MASONRY

MASONRY, FREE, denotes the rule or system of mysteries and secrets peculiar to the society of free and accepted masons.

One of the first objects of man, in a rude state of being, is to screen himself and his family from the heat of the tropical sun, from the inclemency of the polar regions, or from the sudden changes of more temperate climates. If he has arrived at such a degree of improvement as to live under the dominion of a superior, and under the influence of religious belief, the palace of his king and the temple of his gods will be reared in the most magnificent style which his skill can devise and his industry accomplish, and will be decked with those false ornaments which naturally catch the eye of unpolished men. From that principle which impels the lower orders to imitate the magnificence and splendour of their superiors, a foundation will be laid for improvement in the art of building; and it is extremely probable, from those circumstances which have been mentioned, as well as from others which the slightest reflection will suggest, that building or architecture will be the first profession to which men will exclusively devote their attention, and for which they will be trained by an established course of preparatory education.

But there is another consideration which entitles architecture to a decided pre-eminence amongst the other arts. It is itself the parent of many separate professions, and requires a combination of talents, and an extent of knowledge, for which other professions have not the smallest occasion. An acquaintance with the sciences of geometry and mechanical philosophy, with the arts of sculpture and design, and other abstruse and elegant branches of knowledge, are indispensable requisites in the education of a good architect, and raise his art to a vast height above those professions which practice alone can render familiar, and which consist in the mere exertion of muscular force. From these considerations, it appears that there is some foundation in the very nature of architecture for those extraordinary privileges to which masons have always laid claim, and which they have almost always possessed; privileges which no other artists could have confidence to ask or liberty to enjoy: and there appears also to be some foundation for that ancient and respectable order of free masons, whose history we are now to investigate.

But, that we may be enabled to discover free masonry under those various forms which it has assumed in different countries and at different times, before it received the name which it now bears, it will be necessary to give a short description of the nature of this institution, without developing those mysteries, or revealing those ceremonial observances, which are only known to the brethren of the order.

Free masonry is an ancient and respectable institution, embracing individuals of every nation, of every religion, and of every condition in life. In order to confirm this institution, and attain the ends for which it was originally formed, every candidate comes under a solemn engagement never to divulge the mysteries of the order, nor communicate to the uninitiated the secrets with which he may be entrusted, and the proceedings and plans in which the fraternity may be engaged. After the candidate has undergone the necessary ceremonies, and received the usual instructions, appropriate words and significant signs are imparted to him, that he may be enabled to distinguish his brethren of the order from the uninitiated vulgar, and convince others that he is entitled to the privileges of a brother, should he be visited by distress or by want in a distant land. If the newly-admitted member be found qualified for a higher degree, he is promoted, after due intervals of probation, till he has received that masonic knowledge which enables him to hold the highest offices of trust to which the fraternity can raise its members. At regular and appointed seasons, convivial meetings of the fraternity are held in lodges constructed for this purpose; and temperance, harmony, and joy characterise these mixed assemblies. All distinctions of rank seem to be laid aside, all differences in religious and political sentiments are forgotten; and those petty quarrels which disturb the quiet of private life cease to agitate the mind. Every one strives to give happiness to his brother; and men seem to recollect, for once, that they are sprung from the same origin, that they are possessed of the same nature, and are destined for the same end.

Such are the prominent features of an institution which has produced a great division in the sentiments of the learned respecting its origin and tendency. Whilst a certain class of men,¹ a little over-anxious for the dignity of their order, have represented it as coeval with the world, others, influenced by an opposite motive, have maintained that it was the invention of English Jesuits, to promote the views of that intriguing and dangerous association.² Some have laboured to prove that free masonry arose during the crusades; that it was a secondary order of chivalry; that its forms originated from that warlike institution, and were adapted to the peaceful, orderly habits of scientific men.³ Mr Clinch⁴ has attempted, with considerable ingenuity and learning, to deduce its origin from the institutions of Pythagoras. M. Barruel⁵ supposes it to be a continuation of the society of knights templars; whilst others have imputed its origin to secret associations, averse to the interests of true government, and pursuing the chimerical project of leveling the distinctions of society, and freeing the human mind from the obligations of religion and morality. But without adopting any of these untenable opinions, or attempting to discover the precise period when free masonry arose, it may be sufficient to establish its claim to an early origin, and to show that it has existed in different ages of the world under different forms and appellations.⁶

