free masonry flourished in the reign of Henry VI

free masonry flourished in the reign of Henry VI. 62. But notwithstanding these unfavourable circumstances, free masonry seems to have flourished, and attracted the attention of the public in the reign of Henry VI. who, when a minor, ascended the throne of England in 1422. In the third year of his reign, indeed, the parliament passed a severe act against the fraternity, at the instigation of Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, who was then entrusted with the education of the young king. They enacted that the masons should no longer hold their chapters and annual assemblies; that those who summoned such chapters and assemblies should be considered as felons; and that those who resorted to them should be fined and imprisoned (d). But it would appear that this act was never put in execution; for, in the year 1429, about five years after it was framed, a respectable lodge was held at Canterbury under the patronage of the archbishop himself (e). When King Henry was able to take into his own hands the government of his kingdom, and to form an opinion of his own respecting the use and tendency of the masonic fraternity, in order to atone for

the rigorous conduct of his parliament, he not only permitted the order to hold their meetings without molestation, but honoured the lodges by his presence as a brother. Before he was initiated, however, into the mysteries of the order, he seems to have examined, with scrupulous care, the nature of the institution, and to have perused the charges and regulations of the fraternity, as collected from their ancient records. These facts are contained in a paper written in the reign of his successor, Edward IV. and confirmed by a manuscript in King Henry's own hand-writing, which is familiar to every person who has studied the history of the order. This manuscript consists of questions and answers respecting the nature and tendency of free masonry, and seems to be the result of the king's examination of some of the brethren before he became a member of the fraternity. It was first procured from the Bodleian library by the celebrated Mr Locke, who transmitted it to the earl of Pembroke, accompanied with explanatory notes (f). In the title of the manuscript, it is said to have been faithfully copied from the hand-writing of King Henry VI. by John Leland, antiquarian, who, according to Mr Locke, was the celebrated antiquary of that name who lived in the 16th century, and was appointed by King Henry VIII. at the dissolution of monasteries, to search for, and save such books as were worthy of preservation. As this manuscript was originally printed at Frankfort, I was led to inquire what grounds there were for believing that the explanatory notes, and the letter to the earl of Pembroke which accompany it, were the production of Mr Locke. But I found that this had been uniformly taken for granted by every writer upon the subject, though the circumstance is not mentioned in the large edition of Mr Locke's works. The style of the letter, however, and the acuteness of the annotations, resemble so much that philosopher's manner of writing, and the letter is so descriptive of Mr Locke's real situation at the time when it was written, that it is almost impossible to deny their authenticity. In the letter itself, which is dated 6th May 1696, Mr Locke remarks that he composed the notes for the sake of Lady Masham, who was become very fond of masonry, and that the manuscript had so much excited his own curiosity, that he was determined to enter into the fraternity the next time he went to London, which, he adds, will be very soon. Now Mr Locke was at this time residing at Oates, the country seat of Sir Francis Masham, as appears from one of his letters to Mr Molyneux, which

4 O 2

(c) As a proof of the hostility of the church of Rome to secret associations which pretended to enlighten the mind, we mentioned (p. 53. supra) its treatment of the academy of secrets, instituted in the 16th century for the advancement of physical science. When a local and temporary institution drew down the vengeance of the Roman see, what must have been its conduct to a lodge of masons? A farther account of the academy of secrets may be found in Priestley's History of Vision, vol. ii.

(d) 3 Henry VI. cap. 2. A. D. 1425, see Ruffhead's Statutes. Dr Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire, chap. viii. p. 318.

(e) Manuscript Register of William Morlat, prior of Canterbury, p. 28. entitled, Liberatio generalis Domini Gulielmi prioris Ecclesie Christi Cantuarrensis, erga festum natalis Domini 1429. In this Register are mentioned the names of the masters, wardens, and other members of the lodge.

(f) This manuscript was first printed at Franckfort in 1748, and afterwards reprinted in the London and Gentleman's Magazines for 1753. It may be seen in the lives of Leland, Hearne, and Wood, Svo. Oxford, 1772, vol. i. pp. 96, 104. Appendix, N^o viii.; and in Preston's Illustrations of Masonry, p. 110.

Masonry. which is dated Oates, March 30. 1696; and it appears, that he actually went to London a short time after the 6th of May; for another letter to the same gentleman is dated, London, 2d July 1696 (G). Notwithstanding these facts, Dr Plot maintains that free masonry was not patronised by King Henry VI. (H), and that those who have supported a different opinion, were ignorant of the laws and chronicles of their own country. Dr Plot may have been a good chemist and natural historian, but when our readers hear upon what foundation he has established his opinion, they will agree with us in thinking that he was a bad logician. He observes, that an act was passed in the king's minority, prohibiting all general assemblies and chapters of free masons, and that as this act was not repealed till 1562, by 5th Elizabeth, cap. 4, it was impossible that free masonry could be patronised in the same reign in which it was prohibited. The fact is, that the act was not repealed by 5th Elizabeth, cap. 4, which does not contain a single word about free masons. If Dr Plot's argument, therefore, proves any thing, it would prove that free masonry has not been patronised since the reign of Henry VI. for that act has never yet been repealed. But supposing that it was repealed, the prohibitory statute in Henry's reign might never have been put in execution, as very often happens; and Dr Plot himself remarks, that the act 5th Elizabeth was not observed. It is plain, therefore, that instead of being impossible, it is highly probable that King Henry patronised the fraternity. When they were persecuted by his parliament, he was only three years of age, and could neither approve nor disapprove of its sentence; and it was very natural, that when he came to the years of maturity, he should undo a deed which his parliament had dishonourably done.

