Herder has justly remarked, what a childish part would the Free-masons be playing after the restoration! With this event their object was accomplished: to what purpose then any further mysteries? The very ground of the mysteries had thus fallen away; and, according to all analogy of experience, the mysteries themselves should have ceased at the same time.

But the Free-masons called themselves at that time Sons of the Widow (i. e. as it is alleged, of Henrietta Maria the wife of the murdered king); and they were in search of the lost word (the Prince of Wales). This, it is argued, has too near an agreement with the history of that period-to be altogether a fiction. I answer that we must not allow ourselves to be duped by specious resemblances. The elder Free-masons called themselves Sons of the Widow, because the working masons called and still call themselves by that name agreeably to their legend. In the 1st Book of Kings, vii. 13, are these words: "And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram of Tyre, a widow's son of the tribe of Napthali." Hiram therefore, the eldest mason of whom anything is known, was a widow's son. Hence therefore the masons of the 17th century, who were familiar with the Bible, styled themselves in memory of their founder Sons of the Widow; and the Free-masons borrowed this designation from them as they did the rest of their external constitution. Moreover, the masonic expression Sons of the Widow has the closest connexion with the building of Solomon's Temple.

Just as little did the Free-masons mean, by the lost word which they sought, the Prince of Wales. That great personage was not lost, so that there could be no occasion for seeking him. The Royal party knew as well where he was to be found as in our days the French Royalists have always known the residence of the emigrant Bourbons. The question was not-where to find him, but how to replace him on his throne. Besides, though a most majestic person in his political relations, a Prince of Wales makes no especial pretensions to sanctity of character: and familiar as scriptural allusions were in that age, I doubt whether he could

have been denominated the logos or word without offence to the scrupulous austerity of that age in matters of religion. What was it then that the Freemasons really did mean by the lost word? Manifestly the masonic mystery itself, the secret wisdom delivered to us under a figurative veil through Moses, Solomon, the prophets, the grand master Christ, and his confidential disciples. Briefly they meant the lost word of God in the Cabbalistic sense; and therefore it was that long after the Restoration they continued to seek it, and are still seeking it to this day.

III. That Cromwell was not the founder of Free-masonry ;

con

As Nicolai has chosen to represent the elder Free-masons as zealous Royalists, so on the contrary others have thought fit to describe them as furious democrats. According to this fiction, Cromwell with some fidential friends (e. g. Ireton, Algernon Sidney, Neville, Martin Wildman, Harrington, &c.) founded the order in 1645-ostensibly, on the part of Cromwell, for the purpose of reconciling the contending parties in religion and politics, but really with a view to his own ambitious projects. To this statement I oppose the following arguments:

First, it contradicts the internal character and spirit of Free-masonry which is free from all political tendency, and is wholly unintelligible on this hypothesis.

Secondly, though it is unquestionable that Cromwell established and supported many secret connexions, yet the best English historians record nothing of any connexion which he had with the Free-masons. Divide et impera was the Machiavelian maxim which Cromwell derived, not from Machiavel, but from his own native political sagacity: and with such an object before him it is very little likely that he would have sought to connect himself with a society that aims at a general harmony amongst men.

Thirdly, how came it-if the order of Free-masons were the instrument of the Cromwellian revolution

that the royalists did not exert themselves after the restoration of Charles II. to suppress it?

But the fact is that this origin of Free-masonry has been forged for

the purpose of making it hateful and an object of suspicion to monarchical states. See for example " The Free masons Annihilated, or Prosecution of the detected Order of Free-masons," Frankfort and Leipzig, 1746. The first part of this work, which is a translation from the French, appear ed under the title of "Free-masonry exposed," &c. Leipz. 1745.