Masonry, In Egypt, and in those countries of Asia which lie contiguous to that favoured kingdom, the arts and sciences were cultivated with success, whilst other nations were involved in ignorance. It is here, therefore, that free masonry would flourish, and here only can we discover marks of its existence in the remotest ages. It is extremely probable that the first and the only object of the society of masons, was the mutual communication of knowledge connected with their profession; and that those only would gain admittance into their order whose labours were subsidiary to those of the architect. But when the ambition or vanity of the Egyptian priests prompted them to erect huge and expensive fabrics for celebrating the worship of their gods, or perpetuating the memory of their kings, they would naturally desire to participate in that scientific knowledge which was possessed by the architects they employed; and as, amongst a superstitious people, the sacerdotal order seldom fail to gain the objects of their ambition, they would, in this case, succeed in their attempts, and be initiated into the mysteries, as well as instructed in the science, of free masons. These remarks will not only assist us in discovering the source from which the Egyptian priests derived that knowledge for which they have been so highly celebrated; but they will also aid us in accounting for those changes which were superinduced on the forms of free masonry, and for the admission of men into the order whose professions had no connection with the royal art.

When the Egyptian priests had in this manner procured admission into the society of free masons, they connected the mythology of their country, and their metaphysical speculations concerning the nature of God and the condition of man, with an association formed for the exclusive purpose of scientific improvement, and produced that combination of science and theology which, in after ages, formed such a conspicuous part of the principles of free masonry. The knowledge of the Egyptians was carefully concealed from the vulgar; and when the priests did condescend to communicate it to the learned men of other nations, it was conferred in symbols and hieroglyphics, accompanied with particular rites and ceremonies, marking the value of the gift they bestowed. What those ceremonies were which were performed at initiation into the Egyptian mysteries, we are unable, at this distance of time, to determine. But as the Eleusinian and other mysteries had their origin in Egypt, we may be able perhaps to discover the qualities of the fountain, by examining the nature of the stream.

The immense population of Egypt, conjoined with other causes, occasioned frequent emigrations from that enlightened country. In this manner it became the centre of civilization, and introduced into the most distant and savage regions the sublime mysteries of its religion, and those inventions and discoveries which originated in the ingenuity of its inhabitants. The first colony of the Egyptians which arrived in Greece was conducted by Inachus, about 1970 years before the Christian era; and about three centuries afterwards, he was followed by Cecrops, Cadmus, and Da-

naus.¹ The savage inhabitants of Greece beheld with astonishment the magical tricks of the Egyptians; and regarded as gods those skilful adventurers, who communicated to them the arts and sciences of their native land.² In this manner were sown those seeds of improvement which in future ages exalted Greece to such pre-eminence amongst the nations.

After the Egyptian colonies had obtained a secure settlement in their new territories, and were freed from those uneasy apprehensions which generally trouble the invaders of a foreign land, they instituted, after the manner of their ancestors, particular festivals or mysteries, in honour of those who had benefited their country either by arts or by arms. In the reign of Eriethonius (n. c. 1500), the mysteries of the Egyptian Isis were established at Eleusis, under the name of the Eleusinian. They were instituted in honour of Ceres, who having come to Greece in quest of her daughter Proserpine, resided with Triptolemus at Eleusis, and instructed him in the knowledge of agriculture, and in the still more important knowledge of a future state.³

About the same time the Panathenæa were instituted in honour of Minerva; and the Dionysian mysteries in honour of Bacchus, who invented theatres,⁴ and instructed the Greeks in many useful arts, but particularly in the culture of the vine.⁵ That the Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries were intimately connected with the progress of the arts and sciences, is manifest from the very end for which they were formed; and that they were modelled upon the mysteries of Isis and Osiris, celebrated in Egypt, is probable from the similarity of their origin, as well as from the consent of ancient authors.⁶ If there be any plausibility in our former reasoning concerning the origin of knowledge in Egypt, it will follow that the Dionysia and the mysteries of Eleusis were, like the societies of free masons, formed for scientific improvement, though no doubt tinctured with the doctrines of the Egyptian mythology.

