-
Articles/Ads
Article ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 3 Article ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY. Page 2 of 3 Article ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Antiquity Of Freemasonry.
ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY .
BY BRO . CHALMERS I . PATON . ( To thc Editor of The Freemason . ) D EAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Bro . W . P . Buchan has set himself to work to reply to my letter which inoeare d in your paper of lulv 16 th , and whatever
else may be thought of his reply , of which the first instalment appeared in THE FREEMASON of August 27 th , the second part , on September 3 rd . ancl the third part on September 10 th , he is at least entitled to the praise of making it long enough . Thc length of it places me under some difficulty in
proceeding with the discussion , as to take up every point in detail , within reasonable limits , is evidently impossible . I will do the best I can , however , to treat the subjectjbricfly , and yet to state my own views of it sufficiently . In thc present letter I will confine myself to his first instalment—that which appeared
in THE FREEMASON of Augtist _ 27 th . I cannot but begin by observing that Bro . W . P . Buchan does not seem at all ashamed of the coarse , unbrotherly style in which he accused me of "reretailing dreams and exploded notions . " He has quoted , in replying to me , his own words as they
stood in his first letter to 1 HE i * REEMASON on this subject , apparently proud of his cleverness in writing them , and with increase of his former wit , after charging me with doing my best to perpetuate the mistakes of sixty-six years ago , he exclaims : " Poor fellow ! he seems to have been asleep for the last
half-century , for he comes with his oicl-fashioncd muzzle-loader , expecting , as he tells us , to explode the 1717 theory , which happens to be defended by all the ' newest appliances . ' So if Mr . Martini-Henry , or Mr . Snider , is as good as his word , our old friend Mr . Musket may turn to the right about
as long as he has legs left to carry him . " I am at a loss here perfectly to make out thc meaning of the last sentence ; as one might be to discern objects when rifles and muskets arc going off in great numbers , and the air is filled with smoke . There may , however , be cleverness displayed in the sentences
which I have quoted , and I am willing to give Bro . AV . P . Buchan all the credit for which it is his due , but I venture to say they arc neither very brotherly nor very gentlemanly . Ancl what is all this controversy about ? In what is it that I have made mistakes , so that Bro . \ A . P .
Buchan was entitled to say that my first letter to you on the antiquity of Freemasonry was " full of mistakes ? " I said in my last letter that he did not condescend even to point out these mistakes ; but now " that there may be no quibbling this time , " as he elegantly expresses himself , he says : " I shall give a
list of a number of Bro . Baton's mistaken notions . " And a long list it certainly is which follows , including eighteen " mistaken notions" distinctly set forth . But surely Bro . Buchan must know that there is a difference between error of opinion and mistake in the statement of matters of fact . If he could prove
that I had erred in my statement as to thc dates of the St . Clair Charters , which I deny that he can , he would be entitled to charge me with a mistakeand this is the sixth item in his enumeration . But what can be more ridiculous than to set clown as one of my mistaken notions ( No . 3 ) , " That our
' Freemasonry' existed before last century ; " or ( No . 18 ) , "That he is able to explode the 1717 theory ? " These are the very questions at issue ; and in the discussion of them , for one disputant to accuse another of making a mistake because of asserting an opinion different from his own , is
virtually to assert his own infallibility , and to call on nil mankind to bow to his superiorly enlightened judgment . Granting his premises—granting that his views arc right in every particular—of course he can settle the whole question off-hand . But let us look a little more closclv at Bro .
Buchan ' s list of my " mistaken notions . " The first is , " That the Speculative Freemasonry now in existence is thc same as the Operative Freemasonry of several centuries ago . " Now , 1 never entertained any such notion , and therefore never stated it ; ancl I defy Bro . Buchan to produce anything
from all that I have written on the subject to prove that I did , or even to excuse the gross blunder which he has made in charging me with such an absurdity . I wonder if anybody ever imagined that Speculative Masonry was the same as Operative Masonry . AVhat I have said , and what 1 now
repeat with confidence , is that the Speculative Masonry of modern times has grown out of thc Operative Masonry , which , as Bro . Buchan says , is older than the pyramids , and that Speculative Masonry in its germ ancl gradual development existed in connection with thc Operative Masonry even of remote times . Anyone , except perhaps
Bro . Buchan , will easily see that this is something very different from the " mistaken notion" wilii which he has mistakenly charged me . The second in his list of mistaken notions , is " That thc old Operative Freemasons , who built houses , churches , & c , of stone and lime , both knew and practised our system of Freemasonry . " As to this , whether thc notion be mistaken or not , I believe
Antiquity Of Freemasonry.
