2. Free Masons. The origin of this numerous sect or fraternity, as well as that of the Gypsies, is involved in great and impenetrable obscurity. It is in vain to look even to the most knowing of its own members for any information upon that subject, that may in the least be depended upon. Almost every thing they urge or allege about it is evidently and ridiculously false and fabulous. They tell us that the art and mystery of Masonry was first introduced at the building of the Tower of Babel, and from thence handed down by Euclid, who communicated it to Hiram, [1120b] the Master Mason concerned in the building of Solomon’s Temple; where was an excellent and curious Mason that was chief under the grand Master Hiram whose name was Mannon Grecus; who taught the art of Masonry to Carolus Marcel, in France, who was afterwards elected king of France; and from thence was brought to England in the reign of king Athelston, who ordered an assembly to be held once every year at York, which was the first introduction of it to England. [1121] At other times they say, that masons first appeared in England A.D. 43, when they built the monastery of Glastonbury. They might as well have introduced them at the building of Stonehenge, or at the commencement of Druidism, and erection of the druidical altars. But it probably slipt their memory. Others, indeed, though they seem not to have belonged to the craft, have actually supposed them to have sprung from the druids, who like them had a method of making themselves known to one another by certain secret signs; as is also said to have been the case with the Gnostics and some other ancient heretical sects. Others, however, carry the origin of the order still farther back, even beyond the Flood, and name Tubal-cain as one of the grandmasters of that period; in proof of which they refer to a certain document, which they call, an original Record.—Such wild and extravagant pretentions exhibit Free-Masonry in a very queer and unfavourable light: and they ought never to have been countenanced by any of the members who had any regard for their own characters.
Not only about their origin or extraction, but also in what relates to their subsequent history, are the Free-Masons chargeable with propagating the most idle fabrications. Thus they tell us a most strange tale about the grand master Hiram, called also Hiram Abiff; how three out of the 15 fellow crafts conspired to assassinate him, which they effected as he was coming out of the Sanctum Sanctorum, where he had been praying. This was at noon day. They hid the body, afterwards buried it, and then absconded. These ruffians, whose names were Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum, were afterwards discovered near Joppa, by three other fellow crafts, who had gone in pursuit of them. They were then brought before king Solomon, by whose orders they were all three executed. Hiram’s body, being by the king’s order dug out of the grave where the three masonic ruffians had buried it, was afterwards solemnly interred, forsooth, in the Sanctum Sanctorum.—The tale is pretty long in some of the masonic books; but this is the substance: and it is very disgraceful to the fabricators and the propagators of it, as it discovers a glaring propensity to the most sottish and profligate kind of lying.—Much might be here added to the same purpose; but this it is hoped will induce the members of this community at Lynn, to review and reject this and every other exceptionable part of their system.
As to the mode of admission, parade about the cardinal points of the compass, where the master and inferior functionaries are stationed, and their forms about tyling the lodge, setting the men to work, and calling them off to take refreshment, &c. &c. they may be all harmless enough, or at least, comparatively so: yet to the serious by-stander, or uninitiated, they can hardly fail of appearing in no small degree frivolous and childish.—Many indeed have deemed the whole system or institution of masonry a designed burlesque upon scripture and religion. But though there may be many circumstances that would seem to bear that way, yet such is the unquestionable respectability of many of its members that it is very certain such a design could never have met with their concurrence or countenance. The fact, that such characters do really belong to this community seems also to prove that there must be some good points pertaining to masonry, which recommend it to their approbation, and hide in a great measure, or at least appear to counterbalance the defects above mentioned. In particular, it is said, that those of this fraternity, not only are much given to conviviality and good fellowship, but also abound in acts of kindness and charity, especially among themselves, and towards their brethren in distress; and even that they are generally among the most active promoters of benevolent deeds, or good works in the places where they reside. If it be really so, it will account for that warm attachment to masonry which many well disposed and respectable persons have often manifested. In short, when we consider the fair and estimable characters of many of our masons, the order appears respectable: but, on the other hand, when we advert to the forged and absurd tales, and to those idle forms, customs, and ceremonies that are attached to the institution, we cannot help wondering how those worthy members can patiently or possibly endure them, or quietly continue in the connection. But they conceive, no doubt, that the good preponderates, or that the excellencies of masonry outweigh its defects, and satisfy their minds with that consideration. Be it so, it is not meant here to judge or blame them for so doing: they have certainly a very good right to think and act for themselves, so long as no one is thereby wronged or injured.