But it is not from conjecture only that this conclusion may be drawn. The striking similarity amongst the external forms of these secret associations, and the still more striking similarity of the objects which they had in view, are strong proofs that they were only different streams issuing from a common fountain. Those who were initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries, were bound by the most awful engagements to conceal the instructions they received, and the ceremonies that were performed.⁷ None were admitted as candidates till they had arrived at a certain age; and particular persons were appointed to examine and prepare them for the rites of initiation.⁸ Those whose conduct was found irregular, or who had been guilty of atrocious crimes, were rejected as unworthy of initiation; whilst the successful candidates were instructed, by significant symbols, in the principles of religion,⁹ were exhorted to quell every turbulent appetite and passion,¹⁰ and to merit, by the improvement of their minds, and the purity of their hearts, those ineffable benefits which they were still to receive.¹¹ Significant words were communicated to the members; grand officers presided over their assemblies;¹² their emblems were exactly similar to those of free masonry;¹³ and the candi-

Masonry, date advanced from one degree to another, till he had received all the lessons of wisdom and virtue which the priests could impart.¹

It may, however, be objected here, that there were circumstances in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries which have no counterpart in the ceremonies of free masonry. The sacrifices, the purifications, the hymns, and the dances, which were necessary in the festival of Ceres, have indeed no place in the society of free masons. But these points of dissimilarity, instead of weakening, rather strengthen our opinion. It cannot be expected that, in the reign of Polytheism, just sentiments of the Deity should be entertained; and much less that the adherents of Christianity should bend their knees to the gods of the heathens. The ancients worshipped those beings who conferred on them signal benefits, with sacrifices, purifications, and other tokens of their humility and gratitude. But when revelation had disclosed to man more amiable sentiments concerning the Divine Being, the society of free masons banished from their mysteries those useless rites with which the ancient brethren of the order attempted to appease and requite their deities; and they modelled their ceremonies upon this foundation, that there is but one God, who must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

The mysteries of Ceres were not confined to the city of Eleusis; they were introduced into Athens about 1356 B.C.² and, with a few slight variations, were observed in Phrygia, Cyprus, Crete, and Sicily.³ They had reached even to the capital of France;⁴ and it is highly probable that, in a short time afterwards, they were introduced into Britain, and other northern kingdoms.⁵ In the reign of the Emperor Hadrian,⁶ they were carried into Rome, and were celebrated, in that metropolis, with the same rites and ceremonies which were performed in the humble village of Eleusis. They had contracted impurities, however, from the length of their duration, and the corruption of their abettors; and though the forms of initiation were still symbolic of the original and noble objects of the institution, yet the licentious Romans mistook the shadow for the substance, and, whilst they underwent the rites of the Eleusinian mysteries, they were strangers to the object for which they were framed.

About the beginning of the fifth century, Theodosius the Great prohibited, and almost totally extinguished, the Pagan theology in the Roman empire;⁷ and the mysteries of Eleusis suffered in the general devastation.⁸ It is probable, however, that these mysteries were secretly celebrated, in spite of the severe edicts of Theodosius; and that they were partly continued during the dark ages, though stripped of their original purity and splendour. We are certain, at least, that many rites of the Pagan religion were performed, under the dissembled name of convivial meetings, long after the publication of the emperor's edicts;⁹ and Psellus¹⁰ informs us, that the mysteries of Ceres subsisted in Athens till the eighth century of the Christian era, and were never totally suppressed.

We shall now endeavour to exhibit a rapid sketch of the progress of free masonry after the abolition of the heathen rites in the reign of Theodosius; and, though the friends and enemies of the order seem to coincide in opinion upon this later part of its history, the materials are as scanty as

before, and the incidents equally unconnected. In those ages of ignorance and disorder which succeeded the destruction of the Roman empire, the minds of men were too much debased by superstition, and contracted by bigotry, to enter into associations for promoting mental improvement and mutual benevolence. The spirit which then raged was not a spirit of inquiry. The motives which then influenced the conduct of men were not those benevolent and correct principles of action which once distinguished their ancestors, and which still distinguish their posterity. Sequestered habits and unsocial dispositions characterized the inhabitants of Europe, in this season of mental degeneracy; whilst free masons, actuated by very different principles, inculcate on their brethren the duties of social intercourse, and communicate to all within the pale of their order the knowledge which they possess and the happiness which they feel. But if science had existed in these ages, and if a desire of social intercourse had animated the minds of men, the latter must have languished for want of gratification, as long as the former was imprisoned within the walls of a convent, by the tyranny of superstition, or by the jealousy of power. Science was in those days synonymous with heresy; and had any bold and enlightened man ventured upon philosophical investigations, and published his discoveries of the world, he would have been regarded by the vulgar as a magician, and punished as a heretic by the church of Rome. These remarks may be exemplified and confirmed by an appropriate instance of the interfering spirit of the church of Rome, even in the sixteenth century, when learning had made considerable advancement in Europe. The celebrated Baptista Porta having, like the sage of Samos, travelled into distant countries for scientific information, returned to his native country, and established a society which he denominated the Academy of Secrets. He communicated the information which he had collected to the members of this association, who, in their turn, imparted to their companions the knowledge which they had individually obtained. But this little fraternity, advancing in respectability and science, soon trembled under the rod of ecclesiastical oppression, and experienced in its dissolution, that the Romish hierarchy was determined to check the ardour of investigation, and retain the human mind in its former fetters of ignorance and superstition. How then could free masonry flourish, when the minds of men had such an unfortunate propensity to monkish retirement, and when every scientific and secret association was overawed and persecuted by the rulers of Europe?