Free masonry patronised in Scotland by King James I. 63. While free masonry was flourishing in England under the auspices of Henry VI. it was at the same time patronised, in the sister kingdom, by King James I. By the authority of this monarch, every grandmaster who was chosen by the brethren, either from the nobility or clergy, and approved of by the crown, was entitled to an annual revenue of four pounds Scots from each master mason, and likewise to a fee at the initiation of every new member. He was empowered to adjust any differences that might arise among the brethren, and to regulate those affairs, connected with the fraternity, which it was improper to bring under the cognizance of the courts of law. The grandmaster also appointed deputies or wardens, who resided in the chief towns of Scotland, and managed the concerns of the order, when it was inconvenient to appeal to the grandmaster himself (I).

And by King James II. 64. In the reign of James II. free masonry was by no means neglected. The office of grandmaster was granted by the crown to William St Clair, earl of Orkney and Caithness, baron of Roslin, and founder of the much admired chapel of Roslin. On account of

Masonry. the attention which this nobleman paid to the interests of the order, and the rapid propagation of the royal art under his administration, King James II. made the office of grandmaster hereditary to his heirs and successors in the barony of Roslin; in which family it continued till the institution of the grand lodge of Scotland. The barons of Roslin, in the capacity of hereditary grandmasters, held their principal annual meetings at Kilwinning, the birthplace of Scottish masonry, while the lodge of that village granted constitutions and charters of erection to those brethren of the order, who were anxious that regular lodges should be formed in different parts of the kingdom. These lodges all held of the lodge of Kilwinning; and, in token of their respect and submission, joined to their own name, that of their mother lodge, from whom they derived their existence as a corporation (K).

65. During the reigns of the succeeding Scottish monarchs, free masonry still flourished, though very little information can be procured respecting the state of the fraternity. In the privy seal book of Scotland, however, there is a letter dated at Holyroodhouse, 25th September 1590, and granted by King James VI. "to Patrick Copland of Udaught, for using and exercising the office of wardanrie over the art and craft of masonrie, over all the boundis of Aberdeen, Banff, and Kincardine, to had wardan and justice courts within the said boundis, and there to minister justice (L)." This letter confirms what has already been said concerning the state of masonry in Scotland. It proves beyond dispute, that the kings of Scotland nominated the office-bearers of the order; that these provincial masters, or wardens, as they were then called, administered justice in every dispute which concerned the "art and craft of masonrie;" that lodges were established in all parts of Scotland, even in those remote, and, at that time, uncivilized counties of Aberdeen, Banff, and Kincardine; and it completely overturns the unfounded assertion of Dr Robison, who maintains (M), that the celebrated antiquary Elias Ashmole, who was initiated in 1646, is the only distinct and unequivocal instance of a person being admitted into the fraternity who was not an architect by profession.

66. The minutes of St Mary's chapel, which is the oldest lodge in Edinburgh, extend as far back as the St Mary's year 1598; but as they contain only the ordinary proceedings of the lodge, we can derive from them no particular information respecting the customs and condition of the fraternity. It appears, however, from these minutes, that Thomas Botwell, Esq. of Auchinleck, was made a warden of the lodge in the year 1600; and that the honourable Robert Moray, quartermaster-general to the army in Scotland, was created a master mason in 1641. These facts are deserving of notice, as they show, in opposition to Dr Robison, that persons were early admitted into the order, who were not architects by profession.

67. When James VI. ascended the throne of England, he seems to have neglected his right of nominating the office-bearers of the craft. In Hay's manuscript in the advocates library, there are two charters granted by the Scottish masons, appointing the Sinclairs of Roslin their hereditary grandmasters. The first of these is without a date, but signed by several masons who appoint William St Clair of Roslin, his heirs and successors, their "patrons and judges." The other is, in some measure, a ratification of the first, and dated 1630, in which they appoint Sir William St Clair of Roslin, his heirs and successors, to be their "patrons, protectors, and overseers, in all time coming." In the first of these deeds, which seems to have been written a little after the union of the crowns, it is stated, that for some years the want of a protector had engendered many corruptions among the masons, and had considerably retarded the progress of the craft; and that the appointment of William Sinclair, Esq. was, with the advice and consent of William Shaw, master of work to his majesty. After presiding over the order for many years, William St Clair went to Ireland, where he continued a considerable time; and, in consequence of his departure, the second charter was granted to his son Sir William St Clair, investing him with the same powers which his father enjoyed. It deserves also to be remarked, that in both these deeds, the appointment of William Sinclair, earl of Orkney and Caithness, to the office of grandmaster, by James II. of Scotland, is spoken of as a fact well known, and universally admitted. These observations will set in a clear point of view what must hitherto have appeared a great inconsistency in the history of Scottish masonry. In the deed by which William Sinclair, Esq. of Roslin, resigned the office of hereditary grandmaster in 1736, it is stated that his ancestors, William and Sir William St Clair of Roslin, were constituted patrons of the fraternity by the Scottish masons themselves; while it is well known, that the grant of hereditary grandmaster was originally made by James II. of Scotland, to their ancestor, William Sinclair, earl of Orkney and Caithness. But, when we consider that James VI. by not exercising his power, virtually transferred to the craft the right of electing their office-bearers, the inconsistency vanishes; for Mr Sinclair and his predecessors, as far back as the date of these charters, held their office by the appointment of the fraternity itself. Left any of Mr Sinclair's posterity, however, might, after his resignation, lay claim to the office of grandmaster, upon the pretence that this office was bequeathed to them by the grant of James II. to the earl of Caithness and his heirs; he renounces not only the right to the office which he derived from the brethren, but any right also, which, as a descendant of the earl of Caithness, he might claim from the grants of the Scottish monarchs.

68. Notwithstanding those civil commotions which disturbed Britain in the 17th century, free masonry flourished in Scotland, under the auspices of the Sinclairs of Roslin. No particular event, however, which is worthy of notice, occurred during that time, or even

during the remainder of the century. The annual assemblies of the fraternity were still held at Kilwinning, and many charters and constitutions were granted by the lodge of that village, for the erection of lodges in different parts of the kingdom.

