ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FREEMASONRY AND ITS KINDRED SCIENCES
by ALBERT C. MACKEY M. D.

A

APIS

The sacred bull, held in high reverence by the Egyptians as possessing Divine powers, especially the gift of prophecy. As it was deemed essential the animal should be peculiarly marked by nature, much difficulty was experienced in procuring it. The bull was required to be black, with a white triangle on its forehead, a white crescent on its side, and a knotted growth, like a scarabaeus or sacred beetle, under the tongue. Such an animal being found, it was fed for four months in a building facing the East. At new moon it was embarked on a special vessel, prepared with exquisite care, and with solemn ceremony conveyed to Heliopolis, where for forty days it was fed by priests and women. In its sanctified condition it was taken to Memphis and housed in a temple with two chapels and a court wherein to exercise. The omen was good or evil in accordance with which chapel it entered from the court. At the age of twenty-five years it was led to its death, amid great mourning and lamentations. The bull or apis was an important religious factor in the Isian worship, and was continued as a creature of reverence during the Roman domination of Egypt.

APOCALYPSE, FREEMASONRY OF THE

The Greek word apocalypsis means a revelation and thus is frequently applied to the last book of the New Testament. The adoption of Saint John the Evangelist as one of the patrons of our Lodges, has given rise, among the writers on Freemasonry, to a variety of theories as to the original cause of his being thus , connected with the Institution. Several traditions have been handed down from remote periods, which claim him as a brother, among which the Masonic student will be familiar with that which represents him as having assumed the government of the Craft, as Grand Master, after the demise of John the Baptist.

We confess that we are not willing to place implicit confidence in the correctness of this legend, and we candidly subscribe to the prudence of Dalcho’s remark, that ”it is unwise to assert more than we can prove, and to argue against probability.”

There must have been, however, in some way, a connection more or less direct between the Evangelist and the institution of Freemasonry, or he would not from the earliest times have been so universally claimed as one of its patrons. If it was simply a Christian feeling-a religious veneration-which gave rise to this general homage, we see no reason why Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, or Saint Luke might not as readily and appropriately have been selected as one , of the lines parallel.

But the fact is that there is something, both in the life and in the writings of Saint John the Evangelist, which closely connects him with our mystic Institution. He may not have been a Freemason in the sense in which we now use the term.

But it will be sufficient, if it can be shown that he was familiar with other mystical institutions, which are themselves generally admitted to have been more or less intimately connected with Freemasonry by deriving their existence from a common origin.

Such a society was the Essenian Fraternity-a mystical association of speculative philosophers among the Jews, whose organization very closely resembled that of the Freemasons, and who are even supposed by some to have derived their tenets and their discipline from the builders of the Temple. As Oliver observes, their institution “may be termed Freemasonry, retaining the same form but practised under another name.” Now there is little doubt that Saint John the Evangelist was an Essene. Calmet positively asserts it; and the writings and life of Saint John seem to furnish sufficient internal evidence that he was originally of that brotherhood. Brother Dudley Wright has taken the position that Jesus was also an Essene and that the baptism of Jesus by John marked the formal admission of the former into the Essenic community at the end of a novitiate or, as it may be termed, an apprenticeship (see page 25, Was Jesus an Essene ? ). Brother Wright says further (page 29) that when Jesus pronounced John the Baptist to be Elijah there was evidently intended to be conveyed the information that he had already attained to that acquisition of spirit and degree of power which the Essenes strove to secure in their highest state of purity.

But it seemed to Doctor Mackey that Saint John the Evangelist was more particularly selected as a patron of Freemasonry in consequence of the mysterious and emblematic nature of the Apocalypse, which evidently assimilated the mode of teaching adopted by the Evangelist to that practised by the Fraternity. If anyone who has investigated the ceremonies performed in the Ancient Mysteries, the Spurious Freemasonry, as it has been called, of the Pagans, will compare them with the mystical machinery used in the Book of Revelations, he will find himself irresistibly led to the conclusion that Saint John the Evangelist was intimately acquainted with the whole process of initiation into these mystic associations, and that he has selected its imagery for the ground-work of his prophetic book.

George S. Faber, in his 0rigin of Pagan idolatry (volume ii, book vi, chapter 6), has, with great ability and deamess, shown that Saint John in the Apocalypse applies the ritual of the ancient initiations to a spiritual and prophetic purpose.

“The whole machinery of the Apocalypse,” says Faber, “from beginning to end, seems to me very plainly to have been borrowed from the machinery of the Ancient Mysteries; and this, if we consider the nature of the subject, was done with the very strictest attention to poetical decorum. “Saint John himself is made to personate an aspirant about to be initiated; and, accordingly, the images presented to his mind’s eye closely resemble the pageants of the Mysteries both in nature and in order of succession.

“The prophet first beholds a door opened in the magnificent temple of heaven; and into this he is invited to enter by the voice of one who plays the hierophant.

Here he Witnesses the unsealing of a sacred book, and forthwith he is appalled by a troop of ghastly apparitions, which flit in horrid succession before his eyes.

Among these are pre-eminently conspicuous a vast serpent, the well-known symbol of the great father; and two portentous wild beasts, which severally come up out of the sea and out of the earth.
Such hideous figures correspond with the canine phantoms of the Orgies, which seem to rise out of the ground, and With the polymorphic images of the hero god who was universally deemed the offspring of the sea.

“Passing these terafic monsters in safety, the prophet, constantly attended by his angel hierophant, who acts the part of an interpreter, is conducted into the presence of a female, who is described as closely resembling the great mother of pagan theology. Like Isis emerging from the sea and exhibiting herself to the aspirant Apuleius, this female divinity, up born upon the marine wild beast, appears to float upon the surface of many waters. She is said to be an open and systematical harlot, just as the great mother was the declared female principle of fecundity; and as she was always propitiated by literal fornication reduced to a religious system, and as the initiated were made to drink a prepared liquor out of a sacred goblet, so this harlot is represented as intoxicating the kings of the earth with the golden cup of her prostitution. On her forehead the very name of MYSTERY is inscribed; and the label teaches us that, in point, of character, she is the great universal mother of idolatry.

“The nature of this mystery the officiating hierophant undertakes to explain; and an important prophecy is most curiously and artfully veiled under the very language and imagery of the Orgies. To the sea-born great father was ascribed a threefold state—he lived, he died, and he revived; and these changes of condition were duly exhibited in the Mysteries. To the sea-born wild beast is similarly ascribed a threefold state—he lives, he dies, he revives.

