Brotherhood . Of British Masonic writers , while Dr . Oliver quotes the Cologne Charter as a historical document worthy of credence , Dr . Burns James , in his ' Sketch of the History of the Knights Templars , ' unhesitatingly , and in the most unqualified terms condemns it as an imposture .

I have had the so-called Charter printed in double columns , and appended to it Bro . D . M . Lyon ' s lucid remarks , based on Findel , p . 320-321 , and a quotation from Kenning ' s Cyclopedia , p , 107 . I also give the so-called cipher according to the Handbuch . It is but fair to remark that in the copy of the Latin form , from a Dutch source , given in the " Handbuch , " there are many errors , but that may arise from the careless rendering of the cipher .

CHAETEB or COLOGNE . —This document has been the subject of much animated controversy , all too long however for our limited , pages . It has had its supporters and its impugners , and the general voice of past and contemporary criticism is unfavourable both to its genuineness and its authenticity . Its history is now so well known that it appears to be almost a waste of time aud space to repeat it here , the more so as , having considered all the evidence pro and con most carefully , both as regards its history and its actuality , we have come to the conclusion that it is a fictitious document , and really therefore critically and evidentially valueless . On three points especially the gravest doubts exist : 1 st , the

existence of the Lodge termed " Het Fiederiks Vredendall ; 2 ndly , as regards its warrant said to be . written in iiluglish ; and Srdly , as regards the roll of the members of this supposed Lodge from 1519 to 1601 . If these statements are untrue absolutely , the greatest suspicion rests on the document itself , on the well-known principle of law and evidence , that if one portion of the testimony be entirely untrue , the remaining portion is tainted by the original falsity . The charter which accompanies the other two documents therefore lies under very great suspicion , despite the apparent circumstantial statement of the attestation of Bro . Wassenaar von Opdam , mentioned by Mackey . The " Handbuch" changes the names , and states that the signature of the letter , which Mackey mentions was a child of V . J ., was N . C . geb V . T ., from Rotterdam , and supposed to be not the daughter of Van Jeylinger , but Van Teilingen , formerly G . M . Some also stated that Van Botzelaar had received the