69. In the year 1736, William St Clair of Roslin, who was then grandmaster of Scotland, was under the necessity of disposing his estate, and, as he had no children of his own, he was anxious that the office of grandmaster should not be vacant at his death. Having, therefore, assembled the Edinburgh and neighbouring lodges, he represented to them the utility that would accrue to the order, by having a gentleman or nobleman, of their own choice, as grandmaster of masonry in Scotland; and, at the same time, intimated his intention to resign into the hands of the brethren, every title to that office which he at present possessed, or which his successors might claim from the grants of the Scottish kings, and the kindness of the fraternity. In consequence of this representation, circular letters were dispatched to all the lodges of Scotland, inviting them to appear, either by themselves or proxies, on next St Andrew's day, to concur and assist in the election of a grandmaster. When that day arrived, about 32 lodges assembled, and, after receiving the deed of resignation from William Sinclair, proceeded to the election of another grandmaster; when, on account of the zeal which William Sinclair of Roslin had always shown for the honour and prosperity of the order, he was unanimously elected to that high office, and proclaimed grandmaster mason of all Scotland. Thus was instituted the grand lodge of Scotland, which continues to flourish at the present day.

70. We have already brought down the history of masonry in England to the end nearly of the 15th century. During the whole of the 16th, and the beginning of the 17th century, no events occurred which can be inserted in a general history of the order. The lodges continued to meet, but seem neither to have attracted the notice, nor excited the displeasure of the legislature.

71. During the civil wars, however, between the Free king and the parliament, the fraternity appears to have been better known; and many were initiated into its mysteries, who were equally distinguished by their literary talents, and their rank in life. Elias Ashmole informs us, that he and Colonel Mainwaring were admitted into the order at Warrington, in October 1646 (N). This gentleman was the celebrated antiquarian who founded the Ashmolean museum at Oxford. His attachment to the fraternity is evident from his diligent inquiries into its origin and history, and his long and frequent attendance upon its meetings (O). Charles II. too, was a member of the fraternity, and frequently honoured the lodges with his presence (P). From this fact, chiefly, Dr Robison asserts, that free masonry was employed by the royalists for promoting the cause of their sovereign, and that the ritual of the master's degree seems to have been formed, or twisted from its original institution, in order to found the political principles

^Masonry. ples of the candidate (Q). The strained and fanciful analogy by which this opinion is supported, is perhaps one of the most striking instances that could be adduced to show, to what facile arguments the most learned will resort, when engaged in the defence of a desperate cause. But though Dr Robison maintains, that all who witnessed the ceremonies of the master's degree during the civil wars, could not fail to show, by their countenances, to what party they belonged, yet he observes, in another part of his work, that the symbols of masonry seemed to be equally susceptible of every interpretation, and that none of these were entitled to any decided preference (R). Such inconsistencies as these it is not easy to explain.

^{Free masonry is supposed by some to have originated in the time of the commonwealth.} 72. An opinion of an opposite nature, though equally extravagant, has been maintained by Pivati (S), and the author of "Free Masonry Examined." These writers assert, that free masonry originated in the time of the English commonwealth; that Oliver Cromwell was its inventor; that the level was the symbol of republican equality; and that the other signs and ceremonies were merely arbitrary, and formed for concealing their political designs. It would be ridiculous to enter into a serious refutation of such opinions as these, which are founded on the most unpardonable ignorance. That free masonry existed before the time of Cromwell is as capable of demonstration, as that Cromwell himself ever existed. It is really entertaining to observe, what inconsistent and opposite opinions are formed upon the same subject. According to one writer, free masonry was invented and employed by the adherents of the king; according to another, it was devised by the friends of the parliament. In the opinion of some it originated among the Jesuits, who used it for the promotion of their spiritual tyranny and superstition; while others maintain, that it arose among a number of unprincipled sceptics, who employed it for destroying the spiritual tyranny and superstition of the Jesuits!

^{Aburdity of this opinion.} 73. It was about this time, according to Dr Robison, that free masonry was introduced among the continental kingdoms. After James II. of England had abdicated the throne, and taken refuge in France with several of his adherents, it is probable that they would communicate additional spirit to the French lodges; but that the English refugees were the first who exported masonry from Britain, or that they employed it for re-establishing the Stuart family on the English throne, it is impossible to prove. Such assertions Dr Robison has not only hazarded, but has employed them also as the foundation of defamatory conclusions, without adducing a single proof in their support. Notwithstanding the difficulty, however, of determining the precise period when the principles of free masonry were

^Masonry. imported into France, it is manifest, from the universal consent of the continental lodges, that it was of British origin; and it is more than probable, that the French received it from Scotland about the middle of the 16th century, during the minority of Queen Mary. It is well known, that there was at that time a freer intercourse between Scotland and France than at any other period. Mary queen of Scots was then married to the heir-apparent of France; and Mary of Guise, sister to the French king, was at the same time regent of Scotland. In consequence of this intimate connection between the two kingdoms, French troops were sent to the assistance of the Scots, who, having resided many years in the kingdom, and habituated to the manners and customs of their allies, would naturally carry along with them into their native country, those customs which afforded them pleasure; and none we know could be more congenial to the taste and dispositions of Frenchmen, than the ceremonial observances of free masonry. But it is not upon these considerations merely that our opinion depends. It receives ample confirmation from a fact, of which Dr Robison seems to have been totally ignorant. In the year 1645, a particular jurisdiction for masons, called maçonnerie, or masonry, was established in France. All differences which related to the art of building, were decided by particular judges who were called overseers of the art of masonry; and several counsellors were appointed for pleading the causes, which were referred to their decision (T). This institution has such a striking resemblance to the warden courts which existed in Scotland in the 16th century, art 65, that it must have derived its origin from these. In both of them, those causes only were decided which related to masonry, and overseers were chosen in both for bringing these causes to a decision (U). But as similar tribunals were held in no other part of the world, and as the warden courts were first established in Scotland, it is almost certain, that the French borrowed from the Scots the idea of their masonic tribunal, as well as free masonry itself, at that particular period when there was such a free communication between the two kingdoms. That the French received free masonry from Scotland, may be presumed also from the singular pre-eminence which was always given by foreigners to Scottish masonry, and from the degree of Chevalier Maçon Ecclésiastique, which, as a mark of respect to Scotland, the French had added to the three symbolical degrees of masonry about the beginning of the 18th century. Had free masonry not been introduced into France till after the revolution in 1688, as Dr Robison affirms, it is wonderful how such a fact should have been so quickly forgotten; for it was unknown about 30 or 40 years afterwards, at what period the French received