While dead, he lies floating on the mighty ocean, just like Horus or Osiris, or Siva or Vishnu. When he revives again, like those kindred deities, he emerges from the waves; and, whether dead or alive, he bears seven heads and ten horns, corresponding in number with the seven ark-preserved Rishis and the ten aboriginal patriarchs. Nor is this all : as the worshipers of the great father bore his special mark or stigma, and were distinguished by his name, so the worshipers of the maritime beast equally bear his mark and are equally decorated by his appellation.

”At length, however, the first or doleful part of these Sacred Mysteries draws to a close, and the last or joyful part is rapidly approaching.

After the prophet has beheld the enemies of God plunged into a dreadful lake or inundation of liquid fire, which corresponds with the infernal lake or deluge of the Orgies, he is introduced into a splendidly-illuminated region, expressly adorned with the characteristics of that Paradise which was the ultimate scope of the ancient aspirants ; while without the holy gate of admission are the whole multitude of the profane, dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. “

Such was the imagery of the Apocalypse. The dose resemblance to the machinery of the Mysteries, and the intimate connection between their system and that of Freemasonry, very naturally induced our ancient brethren to daim the patronage of an apostle so pre-eminently mystical in his writings, and whose last and crowning work bore so much of the appearance, in an outward form, of a ritual of initiation.

APOCALYPSE, ORDER OF THE

An Order instituted about the end of the seventeenth century, by one Gabrino, who called himself the Prince of the Septenary Number or Monarch of the Holy Trinity.

He enrolled a great number of artisans in his ranks who went about their ordinary- occupations with swords at their sides. According to Thory, some of the provincial Lodges of France made a degree out of Gabrino’s system. The arms of the Order were a naked sword and a blazing star (see the Acta Latomorum, 1, 294). Reghellini, in Freemasonry considered as a result of the Egyptian, Jewish, and Christian Religions, or La Maçonnerie considérée comme le résultat des religions égyptienne, juive et chrêtienne (iii, 72), thinks that this Order was the precursor of the degrees afterward introduced by the Freemasons who practised the Templar system.

APOCALYPTIC DEGREES
APOKALYPTISCHE GRADE

Those degrees which are founded on the Revelation of Saint John, or whose symbols and machinery of initiation are derived from that work, are called Apocalyptic Degrees.

Of this nature are several of the advanced degrees: such, for instance, as the Seventeenth, or Knight of the East and West of the Scottish Rite.

APORRHETA

Greek, . The holy things in the Ancient Mysteries which were known only to the initiates, and were not to be disclosed to the profane, were called the aporrheta.

What are the aporrheta of Freemasonry? What are the arcana of which there can be no disclosure? These are questions that for years past have given rise to much discussion among the disciples of the Institution. If the sphere and number of these aporrheta be very considerably extended, it is evident that much valuable investigation by public discussion of the science of Freemasonry will be prohibited. On the other hand, if the aporrheta are restricted to only a few points, much of the beauty, the permanency, and the efficacy of Freemasonry which are dependent on its organization as a secret and mystical association will be lost.

We move between Scylia and Charybdis, between ‘ the rock and the whirlpool, and it is difficult for a Masonic writer to know how to steer so as, in avoiding too frank an exposition of the principies of the Order, not to fall by too much reticence, into obscurity. The European Freemasons are far more liberal in their views of the obligation of secrecy than the English or the American. There are few things, indeed, which a French or German Masonic writer will refuse to discuss with the utmost frankness. It is now beginning to be very generally admitted, and English and American writers are acting on the admission, that the only real aporrheta of Freemasonry are the modes of recognition, and the peculiar and distinctive ceremonies of the Order; and to these last it is claimed that reference may be publicly made for the purpose of scientific investigation, provided that the reference be so made as to be obscure to the profane, and intelligible only to the initiated.

APPEAL, RIGHT OF

The right of appeal is an inherent right belonging to every Freemason, and the Grand Lodge is the appellate body to whom the appeal is to be made.

Appeals are of two kinds: first, from the decision of the Master; second, from the decision of the Lodge.

Each of these will require a distinct consideration.

1. Appeals from the Decision of the Master. It is now a settled. doctrine in Masonic law that there can be no appeal from the decision of a Master of a Lodge to the Lodge itself. But an appeal always lies from such decision to the Grand Lodge, which is bound to entertain the appeal and to inquire into the correctness of the decision.

Some writers have endeavored to restrain the despotic authority of the Master to decisions in matters atrictly relating to the work of the Lodge, while they contend that on all questions of business an appeal may be taken from his decision to the Lodge.

But it would be unsafe, and often impracticable, to , draw this distinction, and accordingly the highest Masonic authorities have rejected the theory, and denied the power in a Lodge to entertain an appeal from any decision of the presiding officer.

The wisdom of this law must be apparent to anyone who examines the nature of the organization of the Masonic Institution. The Master is responsible to the Grand Lodge for the good conduct of his Lodge. To him and to him alone the supreme Masonic authority looks for the preservation of order, and the observance of the Constitutions and the Landmarks of the Order in the body over which he presides. It is manifest, then, that it would be highly unjust to throw around a presiding officer so heavy a responsibility, if it were in the power of the Lodge to overrule his decisions or to control his authority.

2. Appeals from the Decisions of the Lodge. Appeals may be made to the Grand Lodge from the decisions of a Lodge, on any subject except the admission of members, or the election of candidates; but these appeals are more frequently made in reference to conviction and punishment after trial.

When a Freemason, in consequence of charges preferred against him, has been tried, convicted, and sentenced by his Lodge, he has an inalienable right to appeal to the Grand Lodge from such conviction and sentence.

His appeal may be either general or specific. That is, he may appeal on the ground, generally, that the whole of the proceedings have been irregular or illegal, or he may appeal specifically against some particular portion of the trial ; or lastly, admitting the correctness of the verdict, and acknowledging the truth of the charges, he may appeal from the sentence, as being too severe or disproportionate to the offense.

APPENDANT ORDERS

In the Templar system of the United States, the degrees of Knight of the Red , Cross and Knight of Malta are called Appendant Orders because they are conferred as appendages to that of the Order of the Temple, or Knight Templar, which is the principal degree of the Commandery.

APPLE-TREE TAVERN

The place where the four Lodges of London met in 1717, and organized the Grand Lodge of England. This tavern was situated in Charles Street, Covent Garden.

APPRENTI

French for Apprentice

APPRENTI ET COMPAGNON DE SAINT

APPRENTICE

See Apprentice, Entered

APPRENTICE ARCHITECT

The French expression is Apprenti Architecte. A degree in the collection of Fustier.