IV. That the Scotch degree, as it is called, did not arise from the Intrigues for the restoration of Charles II. :

I have no intention to enter upon the tangled web of the modern higher masonry; though, from an impartial study of the historical documents, I could perhaps bring more light, order, and connexion into this subject than at present it exhibits. Many personal considerations move, me to let the curtain drop on the history of the modern higher masonry, or at most to allow myself only a few general hints which may be pursued by those amongst my readers who may be interested in such a research. One only of the higher masonic degrees, viz. the Scotch degree which is the most familiarly known and is adopted by most lodges, I must no-tice more circumstantially-because, upon some statements which have been made, it might seem to have been connected with the elder Freemasonry. Nicolai's account of this matter is as follows:

"After the death of Cromwell and the deposition of his son, the government of England fell into the hands of a violent but weak and disunited faction. In such hands, as every patriot saw, the government could not be durable; and the sole means for delivering the country was to restore the kingly authority. But in this there was the greatest difficulty; for the principal officers of the army in England, though otherwise in disagreement with each other, were yet unanimous in their hostility to the king. Under these circumstances the eyes of all parties were turned upon the English army in Scotland, at that time under the command of Monk who was privately well affected to the royal cause; and the secret society of the king's friends in London, who placed all their hopes on him, saw the necessity in such a critical period of going warily and mys

"

teriously to work. It strengthened their sense of this necessity—that one of their own members, Sir Richard Willis, became suspected of treachery; and therefore out of the bosom of their "secret conclave (the masonic master's degree) they resolved to form a still narrower conclave to whom the Scotch, i. e. the most secret, affairs should be confided. They chose new symbols adapted to their own extremely critical situation. These symbols imported that, in the business of this interior conclave, wisdom-obedience-cou

rage-self-sacrifice—and moderation were necessary. Their motto was→ Wisdom above thee. For greater security they altered their signs, and reminded each other in their tottering condition not to stumble and-break the arm.

I do not deny that there is much plausibility in this hypothesis of Nicolai's: but upon examination it will appear that it is all pure delusion without any basis of historical truth.

1. Its validity rests upon the previous assumption that the interpretation of the master's degree, as connected with the political interests of the Stuarts, between the death of Charles 1. and the restoration of his son, is correct: it is therefore a petitio principii: and what is the value of the principium, we have already seen.

2. Of any participation on the part of a secret society of Free-masons in the counsels and expedition of Gen. Monk-history tells us absolutely nothing. Even Skinner preserves a profound silence on this head. Now, if the fact were so, to suppose that this accurate biographer should not have known it-is absurd: and, knowing it, that he should designedly suppress a fact so curious and so honourable to the Free-masons amongst the Royal party-is inexplicable.

3. Nicolai himself maintains, and even proves, that Monk was not himself a Free-mason. In what way then could the society gain any influence over his measures. My sagacious friend justly applauds the politic mistrust of Monk (who would not confide his intentions even to his own brother), his secrecy, and the mysterious wisdom of his conduct; and in the very same breath he describes him as surrendering himself

to the guidance of a society with which he was not even connected as a member. How is all this to be reconciled?

Undoubtedly there existed at that time in London a secret party of Royalists-known in history under the name of the secret Conclave: but we are acquainted with its members, and there were but some few Freemasons amongst them.-Nicolai alleges the testimony of Ramsay"that the restoration of Charles II. to the English throne was first concerted in a society of Free-masons, because Gen. Monk was a member of it." But in this assertion of Ramsay's there is at any rate one manifest untruth on Nicolai's own showing for Monk, according to Nicolai, was not a Free-mason. The man, who begins by such an error in his premises, must naturally err in his conelusions.*

4. The Scotch degree, nay the very name of Scotch masonry, does not once come forward in the elder Free-masonry throughout the whole of the 17th century; as it must inevitably have done if it had borne any relation to the restoration of Charles II. Indeed it is doubtful whether the Scotch degree was known even in Scotland or in England before the third decennium of the eighteenth century.

But how then did this degree arise? What is its meaning and object? The answer to these questions does not belong to this place. It is enough on the present occasion to have shown how it did not arise, and what were not its meaning and object. I am here treating of the origin and history of the elder and legitimate masonry, not of an indecent pretender who crept at a later period into the order, and, by the side of the Lion-the Pelicanand the Dove, introduced the Ape and the Fox.

