the emperor's edict. (Gibbon.) And Psellus informs us, that the mysteries of Ceres subsisted in Athens till the eighth century of the Christian era, and were never totally suppressed." (p. 22.)

A similar course would naturally suggest itself to the Druids: that such a course was adopted, and that they fixed on the craft of masonry, as a cloak under which to screen their mystic ceremonies and dogmas, will, it is believed, appear so evident in the sequel as to leave no room for doubt upon the subject.

During the reign of Canute, therefore, it may fairly be presumed he famous freemason society was first established.

The conquest of England, by William, duke of Normandy, occurred in 1066, and it is highly probable that many of the artisans who were induced by him to emigrate from France to England, were initiated into the order of freemasons, and greatly contributed to raise its fame as an operative masonic institution. "King William, (says Dr. Anderson,) brought many expert masons from France. He died in Normandy, in

1087."

It is probable that many of these masons were attached to the Druidical religion, as the rites of Druidism are said to have been openly practiced in France, upwards of a hundred years after the edict of Canute prohibiting them in England.

The condition and character of the people of England, at the time of the Conquest, is thus portrayed by Guthrie:

"With regard to the manners of the Anglo-Saxons, we can say little, but that they were in general a rude, uncultivated people, ignorant or letters, unskilful in the mechanical arts, untamed to submission under law and government, addicted to intemperance, riot, and disorder. Even so late as the time of Canute, they sold their children and kindred into foreign parts.

"Their best quality was their military courage, which yet was not supported by discipline or conduct. Even the Norman historians, notwithstanding the low state of the arts in their own country, speak of them as barbarous, when they mention the invasion of the duke of Normandy. Conquest placed the people in a situation to receive slowly from abroad the rudiments of science and cultivation, and to correct their rough and licentious manners.

“He (William) introduced the Norman laws and language. He built the stone square tower at London; bridled the country with forts, and disarmed the old inhabitants; in short he attempted every measure possible to obliterate even the traces of the Anglo-Saxon constitution; though at his coronation, he took the same oath that had been taken by the ancient Saxon kings." Great advancement however in the art of building it seems, soon followed this event. Dr. Henry, in his "History of the Necessary Arts in Britain, from 1066 to 1216," says:

"Architecture, in all its branches, received as great improvements in this period as agriculture. The truth is, that the twelfth century may very properly be called the age of architecture, in which the rage for building was more violent in England than at any other time.

"The great and general improvements that were made in the fabrics of houses and churches in the first years of this century, are thus described by a contemporary writer: The new cathedrals and innumerable churches that were built in all parts, together with the many magnificent cloisters and monasteries, and other apartments of monks, that were then erected, afford a sufficient proof of the great felicity of England in the reign of Henry I.'"

Henry I. was the third son of William, and ascended the throne in 1100; only thirty-four years after the Conquest. To enable him to carry on such extensive works in architecture, required that his subjects should have been previously instructed by his predecessors. Under the patronage, therefore, of King William, there is the strongest reason to believe, the masonic society was fostered and protected. And although the principal purpose of the leading members of the institution was the preservation of their religious rites, yet attention was required to be given by them to the ostensible object of the establishment. Through this means, there is no reason to doubt that architecture was improved to a greater extent in England, at this time, than it would have been but for this adventitious circumstance.

The mere craftsman, however, knew nothing of the secret views of his superiors. The symbols made use of in the lodge were unintelligible to him. But he was pleased with the tinsel show of the representations; and when he was found sufficiently intelligent, and was thought worthy to be trusted, he was raised to the sublime degree of Holy Royal Arch, and gained the honorary appellation of companion. Here, if duly attentive to the symbols and ceremonies, he might make some progress towards discovering the hidden scheme upon which freemasonry was founded.

Lawrie observes, "The principles of the order were even imported into Scotland, where they continued for many ages in their primitive simplicity, long after they had been extinguished in the continental kingdoms. What those causes were which continued the societies of freemasons longer in Britain that in other countries, it may not perhaps be easy to determine; but as the fact itself is unquestionably true, it must have arisen either from 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 sus picions of their enemies, and the superior prudence with which they maintained the primitive simplicity and respectability of the order. In this manner did freemasonry flourish in Britain when it was completely abolished in every other part of the world."

"That freemasonry was introduced into Scotland by those architects who built the abbey of Kilwinning, is manifest, not only from those authentic documents by 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.

A.D. 1140. Vid. Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. xi. Parish of Kilwinning; Or, Edinburgh Magazine for April, 1802, p. 234.

"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 establishments; and there was no kingdom in Europe where the zeal of the inhabitants for popery was more ardent, where the kings and the nobles were more liberal to the clergy, and where, of consequence, the church was more richly endowed, than in Scotland. The demand, therefore, for elegant cathedrals and ingenious artists, must have been proportionately greater than in other countries, and that demand could be supplied only from the trading association on the continent. We are authorised, therefore, to conclude, that those numerous and elegant ruins which still adorn the villages of Scotland, were erected by foreign masons, who introduced into this island the customs of their order.

"It is a curious fact, that in one of those towns where there is an elegant abbey, which was built in the twelfth century, the author of this history has often heard that it was erected by a company of industrious men who spoke in a foreign language, and lived separately from the townspeople. And stories are still told about their petty quarrels with the inhabitants.

