Correspondence

for what they announced ? It must not be overlooked that Masonry , within a very few years of its revival , attracted a considerable amount of notice throughout Europe , to that extent , indeed , that some fifteen years after ^ Wren ' s death , the then Pope honoured us with a special bull of excommunication . There was a considerable amount of antagonism to the Art in England , and the right of Masons to

include Wren among tho members of the Fraternity would assuredly have been questioned , had the claim been merely "the baseless fabric of a vision . " Wren was a man of eminence , whose name would have been a pillar of strength to any order—whether of Masons or of Jesuit . Had he been no Mason , the inquiries of anti- Masons would certainly havo disposed of tho fact , when ifc was so openly and so

generally announced by Masons . Again , there are special reasons why documentary evidence , not only in Wren's case , but in that of every speculative Mason of that epoch , should not be forthcoming . Tho political state of England was most unsettled , and the members of a secret society would have every reason to keep the fact of their membership a secret from the friends and foes alike of tho powers

that wore . Nor is there any antecedent improbability in Wren being a Mason . Ho was the architect of his day , ancl , as such , a fitting patron of operative Masonry . He was otherwise a man of great learning—a philospher in fact—and , as such , likely enough to havo lent his mind to tho speculative side of Masonry . Are we wrong , I ask , under these circumstances , in accepting him as " Grand Master

of the most ancient and honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons ? " —for so the well-known Lawrence Dermott , Grand Secretary of Ancient Masons , describes Sir Christopher , in his address prefixed to the third edition of Ahiman Rezon , published in 1788 . Can Bro . Buchan disprove the statements of our Masonic historians ? Then , as to the question , Whether Masonry was at all speculative

prior to the year 1717 ? Are we to assume that in that year Speculative Masonry sprang suddenly into being ? Can wo ignore tho statement of Ashniole , that , iu company with Colonel Mainwaring , he was made a Freemason in 1616 , at Warrington , in Lancashire , and that in March 1682 he was present at a Lodge meeting in London , when Sir William Wilson Knt ., Captain Richard Borthwick , and others " wero

admitted into the Fellowship of Freemasons . " Again in 1626 , that is only six years before Sir C . Wren was born—there died the great Francis Bacon , author of the New Atlantis , of which you gave an elaborate notice in one of your issues . In 1662 tho Itoyal Society received its Charter from Charles II . Am I not justified in regarding the following concatenation of facts as suggestive of an era of

speculative combined with operative Freemasonry anterior to 1717 ? Lord Bacon , the author of the New Atlantis , died 1626 . Inigo Jones , whom we number among our Grand Masters , died , some say in 1646 , while others set down his death in 1653 . Wren was born in 1632 , and had already achieved fame as a young philosopher in WIG , tho year in which Ashuiole , the antiquary , ancl a student of alchemy , was

made a Freemason . In 1682 other uon-opcrative Masons " wero admitted into the Fellowship of the Craft , " teste A-hmole . According to Aubrey , Wren was " to be adopted " into Masonry in 1691 . Tho revival of Masonry occurred in 1717 , from which year it ceased wholly to have anything operative iu its character . Does not all this justify

the views of those Masonic writers who look beyond 1717 for the origin of Speculative Masonry ? The question is one well worthy of consideration iu your columns and I hope some brethren older and more competent than I feel myself to be , will take it up , and , to use an airy expression of the day , " ventilate " it thoroughly . Yours fraternally , Q .

BROTHER YARKER ON " OUR FREEMASONRY . " To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR Slit AND Bitornuu , —I am pleased to find that my terming Brother Yarker an aged Freemason lias created some amusement amongst the members of his family ; but my information was derived from a remark of his a few years since . I am glad , however , to hear that our Brother is not an old man ( which I did not say ) , though

1 am informed he is the senior of very many Craftsmen of the present clay . I wish in Ireland we had moro Masonic investigators of the English aud Scottish ( not Scotch to please Bro . Buchan ) stamp . Save the venerable Dr . Townsheud ( Judge ) , and a few honourable exceptions , like Bro . Neilson , of Dublin , Bro . Commander Scott , of

Omagh , wo have few in our "Emerald Isle" who " patronise our mysteries" beyond the threshold , so I mean to do a little myself in unravelling our history , if our British friends will hold out tho right hand of fellowship . I am much obliged to Bro . Yarker for his communication in answer to my first letter ; and I feel sure that if other able brethren

would follow his example , ancl reply to friendly criticisms or questions , much light would be elicited on obscure parts of our history . Bro . Yarker refers me to the Sloane MS ., edited by Bro . Woodford , for evidence of the existence of the three degrees prior to the last century . I know the MS . well , and have again examined it . Of course , it is of doubtful antiquity ; but assuming that the present

MS ., of date from 1710 to 1730 , is a copy of a MS . ( now missing ) of 1640 , as Bro . Woodford states , we do not thereby prove the antiquity of tho three degrees . Bro . Yarker will be aware that not a Minute of any Lodge has been produced which mentions the separate meeting of Master Masons to raise Fellow Crafts to the third degree prior to 1720 ; that in fact not a MS . or printed work exists which

a ' hides to the term degree until after the . " Revival , " and that the Master was placed in tho Chair iu the presence of ail tho Craftsmen . I quite think it likely that a word was whispered into the Master ' s ear on his election and assuming tho Chair ; but degrees are quite another and distinct matter , and certainly we cannot accept the evidence of tho Sloane MS . as final . The next proof submitted is the "Aberdeen Ritual" of 1727 . How does Bro . Yarker know it is