V. The Free-masons are not derived from the order of the Knights Templars :

No hypothesis upon the origin and primitive tendency of the Free-masons has obtained more credit in modern times than this-That they were derived from the order of Knights Templars so cruelly perse cuted and ruined under Pope Cle ment V. and Philip the Fair of France, and had no other secret purpose on their first appearance than the re-establishment of that injured order. So much influence has this opinion had in France that in the first half of the 18th century it led to the amalgamation of the external forms and ritual of the Templars with those of the Free-masons; and some of the higher degrees of French masonry have undoubtedly proceeded from this amalgamation.-In Ger many it was Lessing, who if not first, yet chiefly, gave to the learned world an interest in this hypothesis by some allusions to it scattered through his masterly dialogues for Free-masons. With many it became a favourite hypothesis: for it assigned an honourable origin to the Masonic order, and flattered the vanity of its mem bers. The Templars were one of the most celebrated knightly orders during the crusades: their whole Institution, Acts, and Tragical Fate, are attractive to the feelings and the fancy: how natural therefore it was that the modern masons should seize with enthusiasm upon the conjectures thrown out by Lessing. Some modern English writers have also adopted this mode of explaining the origin of Free-masonry; not so much on the authority of any historical documents, as because they found in the French lodges degrees which had a manifest reference to the Templar institutions, and which they naturally attributed to the elder Free-ma

sonry, being ignorant that they had been purposely introduced at a later period to serve an hypothesis: in fact the French degrees had been originally derived from the hypothesis; and now the hypothesis was in turn derived from the French degrees. If in all this there were any word of truth, it would follow that I had written this whole book of 418 pages to no purpose: and what a shocking thing would that be! Knowing therefore the importance to myself of this question, it may be presumed that I have examined it not negligently before I ventured to bring forward my own deduction of the Free-masons from the Rosicrucians. This is not the place for a full critique upon all the idle prattle about the Templars and the Free-masons: but an impartial review of the arguments for and against the Templar hypothesis may reasonably be demanded of me as a negative attestation of my own hypothesis. In do ing this I must presume in my reader a general acquaintance with the constitution and history of the Templars, which it will be very easy for any one not already in possession of it to gain.

1. It is alleged that the masonic mystical allegory represented nothing else in its capital features than the persecution and overthrow of the Templars, especially the dreadful death of the innocent grand-master James Burg de Mollay. Some knights together with Aumont, it is said, made their escape in the dress of masons to Scotland; and, for the sake of disguise, exercised the trade of masons. This was the reason that they adopted symbols from that trade; and, to avoid detection, gave them the semblance of moral purposes. They called themselves Franc Maçons: as well in memory of the Templars who in Palestine were always called Franks by the Saracens, as with a view to distinguish themselves from the common working masons. The Temple of Solomon, which they professed to build, together with all the masonic attributes, pointed collectively to the grand purpose of the society-the restoration of the Templar order. At first the society was confined to the descendants of its founders: but within the last 150 years the Scotch mas

ters have communicated their hereditary right to others in order to extend their own power; and from this period, it is said, begins the public history of Free-masonry. (See "The Use and Abuse of Free-masonry by Captain George Smith, Inspector of the Royal Military School at Woolwich, &c. &c. London, 1783." See also," Scotch Masonry compared with the three Vows of the Order and with the Mystery of the Knights Templars: from the French of Nicolas de Bonneville.")