APPRENTICE ARCHITECT, PERFECT

The French being Apprenti Architecte, Parfait. A degree in the collection of Le Page.

APPRENTICE ARCHITECT, PRUSSIAN

The French being Apprenti Architecte, Prussien. A degree in the collection of Le Page.

APPRENTICE, CABALISTIC

The French is .Apprenti Cabalistique. A degree in the collection of the Archives of the Mother Lodge of the Philosophic Rite.

APPRENTICE COHEN

The French being Apprenti Coën. A degree in the collection of the Archives of the Mother Lodge of the Philosophic Rite.

ANCIENT GRAND LODGE, NOTES ON

The miscellany of data below is given to supplement the general survey of the Ancient Grand Lodge of England, of 1751, on page 75. These data have as much interest for American Masons as for English because the history of the Ancient Grand Lodge has a large place in general Masonic history; and because the more active half of Freemasonry in the United States at the end of the Revolution was of Ancient origin, directly or indirectly, or had been largely shaped by Ancient usages. (The data also are in support of the article on ANCIENT AND MODERNS which immediately follows. They are not arranged in chronological or logical order.) Laurence Dermott was born in Ireland in 1720 ; was Initiated in 1740 ; was Master of No. 26 in Dublin, 1746, and received the Royal Arch at same time. Shortly afterwards he moved to London, was registered technically as a “house painter” but would now be called an interior decorator. In a number of sources he is also described as a wine merchant. He joined a (Modem) Lodge in London, 1748; soon afterwards joined an Ancient Lodge. He became Secretary of the Ancient Grand Committee in 1752, later was Grand Secretary, served twice as Deputy Grand Master (in reality, was acting Grand Master). He was both architect and leader of the new Grand Lodge system.
He died in 1791, at the age of seventy-one—a vigorous, aggressive, versatile, many-sided man of great native talent, who taught himself Latin and Hebrew, could both sing and compose songs, gave numberless speeches, and in its formative years was the driving force of the Grand Lodge to which he devoted forty of his years.

The Ancient (or Ancients) began as a Grand Committee, and became a Grand Lodge one step at a time.

It drew its membership from four sources :

1. Masons, most of them of Irish membership, who were repelled by the exclusiveness and snobbishness of the Lodges Under the Grand Lodge of 1717;
2. received into membership a number of self-constituted Lodges (called St. John’s Lodges) which had not sought a Charter from the first Grand Lodge;
3. Lodges which held a Charter from the first Grand Lodge but resented its innovations and its methods of administration, withdrew, and affiliated with the Ancient;
4. from members initiated in London chartered by itself.

The Ancient adopted that name to signify that they continued the ancient customs ; the Moderns had “modernizing” the Work by altering Modes of Recognition, by dropping ceremonies, by becoming snobbish and exclusive – -a violation of an Ancient Landmark.

If these two names originated as epithets of abuse (there is no evidence that they did) they came into general usage and were employed everywhere Without invidiousness. The Ancient made much of the name “York”; they had no connection with the Grand Lodge of All England at York, but adopted the term to suggest, according to the Old Charges, that Freemasonry as a Fraternity had begun at York-it was a device for claiming to adhere to ancient customs.

Ancient Lodges were popular in the American Colonies from the beginning because they were more democratic than Modem Lodges. Ancient Provincial Grand Lodges were set up (to work for a longer or a shorter time) in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York (it received in 1781 an Ancient Grand Lodge Charter), Virginia, and South Carolina.

There was from the first a close tie with the Grand Lodge of Ireland. For years Ireland did not recognize the Modern Grand Lodge. the Seals of Ireland and the Ancient were at one time almost identical; Warrants were similar. The Ancient adopted the Irish system of registering members (returns). Both issued certificates, sometimes in English, sometimes in Latin. Each of them had a peculiar interest in Hebrew; it is difficult to understand why unless it was in connection with the Royal Arch which both used, though the Modern did not.

The Third Duke of Atholl (or Athole, or Athol) was Grand Master of the Ancient from 1771 to 1774 (in 1773 be was also Grand Master of Scotland). The Fourth Duke of Atholl was Grand Master from 1775 to 1781, and again from 1791 to 1812.

Ireland had issued Army Warrants (or Regimental, or Ambulatory) ; the Ancient not only permitted but actively promoted the plan ; by as early as 1789 they had issued 49 Army Warrants, a number of them for use in America.

An attempt was made in 1797 to effect a Union with the Modern Grand Lodge, but it failed. Until the Union in 1813 many Masons never were able to understand the differences between the two Grand Bodies. For periods, or in some areas, the rivalry became bitter; at other times and places the relations were amicable. Usually, a Mason passing from a Modern to an Ancient Lodge or from an Ancient to a Modern had to be “remade.” In a few instances a Lodge working under one Charter used the Work of the other; or it might surrender its Charter in one to seek a new Charter in the other (as Preston’s mother Lodge did). the differences were real and not factitious as the result of quarreling; on both sides Brethren knew that before a Union could be effected a number of questions involving the fundamentals of Freemasonry would have to be answered.

One of these concerned the Royal Arch. Was it a part of the Master Degree? Could the Master Degree be complete without it? Should it be a separate Degree? If so, should a Lodge confer three Degrees?

The Union in 1813 gave two answers : the Royal Arch belonged to Ancient Craft Masonry; but it should be in a separate body (or ch apter). In 1817 the Ancient and Modern Grand Chapters were amalgamated.

The earlier Masonic historians dated the first appearance of a rift as early as 1735. Modern Lodges complained to the Grand Lodges about “irregular makings” in1739. It was discussed in that Grand Lodge again in 1740. In 1747 the Modern Grand Lodge made the mistake of electing “the wicked Lord Byron” to the Grand East, and kept him there for five years though he put in an appearance so seldom that a large number of Masons demanded a new Grand Master-this wide gap between the Grand Lodge and members was a fatal weakness in the Modern Grand Lodge system. A large number of “irregular” Lodges were formed, and between 1742 and 1752 forty-five Lodges were erased from the rolls.