Masonry. received it from Britain; and, if the exiled family had employed free masonry, for overturning the Hanoverian succession, it is still more strange that such a circumstance should be unknown in a country, where concealment was certainly unnecessary. When any new custom is introduced into a nation, the time of its introduction may be remembered for 70 or 80 years by one individual, without being committed to writing; and, though it be not of sufficient importance, tradition will preserve it from oblivion for a much greater length of time. If free masonry, therefore, never exiled in France till after the revolution in 1688, is it not absurd to suppose, that the period when such a singular institution was established, should be utterly forgotten at the distance of 30 or 40 years from its establishment, though, during that time, it was never persecuted by the French government?

Innovation upon free masonry in France. 74. But, at whatever period, and from whatever source free masonry was introduced into France, it assumed there a very remarkable form. The attachment of that people to innovation and external finery, produced the most unwarrantable alterations upon the principles and ceremonies of the order. A number of new degrees were created; the office-bearers of the craft were arrayed in the most splendid and costly attire; and the lodges were transformed into lecturing rooms, where the wiser brethren supported the most extravagant opinions, discussed the abstrusest questions in theology and political economy, and broached opinions hostile to the interests of true religion and sound government. In the other countries of the continent, similar innovations, in a greater or less degree, prevailed, while the British lodges preserved the principles of the craft in their primitive simplicity and excellence. Such dangerous innovations have not the smallest connection with the principles of free masonry. They are unnatural excrescences formed by a warm imagination, and fostered by the interference of designing men. Those who reprehend free masonry, therefore, for the changes which it underwent in the hands of foreigners, may throw equal blame upon religion, because it has been a cloak for licentiousness and hypocrisy; or, upon science, because it has been converted into an instrument of iniquity. The changes of which we have been treating, arose altogether from the political condition of the countries where they were made. In France, and the other kingdoms of Europe, where popery was the ecclesiastical establishment, or where absolute power was in the hands of their monarchs, the most slavish restraints were imposed upon the conduct and conversation of the people. None durst utter his own sentiments, or converse upon such metaphysical subjects as militated against the theology and politics of the times. Under such restraints speculative men, in particular, were highly dissatisfied. Those powers which heaven had bestowed, and on the exercise of which their happiness depended, were fettered by human laws, and that liberty of speech restrained which tyranny had no right to controul. For these reasons, the lodges were frequented by men of philosophical habits, who eagerly embraced an opportunity of publishing their sentiments, and discussing the favourite objects of their study, without dreading the threats of government, or the tortures of the inquisition. In this view, the lodges may be compared to little republics, enjoying the rational liberties of human nature,

Masonry. in the midst of an extensive empire, enslaved by despotism and superstition. In the course of time, however, that liberty was abused, and doctrines were propagated in the French and German lodges, which it is the duty and policy of every government to discourage and suppress. But these corruptions had by no means a necessary connection with free masonry: they arose wholly from the political condition of the continental kingdoms. In Britain, where the order subsisted much longer than in any other country, its history is stained by no glaring corruptions or offensive innovations; more attention was paid to the intrinsic value of the order, than to its external observances; and the British lodges had a greater resemblance to charitable meetings, than to pompous and splendid assemblies. Blessed with a free constitution, and the enjoyment of every liberty which does not approach to licentiousness, the British masons were under no temptation to introduce into their lodges religious and political discussions. The liberty of the press enables them to give the widest circulation to their opinions, however new or extravagant; and they are liable to no punishment, by publicly attacking the established religion of their country. The British lodges, therefore, have retained their primitive purity; they have been employed in no sinister cause; they have harboured in their bosom neither traitors, nor atheists, nor French philosophers.

75. While the French were busily engaged in the decoration of their lodges, and in the invention of new degrees and trilling ceremonies, the masons in England were more wisely employed in extending the boundaries of the royal art. About the beginning of the 18th century, during the reign of Queen Anne, free masonry seems to have rapidly declined in the south of England. Four lodges only existed in the south, and few hopes could be entertained of revival, while the seat of the grand lodge was at such a distance as the city of York. In such circumstances the four lodges met in 1717, and, in order to give vigour to their declining institution, and advance the interests of the fraternity in the south, they elected themselves into a grand lodge, and chose Anthony Sayer, Esq. for their first grandmaster. Thus was instituted the grand lodge of England, which has now attained to such a pitch of prosperity and splendour. The motive which suggested this institution, was certainly laudable and useful; but every person must be aware, that the four lodges were guilty of a considerable impropriety in omitting to request the countenance of the grand lodge of York. Notwithstanding this negligence, the greatest harmony subsisted between the two grand lodges till 1734; and under the auspices of both, the order flourished in every part of the kingdom, but particularly in the south of England, where it had formerly been in such a languishing condition. In the year 1734, however, the grand lodge of England having granted constitutions to lodges within the district of York, without the consent of their grand lodge, incurred to such a degree the displeasure of the York masons, that the friendly intercourse which had formerly subsisted between them, was completely broken off; and the prosperity of the one was always viewed by the other with a suspicious eye. In 1739 also some trilling innovations upon the ancient customs of the order, having been imprudently sanctioned by the grand lodge of England, several of the old London masons

