Lux E Tenebra.

regarding some of tho most elementary propositions m Masonic law , evinced in his articles , are unconscious , how great must be the need of elementary instruction among the masses of the Craftsmen whose distrust of their illuminating powers still keens them out of print .

It is to be presumed that up to the time of tho publication of our recent articles in this magazine , our brother had read nothing from our pen unless it be an oration delivered in the Grand Lodsre of Illinois in 1869 ;

otherwise he would have escaped tho blunder of accusing us of having been compelled to abandon the premises of our February article by since discovering that the division of

Masonry into degrees was nofc recognized by the Grand Lodge until aftor tho Charges of a Freemason had been collated and agreed to . Ten years ago , in a printed report , we called the attention of the Grand Lodgo of Illinois to

this very point . It is convenient to refer here to another intimation of shifting . Our brother twice refers to our oration of 1869 with the implication that our present position is somehow inconsistent therewith , but inst how he does not point out .

If it were a matter of tho slightest concern to us whether we could be convicted of inconsistency by testing our utterances of to-day by what wo then said , we might take time to point out the difference between broadly referring to some of the salient features of an institution , and

attempting a critical analysis of some disputed point in its polity ; but no necessity for this exists . Fifteen years ago we must have believed many of tho fictions current in the then standard works on Masonry ( including somo to which it is apparent that our critic still clings ) , and it is quite

possible that our oration may give evidence of ifc . Without hunting ifc np to seo what we did say , we think our subsequent study must have been to little purpose if Ave would nofc now bo ashamed to repeat it . The question is not whether we agree with what we then said , hut whether

what we now say is sound or unsound ; and this question is not to be settled by general charges of " shifting , " or " speciousnessand subtility , " or attempting " to create imaginary antagonisms and distinctions already existing . "

This sort of general arraignment is easy and cheap , much easier , as we shall see , than to show wherein the speciousness and subtility lie . In our April article we thus formulated three essentials which we conceived to stand out broadly in the character

of the Institution , necessary io its identification , and specifically recognized in the law of its being : 1 st . " Its broad basis of fellowship , which obliges Masons only to that religion in which all men agree , leaving their particular opinions to themselves ; that is , to be good men and true ,

by whatever denominations or persuasions they may be distinguished . " 2 nd . " Its organic structure , by which the Craft is divided into Lodges each of which is represented in the supreme governing body , the Grand Lodge , by its Masters and Wardens . " 3 rd . " The exclusion of all

distinctions from the body of the Craft , save those of Master , Fellow , and Apprentice . " These onr brother calls " specific new tests . " How new are they ? Of the first , all save tbe first six words is quoted from the Charges of a Freemason . On the subject of the second , the third of

those Charges has the following : A Lodge is a place where Masons assemble and work ; hence that assembly , or duly organized society of Masons , is called a Lodge . * * * Ifc is either particular or general , and will be best understood by attending it , and by the regulations of the

General or Grand Lodge hereunto annexed . " On turning to the regulations referred to , we find ( Reg . XII . ) thafc " the Grand Lodge consists of , and is formed by the Masters and Wardens of all the regular particular Lodges npon record . " Tbe third requires no comment ; it speaks for itself .

These propositions are sufficiently specific ; certainly they are not new . Are they new as tests by which to determine whether a body claiming the Masonic name is legitimately entitled to it ? Manifestly there was a time when every body of Masons in existence could answer all

the requirements imposed by them , and as manifestly these so-called specific new tests were a part of the conditions under which only the rites of Masonry could be practised and administered . This time included the period during

which some of those bodies did , and others did not confer the distinctions of Fellow Craffc and Master Mason as degrees , a fact which shows that the division of the one esoteric ceremonial of Masonry into three did not affect the structure of the Lodge in its relations to the Grand Lodge .

Lux E Tenebra.

The Grand Lodge continued to he , both in fact and law , the only representative Masonic body known . In attemptins * fo discredit the proposition that the Grand Lod ge is the only representative body known to the law of the Institution , but without making it plain

to our obtuseness what bearing the question has upon that point , our brother asks : " If , then , it was permissible and lawful to elaborate the Institution from ono to two , and finally to three degrees , was it not equally lawful to elaborate it to seven or more ? " If the Grand Lodge had

elaborated tho Institution to seven , or seventy , or seven hundred , it would then be in order to inquire whether there was the same basis for the seven or more , as for the three , iu the law which—notwithstanding his assertion to tho

contrary—circumscribes the action of tho Grand Lodge . But the pretence of elaborating to seven or more was nofc made by the Grand Lodge ; it was made by those who had no authority whatever to say in what Masonry consists ,

Nobody will claim that at the time the elaboration occurred there was anywhere in existence any governing bodj' in Masonry save the Grand Lodge . If it could be clearly shown thafc that body , acting under the mistaken impression that power is equivalent to right , had violated

the law to whose immutability it had solemnly assented , would the difficulty of establishing the legitimacy of the work of irresponsible degree mongers , acting without its authority , be one whit lessened ? Because a powerless Craffc bad acquiesced in the results of such a violation on

the part of the Grand Lodge , would it thereby he constrained to accept as an accomplished fact the assertion of one or a dozen individuals whom they had invested with no authority whatever , thafc he or they had added one or a hundred degrees to Masonry ? In opposition to our

show ing that the change from one esoteric ceremonial to three did not change the relations of the Lodges as constituents of a representative body , nor in any essential particular the relations of the craftsmen to each other or to fche law , our brother further says that the Old Charges do

not mention the Master Mason ' s degree . It is equally true that they do not mention any degree ; but they do recognise the distinctions of Fellow Craft and Master Mason , and the General Regulations " annexed " point out where the Apprentices may be admitted to those distinctions .

At that time those regulations provided that the Apprentices should be admitted to those distinctions only iu the Grand Lodge . It was wholly within the legitimate power of the Grand Lodge to provide , as it did subsequently , that they might be conferred in the constituent Lodges , instead

of within its own body ; because it is conceded that the Regulations may be altered by the Grand Lodge , so long as the landmarks are not thereby disturbed , and becanse in making this change the Grand Lodge did not run counter to any provision , expressed or implied , of the Charges of a

Freemason , the Ancient Constitutions of Masonry . But this brings us up against the extraordinary assertion of our critic , tbat " the Ancient Constitutions are no longer the fundamental laws of our Grand Lodges , for each has its own ! " Here is no hint thafc the Ancient

Constitutions of Masonry stand on any different footing than the constitution and by-laws of a Grand Lodge . Indeed , he mixes them all up together , proceeding to say : " These constitutions , charges and regulations were formulated in the misty past , changed , and revised , and amended , many

times afterwards , * * * and contained an express provision that' every Annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and authority to make new regulations , or to alter these , for the real benefit of this Ancient Fraternity . Provided always , that the old landmarks be carefully

preserved . ' There is no evidence here of any suspicion on his part , that the Grand Lodge in asserting its authority to amend the General Regulations , was not also claiming the rig ht to annually amend the Old Charges ; none of any susp icion that the guaranties of those Old Charges constituted , almost wholly , the very landmarks to which the proviso

referred . The statement that the charges were changed , revised and amended many times contains the germ of a serious error , because it conveys the impression that the many versions published , ancl referred to dates prior to 17 uo ,

rest on the same sort of authority as the Charges of a Freemason . It was not until after the formation of the first Graud Lodge in 1717 ( for there was no Grand Lodge at York in 925 , as our brother still seems to believe , nor elsewhere until the Grand Lodge was formed in London ) , thafc