The Modern Grand Lodge officially condemned the Ancient in 1755, though the Modern Grand Lodge did not have exclusive territorial jurisdiction in England, and had never claimed it, so that the Ancient were not invading jurisdiction and were not therefore “schismatics.”
The Ancient elected Robert Turner their first Grand Master in 1753, with some 12 or so Lodges. In 1756 the Earl of Blesinton was Grand Master and remained so for four years, though Dermott was really in charge; 24 new Lodges were added to the roll. From 1760 to 1766, under the Earl of Kelly, 64 more were added. John, Third Duke of Atholl was installed Grand Master in 1771; by that year the roll increased to 197 Lodges. the Fourth Duke was installed in 1775. In 1799 he and the Earl of Moira, Grand Master of the Moderns, united to secure exemption of Masonry from Parliament’s Secrecy Society Act of 1799. the Atholl family was active at the forefront of the Craft from 1771 to 1812.

In 1756 the Ancient published their Book of Constitutions, with Dermott himself taking the financial risk; taking that risk was another evidence of his great patriotism for the Fraternity because the publishing of a book was an expensive enterprise and Dermott’s only “market” consisted of possibly thirty Lodges. Why he chose Ahiman Rezon for a title is a puzzle; it is also impossible to make sure of a translation because though the words are Hebrew he printed them in Roman letters. It probably meant “Worthy Brother Secretary,” and implied that the book was a record, one to go by, etc. It was based primarily upon the Book of Constitutions of Ireland, and since the latter was originally a re-writing of the Modern’s Book of 1723 the Ahiman Rezon did not differ materially from the latter, except that on pages here and there it had sentences filled with Dermott’s own pungent flavor. But this was not an aping of the Modems ; Dermott was not, as one writer charges, “a plagiarist.” Scotland and Ireland both had adopted the 1723 Book as their model.

The Moderns themselves bad not presented their own Book as a new literary composition, but as a printed version of the Old Charges; therefore Masons thought of any one of the Constitutions as belonging to the Craft at large rather than to any one Grand Lodge. Acting steps toward a Union began in 1801, though an abortive one was attempted in the Ancient Grand Lodge in 1797. The Earl of Moira warranted the Lodge of Promulgation in 1809, expressly to prepare for union. At the Union in 1813 each Grand Lodge appointed a Committee of nine expert Master Masons; they formed themselves into the Lodge of Promulgation, which toiled to produce a Uniform Work from 1813 to 1816.

At the ceremony of Union in 1813, 641 Modern Lodges and 359 Ancient Lodges were represented; both Grand Masters, the brother the Dukes of Kent and Sussex, sat together in the Grand East. The work of the Lodge of Reconciliation met with some opposition-here and there from Masons who believed that England would be better off with two Grand Lodges. The Lodge of Promulgation met with little opposition but it encountered so many difficulties that it did not succeed in establishing a single uniform Ritual. The “sacred drawing of lots” about which Virgil wrote a purple passage in the Aeneid, and which belonged to the sacred liturgy of the Romans, was, romantically enough, made use of at the Union. Each Grand Lodge had a list of numbered Lodges beginning with 1 (though in the Ancient this was a Grand Masters Lodge); which set of numbers should have priority? It was decided by lot, the Ancient drawing Lodge No. 1, No. 3, No. 5, and so on to win it; in this manner the Modern Lodge of Antiquity No, 1 became No. 2 in the new United Grand Lodge.

By an almost incredible chance the Lodges on the lists of the Grand Lodges added together to the sum of exactly 1000; 641 on the Modern list, 359 on the Ancient. In instances where a Modern and an Ancient Lodge were near neighbors, or where one was very weak, and the other strong, many Lodges were afterwards consolidated and others were removed from the roll. Altogether the new combined list numbered 647, which means a decrease by 353 Lodges.

The work of preparing a new Code of Regulations was entrusted to a Board of General Purposes (it is still functioning) organized at a special Grand Lodge in 1815. The next step was to ask approval of the new Esoteric Work by the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland. To this end an International Commission was formed June 27, 1814, and deliberated until July 2; “the Three Grand Lodges were perfectly in unison in all the great and essential points of the Mystery and Craft, according to the immemorial traditions and uninterrupted usage of Ancient Masons.” The three Bodies adopted eight resolutions which constitute The International Compact. (The approval of other English-Speaking Grand Lodges was taken as read. )

This Union was for the Ancient a far cry from 1751.

The earliest existing record of their Grand Committee is dated July 17, 1751; on that day seven Lodges “were authorized to grant dispensations and Warrants and to act as Grand Master,” an odd arrangement and now difficult to understand. In the same year the Committee issued its first Warrant, one for a Lodge to meet at the Temple and Sun Tavern. This procedure of having Lodges issue or approve Warrants was at the opposite extreme from the Moderns, where the Grand Master himself issued Warrants-a fact very suggestive, for it hints at one of the reasons for establishing a new Masonic system. In 1752 five more were issued. the first Lodge was given No. 2 ; perhaps the Committee itself counted as No. 1.

In 1751 John Morgan was elected Secretary but failed; Laurence Dermott succeeded him in the next year, and held membership in Lodges No. 9 and 10. “In the earliest years of the Grand Lodge of Ancient we look in vain for the name of any officer or member distinguished for social rank or literary reputation. We do not find such scholars as Anderson or Payne or Desaguliers.” In the course of time Dermott discovered that a society without a Patron of high rank was in a vulnerable position in the then state of English society.

He secured recognition from Ireland and Scotland.

He further strengthened his position by proclaiming the Royal Arch as “the root, heart, and marrow of Masonry.” To meet this last, the Moderns bad a Royal Arch Chapter in 1765, and in 1767 converted this into a Grand Chapter. Hughan says this “was virtually, though not actually, countenanced by the Grand Lodge. It was purely a defensive organization to meet the wants of the regular brethren [by which Hughan means members of Modern Lodges!] and prevent their joining the Ancient for Exaltation.”

This was not a statesman-like procedure, nor a frank one and weakened the Modems’ position in many eyes. Dermott always accused the Modems of having mutilated the Third Degree and of making of it “a new composition” ;this sounds like a rash utterance, but it has to be remembered that for some years the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland both agreed with him. On the basis of the evidence as a whole it appears that it was the Moderns who had done the ,,seceding” from the Landmarks, and therefore more entitled to the epithet of “schismatic” which Gould and Hughan both so often applied to the Ancient; the course followed by American Lodges after the introduction of Ancient Masonry here bears out that supposition; and also substantiates the theory that the tap-root of the division was the introduction of class distinctions into Masonry by the Moderns; for in the American Colonies Modern Lodges tended to be aristocratic, royalists, Tory.