Masonry. masons were highly offended, and, after seceding from the grand lodge, and pretending to act under the York constitution, they gave themselves the appellation of Ancient Masons, while they attached to those connected with the grand lodge the odious appellation of Moderns, who, in their opinion, never existed till the year 1717. The ancient masons, after their secession, continued to hold their meetings, without acknowledging a superior, till the year 1772, when they chose for their grandmaster the duke of Athol, who was then grandmaster elect for Scotland. Since that period both the grand lodges of England have attained to a high degree of prosperity; but such is their mutual antipathy, that the members of the one have no correspondence or communion with those of the other. The Irish and Scotch masons, however, who seem rather to favour the ancients, hold communion with both the grand lodges, and are allowed to be present at all their meetings. It is much to be regretted, that such respectable bodies as the two grand lodges of England, should retard the progress of masonry by their mutual jealousies and dissensions. Schisms in societies generally arise from misconduct on both sides, which was certainly the case in the schism under consideration. The moderns undoubtedly departed from their usual caution and propriety of conduct, by authorising the slightest innovations upon the ceremonies of an ancient institution. But the ancients have been guilty of a greater impropriety by being the active promoters of the schism; and still more, by holding up the moderns to the ridicule of the public. If these errors, however, were mutually acknowledged, and buried in oblivion, that breach would soon be repaired which has so long separated the two lodges, and which the Scotch and Irish masons have always regarded with pity and indignation.

76. After the institution of the grand lodge of England in 1717, free masonry assumed a bolder and a more independent aspect. It was no longer confined to the British isles, or to the capital of France, but was destined to irradiate every portion of the globe; and, while the grand lodges of Scotland and England contemplated with pleasure the propagation of the royal art, their diligence was fully rewarded by the gratitude and liberality of the foreign lodges, for the gift which they received.

77. In the year 1729 free masonry was introduced into the East Indies; and, in a short time after, a provincial grandmaster was appointed to superintend the lodges in that quarter. In 1730 the grand lodge of Ireland was instituted; lodges were erected in different parts of America; and a provincial deputation granted to M. Thuanus, for the circle of Lower Saxony. A patent was sent from England in 1731, to erect a lodge at the Hague, in which Francis Stephen, duke of Lorraine, and afterwards emperor of Germany, was initiated into the order; and provincial grandmasters were appointed for Russia, and Andalusia in Spain. In 1736 lodges were erected at Cape Coast, in Africa, and at Geneva; and provincial deputations were granted for Upper Saxony and the American islands. In 1738, a lodge was instituted at Brunswick, under the patronage of the grand lodge of Scotland, in which the late king of Prussia was initiated when prince royal. His majesty was so pleased with the maxims and ceremonies of the order, that he, ever afterwards, was its most zeal-

lous partisan, and even requested that a lodge should be established in the capital of his own dominions. In this lodge many of the German princes were initiated, who afterwards filled the office of grandmaster, with much honour to themselves, and advantage to the fraternity.

78. But while free masonry flourished in these different parts of the world, and in many other places which it would be tedious to enumerate, it was doomed to undergo a variety of persecutions from the unfounded jealousies of a few despotic rulers, and the deep-rooted superstition of a few Catholic priests. These persecutions took their rise in Holland in the year 1735. The States General were alarmed at the rapid increase of free masons, who held their meetings in every town under their government; and as they could not believe that architecture and brotherly love were their only objects, they resolved to discountenance their proceedings. In consequence of this determination, an edict was issued by government, stating, that though they had discovered nothing in the practices of the fraternity, either injurious to the interests of the republic, or contrary to the character of good citizens; yet, in order to prevent any bad consequences which might ensue from such associations, they deemed it prudent to abolish the assemblies of free masons. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a respectable lodge continued to meet privately at Amsterdam; but intelligence having been communicated to the magistrates, all the members were arrested and brought before the court of justice. At this tribunal, in presence of all the magistrates of the city, the masters and wardens boldly defended themselves; and declared upon oath, that they were loyal subjects, faithful to their religion, and zealous for the interests of their country; that free masonry was an institution venerable in itself, and useful to society; and that though they could not reveal the secrets and ceremonies of their order, they could assure the judges that they were contrary to the laws neither of God nor man, and that they would willingly admit into their order any individual in whom the magistrates could confide, and from whom they might receive such information as would satisfy a reasonable mind. In consequence of these declarations, the brethren were dismissed, and the town secretary requested to become a member of the fraternity. After initiation he returned to the court of justice, and gave such a favourable account of the principles and practice of the society, that all the magistrates became brethren of the order, and zealous patrons of free masonry.

79. After free masonry had thus honourably triumphed over her persecutors in Holland, she had to contend in France with prejudices equally inveterate though less insuperable. Although many persons of distinction defended the fraternity, and expostulated with the court on the impropriety of severe measures, their assemblies were abolished in 1737, under the common pretext that some dreadful design was concealed beneath their inviolable secrets, hostile to religion, and dangerous to the kingdom. But when these ebullitions of party spirit and private malice had subsided, the prohibition of government was gradually forgotten, and the fraternity in France recovered their former prosperity and splendour.

80. In Germany too, the tranquillity of the order was

Masonry. was disturbed by the intrigues of some ignorant females. Some German ladies, who possessed more curiosity than is common to their sex, were anxious to discover the secrets of free masonry. Having been baffled in all their attempts on the fickleness of their husbands, and the fondness of their admirers, they converted their curiosity into revenge, and attempted to inflame the mind of Maria Theresa the empress queen, against the lodges in Vienna. Their attempt was in some measure successful, as they persuaded her to issue an order for surprising all the masons in the city when assembled in their lodges. This plan, however, was frustrated by the intervention of the emperor Joseph I. who being himself a mason, pledged himself for the good conduct of his brethren, and showed the ladies and their friends, that their charges against the order were false and defamatory.

