-
Articles/Ads
Article MASONIC NOTES AND QUERIES. ← Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Notes And Queries.
are received as members ofthe various incorporations of to-day . 16 . Those gentlemen , notwithstanding their un-onerative character , received the degrees of Apprentice and Fellow Craft , and even accepted the office of Deacon or ruler of a lodge . 17 . When the lodges of Scotland became purely speculative is not easily decided . 18 . The influence of the Grand
Lodge of England , established A . D . 1717 , was felt far and wide before the Grand Lodge of Scotland was formed . 19 . As a degree , the Master Mason was not known before the 18 th century . 20 . The Masonic student will find that such terms as Grand Master , Grand LodgeThird Degreeand Royal Arch are all
, , of the 18 th century . 21 . The lodge which Ashmole visited in London , March 10 th , " 1682 , for certain knew nothing of Freemasonry as we have it now . 22 . After a series of extended researches , Bro . H . fully endorses the opinion that , before A . D . 1717 , no
trace of Freemasonry , apart from its operative nature or connections , can be found . 23 . Bro . H . concludes the first part of his analysis by a few examples of the Christian character of the Craft . 24 . The Grand Lodge of England and all the other Grand Lodges are derived from this Craft . 25 . Although holding the opinion that Masonry is of a Christian oriin
g , Bro . II . does not find any evidence to warrant the belief that chivalry was connected with it , or materially assisted in its preservation during the dark ages . 26 . The prayers of the Craft abundantly prove that the Christian religion was held in great veneration by the Fraternity all over the globe . 27 . After
stating certain facts— "these aud similar facts , " says Bro . Ii ., "tend strongly to confirm us in the belief of the present society of Freemasons having ori ginally been formed out of , or on the basis of , operative Masonry . —C . P . COOPER . "
MASONIC SEABS AND MEDALS , ETC . My friend audBro . A . 0 . Haye , Edinburgh , is making a collection of the above , and would feel obliged if brethren would favour him with anything curious or of value of this department . I am sure it need only be made known that so eminent a Mason as Bro .
Haye is preparing subject matter for our future benefit in reference to lodge seals and their liiatorv , to ensure a ready response to his request . —W . J . HUGHAN ,
THE PARSEES . A brother will find the report of the President and Yice-President of the Colonial Board , respecting which he inquires , Freemasons' Magazine , vol . xi ., page 408 . —C . P . COOPER .
THE ROYAL ARCH . Bro . , " A Masonic Student , " in your number of the Magazine of the 2 Sth ult ., has favoured me with some of his views as to the antiquity of the Royal Arch degree , and thinks his investigation would tend to exalt the Royal Arch , and lead him to exactly the opposite conclusion to the writer .
Accordingly , I have carefully read his communication , but have been unable to discover anything to invalidate the statements made in the "History of the Royal Arch , " by the learned Mason the late Rev . Bro . Dr . Oliver , nor does there seem to be one argument used b y the Masonic student that would
prove this degree to have been in existence before-A D . 1740 . The name does not occur in Freemasonry before the eighteenth century , the Grand Lodge of England refused to recognise it until the nineteenth ; century , and the Grand Lodge of Scotland and . numerous other Grand Lodges still consider it foreign to ancient Freemasonry , and exclude it from
their list of recognised degrees . It is also generally admitted by those who are familiar with the sublime ,, ineffable degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Rite that the Royal Arch is in some respects a copy from one or more of those degrees , and that , even at onetimethe ceremonies contained iu the Royal Arch ,
, were , beyond question , considerably indebted to the 13 ° for its most imposing parts , in proof of which I refer the Masonic student to either of the editionsof Dr . Oliver ' s work . My inquiries have had reference simply to the antiquity of the degree in question ; aud in no sense do I desire to lessen
itsvalue or its teachings , but , as a Royal Arch Mason , would endeavour to see it placed in its proper position —viz ., a modern degree . I quite agree with "A Masonic Student" that the question turns on the actual extent of the mutilation or development of
the third degree ; but when we remember that the oldest rituals say nothing of the Royal Arch , thattheir ceremonies ( save as to the word ) are almost wholly different to it , and that those lodges which , continue even still to work the old system abroad ' practise a rite entirely foreign to the English Royal Arch ( excepting in the one instance referred to ) , we
feel bound to state that the mutilation must , indeed , be very complete . I should like very much to be favoured with any numismatic evidence of the antiquity of the second part of the degree , coeval with the operative lodge of York Masons , certainly in the fifteenth century . Bro . J . G . Findel and myself have both been to York on purpose to discover such
evidence ; aud although all the records aud other historians of the lodge have been freely placed at ourdisposal , we have been unable to trace even the thirddegree before the Grand Lodge of England at Londonwas established in 17 L 7 ( as a secret or separate degree ) . What evidence is there that the symbolism and
traditions of the Royal Arch are old , i . e ., beyond thelast century ? None , in the opinion of a number of Masons who have made this matter their careful study aud mature reflection .