As noted some paragraphs above “irregular” or “disaffected” Lodges began to be referred to as early as 1735, and by 1739 the subject was brought to the attention of the Modern Grand Lodge. These, combined with the already-existent or independent (or St. John) Lodges, plus an increasing number of new self-constituted Lodges, plus some Lodges where old “Operative” traditions were strong, would make it appear that the Ancient Grand Lodge was an expression of discontent, that there were enough “rebels” and “malcontents” waiting about to produce a new Grand Lodge of themselves. But this, while it is a reading accepted by a number of historians, will not do. the Lodges that were independent were not craving a new Grand Lodge because they were independent; and as for disgruntlement in general, there was no aim or purpose or direction in it. To explain the origin of the new Grand Lodge of 1751 as a precipitation of discontent, a crystallization of mugwumpery, is to do an injustice to the men who established it. They were in no confusion ; were not resentful; were not mere seceders, and still less (infinitely less-as Hughan failed to note) were they heretics.

They believed it right and wise and needful to constitute a second Grand Lodge ; they proved themselves men of a high order of intelligence and ability in the Process; and the outcome proved that they had all along been better Masonic statesmen than the leaders of the Moderns. They are in memory entitled to be removed once and for ever from the dusty and clamorous charges of secession, disaffection, and what not a thing for which they were in no sense responsible—and lifted to the platform of esteem and good reputation where they belong, alongside Desaguliers, Payne, Anderson, and Preston.

The best and soundest data on the Ancient is in the Minutes and Histories of Lodges for the period 1750 to 1813, British, Canadian, and of the United States (or Colonies) ; the records in such books are piecemeal, to be picked out at random, are a mosaic that needs potting together, but the data in them comprise the substance of the history itself, and to read them is to be contemporaneous with the events; at the very least they correct and give a picture of the Ancient Grand Lodge different from that painted by Gould, and perpetuated by his disciples. For general works see: History of Freemasonry, by Robert F. Gould, Revised History of Freemasonry, by A. G. Mackey. Atholl Lodges, by Gould. Masonic facts and Fictions, by Henry Sadler. Cementaria Hibernica, by Chetwode Crawley, Memorials of the Masonic Union, by W. J.Hughan. A History of Freemasonry, by Haywood and Craig. Grand Lodge of England, by A. F. Calvert. Freemasonry and Concordant Orders, by Hughan and Stillson. Early Canadian Masonry, by Pemberton Smith. The Builders, by J. F. Newton. Military Lodges, by R. F. Gould. Notes on Lau.’.Dermott, by W. M. Bywater. Illustrations of Masonry, by William Preston. Story of the Craft, by Lionel Vibert. Ars Quatuor Coronatorum. Early chapters in the histories of the Grand Lodges formed in each of the Thirteen Colonies.

Note. Dermott made two statements of revealing significance: “I have not the least antipathy against the gentlemen members of the Modern Society; but, on the contrary, love and respect them”; and expressed hope to “live to see a general conformity and universal unity between the worthy Masons of all denominations.” The latter was by Gould and his disciples made to sound as if Dermott referred to the Modern rand Lodge ; and Gould treats the whole subject of the Ancient on the basis that they had seceded from the Moderns, kept up a quarrel with the Moderns, and divided the field with them. But what did Dermott mean by “all denominations”? He would not have meant it to be “two.” There was a Grand Lodge of all Masons at York; a Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent; Ireland and Scotland did not recognize the Modern Grand Lodge; there were many independent St. Johns’ Lodges; there were a number of Lodges suspended from the Modern lists yet still active.

It is absurd to suppose that Dermott and the Ancient Grand Lodge were in no better business than to heckle and oppose the Moderns-which in fact and on the record he did not do; he had the whole Masonic state of affairs in mind ; and even when he expressed a desire for friendly relations with the Modern Grand Lodge it does not follow that he desired amalgamation with it; more likely he desired to be able to work in harmony with it, and to see the four British Grand Lodges in harmony with each other.

Gould used the whole force of his great History and the weight of his own reputation to support his charge–more than a century after the event!-that the Ancient Grand Lodge was a “schismatic” body composed of “seceders.”

In his ill-organized and harsh chapter he appears throughout to have forgotten that when the small Modern Grand Lodge of 1717 had been formed there were some hundreds of Lodges in Britain, and that a large proportion of them turned upon it with that same charge ; it was a new schism in the ancient Fraternity; it was composed of seceders from the Ancient Landmarks! The new, small, experimental Grand Body at London in 1717 was not formed by divine right, and possessed beforehand no sovereignty over Lodges anywhere. It was set up by only four (possibly five or six) out of some hundreds of Lodges. The four old Lodges acted solely for themselves. They had nothing more in view than a center for Lodges in London.

Any other four Lodges, or ten, or twenty, for a half century afterwards, had as much right as they to set up a Grand Lodge. They possessed no power of excommunication. By an action taken when the Duke of Wharton was Grand Master they even admitted that the Grand Lodge itself was but a union of independent Lodges; and that the four old Lodges still possessed complete sovereignty in their own affairs. The Grand Lodge at York was not questioned ; nor the ones in Ireland or Scotland ; nor were the self-constituted Lodges which had not joined the voluntary union. There was no justice, therefore, in condemning the Ancient’ Grand Committee of 1751 when it became a Grand Lodge as schismatic or as seceders. We who are two hundred years wise after the event can see how easily both Ancient and Moderns could have found a home under one Constitution, but before the new and untried Grand Lodge system had become established as essential to Freemasonry ( at approximately 1775) it was not easy to see the way ahead ; and for all anybody now knows it might have been better if not only two but four Grand Lodges had been formed in England, united in a system of comity similar to ours where 49 Grand Lodges live and act and agree as one.

Hughan began, writing his concise historical studies in the 1870’s Gould in the 1880’s ; after almost three-quarters of a century there could be little purpose in the ordinary course of events in continuing to criticize their theories of the Ancient Grand Lodge. But a book is not a man ;it can be as new and as alive a hundred years afterwards as on the day it was written ; it is so with both Hughan and Gould ; they are both being widely read by studious Masons and by Masonic writers, and read with respect, as is fitting, and read as having authority. They both accused the Ancient of having been “schismatics,” “secessionists,” and called them other bad names, thereby raising the question of the regularity, legitimacy, and standing of the whole Ancient movement and with it questioning by implication more than half of the Freemasonry in Canada and the United States. Had they only stopped to consider, they would have seen that their question had already been answered, once and for all, and by a court possessing final authority, at the Union of 1813.