Free masons
persecuted
in Italy. 81. When the flame of persecution is once kindled, its devastations are seldom confined to the spot where it originated. The example of one nation is urged as an excuse for the conduct of another; and like the storm on the sandy desert, its effects are ruinous in proportion to its progress. In Holland and France the hostility of the government against free masonry was soon disarmed. But when the flame reached the ecclesiastical states of Italy, its effects were more baneful and its duration more lengthened. In the year 1738, a formidable bull was thundered from the conclave, not only against free masons themselves, but against all those who countenanced a set of men who, in the opinion of his holiness, were enemies to the tranquillity of the state, and hostile to the spiritual interests of souls. This bull was followed by an edict dated 14th January 1739, in which the fervitude of the galleys, the tortures of the rack, and a fine of 1000 crowns in gold, were threatened to persons of every description who breathed the infectious air of a masonic assembly. A few weeks afterwards a decree was issued by his holiness condemning a French book, entitled An Apology for the Society of Free Masons, and ordering it to be burnt by the ministers of justice, in one of the best frequented streets of Rome.

In Hol.
d. 82. In consequence of these enactments at Rome, the catholic clergymen in Holland attempted in 1740 to enforce obedience to the decrees of their superiors. In examining the religious qualifications of those who required a certificate to receive the holy sacrament, the priests took occasion to refuse the certificate to such as were free masons, and expelled them for ever from the communion table. Having exerted their authority in the expulsion of several respectable characters, the attention of the public was roused by such arbitrary proceedings, and after the publication of several pamphlets by the adherents of both parties, the states general interfered, and prohibited the exercise of that spiritual power, which, instead of suppressing immorality, had excited divisions among their fellow subjects.

litigation
to be asso-
ciation of
magistrates. 83. In order to preserve the order from that ruin to which it seemed fast approaching, several free masons of distinction in Germany who were friendly to the church of Rome, instituted a new association formed on the same principles, and proposing to itself the same object as free masonry. The members were denominated mopses, from the German word mops, signifying a young matiff, which was deemed a proper emblem of the mutual fidelity and attachment of the brethren. But that

they might preserve the mysteries of free masonry from such of the members as were not masons, they rejected from their ritual all the masonic signs and ceremonies; and in order to escape the vengeance of the church of Rome, they converted the oath of secrecy into a simple promise, and admitted women into their new association. The mopses were patronised by the most illustrious characters in Germany, and several princes of the empire were grand masters of the order. The hostility of the Roman see to the protestants in Germany induced the mopses to exclude them from their fraternity; but this was merely a pretence to deceive his holiness, for they afterwards admitted men of every religion and of every country.

84. As the authority of the pope did not extend to Switzerland, free masonry flourished in that republic till 1741, when the council of Berne issued an edict prohibiting under the severest penalties the assemblies of free masons. No reason was assigned for this conduct, and no charges advanced against the order. The council of Berne are terrified for secret associations, and therefore they must oppress and persecute them. Not satisfied with abolishing the lodges in the republic, they decreed that every free mason must accuse himself before the magistrates of the district, that he must renounce his obligations to secrecy, and swear in the presence of the Almighty, to trample upon those engagements, which before the same Being they had sworn to revere. Such an instance of tyranny over the minds and consciences of men, is a remarkable fact in the history of a republic where the reformed religion had been practised from its infancy, and where free masons had always conducted themselves with exemplary propriety.

85. The persecutions which free masonry encountered were hitherto confined to the continent. The tide of religious frenzy, however, now rolled to the shores of Britain. In the year 1745, the Associate Synod attempted to disturb the peace of the fraternity; and had they been possessed of half the power of the church of Rome or the council of Berne, their proceedings, prompted by equal fanaticism, would have been marked with the same severity; but, fortunately for the order, their power extended only to the spiritual concerns of those delinquents who were of the same sect with themselves. In the beginning of the year 1745, an overture was laid before the synod of Stirling, stating that many improper things were performed at the initiation of masons, and requesting that the synod would consider whether or not the members of that order were entitled to partake in the ordinances of religion. The synod remitted this overture to all the kirk sessions under their inspection, allowing them to act as they thought proper. In 1755, however, they appointed all their kirk sessions to examine every person who was suspected to be a free mason, and to demand an explicit answer to any question which they might ask, concerning the administration of the mason oath. In the course of these examinations, the kirk session discovered, (for they seem hitherto to have been ignorant of it) that men who were not architects were admitted into the order. On this account the synod, in the year 1757, thought it necessary to adopt stricter measures. They drew up a list of questions, which they appointed every kirk session to put to those under their charge. These questions related

Masonry. lated to what they thought were the ceremonies of free masonry; and those who refused to answer them were debarred from religious ordinances. The object of these proceedings was not, certainly, as is pretended, to make the abettors of the Associate Synod more holy and upright, by detaching them from the fraternity. This could have been effected without that species of examination which they authorised. The church of Rome were contented with dispersing the fraternity, and receiving its repentant members into their communion. The council of Berne went no farther than abolishing the society, and compelling the brethren to renounce their engagements, lest they should be inconsistent with the duties of citizens. But a synod of Scottish dissenters, who cannot imitate in these points the church of Rome and the council of Berne, must compel the free masons of their congregation to give them an account of those mysteries and ceremonies, which they durst not obtain by regular initiation.