The present form and organization of the masonic sect appear to be but of very recent origin, and cannot perhaps be traced beyond the era of the revolution. The fraternity soon after began to assume something like its present appearance; and as it consisted mostly of rather suspicious characters, it was for a long while deemed a tory or jacobitical institution. It did not spread very much before the accession of the Brunswick family; after which it multiplied apace, but was still thought to consist, chiefly at least, of disaffected persons and friends of the pretender. In process of time, however, that reproach was completely done away, when it came to be known that not only courtiers, but even some branches of the reigning family were among its members.
The first regular lodge in this town was opened at the White Lion Inn, October 1. 1729. Since which time there is supposed to have always existed here one or more regular lodges. There are now here three lodges. Two of them deem themselves to all intents and purposes regular and orthodox, but are not willing to allow the third to be so. What is the real ground of this difference, or what it is that constitutes masonic regularity or irregularity, orthodoxy or heterodoxy, is beyond the competency of the present writer to pronounce or explain. He has been informed by some of the Lynn masons, that the whole number of them now in this town, (exclusive, as he understood, of those of the irregular lodge) amount to above five hundred: from which it would seem that masonry is here at this time in a thriving and flourishing condition. As to their great and boasted secret, we shall not presume to guess what it may be, but shall most willingly let it quietly remain among the mysteries, without the least solicitude or wish for its discovery. Nor will we so much as mention the heavy charge which professor Robison and the Frenchman brought some years ago against the whole order; believing as we do that it was totally unfounded.
3. Society of True Britons. This institution did not last long. It seemed not to have any very important object in view. The dignified name it assumed, with the pompous formalities of its organisation, could not therefore insure its permanence. It was established with no small parade, with Governor, Deputy governor, Secretary, Sword-bearer, &c. together with laws and a constitution, which all the members were solemnly to swear to observe, and keep inviolate. The first meetings of this memorable Society were held in the autumn of 1749; after which they were conducted for sometime in great form: but their proceedings appeared in general very much like a burlesque upon all corporate bodies and social institutions. This might be very easily exemplified, but it would probably afford the reader but little gratification, as we cannot find that the society proved of any material benefit to church or state; or to the town itself—some of whose leading families, however, such as its Bagges and Brownes, were among its members. [1126] But we will here dismiss the subject and close this section.
Section IV.
Brief account of the Almshouses of Lynn; and also of its Purse-clubs or Benefit Societies.
Of St. Mary Magdalen’s Hospital, or the Gaywood Almshouse, which stands a little way out of the town, a pretty long and circumstantial account has been already given, in another part of the work. (see p. 530, &c.)—Exclusive of that, there are here three almshouses, which are all within the town, but of more recent origin than the former. Of these three, by much the most ancient is the Bede-house, or old women’s almshouse, over against the New Burying-ground. Near to this, and seemingly about the spot now occupied by Mr. Bonnett’s school and dwelling, stood formerly an almshouse for old men; which being the southmost of the two, was probably the reason why the other, according to some old writings, went by the name of the North-house. These almshouses appear to have been founded in the 14th century, by some of the original members of one of our ancient Gilds, that of St. Giles and St. Julian. It is not quite clear that they owed their origin to that gild itself, but rather to some of its most charitable and opulent members; such as Edm. Bellyter, (or Bellyete,) merchant; Tho. Constantyn, Esq; and Margaret, his daughter; and Wm. Inot, merchant. The gild was constituted in 1384, but the date of the erection of these almshouses, is involved in considerable obscurity, so that it seems uncertain whether it occurred previously or subsequently to that year.
But whenever they were erected, and whether by the persons above mentioned, exclusively, or by the gild at large, it is pretty evident that they became in no long time the property of that gild; and there is reason to believe that they continued so till the dissolution of the Monasteries, when all the gilds shared the same fate. At that time the property of this gild, as well as that of others still more opulent, fell probably into the hands of the corporation. For some reason, the men’s almshouse was dissolved, but that of the women, or Bedehouse, as it was then, and is still called, was continued, under the patronage of that body. It does not clearly appear how many persons were originally maintained in these two houses. But we learn that the men’s house had in it seven chambers, and the women’s six. Supposing therefore that but one person occupied each chamber, the number between both houses would be thirteen; but if we suppose that two were placed in each chamber, (as might be the case in those times; and more than two cannot be supposed;) then the whole number would be twenty-six. The question, however, is now immaterial, and requires no further attention. [1129]