"It was probably about this time, also, that freemasonry was introduced into England; but whether the English received it from the Scotch masons at Kilwinning, or from other brethren who had arrived from the continent, there is no method of determining. The fraternity in England however, maintain that St. Alban was the first that brought masonry to Britain, about the end of the third century; that the brethren received a charter from King Athelstane, and that his brother Edwin summoned all the lodges to meet at York, which formed the first grand lodge of England, in 926. But these are merely assertions, not only incapable of proof from authentic history, but inconsistent also with several historical events which rest upon indubitable evidence. (See Dr. Plot's Nat. Hist. of Staffordshire, chap. viii., pp. 316-318.) 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 freemasonry in England. It brings no additional evidence in support of the improbable stories about St. Alban, Athelstane, and Edwin. If the antiquity of freemasonry 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 debar thinking men from believing what is true."

Mr. Lawrie has made it appear very probable that the churches erected

The church possessed about one-half of the property in the kingdom. Robertson's "Hist. of Scotland.

in Scotland in the twelfth century, were built by foreign masons. Indeed, the want of skill in the natives is a sufficient evidence of the fact. But this is no proof that they belonged to the freemason society. And the dissolution of the trading associations on the continent, of which he speaks, as soon as the rage for church building had ceased, while freemasonry held its ground in England, is conclusive that there was no connection between them.

But even admitting that the foreign masons who built the abbey of Kilwinning were freemasons, the presumption would be, that they had been initiated in England; and there is no evidence that the secrets of the society were communicated to the Scotch. They could be of no possible advantage to operative masons, and the people of Scotland appear to have been thoroughly imbued with popery to embrace them in a religious point of view. Besides, if these foreigners were freemasons, and had admitted into their society a portion of the inhabitants of the places where they were employed, it is not probable that the petty quarrels mentioned by Lawrie would have occurred.

The case was different in England, where Druidism had been revived by the Danish emigrants, after its conquest by that nation.

Upon the whole, there is no conclusive evidence that freemasonry was established in Scotland till after its reorganisation in England, in 1717. The mason associations in that country before this period, appear to be no other than common trade companies, such as those incorporated in London.

They had a chief or grand master, with deputies in the different counties, all appointed by the king, though sometimes by consent of the craft. The master was styled the patron, protector, judge, or master of the masons of Scotland; and the craft styled themselves "free of the masons and hammermen." Lawrie cites the following:

"In the Privy Seal-book of Scotland there is a letter dated at Holyrood-house, 25th Sept., 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 warden and justice courts within the boundis, and there to minister justice."" Lawrie also observes, that "in the year 1645, a particular jurisdiction for masons 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 cousellors were appointed for pleading the causes which were referred to their decision. This institution has such a striking resemblance to the warden courts which existed in Scotland in the sixteenth century, 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."

There is nothing of freemasonry in all this; there is nothing of Druidism, the very spirit and soul of the order, to be seen in it. There inevery reason to believe that freemasonry was first established in Eng

land, and that there it remained till the famous meeting of the brotherhood, at the Apple Tree tavern, in 1717, when it took to wing, and visited all parts of the civilized world.

In fact, there was no cause for its institution in any other country than England, where the edict of Canute had compelled the Druids to relinquish their religion altogether, or practise its rites and ceremonies covertly.

"As the Druids (says Hutchinson) were a sect of religious peculiar to Gaul and Britain, it may not be improper to cast our eyes on the ceremonies they used: their antiquity and peculiar station render it probable some of their rites and institutions might be retained in forming the ceremonies of our society. In so modern an era as 1140, they were reduced to a regular body of religious in France, and built a college in the city of Orleans. They were heretofore one of the two estates of France, to whom were committed the care of providing sacri. fices, of prescribing the laws for worship, and deciding controversies concerning rights and properties,” etc.—(Spirit of Mas. p. 37.)

As, therefore, it does not appear that Druidism at any time was under a positive legal restraint except in England, it may be reasonably inferred that its offspring, freemasonry, existed nowhere else till the period above stated.

"All the brethren on the continent agree in saying that freemasonry was imported from Great Britain, about the beginning of this [the eighteenth century, and in the form of a mystical society."—(Robison's Proofs, p. 393.)

Robison, in speaking of freemasonry in Germany, observes, “ Though no man could pretend that he understood the true meaning of freemasonry, its origin, its history, or its real aim, all saw that the interpretations of its hieroglyphics, and the rituals of the new degrees imported from France, were quite gratuitous. It appears, therefore, that the safest thing for them was an appeal to the birth-place of masonry. They sent to London for instructions. There theyl earned that nothing was acknowledged for genuine, unsophisticated masonry but the three degrees; and that the mother lodge of London alone could, by her instructions, prevent the most dangerous schisms and innovations. Many lodges, therefore, applied for patents and instructions. Patents were easily made out, and most willingly sent to the zealous brethren; and these were thankfully received and paid for. But instruction was not so easy

a matter.

"They afterwards sent a deputation to Old Aberdeen, Scotland, to inquire after the caves where their venerable mysteries were known, and where their treasures were hid. They had, they thought, merited some confidence, for they had remitted annual contributions to their unknown superiors to the amount of some thousands of dollars. But, alas! their ambassadors found the freemasons of Old Aberdeen ignorant of all this, and equally eager to learn from the ambassadors what was the true origin and meaning of freemasonry, of which they knew nothing but the simple tale of old Hiram."