86. Notwithstanding these persecutions, free masonry flourished, and was in the highest estimation in Great Britain, France, Germany, and several other kingdoms of Europe. In 1743, it was exported from Scotland to Denmark; and the lodge which was then instituted is now the grand lodge of that kingdom. The same prosperity has attended the first lodge in Sweden, which was erected at Stockholm in 1754, under a patent from Scotland. In 1765, a splendid apartment was erected at Marcellies for the accommodation of the brethren. It was adorned with the finest paintings, representing the most interesting scenes that occur in the history of the Old and New Testament, and calculated to remind the spectator of his various duties as a man, a subject, and a Christian. The representation of Joseph and his brethren, of the Samaritan and Jew, of Lot and the Angels, must have reminded every brother of the beauty of charity and forgiveness, which are the first principles of masonry, as they are the first duties of man. The picture of Peter and the Apostles paying tribute to Cæsar, must have recalled to every individual his obligations, as a citizen, to revere and support the constituted authorities. And the representation of Job in his misfortunes, lifting up his hands to heaven, must have forced upon the minds of the most inconsiderate, this important reflection—that fortitude and resignation to the will of God are the duties of all in distress, and that the divine blessing will ultimately attend those who bear, without murmuring, the chastisements of their father, and preserve, amidst the severest trials, their patience and virtue unimpaired (x). These observations, apparently trifling, are important in one respect, as they show that the French lodges had not at that time fostered in their bosom the votaries of scepticism and disloyalty. The other lodges in France were at this time numerous and magnificent. The grand lodge contained about twenty offices, which were all filled by noblemen of the highest rank. They had provincial grand masters similar to those of Scotland, and the insignia and jewels of all those office-bearers, were as rich and splendid as the lodges where they assembled.

87. In the year 1767, a lodge under an English

Masonry. constitution was established at Berlin, under the appellation of Le Royale York, in honour of the duke of York, who was initiated into the fraternity by that lodge while he was travelling on the continent. In 1768, the free masons of Germany were authorised to hold their assemblies, by a charter granted by the king of Prussia, the elector of Saxony, and the queen of Hungary and Bohemia, and afterwards by the emperor of Germany himself. By another charter from England, in 1769, a lodge was erected at Brunswick, which, a short time after, received a provincial deputation from England, for superintending the lodges of Lower Saxony. In the year 1773, a compact was entered into between the grand lodge of England, under Lord Petre, and the grand lodge at Berlin, under the prince of Hesse Darmstadt, which had a few years before been duly erected into a grand lodge, at a meeting of the masters and wardens of twelve regular lodges. In this compact it was stipulated, that the grand lodge of Berlin should be acknowledged as the grand lodge of the whole empire of Germany, including the dominions of his Prussian majesty; that it should exercise no masonic power out of the empire of Germany, or within the district under the authority of the grand lodge of Brunswick; that the electorate of Hanover should be free to both the grand lodges in Germany; and that the contracting parties should unite their efforts to counteract all innovations in masonry, and particularly the proceedings of a set of masons in Berlin, who, under the denomination of Striele Observants, had annihilated their former constitutions, erected themselves into a grand lodge, and sanctioned very improper innovations upon the principles and ceremonies of the fraternity. This compact was highly approved of by the king of Prussia, who immediately erected the grand lodge of Berlin into a corporate body. In 1777, the king of Prussia was protector of all the masons in Germany. Ferdinand, duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, was grand master of all the united lodges in Germany; and the other offices were filled by the most able and illustrious princes of the empire. Under the auspices of such distinguished personages, and the jurisdiction of the grand lodges of Berlin and Brunswick, free masonry has flourished to the present day in that extensive empire.

88. In Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, charity-schools were erected by the lodges, for educating the children of free masons, whose poverty debarred them from this advantage. In that which was formed at Brunswick, they were instructed even in classical learning, and various branches of the mathematics; and were regularly examined by the duke of Brunswick, who rewarded the most deserving with suitable donations. At Eisenach several seminaries of this kind were established. The teachers were endowed with fixed salaries; and, in a short time after their institution, they had sent into the world 700 children, instructed in the principles of science, and the doctrines of Christianity. In 1771, an establishment of a similar kind was formed at Cassel, in which the children were maintained and educated till they could provide for themselves.

Masonry. selves. In 1773 the united lodges of Dresden, Leipzig, and Gorlitz, erected at Frederickstadt a feminary of learning for children of every denomination in the electorate of Saxony. The masonic subscriptions were so numerous that the funds of the institution were sufficient for its maintenance; and in the space of five years, above 1100 children received a liberal education. In the same year, an extensive workhouse was erected at Prague in which the children were not only initiated into the first principles of learning, but into those branches of the useful and fine arts which might qualify them for commercial and agricultural situations. It deserves to be remarked, that the founders of these institutions, amid their anxiety for the public prosperity, never neglected the spiritual interests of the children. They saw that early piety is the foundation of all that is useful and honourable in life; and that without this, speculative knowledge and practical skill are of little avail.—How inconsistent are such facts with those fabulous accounts of the German lodges, which have been published in England by a few party-men.

Persecution of Masons in Portugal. 89. While these things were going on in Germany, the brethren in Portugal were exposed to the persecution of its bigotted rulers. Major François d'Alincourt, a Frenchman, and Don Oyes de Ornellas Praca, a Portuguese nobleman, were in 1766 imprisoned by the governor of Madeira for their attachment to their order. Being afterwards carried to Lisbon, they were confined for fourteen months, till they were released by the generous intercession of the brethren in that city. In the following year several free masons were confined at Naples, but soon liberated by the intercession of foreign princes, and the eloquence of an Italian advocate.

Origin and history of the illuminati. 90. Notwithstanding the persecutions which the fraternity experienced in Holland, free masonry was flourishing in that republic in 1779. At that time a compact was entered into between the grand lodge of Holland, held at the Hague, and that of England. In this compact it was stipulated that the grand lodge of Holland should be permitted to erect lodges within her territories, both at home and abroad, and to appoint provincial grand masters over each district. In consequence of this accession of power to the grand lodge of Holland, free masonry flourished, under its auspices, in the Dutch settlements in India, Africa, and South America.