How much Dermottwas connected with the origin of the degree we know not . He states in the preface to the third edition " Ahiman Rezon , " p . 29 ,. that he was first introduced into that society in 1748 ( i . e ., modern Masonry ) ; and it must be admitted , that he owed bis success as an innovator of the Royal Arch degreewhich the real ancient Grand Lodge had
, not at first , but which some of its members soon after obtained , formed themselves into a Grand Chapter , and'bscame a formidable rival to a similar body formed by the seceders , resulting ultimately in-. the union ofthe two Grand Lodges in A . D . 1813 , and . of the united Grand Chapter subsequentl "A
y . Masonic Student ' ' refers me to the last edition of the "Royal Arch" by Dr . Oliver , wherein , however , the learned writer substantially makes the samestatements as in the first edition of A . D . 1847 . In the latter , page 20 , he says , " The degree is too in-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Notes And Queries.
are received as members ofthe various incorporations of to-day . 16 . Those gentlemen , notwithstanding their un-onerative character , received the degrees of Apprentice and Fellow Craft , and even accepted the office of Deacon or ruler of a lodge . 17 . When the lodges of Scotland became purely speculative is not easily decided . 18 . The influence of the Grand
Lodge of England , established A . D . 1717 , was felt far and wide before the Grand Lodge of Scotland was formed . 19 . As a degree , the Master Mason was not known before the 18 th century . 20 . The Masonic student will find that such terms as Grand Master , Grand LodgeThird Degreeand Royal Arch are all
, , of the 18 th century . 21 . The lodge which Ashmole visited in London , March 10 th , " 1682 , for certain knew nothing of Freemasonry as we have it now . 22 . After a series of extended researches , Bro . H . fully endorses the opinion that , before A . D . 1717 , no
trace of Freemasonry , apart from its operative nature or connections , can be found . 23 . Bro . H . concludes the first part of his analysis by a few examples of the Christian character of the Craft . 24 . The Grand Lodge of England and all the other Grand Lodges are derived from this Craft . 25 . Although holding the opinion that Masonry is of a Christian oriin
g , Bro . II . does not find any evidence to warrant the belief that chivalry was connected with it , or materially assisted in its preservation during the dark ages . 26 . The prayers of the Craft abundantly prove that the Christian religion was held in great veneration by the Fraternity all over the globe . 27 . After
stating certain facts— "these aud similar facts , " says Bro . Ii ., "tend strongly to confirm us in the belief of the present society of Freemasons having ori ginally been formed out of , or on the basis of , operative Masonry . —C . P . COOPER . "
MASONIC SEABS AND MEDALS , ETC . My friend audBro . A . 0 . Haye , Edinburgh , is making a collection of the above , and would feel obliged if brethren would favour him with anything curious or of value of this department . I am sure it need only be made known that so eminent a Mason as Bro .
Haye is preparing subject matter for our future benefit in reference to lodge seals and their liiatorv , to ensure a ready response to his request . —W . J . HUGHAN ,
THE PARSEES . A brother will find the report of the President and Yice-President of the Colonial Board , respecting which he inquires , Freemasons' Magazine , vol . xi ., page 408 . —C . P . COOPER .
THE ROYAL ARCH . Bro . , " A Masonic Student , " in your number of the Magazine of the 2 Sth ult ., has favoured me with some of his views as to the antiquity of the Royal Arch degree , and thinks his investigation would tend to exalt the Royal Arch , and lead him to exactly the opposite conclusion to the writer .
Accordingly , I have carefully read his communication , but have been unable to discover anything to invalidate the statements made in the "History of the Royal Arch , " by the learned Mason the late Rev . Bro . Dr . Oliver , nor does there seem to be one argument used b y the Masonic student that would
prove this degree to have been in existence before-A D . 1740 . The name does not occur in Freemasonry before the eighteenth century , the Grand Lodge of England refused to recognise it until the nineteenth ; century , and the Grand Lodge of Scotland and . numerous other Grand Lodges still consider it foreign to ancient Freemasonry , and exclude it from
their list of recognised degrees . It is also generally admitted by those who are familiar with the sublime ,, ineffable degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Rite that the Royal Arch is in some respects a copy from one or more of those degrees , and that , even at onetimethe ceremonies contained iu the Royal Arch ,
, were , beyond question , considerably indebted to the 13 ° for its most imposing parts , in proof of which I refer the Masonic student to either of the editionsof Dr . Oliver ' s work . My inquiries have had reference simply to the antiquity of the degree in question ; aud in no sense do I desire to lessen
itsvalue or its teachings , but , as a Royal Arch Mason , would endeavour to see it placed in its proper position —viz ., a modern degree . I quite agree with "A Masonic Student" that the question turns on the actual extent of the mutilation or development of
the third degree ; but when we remember that the oldest rituals say nothing of the Royal Arch , thattheir ceremonies ( save as to the word ) are almost wholly different to it , and that those lodges which , continue even still to work the old system abroad ' practise a rite entirely foreign to the English Royal Arch ( excepting in the one instance referred to ) , we
feel bound to state that the mutilation must , indeed , be very complete . I should like very much to be favoured with any numismatic evidence of the antiquity of the second part of the degree , coeval with the operative lodge of York Masons , certainly in the fifteenth century . Bro . J . G . Findel and myself have both been to York on purpose to discover such
evidence ; aud although all the records aud other historians of the lodge have been freely placed at ourdisposal , we have been unable to trace even the thirddegree before the Grand Lodge of England at Londonwas established in 17 L 7 ( as a secret or separate degree ) . What evidence is there that the symbolism and
traditions of the Royal Arch are old , i . e ., beyond thelast century ? None , in the opinion of a number of Masons who have made this matter their careful study aud mature reflection .
How much Dermottwas connected with the origin of the degree we know not . He states in the preface to the third edition " Ahiman Rezon , " p . 29 ,. that he was first introduced into that society in 1748 ( i . e ., modern Masonry ) ; and it must be admitted , that he owed bis success as an innovator of the Royal Arch degreewhich the real ancient Grand Lodge had
, not at first , but which some of its members soon after obtained , formed themselves into a Grand Chapter , and'bscame a formidable rival to a similar body formed by the seceders , resulting ultimately in-. the union ofthe two Grand Lodges in A . D . 1813 , and . of the united Grand Chapter subsequentl "A
y . Masonic Student ' ' refers me to the last edition of the "Royal Arch" by Dr . Oliver , wherein , however , the learned writer substantially makes the samestatements as in the first edition of A . D . 1847 . In the latter , page 20 , he says , " The degree is too in-