But, though the political and intellectual condition of society was unfavourable to the progress of free masonry, and though the secret associations of the ancients were dissolved in the fifth century by the command of the Roman emperor, yet there are many reasons for believing that the ancient mysteries were observed in private long after their public abolition, by those enemies of Christianity who were still attached to the religion of their fathers. Some authors¹¹ even inform us that this was actually the case, and that the Grecian rites existed in the eighth century, and were never completely abolished. These considerations enable us to connect the heathen mysteries with that trading association of architects which appeared

Masonry, during the middle ages, under the special authority of the see of Rome.

The insatiable desire for external finery and gaudy ceremonies which was displayed by the Roman Catholic priests in the exercise of their religion, introduced a corresponding desire for splendid monasteries and magnificent cathedrals. But as the demand for these buildings was urgent, and continually increasing, it was with great difficulty that artificers could be procured, even for the erection of such pious works. In order to encourage the profession of architecture, the pontiffs of Rome, and the other potentates of Europe, conferred on the fraternity of free masons the most important privileges, and allowed them to be governed by laws, customs, and ceremonies, peculiar to themselves. The association was composed of men of all nations, of Italian, Greek, French, German, and Flemish artists, who were denominated free masons, and who, ranging from one country to another, erected those elegant churches and cathedrals which, though they once gratified the pride and sheltered the rites of a corrupted priesthood, now excite the notice of antiquaries, and administer to the grandeur of kingdoms. The government of this association was remarkably regular. Its members lived in a camp of huts, reared beside the building in which they were employed. A surveyor or master presided over and directed the whole. Every tenth man was called a warden, and overlooked those who were under his charge; and such artificers as were not members of this fraternity were prohibited from engaging in those buildings which free masons alone had a title to rear.¹ It may seem strange, and perhaps inconsistent with what we have already said, that the fraternity of free masons should have been sanctioned, and even protected, by the bishops of Rome. Secret associations, indeed, are always a terror to temporal and to spiritual tyranny. But the church of Rome, instead of approving of the principles of free masonry, by the encouragement and patronage which they gave to architects, only employed them as instruments for gratifying their vanity and satiating their ambition. For in after ages, when masons were much more numerous, and when the demand for religious structures was less urgent, than before, the pontiffs of Rome deprived the fraternity of those very privileges which had been conferred upon them without solicitation, and persecuted, with unrelenting rage, the very men whom they had voluntarily taken into favour, and who had contributed to the grandeur of their ecclesiastical establishment.

Wherever the Roman Catholic religion was taught, the meetings of free masons were sanctioned and patronized. The principles of the order were even imported into Scotland,² where they continued for many ages, in their primitive simplicity, long after they had been extinguished in the continental kingdoms. In this manner, Scotland became the centre from which these principles again issued, to illuminate, not only all the nations of the continent, but every civilized portion of the habitable world. What those causes were which continued the societies of free masons longer in Britain than in other countries, it may not, perhaps, be easy to determine; but as the fact itself is unquestionable, it must have arisen, either from some favourable circumstances in the political state of Britain, which did not exist in the other governments of Europe, or from the superior policy by which the British masons eluded the suspicion of their enemies, and the superior prudence

with which they maintained the primitive simplicity and respectability of their order. The former of these causes had, without doubt, a considerable share in producing the effect under consideration; and we know for certain that, in our own days, the latter has preserved free masonry in a flourishing condition throughout these united kingdoms, whilst, in other countries, the imprudence and foolish innovations of its members have exposed it to the most severe and just censure, and, in many cases, to the most violent persecutions. It is a fact requiring no confirmation, and resulting from the most obvious causes, that free masonry never flourishes in seasons of public commotion; and even in Great Britain, though the seat of war is commonly in foreign countries, it has universally declined. But in those lands which are the theatre of hostilities, it will be neglected in a still greater degree; and, if these hostilities are long continued, or frequently recur, the very name and principles of the order must soon be extinguished. Amidst those continual wars, therefore, which, during the middle ages, distracted and desolated the continent of Europe, the association of architects would soon be dissolved; whilst in the humble village of Kilwinning, on the western coast of Scotland, they found a safe retreat from the violent convulsions of continental wars.