that they had amongst them more of that system than Bro . Buchan holds that they had . But this is the very question at issue , and to set down my opinion on this subject as a mistake , at thc beginning of the argument , is to foreclose the question altogether , and in fact to make an ipse dixit to
serve for argument . My opinion , as I have previously expressed it , is not , however , accurately stated . The statement requires this qualificationwhich ought to have been made , as I have often made it—that our system of Freemasonry has grown to greater and greater completeness iu
recent tunes , ancl it is only an essential agreement in its principles , not an exact agreement in its details , for which I contend . Bro . Buchan has evidently been carried away by his confidence that nothing of Speculative Freemasonry existed among the Operative Masons of past ages , and has
overlooked the important consideration that the system has gradually developed and improved . The third " mistaken notion : I set down to my account , is " That our Freemasonry existed before last century . " Of this Bro . Buchan only remarks , " I shall believe it after T have seen nroof . " He
forgets that here again he has before him the whole question in dispute—the very question as to which proof has been adduced , or is being adduced , on thc one side and the other ; and his setting down my opinion as a mistaken notion is a mere gratuitous assumption as to all that is essential in thc present
controversy . It amazes me that any man pretending to engage in a controversy of this kind—or of any kind—should thus mistake the state of the case , and accuse his opponent of re-retailing dreams and exploded notions , when he can say nothing more to the ' purposc than that he shall believe it after he has
seen proof . A little more modesty might have been more becoming , and a little more argument more suitable . The fourth of my alleged mistaken notions is that I can prove that our " three degrees existed before A . D . 1717 . " Br . Buchan surclv forgets that he is
engaged in controversy at all , when he sets this down as a mistake , ancl as one of those which warrant him in asserting that my letter is full of mistakes . It may almost be said that here again , in another form , we have tlie whole question at issue summarily decided . Bro . Buchan , however , has a
long note on this point , but he gives little more than mere assertions of his own opinion , instead of evidence and argument ; although he blames me for having forgotten " to give us any proof whatever of such having been the case "—that is , that the three degrees existed before 1717 . Yctin his next
sentence he shows that he had before his eyes proof which I did adduce ; for the sentence is as follows : " He alludes to Elias Ashmole being admitted a 'Fellow' of the Masons' Society in the 17 th century ; but as he might also have been admitted a •Fellow ' or honorary member of the Carpenters '
Society , such fellowship docs not prove that he was made a Master Mason such as we now are ; but rather the opposite . " I do not stay at present to show how unfairly my argument is slated as to the existence of the three degrees in the 17 th century ; but I utterly refuse to acknowledge Bro . Buchan ' s
comparison of thc Masons' Society ancl the imaginary Carpenters' Society as of any value whatever . It is evident , from the language employed by Ashmole , that he looked upon his admission by the Masons as something very different from admission into any ordinary society . I refer your readers to
their ., as they have appeared in your columns before . Bro . Buchan appeals to the minute books of the Edinburgh Lodge for 116 years before 1717 , and to those of " Mother Kilwinning" antl other lodges " long before 1717 , " as showing " that our systcm of Speculative Freemasonry was quite
unknown to any of them until after 1717 , when it was introduced from England . " I would not willingly accuse any brother of quibbling , although Bro . Buchan has not scrupled to employ that ugly term with evident reference to me ; but 1 would fain know more precisely what is meant by " our system
of Speculative Freemasonry , " for 1 have always maintained that there has been a progressive development and improvement of Freemasonry , so that our system , precisely as it exists at the present hour , is not that of Ashmole and his contemporaries , nor even that of" Desaguliers and Anderson . 1 only
maintain an essential identity of system or principle —not a perfect sameness . Bro . Buchan goes on to quote some remarks of Bro . D . Murray Lyon , than whom , he says , he does not "know a better Masonic student in Scotland . " I have no wish to dispute Bro . D . M . Lyon ' s claim
to the high honour thus given to him . I refuse , however , to . accept his verdict as final on any of thc disputed questions of Freemasonry , and Bro . Jhich . 111 may just as well assert his own opinion , in so far as any such question is concerned , as quote that of
Bro . D . . Al . Lyon . The " ivniarks " which he quotes as if they were someivh . it authoritative , are nothing more than a mere assertion of opinion , unsupported by even a tittle of evidence . " Non-operatives cannot be shown to have to any extent been admitted
Antiquity Of Freemasonry.