The Modem Grand Lodge had been a near neighbor to the Ancient Grand Lodge; had watched it coming into being ; had followed it from day to day and year by year ; the Ancient Grand Lodge was never out of its sight and this continued for 62 years. Yet in the act of effecting the Union the Modem Grand Lodge fully and freely recognized the Ancient Grand Lodge as its co-equal as of that date; recognized its regularity and legality; before the Union was consummated the two Grand Masters sat side by side in the same Grand East. Had the Ancient Grand Lodge surrendered and submitted itself ; had it confessed mea culpa; had it sued for forgiveness; had it permitted itself to be healed and merged into the Modern Grand Lodge, its doing so would have proved it to have been “schismatic” and “secessionist.” One may submit, and without reflection upon Gould or Hughan or their followers in their theory, that the Modern Grand Lodge knew far more about the facts in 1813 than they did in 1888; and that the official verdict of the Modern Grand Lodge, just, carefully reasoned, fully documented, and given without minority dissent, ought to have disposed of any question about the Ancient Grand Lodge from that time on.

APRON

There is no one of the symbols of Speculative Freemasonry more important in its teachings, or more interesting in its history, than the lambskin, or white leathern apron. Commencing its lessons at an early period in the Freemason’s progress, it is impressed upon his memory as the first gift which he receives, the first symbol which is explained to him, and the first tangible evidence which he possesses of his admission into the Fraternity.

Whatever may be his future advancement in the “royal art,” into whatsoever deeper arcana his devotion to the mystic Institution or his thirst for knowledge may subsequently lead him, with the lambskin apron-his first investiture—he never parts. Changing, perhaps, its form and its decorations, and conveying, at each step, some new but still beautiful allusion, its substance is still there, and it continues to claim the honored title by which it was first made known to him, on the night of his initiation, as the badge of a Mason.

If in less important portions of our ritual there are abundant allusions to the manners and customs of the ancient world, it is not to be supposed that the Masonic Rite of investiture-the ceremony of clothing the newly initiated candidate with this distinctive badge of his profession-is Without its archetype in the times and practices long passed away. It would, indeed, be strange, while all else in Freemasonry is covered with the veil of antiquity, that the apron alone, its most significant symbol, should be indebted far its existence to the invention of a modern mind.

On the contrary, we shall find the most satisfactory evidence that the use of the apron, or some equivalent mode of investiture, as a mystic symbol, was common to all the nations of the earth from the earliest periods.

Among the Israelites the girdle formed a part of the investiture of the priesthood. In the mysteries of Mithras, in Persia, the candidate was invested with a white apron. In the initiations practiced in Hindostan, the ceremony of investiture was preserved, but a sash, called the sacred zennar, was substituted for the apron.

The Jewish sect of the Essences clothed their novices with a white robe. The celebrated traveler Kaempfer informs us that the Japanese, who practice certain rites of initiation, invest their candidates with a white apron, bound round the loins with a zone or girdle. In the Scandinavian Rites, the military genius of the people caused them to substitute a white shield, but its presentation was accompanied by an emblematic instruction not unlike that which is connected with the Freemason’s apron.

”The apron,” says Doctor Oliver (Signs anc Symbols of Freemasonry, lecture x, page 196), “appears to have been, in ancient times, an honorary badge of distinction. In the Jewish economy, none but the superior orders of the priesthood were permitted to adorn themselves with ornamented girdles, which were made of blue, purple, and crimson, decorated with gold upon a ground of fine white linen; while the inferior priests wore only plain white. The Indian, the Persian, the Jewish, the Ethiopian, and the Egyptian aprons, though equally superb, all bore a character distinct from each other. Some were plain white, others striped with blue, purple, and crimson; some were of wrought gold, others adorned and decorated with superb tassels and fringes.

“In a word, though the principal honor of the apron may consist in its reference to innocence of conduct, and purity of heart, yet it certainly appears, through all ages, to have been a most exalted badge of distinction. In primitive times it was rather an ecclesiastical than a civil decoration, although in some cases the apron was elevated to great superiority as a national trophy. The Royal Standard of Persia was originally an apron in form and dimensions. At this day it is connected with ecclesiastical honors; for the chief dignitaries of the Christian church, wherever a legitimate establishment, with the necessary degrees of rank and subordination is formed, are invested with aprons as a peculiar badge of distinction; which is a collateral proof of the fact that Freemasonry was originally incorporated with the various systems of divine worship used by every people in the ancient world. Freemasonry retains the symbol or shadow; at cannot have renounced the reality or substance.”

A curious commentary by Thomas Carlyle upon the apron is worth consideration and is found in his Sartor Resartus (chapter vi), and is as follows : “One of the most unsatisfactory sections in the whole volume is that upon aprons. What though stout old Gao, the Persian blacksmith, ‘whose apron now indeed hidden under jewels, because raised in revolt which proved successful, is still the royal standard of that country’; what though John Knox’s daughter, ‘who threatened Sovereign Majesty that she would catch her husband’s head in her apron, rather than he should be and be a bishop’; what though the Landgravine Elizabeth, with many other apron worthies-figure here? An idle, wire-drawing spirit, sometimes even a tone of levity, approaching to conventional satire, is too clearly dissemble. What, for example, are we to make of such sentences as the following:

“‘Aprons are defenses, against injury to cleanliness, to safety, to modesty, sometimes to roguery.

From the thin slip of notched silk (as it were, the emblem and beatified ghost of an apron), which some highest-bred housewife, sitting at Nurnberg Workboxes and Toy-boxes, has gracefully fastened on, to the thick-tanned hide, girt around him with thongs, wherein the Builder builds, and at evening sticks his trowel, or in these jingling sheet-iron aprons, wherein your otherwise half-naked Vulcans hammer and swelter in their smelt furnace—is there not range enough in the fashion and uses of this vestment’?

How much has been concealed, how much has been defended in Aprons! Nay, rightfully considered, what is your whole Military and Police establishment, charged at uncalculated millions, but a huge scarlet-colored, iron-fastened Apron, wherein Society works (uneasily enough), guarding itself from some soil and stithy-sparks in this Devil’s smithy of a world? But of all aprons the most puzzling to me hitherto has been the Episcopal or Cassock. Wherein consists the usefulness of this Apron?

The Overseer of Souls, I notice, has tucked in the corner of it, as if his day’s work were done. What does he shadow forth thereby?”