Such is the legend, which is afterwards supported by the general analogy between the ritual and external characteristics of both orders. The three degrees of masonry (the holy masonic number) are compared with the triple office of general amongst the Templars. The masonic dress is alleged to be copied from that of the Templars. The signs of Free-masonry are the same with those used in Palestine by the Templars. The rights of initiation, as practised on the admission of a novice, especially on admission to the master's degree, and the symbolic object of this very degree, are all connected with the persecution of the Templars, with the trial of the knights, and the execution of the grand-master. To this grand-master (James Burg) the letters I and B, which no longer mean Jachin and Boaz, are said to point. Even the holiest masonic name of Iliram has no other allusion than to the murdered grand-master of the Templars. With regard to these analogics in general, it may be sufficient to say that some of them are accidentalsome very forced and far-soughtand some altogether fictitious. Thus for instance it is said that the name Franc Maçon was chosen in allusion to the connexion of the Templars with Palestine. And thus we are required to believe that the eldest Free-masons of Great Britain styled themselves at first Frank Masons: as if this had any warrant from history: or, supposing even that it had, as if a name adopted on such a ground could ever have been dropped. The simple fact is--that the French were the people who first introduced the seeming allusion to Franks by translating the English name Freemason into Franc Maçon; which

they did because the word libre would not so easily blend into composition with the word Maçon. So also the late Mr. Von Born, having occasion to express the word Free-masons in Latin, rendered it Franco-murarii. Not to detain the reader however with a separate examination of each particular allegation, I will content myself with observing that the capital mythus of the masonic master's degree tallies but in one half with the execution of the grand master of the Templars, or even of the SubPrior of Montfaucon (Charles de Monte Carmel). The grand-master was indeed murdered, as the grandmaster of the Free-masons is described to have been; but not, as the latter, by treacherous journeymen: moreover the latter rose from the grave, still lives, and triumphs: which will hardly be said of James Burg de Mollay. Two arguments however remain to be noticed, both out of respect to the literary eminence of those who have alleged them, and also because they seem intrinsically of some weight.

2. The English word masonry. This word, or (as it ought in that case to be written) the word masony is derived, according to Lessing, from the Anglo-Saxon word massoney -a secret commensal society; which last word again comes from mase, a table. Such table societies, and compotuses, were very common amongst our forefathers-especially amongst the princes and knights of the middle ages: the weightiest affairs were there transacted; and peculiar buildings were appropriated to their use. In particular the masonies of the Knights Templars were highly celebrated in the 13th century: one of them was still subsisting in London at the end of the 17th century-at which period, according to Lessing, the public history of the Free-masons first commences. This society had its house of meeting near St. Paul's Cathedral, which was then rebuilding. Sir Christopher Wren, the architect, was one of its members. For 30 years, during the building of the Cathedral, he continued to frequent it. From this circumstance the people, who had forgotten the true meaning of the word massoney, took it for a society of ar

chitects with whom Sir Christopher consulted on any difficulties which arose in the progress of the work. This mistake Wren turned to account. He had formerly assisted in planning a society which should make speculative truths more useful for purposes of common life: the very converse of this idea now occurred to him-viz. the idea of a society which should raise itself from the praxis of civil life to speculation. "In the former," thought he, "would be examined all that was useful amongst the true; in this all that is true amongst the useful. How if I should make some principles of the masony exoteric? How if I should disguise that which cannot be made exoteric, under the hieroglyphics and symbols of masonry, as the people pronounce the word; and extend this masonry into a free-masonry, in which all may take a share?' In this way, according to Lessing, did Wren scheme; and in this way did Free-masonry arise. Afterwards however, from a conversation which he had with Nicolai, it appears that Lessing had thus far changed his first opinion (as given in the Ernst und Falk) that he no longer supposed Sir Christopher simply to have modified a massoney, or society of Knights Templars which had subsisted secretly for many centuries, and to have translated their doctrines into an exoteric shape, but rather to have himself first established such a massoney-upon some basis of analogy however with the elder massoneys.

To an attentive examiner of this conjecture of Lessing's, it will appear that it rests entirely upon the presumed identity of meaning between the word massoney and the word masony (or masonry as it afterwards became, according to the allegation, through a popular mistake of the meaning). But the very meaning and etymology ascribed to massoney (viz. a secret club or compotus, from mase a table) are open to much doubt. Nicolai, a friend of Lessing's, professes as little to know any authority for such an explanation as myself; and is disposed to derive the word massoney from massonya which in the Latin of the middle age meant first a club (clava, in French massue),

secondly, a key (clavis), and a se