-
Articles/Ads
Article ANCIENT WRITERS AND MODERN PRACTICES. ← Page 5 of 9 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Ancient Writers And Modern Practices.
remarks th ^ t he has not hith erto drawn distinctions between the two orders of Rosicrucians and Free-Masons , inasmuch as all the above characteristics are common to both of thpm . In this we do not entirely agree with him , especially as in the present day there are , to
the best of our belief , certain restrictions with regard to those Free-Masons who are admitted into the ranks of the Rosicraciahs ; and there are also other shades of distinction in their general characteristics , more or less wide , which we think it right clearly to define .
"Wo now come to his remarks upon " the earliest historic traces of the Eosicrucian and Masonic Orders . " We before warned our readers that they must receive some parts of this narrative ctini grano salts , and a tolerably large grain too . Having repeated this caution , we proceed to a slight abstract of this portion of the history with , at present , little comment .
The accredited records of these two orders do not ascend , he tells us , beyond the two last centuries ; while , on the other hand , it is alleged that they have existed for eighteen hundred years . "We need scarcely here remind our Masonie Brethren , especially Master
Masons , of the event which we usually assign as the origin of Free-Masonry . Our author says that this latter hypothesis , viz . the eighteen hundred years , is , to him , scarcely endurable ( how endurable it is to us our last sentence will show ) , and that he who adopts it must show why the deduction of these orders from modern history is unsatisfactory to him , and show how it happened that no one wrote any particulars of the Order for sixteen hundred years . "With regard to the first of these objections we do not see that we are called on to prove this—why should not an opponent rather disprove our history ? He cannot tell what ancient records we ourselves may possess ; he cannot say what records may , unknown to him , be found even in our public libraries ; still less can he—as he clearly is not a Freemason himself , or , at best , one who has forgotten his Craftrecognize Masonie allusions in books , which , though unintelligible to , and therefore unnoticed by , him , speak plainly and unmistakably to the accepted Mason , who thus recognizes a Brother , even though centuries have rolled between them . If the secresy of their proceedings be alleged , he says , as a reason for the absence of notice of them as a society , his answer is that this might have secured their doctrines and mysteries from being divulged , but not the mere fact of their existence . Firstly , an opponent must prove this absence of notice by contemporary writers , which , for the reasons we have assigned , he must find a difficulty in doing ; and next , he must remember that in his former chapter he has himself assigned a reason for the secrecy of Free-Masons with regard to their proceedings , probably even their existence , viz ., state interference ; and though lie does not know of any Masonic records , yet , in a little work which is now before us , and is known to most Free-Masons , we do find on record events dating as far back as four hundred and sixty-six years before the date of his
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Ancient Writers And Modern Practices.
remarks th ^ t he has not hith erto drawn distinctions between the two orders of Rosicrucians and Free-Masons , inasmuch as all the above characteristics are common to both of thpm . In this we do not entirely agree with him , especially as in the present day there are , to
the best of our belief , certain restrictions with regard to those Free-Masons who are admitted into the ranks of the Rosicraciahs ; and there are also other shades of distinction in their general characteristics , more or less wide , which we think it right clearly to define .
"Wo now come to his remarks upon " the earliest historic traces of the Eosicrucian and Masonic Orders . " We before warned our readers that they must receive some parts of this narrative ctini grano salts , and a tolerably large grain too . Having repeated this caution , we proceed to a slight abstract of this portion of the history with , at present , little comment .
The accredited records of these two orders do not ascend , he tells us , beyond the two last centuries ; while , on the other hand , it is alleged that they have existed for eighteen hundred years . "We need scarcely here remind our Masonie Brethren , especially Master
Masons , of the event which we usually assign as the origin of Free-Masonry . Our author says that this latter hypothesis , viz . the eighteen hundred years , is , to him , scarcely endurable ( how endurable it is to us our last sentence will show ) , and that he who adopts it must show why the deduction of these orders from modern history is unsatisfactory to him , and show how it happened that no one wrote any particulars of the Order for sixteen hundred years . "With regard to the first of these objections we do not see that we are called on to prove this—why should not an opponent rather disprove our history ? He cannot tell what ancient records we ourselves may possess ; he cannot say what records may , unknown to him , be found even in our public libraries ; still less can he—as he clearly is not a Freemason himself , or , at best , one who has forgotten his Craftrecognize Masonie allusions in books , which , though unintelligible to , and therefore unnoticed by , him , speak plainly and unmistakably to the accepted Mason , who thus recognizes a Brother , even though centuries have rolled between them . If the secresy of their proceedings be alleged , he says , as a reason for the absence of notice of them as a society , his answer is that this might have secured their doctrines and mysteries from being divulged , but not the mere fact of their existence . Firstly , an opponent must prove this absence of notice by contemporary writers , which , for the reasons we have assigned , he must find a difficulty in doing ; and next , he must remember that in his former chapter he has himself assigned a reason for the secrecy of Free-Masons with regard to their proceedings , probably even their existence , viz ., state interference ; and though lie does not know of any Masonic records , yet , in a little work which is now before us , and is known to most Free-Masons , we do find on record events dating as far back as four hundred and sixty-six years before the date of his