Brother John Barr read a paper on The Whys and Wherefores of the Masonic Apron before the Masters and Past Masters Lodge No. 130, Christ Church, New Zealand, from which (Transactions, May, 1925) we take the following information:

” What we know as Freemasonry today can fairly easily be traced, with but slight breaks, to what is known in history as the Comacini Gild, or what Leader Scott, in her very interesting work calls The Cathedral Builders. Their officers were similar to our own, that is, with respect to the most important; they had the signs, symbols and secrets used in the main by us today; and, what affects this article, they wore white aprons, not only while actively engaged as operatives, but when meeting together for instruction and improvement in their Lodges. When members of the Fraternity first landed in Britain is not known. We have evidence that ‘Benedict, the Abbot of Wearmouth, 676 A.D., crossed the ocean to Gaul and brought back stone-masons to make a church after the Roman fashion.’ It is also known that stone-masons, that is members of the Comacini Gild, were in Britain before that date, and it is assumed that Benedict had to go for more, as all in Britain were fully employed.

One could dwell on that part of our history at considerable length; but my object is not that of tracing the history of the old operative mason, whether Comacini or Gild Mason. I have merely touched on it for the reason that I believe it to be the stream or spring that is the source of the goodly river whose waters it should be our endeavor to keep dear and pure. It is to the ancient Operative Masons we go for the origin of the present apron.

” Our apron is derived from that of the Mason who was a master of his Craft, who was free-born and at liberty to go where he chose in the days when it was the rule that the toiler was either a bondsman or a gildsman, and, in each case, as a rule, confined to one locality.

He was one who had a true love for his art, who designed the structure and built it, and whose anxiety to build fair work and square work was greater than his anxiety to build the greatest number of feet per day. He was skilled in the speculative, or religious and educative side of the craft as well as the operative, and, in the absence of what we know as the three R’s, was yet highly educated, was able to find sermons in stone, and books in the running brooks.

He was one to whom the very ground plan of his building was according to the symbolism of his belief, and he was able to see, in the principal tools of his calling, lessons that enabled him to guide his footsteps in the paths of rectitude and science. If from his working tools he learned lessons that taught him to walk upright in the sight of God and man, why not from the apron that was always with him during his working hours, no matter how he changed tool for tool’ It was part of him, one may say, while he converted the rough stone into a thing of beauty, fit for its place in the structure designed by the Master, or fitted it to its place in the building.

According to Leader Scott, there is ‘In the Church of Saint Clemente, Rome, an ancient fresco of the eighth century.

Here we see a veritable Roman Magister, Master Mason, directing his men. He stands in Magisterial Toga, and surely one may descry a Masonic Apron beneath it, in the moving of a marble column.’ The apron referred to by Leader Scott, seems, judging by the photograph, to have a certain amount of ornamentation, but the ordinary aprons of the brethren while working were akin to that worn by Masons to this day, that is operative Masons. As I know from tools found during the demolishing of old buildings, the tools were the same as the principal ones used today by the operative.

From my knowledge of the Operative side of Masonry, I feel sure the apron was substantially the same also. Many Masons wear today at the banker, aprons not only similar in form to those worn by our ancient brethren, but symbolically the same as those worn by brethren around me.

Let us examine an Operative Mason’s Apron. The body shows four right angles, thus forming a square, symbolical of matter. The bib, as it is called in Operative Masonry, runs to the form of an equilateral triangle, symbolizing spirit. When used to moralize upon, the flap is dropped, thereby representing the descent of spirit into matter-the soul to the body.

In Operative Masonry the apex of the triangle was laced or buttoned to the vest, according to the period ; in due course this was altered,.and the apex of the triangle was cut away, while the strings, which were long enough to go around the body and finish at the front, were tied there. So that it is just possible, as one writer surmises, that the strings hanging down with frayed edges, may have their representation in the tassels of our Master Masons’ Aprons.

“While we have no proof, so far as I know, that is written proof, that our ancient operative brethren lid moralize on the Apron after the manner of the working tool, there is nothing to show that he did not. To me the weight of evidence is in favor of an educational value being attached to the Apron, or, to use our usual term, a symbolical value.

The more we study and the more we read, the more we become impressed with the idea that symbolism was the breath of life to the ancient Mason; he was cradled in it, brought up in it; he was hardly able to build a fortification without cutting symbols somewhere on it. He never erected a temple or church but what he make of it a book, so clear and plentiful were his symbols. In addition to the evidence one may glean from the writings of various investigators, one can see the tatters of what was once a solemn service in a custom in use amongst Operative Masons a generation back.

The custom was that of ‘The washing of the apron.’ This custom is referred to by Hugh Miller in his Schools and Schoolmasters. In the days referred to by Miller, the Apprentice was seldom allowed to try his hand on a stone, during his first year, as during that time he helped, if at the building, in carrying mortar and stone, and setting out the tools as they came from the blacksmith.

If in the quarry, he might in addition to doing odd jobs, be allowed to block out rubble or a piece of rough ashlar. If he shaped well and was to be allowed to proceed, the day came when he was told he could bring out his Apron. This was a big day for him, as now he was really to begin his life’s work, and you may be sure it was a white apron, for it was an unwritten law, even in my day, that you started your week’s work with your apron as white as it was possible to make it. The real ceremony had of course disappeared, and all that took its place were the tatters I referred to, which consisted principally of the providing of a reasonable amount of liquid refreshment with which the Masons cleared their throats of the stone dust. If a serious minded journeyman was present, certain advice was given the young Mason about the importance of the Craft, and the necessity for good workmanship and his future behavior. Unfortunately, there was a time when the washing of the apron was rather overdone, even in Speculative Masonry.

With regard to the above custom, I having referred to it in a paper read before the members of Lodge Sumner, No. 242, the worthy and esteemed Chaplain of the Lodge Brother Rev. W McAra, informed me that as a young man, close on sixty years ago, he attended with the grownup members of his family, who were builders in Scotland, the washing of the Apprentices’ Aprons; and according to the Rev. Brother, there was ‘a very nice little ceremony, although he could not mind the particulars,’ and he added, ‘Although I was a total abstainer in those days, they were not all that, for I can mind that the apron was well washed.’

” I am further of opinion that, had there not been great importance attached to the apron, it would have been set aside, at least among English Masons, shortly after the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, as a certain section who got into the order at that time took strong exception to the apron on the plea that ‘It made them look like mechanics.’ lt must be remembered it was full length at that time, and remained so for considerable period after the formation of the first Grand Lodge.

“The material also differed in early days, both in the purely operative and in the early speculative. It was not that it differed according to the country, as both linen and cotton and skin were used in different parts of the one country.