That free masonry was first introduced into Scotland by those architects who built the abbey of Kilwinning, is manifest, not only from authentic documents, by means of which the existence of the Kilwinning lodge has been traced back as far as the end of the fifteenth century, but by other collateral arguments, which amount almost to a demonstration. In every country where the temporal and spiritual jurisdiction of the pope was acknowledged, there was a continual demand, particularly during the twelfth century, for religious structures, and consequently for operative masons, proportional to the piety of the inhabitants, and the opulence of their ecclesiastical establishment; and there existed no kingdom in Europe where the zeal of the inhabitants for popery was more ardent than in Scotland, where the kings and nobles were more liberal to the clergy, and where, of consequence, the church was more richly endowed.³ The demand, therefore, for elegant cathedrals and ingenious artists must have been proportionally greater than in other countries, and that demand could be supplied only from the trading association on the continent. When we consider, in addition to these facts, that this association monopolized the building of religious structures in Christendom, we are authorized to conclude, that those numerous and elegant ruins which still adorn various parts of Scotland were erected by foreign masons, who introduced into this island the customs of their order.

It was probably about this time, also, that free masonry was introduced into England; but whether the English received it from the Scottish masons at Kilwinning, or from other brethren who had arrived from the continent, there are now no means of determining. The masonic fraternity in England, however, maintain, that St Alban, the protomartyr, who flourished about the end of the third century, was the first who brought masonry to Britain; that the brethren received a charter from King Athelstane, and that his brother Edwin summoned to meet at York all the lodges which formed the first grand lodge of England.⁴ But these are merely assertions, and not only incapable of proof from authentic history, but also inconsistent with several historical events which rest upon indubitable evi-

Masonry, Free. dence.¹ In support of these opinions, indeed, it is alleged that no other lodge has laid claim to greater antiquity than that of York, and that its jurisdiction over the other lodges in England has been invariably acknowledged by the whole fraternity. But this argument only proves that York was the birth-place of free masonry in England. It brings no additional evidence in support of the improbable stories about St Alban, Athelstane, and Edwin; and if the antiquity of free masonry in Britain can be defended only by the forgery of silly and uninteresting stories, it does not deserve to be defended at all. Those who invent and propagate such tales, do not, surely, consider that they bring discredit upon their order by the warmth of their zeal; and that, by supporting what is false, they prevent thinking men from believing what is true.

After the establishment of the Kilwinning and the York lodges, the principles of free masonry were rapidly diffused throughout both kingdoms, and several lodges were erected in different parts of the island. As all these derived their existence and authority from the two mother lodges, they were likewise under their jurisdiction and control; and when any differences arose that were connected with the art of building, they were referred to the general meetings of the fraternity, which were always held at Kilwinning and at York. In this manner did free masonry flourish for a while in Britain, after it was completely abolished in every other part of the world. But even here it was doomed to suffer a long and serious decline, and to experience those successive alternations of advancement and decay which mark the history of every human institution. And although, during several centuries after the importation of free masonry into Britain, the brethren of the order held their public assemblies, and were sometimes prohibited from meeting by the interference of the legislature, it can scarcely be said to have attracted general attention till the beginning of the seventeenth century. The causes of this remarkable retardation which the progress of masonry experienced, it is by no means difficult to discover. In consequence of the important privileges which the order received from the church of Rome, many persons chose the profession of architect, which, though at all times an honourable employment, was in particularly high request during the middle ages. On this account, the body of operative masons increased to such a degree, and the rage as well as the necessity for religious edifices was so much diminished, that a more than sufficient number of hands could at any time be procured for supplying the demands of the church and those of pious individuals. There being now no scarcity of architects, the very reason which prompted the church to protect the fraternity ceased to exist; they, therefore, withdrew from them that patronage which they had spontaneously proffered, and denied them even the liberty of holding their secret assemblies. But these were not the only causes which produced such a striking change in the conduct of the church towards the masonic order. As we have already stated, the spirit of free masonry was hostile to the principles of the church of Rome. The intention of the one was to enlighten the mind; the object and policy of the other were to retain it in ignorance. When free masonry flourished, the power of the church must have decayed. The jealousy of the latter was therefore aroused; and, as the civil

power in England and Scotland was almost always in the hands of ecclesiastics, the church and the state were combined against the principles and the practice of free masonry.² But besides the causes here specified, the domestic and bloody wars which convulsed the two kingdoms from the thirteenth to the seventeenth century conspired, in a great degree, to produce that decline of the fraternity for which we have been attempting to account.