91. Let us now direct our attention to a new secret association which about this time, arose in Germany, and which was imagined to have taken its rise from free masonry, and to have planned a diabolical conspiracy against every religious and political establishment in Europe. In 1775 the order of the illuminati was founded by Dr Adam Weishaupt, professor of canon law in the university of Ingolstadt. In this association speculative opinions were inculcated, which were certainly inconsistent with the principles of sound religion and social order. But that illuminism originated from free masonry; that it brought about the French revolution, or even planned any dangerous con-

spiracy, are circumstances for which the shadow of a proof has not yet been adduced. Dr Robison indeed expressly affirms, that illuminism "took its rise among the free masons, but was totally different from free masonry;" and by a deceitful anachronism, he represents Weishaupt as an active member in the German lodges, before he acquaints his readers that he was the founder of the illuminati, for no other reason than to make them believe that Weishaupt was a free mason before he planned his new association (y). Now the case was very different indeed. Barruel himself asserts, "that it is a fact demonstrated beyond a doubt, that Weishaupt became a mason in 1777 only; and that two years before this, when he established illuminism, he was totally unacquainted with the mysteries of free masonry (z)." Here then is an important fact which strikes at the root of all Dr Robison's reasoning against free masonry. Barruel maintains, that Weishaupt was not a mason till two years after the organization of his new institution; and Dr Robison allows, that illuminism was totally different from free masonry. The two institutions, therefore, were totally unconnected; for the members of the one were never admitted into the lodges of the other, without being regularly initiated into the mysteries of both. Upon these simple facts we would arrest the attention of every reader, and those in particular who have been swindled out of their senses, by the united exertions of a priest and a philosopher.

92. After Weishaupt had organized his institution, he exerted every nerve to disseminate its principles. For this purpose he became a free mason in 1777; and by means of emissaries, he attempted to circulate his opinions among the French and German lodges. In these attempts indeed, he was sometimes successful. But it should be recollected by those who, on this account, calumniate free masonry, that the same objection may be urged against Christianity, because impostors have sometimes gained proselytes, and perverted the wavering minds of the multitude. These doctrines, however, were not merely circulated by Weishaupt in a few of the lodges, and taught at the assemblies of the illuminati. They were published to the world in the most fascinating form, by the French encyclopedists; and were inculcated in all the eloquence, with which some of the most celebrated philosophers on the continent could adorn them. It can only be said of Weishaupt, therefore, that he was not just such a determined infidel as Voltaire and his associates.—Such is a short, and it is hoped, an impartial view of the origin and progress of the illuminati. It may be now proper to attend to the causes from which this association arose, and the advantages and disadvantages which it may have engendered.

93. About the middle of the eighteenth century the Causes from literati on the continent were divided into two great which illu- parties. The one may be considered as ex-jesuits, or minims adherents to the Catholic superstition, who were promoters of political and religious despotism, and inculcated the doctrines of non-resistance and passive obedience. The other party was composed of men who were friends to

Masonry. to the reformed religion, enemies of superstition and fanaticism, and supporters of the absurd doctrine of the infinite perfectibility of the human mind. They were dissatisfied with that slavery which was imposed by the despotism of the continental rulers, and the superstition of the church of Rome; and many of them entertained opinions adverse to the Christian religion, and to every existing form of government. Between these two parties there was a perpetual struggle for power. The ex-jesuits accused their opponents as heretics and promoters of jacobinism and infidelity; while the others were constantly exposing the intrigues of priests, and the tyranny of despots. To this latter class belonged Weilhaupt and his associates, who instituted the order of the illuminati for no other purpose than to oppose those corrupted priests, who would have degraded them as Christians, and those tyrannical despots who have enslaved them as citizens. The collision of these parties was certainly productive of the greatest advantages. While the Jesuits restrained the inclination of one part of the community, to overrate the dignity of the human mind, and anticipate ideal visions of religious and political perfection; the illuminati counteracted those gloomy opinions which debased the dignity of our nature, which check the energies of the mind, and impose the most galling yoke of religious and political fervidity.

94. After the French revolution, which, as Mounier has well shown, arose from other causes than those to which Barruel and Robison ascribe it, the plans of these parties were not carried on in Germany so systematically as before; and notwithstanding the fabrications with which Barruel has calumniated the lodges in that country, free masonry prevails to his day, respected by the most virtuous and scientific members of the community, and patronized by the most distinguished princes of the empire.

Respectability of free masons in Germany. 95. In Germany the qualifications for a free mason are great and numerous. No person is initiated into the order without the consent of every member of the lodge; and it frequently happens, that a German even is excluded by a single dissenting voice. On this account the lodges of that country are filled with persons of the first rank and respectability; and every thing is conducted with the greatest decorum and solemnity. As masonry is there held in the highest estimation, an Englishman will obtain an easier introduction to the chief nobility and literati of Germany in a mason lodge than in any other place; and will never repent of having been initiated into the order in his native country (A).

96. After the publication of the works of Barruel and Robison, the progress of free masonry in Britain was retarded by an act of parliament in 1799 for the suppression of seditionary societies, by which the fraternity were virtually prohibited from erecting new lodges in the kingdom. But this act was not prompted by the calumnies of these writers. It became necessary from the political condition of the kingdom; and the exceptions which it contained in favour of free masons, com-

pletely prove that government never credited the reports of these alarmists, but placed the most implicit confidence in the loyalty and prudence of British masons. The private characters, indeed, as well as the public situations of those individuals who are now grand masters of the order, are a sufficient pledge to the legislature and the uninitiated public, that free masonry will preserve in these kingdoms its ancient purity and simplicity, and that it will ever continue to be the foe of despotism and oppression, the enemy of superstition and fanaticism, the promoter of civilization and good order, and the friend of true benevolence and unaltered piety.