One who has studied the operative side and who, as I am, is himself an Operative Mason, can fully understand the reason for the different materials being used, although they have caused some little confusion amongst the purely speculative investigators. I feel convinced that, in purely operative times, among the Cathedral Builders and those who carried on the Craft working after them, both materials were used, as both materials were used by Masons outside the Craft Lodges at a later stage.

The cloth apron was used largely by the Mason who never left the banker, that is, by him who kept to the work of hewing or carving. I can hardly fancy a hewer polishing a column, a panel, or any piece of work and drying his hands on a leather apron.

They would be full of cracks the second day in cold weather, and in the early days there was a considerable amount of polished work. Take, for instance, the churches built by Wilfrid Bishop of York.

The one built at Hexham in A.D. 674–680 had ‘Round headed arches within the church supported by lofty columns of polished stone. The walls were covered with square stones of divers colors, and polished.’

”At ordinary unpolished work, all that was required was protection from dust. On the other hand, the skin apron was largely used by him who had to fix or build the stone. In those early days the builder had to do more heavy lifting than in later years, when derricks and cranes came into more common use.

What happened was just what may be experienced on a country job at a present day. If your wall were, say, three feet high, and a heavy bondstone is to be lifted, you may have to lift it and steady it on your knee and then place it on the wall, or the wall may be of such a height as necessitates your lifting the stone first on the knee, then on the breast, and from there to the wall. Cloth being a poor protection where such work had to be done frequently, skin was used. ” We must remember also that so far as the Cathedral Builders were concerned in Britain, as elsewhere, all building tradesmen were within the guild, carpenters and tylers; while the mason could never do without his blacksmith, and the aprons were doubtless of material suitable to their departments. Skin aprons were worn by operative masons well into the 19th century. R. W. Portgate, who refers to the matter in his Builder’s History, page 19, writes: ‘In 1824 nearly all the Glasgow Master Masons employed between 70 and 170 Journeymen Masons each. One of them, noted as very droulhy, is marked as being the last to wear a leather apron.’ “That is the last of the masters who had now become what we know as ‘the employer,’but, from reminiscences of old Masons I have listened to, it was used by setters and builders throughout Scotland up to a much later period.

” At the date of the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, the apron was white-no ornaments at first, and full size, similar in every respect to that of the Operative. In the first public account of a Masonic funeral, which appears in Read’s Weekly Journal for January 12th, 1723, it is set forth that, ‘Both the pallbearers and others were in their white aprons;’and in Hogarth’s picture of Night, the Tyler is shown conducting the newly installed Master to his home, both wearing the long Apron of the Operative and with what appears to be the flap bundled or rolled mughly among the top, with strings coming to the front and keeping the whole in place.

“The first attempt to create uniformity in the apron appears to have been in 1731, when a motion covering the whole question was submitted to the Grand Lodge of England by Dr. Desagulier. The motion was submitted on March 17, and was carried unanimously. As that, however, only referred to one section of the Freemasons, even in England, it lid not appear to effect much alteration. At that time many of the aprons varied in form, and some were very costly and elaborately decorated, according to the fancy of the owners. But all this was altered at the Union of Grand Lodges in 1813, and as Brother F. J. W. Crowe points out, ‘The clothing to be worn under the United Grand Lodge of England was clearly laid down according to present usage.'” In the Masonic apron two things are essential to the due preservation of its symbolic character-its color and its material.

1. As to its color. The color of a Freemason’s apron should be pure unspotted white. This color has, in all ages and countries, been esteemed an emblem of innocence and purity. It was with this reference that a portion of the vestments of the Jewish priesthood was directed to be white. In the Ancient Mysteries the candidate was always clothed in white. “The priests of the Romans,”says Festus, ”were accustomed to wear white garments when they sacrificed.” In the Scandinavian Rites it has been seen that the shield presented to the candidate was white. The Druids changed the color of the garment presented to their initiates with each degree; white, however, was the color appropriated to the last, or degree of perfection. And it was, according to their ritual, intended to teach the aspirant that none were admitted to that honor but such as were cleansed from all impurities both of body and mind.

In the early ages of the Christian church a white garment was always placed upon the catechumen who had been newly baptized, to denote that he had been cleansed from his former sins, and was thence-forth to lead a life of purity. Hence it was presented to him with this solemn charge: “Receive the white and undefiled garment, and produce it unspotted before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may obtain eternal life.”

From all these instances we learn that white apparel was anciently used as an emblem of purity, and for this reason the color has been preserved in the apron of the Freemason.

2. as to its material. A Freemason’s apron must be made of lambskin. No other substance, such as linen, silk, or satin, could be substituted without entirely destroying the emblematic character of the apron, for the material of the Freemason’s apron constitutes one of the most important symbols of his profession. The lamb has always been considered as an appropriate emblem of innocence. Hence we are taught, in the ritual of the First Degree, that, “by the lambskin, the Mason is reminded of that purity of life and rectitude of conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the Celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe forever presides.”

The true apron of a Freemason must, then, be of unspotted lambskin, from fourteen to sixteen inches wide, from twelve to fourteen deep, with a fall about three or four inches deep, square at the bottom, and without device or ornament of any kind. The usage of the Craft in the United States of America has, for a few years past, allowed a narrow edging of blue ribbon in the symbolic degrees, to denote the universal friendship which constitutes the bond of the society, and of which virtue blue is the Masonic emblem. But this undoubtedly is an innovation, in the opinion of Doctor Mackey, for the ancient apron was without any edging or ornament. The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has adopted a law that “The Apron of a Master Mason shall be a plain white lambskin, fourteen inches wide by twelve inches deep.

The Apron may be adorned with sky blue lining and edging, and three rosettes of the same color. No other color shall be allowed, and no other ornament shall be worn except by officers and past officers.

In the Royal Arch Degree the lambskin, of course, continues to be used, but, according to the same modern custom, there is an edging of red, to denote the zeal and fervency which should distinguish the possessors of that degree.

All extraneous ornaments and devices are in bad taste, and detract from the symbolic character of the investiture. But the silk or satin aprons, bespangled and painted and embroidered, which have been gradually creeping into our Lodges, have no sort of connection with Ancient Craft Freemasonry. They are an innovation of our French Brethren, who are never pleased with simplicity, and have, by their love of display in their various newly invented ceremonies, effaced many of the most beautiful and impressive symbols of our Institution. A Freemason who understands and appreciates the true symbolic meaning of his apron, would no more tolerate a painted or embroidered satin one than an artist would a gilded statue. By him, the lambskin, and the lambskin alone, would be considered as the badge “more ancient than the