Correspondence

1727 ? I understood the date was uncertain . But suppose we accept the year in which it was printed to be 1727 , what then ? The work consists of " A Mason's Confession of tho Oath , & c , ab D , about the year 1727 ; " but I have not heard of any date being on tho title-page . Bro . Yarker says it mentions tho throe degrees by name . Suppose it does , is that evidence of the existence

of the three degrees prior to the last century ? No wonder if the three degrees wero known in 1727 at Aberdeen ( or Dundee ) when the Rev . Dr . Desaguliers visited the Lodge of Edinburgh iu 1721 , and wo know for a fact that whereas the three degrees are nowhere alluded to before then in the Minutes of the Lodge at Aberdeen , thev are regularly noticed a few years afterwards .

With respect to the Marie question , I quite think , with Bro . Yarker , that tho Mark degree has not had an existence much over a century , but the custom of choosing a Mark is an old one . Bro . Yarker says , " In no English MS . whatever is there any Mark Registration . " As to that , there is scarcely any account of old English Lodges , but in one of the oldest preserved , viz ., the Alnwick Lodge , from 1701 , there

are numerous Marks to be found attached to the names in tho old records as with those of the Scottish Lodges . We are indebted to Bro . Hughan for a sketch of this ancient Lodge , which appeared in the Freemason some time since . In the fourth division of Bro . Yarker ' s interesting communication , he kindly informs us that tho testimony of the two documents before mentioned is " confirmed by

numerous other MSS . " What MSS . ? In such an important matter as our ancient history , surely Bro . Yarker ought not to make such a statement ? According to our researches in Masonic works , there are no MSS . of any antiquity which allude to the three degrees , and so the confirmation spoken of by modern MSS . appears to us worthless , but I am open to correction , ancl can only say the production of MSS .

prior to tho last century , or anterior to 1720 , which confirm the testimony of tho two documents hereinbefore mentioned , will secure from mo the amplest acknowledgment . I have read Bro . Yarker ' s " Speculative Masonry , ' "' aud at p . 116 have noted his remarks . He therein quotes from the " Grand Mys . tery Discovered , " of 1725 , in which allusiou is made to a certaiu

brother ( evidently Dr . Rawlinson , F . R . S . and LL . D . ) being of the " Fifth Order . " The pamphlet is a whimsical production , ancl , so far as I can discover , contains nothing in reference to any degree beyond the third . Surely tho allusion to the " Fifth Order " in such a connection is not a fair evidence of the existence of the Royal Arch in 1725 ? In fact ., but lifctlois said which would warrant us in believing

there were as many degrees as three at that period , provided no other proof existed of their being then worked . I thank Bro . Yarker for his reference to Ramsay ' s " Travels of Cyrus , " and will procure tho work , so as seo what that Brother says of the Hautes Grades , but I presume " High Grade Information" may mean something which existed prior to tho Hautes Grades , which the latter adopted . I should like to get clear of an oath I once took ,

and as Bro . Yarker appears to have managed to purge himself of those ho took under the " Ancient and Accepted Rite , " I shall be glad to be informed how he has satisfied his conscience as to his obligations to that body . Cannot you , Brother Editor , induce that good Brother , Captain Irwin , to lend you his work of 1721 , to be reprinted in your pages . I do wish he would consent , ar . d thus circulate an ancient book of consequence to our researches . Facts we want badly , and not mere dogmatic assertions . Fraternally yours , MASONIC INVES'IICAXOH .

COMMEMORATION JEWELS , To the Editor O / T IIE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE , DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am glad to learn , t ' vom the Report of the Board of General Purposes , that an order has been issued by the Grand Secretary , warning brethren against wearing any

Commemoration Jewels except those sanctioned by the M . W . G . M . This edict will , at least , prevent tho tratticing in tinsel to which so many of the Craft object , if not add to the value of tho Installation Jewel proper . I am , yours faithfully , PURSER . 25 th August 1875 .

PRESENTATIONS TO RETIRING MASTERS . To the Editor <> f T ; IE FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR , —I have often thought over the question raised by your co-respondent , who sigm hinsolf " Charity . " It has more than onco occurred to me that the 1 > . •<• of what is certainly a very harmless , yet somewhat childish love of display , is a weak point iu Masonry , Wo aro a secret society—yet secret in no unworthy sense . We do

outwork very quietly , not birause we are ashamed of what wo do , but because we havo some faith in tho old adage " Virtue is it ' s own reward . " Above all , WJ make no ostentatious display of our clothing in pub'ic places . Yui 1 confess the number of jewels which some of our brethren wear amazes me . I see no objection to members wear , ing sundry honorary distinctions bestowed on them for services

rendered indifferent spheres of labour , but I quite a ^ ree with "Charity " that the multiplication of orders and decorations is nnadvisable . I fully recognise that in a case of this kind no hard arid f ; ist lino can be drawn , but I feel that excessive display of ornament should be discouraged as much as possible . However , I am only expressing my own opinion , and slnll gladly withdraw or modif y it on cause shown , Yours respectfully , M . V .