Yet 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 intrusted 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 subjected to fine and imprisonment.³ 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 most respectable lodge was held at Canterbury under the patronage of the archbishop himself.⁴ When King Henry was able to take into his own hands the government of his kingdom, and to form an independent opinion 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 even 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, which had been collected from their ancient records.

Whilst 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 grand master 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 which might arise amongst 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 grand master 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 grand master himself.⁵

In the reign of James II. free masonry was by no means neglected. The office of grand master 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 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 grand master hereditary to his heirs and successors in the barony of Roslin; in which family it continued till the institution of the grand lodge

Masonry, of Scotland. The barons of Roslin, in the capacity of hereditary grand masters, held their principal annual meetings at Kilwinning, the birth-place of Scottish masonry, whilst 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 instituted in different parts of the kingdom. These lodges all held of the lodge of Kilwinning; and, in token of their respect and submission, they joined to their own name that of their mother lodge, from which they derived their existence as a corporation.¹

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 records of the privy seal, however, there exists a letter dated at Holyroodhouse, the 25th September 1590, and granted by King James VI. "to Patrick Copland of Udaught, for using and exercising the office of wardan over the art and craft of masonry, over all the boundis of Aberdeen, Banff, and Kincardine, to had wardan and justice courts within the said boundis, and there to minister justice."² This letter confirms what has already been stated 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 masonry;" that lodges had been 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 maintains³ that the celebrated antiquary Elias Ashmole, who was initiated in the year 1646, is the only distinct and unequivocal instance of a person being admitted into the fraternity who was not an architect by profession.

The records of St Mary's chapel, which is the oldest lodge in Edinburgh, extend as far back as the 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 conditions of the fraternity. It appears, however, from these minutes, that Mr Thomas Boswell of Auchinleck was made a wardan 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.

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 St Clairs of Roslin their hereditary grand masters. The former of these is without a date, but is signed by several masons who appoint William St Clair of Roslin, his heirs and successors, their "patrons and judges." The latter is in some measure a ratification of the former, 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 amongst the masons, and had considerably retarded the progress of the craft; and that the appointment of William St Clair was by 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 grand master, 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 St Clair of Roslin resigned the office of hereditary grand master in 1736, it is stated that his ancestors William and Sir William St Clair of Roslin had been constituted patrons of the fraternity by the Scottish masons themselves; whilst it is well known that the grant of hereditary grand master 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 own office-bearers, the inconsistency vanishes; for Sinclair and his predecessors, as far back as the date of these charters, held their office by the appointment of the fraternity itself. Lest any of Sinclair's posterity, however, might, after his resignation, lay claim to the office of grand master, upon the pretence that this office had been bequeathed to them by the grant of James II. to the Earl of Caithness and his heirs, he renounced 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.

Notwithstanding those civil commotions which disturbed Britain in the seventeenth century, free masonry flourished in Scotland under the auspices of the St Clairs of Roslin. No particular event worthy of notice, however, 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 other lodges in different parts of the kingdom.

In the year 1736, William St Clair of Roslin, who was then grand master of Scotland, was under the necessity of disposing of his estate, and, as he had no children of his own, he was anxious that the office of grand master should not become vacant at his death. Having, therefore, assembled the Edinburgh and neighbouring lodges, he represented to them the utility which would result to the order from having a gentleman or nobleman of their own choice as grand master of masonry in Scotland; and, at the same time, he intimated his intention to resign into the hands of the brethren every title to that office which he then 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 despatched to all the lodges of Scotland, inviting them to appear, either by themselves or their proxies, on next St Andrew's day, to concur and assist in the election of a grand master. When that day arrived, about thirty-two lodges assembled, and, after receiving the deed of resignation from William St Clair, proceeded to the election of another grand master; when, on account of the zeal which William St Clair of Roslin had always shown for the honour and prosperity of the order, he was unanimously elected to that high office, and proclaimed grand master mason of all Scotland. And thus was instituted the grand lodge of Scotland, an event memorable in the annals of free masonry, but beyond which it would be unprofitable and uninteresting to continue the history of the institution.