Freemasonry : Its Origin, Its History, And Its Design.

ever interesting may be the circumstances connected with it , to secure to the Blasonic order a valid claim to public consideration . To say nothing of its antiquity—for it is by far the oldest secret organization in existence—nor of the humanitarian objects which it professedly seeks to accomplish , its universality alone clothes it with a peculiar interest that does not appertain to associations more circumscribed in their

relations . Computing , as it does at this day in the United States alone , a population of half a million of active members , Freemasonry boasts , as did the Emperor Charles of the extent of his . Empire , that there is not a civilized country of the world ,

whether Christian or not , in which its lodges are not to be found . The question of the origin of Freemasonry as a mystical association has for more than a century and a half attracted the attention of many scholars of BritainGermany , France and

, America , also a body of treatises and essays on the subject have been published , the extent of which would surprise any one not familiar with Blasonic literature . At the present clay the historians of Freemasonry who are engaged in the discussion of this

question may be divided into two schools , which may be appropriately distinguished as the mythical and authentic . The former of these is the older , for the latter has become prominent only within the last

three or four decades . Blasonic opinion is , however , very steadily , and , indeed , rapidly moving b the direction of thought that has been adopted by this latter school . The . mystical school of Blasonic history was inaugurated about the beginning of the last century by James Anderson and

Theophilus Desaguliers , both doctors of divinity , and who had been mainl y instrumental in elaborating what has been called the revival of Masonry by the establishment in 1717 of the Grand Lodge of England . Dr . Anderson was a man of

acknowledged learning , the minister of a Scotch congregation in London , and a writer of some reputation . Dr . Desaguliers was recognized as a distinguished lecturer on experimental philosopln' . But it is Anderson who is reallto be considered as

y the founder of the school , since he first promul gated its theories in the " Book of Constitutions" which he published in 1723 b y order of the Grand Lodge . Unfortunatel y for the interests of truth

Anderson was of a very imaginative turn of mind , and , instead of writing an authentic history of Freemasonry , he accepted and incorporated into his narrative all the myths and legends which he found in the manuscript records of the operative Masons .

The Blasonic writers of England who immediatel y succeeded Anderson more fully developed his theory of the establishment of the Order at the Temple of Jerusalem , the division of the craft into lodgeswith degrees and officers , and in

, short an organization precisely such as now exists . This scheme was accepted and continued to be acknowledged as the orthodox historical creed by the fraternity during the whole of the last and the greater part of the present century . It

was incorporated into the ritual , much of which is founded on the assumption that Freemasonry is to be traced , for its' primitive source , to the Temple of Jerusalem . The investigations of the more recent or authentic school have veiy nearly

demolished this theory . All of this is now explained , not historically , but symbolically . . And so important , and , indeed , essential to speculative Masonry is the Temple of Solomon as a symbol , that to eradicate it from Blasonic sj'mbolism would be equivalent to destroying the identity of the institution .

The theory of the orig in of Freemasonry now most generally accepted is that of the authentic school of Blasonic history . The leaders of the authentic school in England are Hughan and Woodford ; in Scotland , Lyon ; and in Germany , Findel . If a prodigality of credulity has been the

weakness of the mythical school , their rivals ma 3 ' be charged with having sometimes exercised an excess of incredulity . They decline to accept any statement whose authenticit y' is not supported by some written or priuted record , and a few of

them have gone so far as to circumscribe the history of Freemasonry within the narrow limits of that period which commences with the revival , or as they prefer to call it , the foundation of the Grand Lodge of Englandiu the beginning of the

, eighteenth century . Others , however , have been more liberal , and now , as a general rule , their theory of the origin of Masonry has been accepted bj * the more intelligent members of the fraternity , while the H 2