members of lodges before 1634 , and then only they were admitted as Fellows of the Masonic Craft , just as in our day the Prince of Wales or any other nonprofessional gentleman may be received as an honorary member of the Fishmongers' Society . " I would like to ask what evidence we have of
nonprofessional gentlemen being received by the Masons as honorary members . The term , I suppose , was not in use in the 17 th century , and I am inclined to think that the thing intended by it was equally unknown . Bro . D . M . Lyon's next sentence , as quoted by Bro . Buchan , is worthy of some remark ,
and I cannot but say of severe remark : " Such admission had something to do in paving the way for thc more easy adoption of the Speculative Freemasonry that was afterwards manufactured by Desaguliers and Co . " If we look back on the whole history of Masonrv , it is easy to admit that the
admission of non-operative members bad a connection with the further progress or growth of Speculative Masonry , although that it paved the way for it may be denied . The sentence just quoted from Bro . D . M . Lyon —( I accept it as an accurate quotation on Bro . Buchan's authority)—is evidently full
of mere assumption and assertion . Nothing can be more completely unsustained by evidence or argument than any assertion which it contains . It is , moreover , liable to a very grave charge , in that it brings very grave charges against brethren who have long ago passed away from this world , and that
without a shadow of evidence . No name in the history of Freemasonry is more honourable than that of Dr . Desaguliers , and any one who chooses to inquire , may readily learn that he was a man highly distinguished in private life , and highly distinguished —more than only two or three of his
contemporaries—as a man of science . His close associate in what I consider the resuscitation of Freemasonry in England in 1717 , was Dr . Anderson , a Presbyterian minister in London—a man of unimpeachable character . And yet now we have these men disrespectfully spoken of as Desaguliers and Co ., and as
having •' manufactured " the system of Speculative Freemasonry ! It is impossible to believe , without the most conclusive evidence , that such charges are justly brought against them , and it rather moves indignation to find them brought , and brought in so coarse a manner—Desaguliers ancl Co . ! Let Bro .
D . M . Lyon and Bro . AV . P . Buchan think again before they repeat this contemptuous expression concerning men whose names will continue to be known , and whose memories will continue to be honoured , when their , have passed into utter oblivion .
It is not necessary to follow out in every particular the argument , if such it may be called , which Bro . Buchan has adduced on this point , of the existence , or non-existence , of the three degrees before 1717 . He proceeds to quote Bro . D . M . Lyon , as if his opinion was authoritative and conclusive ; Bro .
D . M . Lyon declaring himself convinced , from the Mary ' s Chapel Lodge records , that " 1721 may be pointed to as the date of thc formal inauguration in Scotland of the English system of Freemasonry , as manufactured by Desaguliers , Anderson , and Co . " Here , again we have
the unwarrantable—shall I not say indecentintroduction of names long honoured , as the names of impostors presuming on the simplicity or stupidity of mankind . Again , liro . Buchan quotes from Bro . D . M . Lyon concerning the antiquity of the third degree : " It has hitherto been pointed to , in proof
of the antiquity of thc third degree , that Robert Moray , a soldier , was made a Master Mason in 1641 , in thc Lodge of Edinburgh , Mary's Chapel . He was not made a Master Mason , but , like some other non-operatives , had an honorary connection with that Masons' Society . " How , I would ask
does Bro . D . M . Lyon know this which he so confidently asserts ? It is his opinion that Robert Moray was a mere honorary memberof the Masons ' Society , and nothing more ; but he may fairly be called upon lo prove this , and it may be difficult for him to produce the proof . It may be difficult for
him to prove that , at the date in question , honorary members were admitted into any of thc crafts , of which he supposes the " Masons' Society " to have been one similar to the rest . I refrain from commenting on the "few words " which Bro . Buchan quotes from Bro , AA . J . Hughan
of Truro , " whose writings , " he says , " have thrown a flood of light upon many points of the history of Freemasonry in England " AA'hat does it import that" wrichtes ancl maisoncs" were often classed together , and that Acts of Parliament , relating merely to the crafts as operative , took no notice of
any distinction among them , and of anything bke the Cxi-,.,.,.. ' * of the Masonic system ? It is :., re negative evidence , and leaves abundant room for the . supposition of peculiarities in thc system of Masonry , with which the Legislature did not
concern itself . Bro . Hughan triumphantly says , " No proof of the third degree having been worked as a degree , apart from any other degree , and confined to members only of that degree , anterior to the eighteenth century has ever been given . Let those
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Antiquity Of Freemasonry.
ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY .
BY BRO . CHALMERS I . PATON . ( To thc Editor of The Freemason . ) D EAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Bro . W . P . Buchan has set himself to work to reply to my letter which inoeare d in your paper of lulv 16 th , and whatever
else may be thought of his reply , of which the first instalment appeared in THE FREEMASON of August 27 th , the second part , on September 3 rd . ancl the third part on September 10 th , he is at least entitled to the praise of making it long enough . Thc length of it places me under some difficulty in
proceeding with the discussion , as to take up every point in detail , within reasonable limits , is evidently impossible . I will do the best I can , however , to treat the subjectjbricfly , and yet to state my own views of it sufficiently . In thc present letter I will confine myself to his first instalment—that which appeared
in THE FREEMASON of Augtist _ 27 th . I cannot but begin by observing that Bro . W . P . Buchan does not seem at all ashamed of the coarse , unbrotherly style in which he accused me of "reretailing dreams and exploded notions . " He has quoted , in replying to me , his own words as they
stood in his first letter to 1 HE i * REEMASON on this subject , apparently proud of his cleverness in writing them , and with increase of his former wit , after charging me with doing my best to perpetuate the mistakes of sixty-six years ago , he exclaims : " Poor fellow ! he seems to have been asleep for the last
half-century , for he comes with his oicl-fashioncd muzzle-loader , expecting , as he tells us , to explode the 1717 theory , which happens to be defended by all the ' newest appliances . ' So if Mr . Martini-Henry , or Mr . Snider , is as good as his word , our old friend Mr . Musket may turn to the right about
as long as he has legs left to carry him . " I am at a loss here perfectly to make out thc meaning of the last sentence ; as one might be to discern objects when rifles and muskets arc going off in great numbers , and the air is filled with smoke . There may , however , be cleverness displayed in the sentences
which I have quoted , and I am willing to give Bro . AV . P . Buchan all the credit for which it is his due , but I venture to say they arc neither very brotherly nor very gentlemanly . Ancl what is all this controversy about ? In what is it that I have made mistakes , so that Bro . \ A . P .
Buchan was entitled to say that my first letter to you on the antiquity of Freemasonry was " full of mistakes ? " I said in my last letter that he did not condescend even to point out these mistakes ; but now " that there may be no quibbling this time , " as he elegantly expresses himself , he says : " I shall give a
list of a number of Bro . Baton's mistaken notions . " And a long list it certainly is which follows , including eighteen " mistaken notions" distinctly set forth . But surely Bro . Buchan must know that there is a difference between error of opinion and mistake in the statement of matters of fact . If he could prove
that I had erred in my statement as to thc dates of the St . Clair Charters , which I deny that he can , he would be entitled to charge me with a mistakeand this is the sixth item in his enumeration . But what can be more ridiculous than to set clown as one of my mistaken notions ( No . 3 ) , " That our
' Freemasonry' existed before last century ; " or ( No . 18 ) , "That he is able to explode the 1717 theory ? " These are the very questions at issue ; and in the discussion of them , for one disputant to accuse another of making a mistake because of asserting an opinion different from his own , is
virtually to assert his own infallibility , and to call on nil mankind to bow to his superiorly enlightened judgment . Granting his premises—granting that his views arc right in every particular—of course he can settle the whole question off-hand . But let us look a little more closclv at Bro .
Buchan ' s list of my " mistaken notions . " The first is , " That the Speculative Freemasonry now in existence is thc same as the Operative Freemasonry of several centuries ago . " Now , 1 never entertained any such notion , and therefore never stated it ; ancl I defy Bro . Buchan to produce anything
from all that I have written on the subject to prove that I did , or even to excuse the gross blunder which he has made in charging me with such an absurdity . I wonder if anybody ever imagined that Speculative Masonry was the same as Operative Masonry . AVhat I have said , and what 1 now
repeat with confidence , is that the Speculative Masonry of modern times has grown out of thc Operative Masonry , which , as Bro . Buchan says , is older than the pyramids , and that Speculative Masonry in its germ ancl gradual development existed in connection with thc Operative Masonry even of remote times . Anyone , except perhaps
Bro . Buchan , will easily see that this is something very different from the " mistaken notion" wilii which he has mistakenly charged me . The second in his list of mistaken notions , is " That thc old Operative Freemasons , who built houses , churches , & c , of stone and lime , both knew and practised our system of Freemasonry . " As to this , whether thc notion be mistaken or not , I believe
Antiquity Of Freemasonry.
that they had amongst them more of that system than Bro . Buchan holds that they had . But this is the very question at issue , and to set down my opinion on this subject as a mistake , at thc beginning of the argument , is to foreclose the question altogether , and in fact to make an ipse dixit to
serve for argument . My opinion , as I have previously expressed it , is not , however , accurately stated . The statement requires this qualificationwhich ought to have been made , as I have often made it—that our system of Freemasonry has grown to greater and greater completeness iu
recent tunes , ancl it is only an essential agreement in its principles , not an exact agreement in its details , for which I contend . Bro . Buchan has evidently been carried away by his confidence that nothing of Speculative Freemasonry existed among the Operative Masons of past ages , and has
overlooked the important consideration that the system has gradually developed and improved . The third " mistaken notion : I set down to my account , is " That our Freemasonry existed before last century . " Of this Bro . Buchan only remarks , " I shall believe it after T have seen nroof . " He
forgets that here again he has before him the whole question in dispute—the very question as to which proof has been adduced , or is being adduced , on thc one side and the other ; and his setting down my opinion as a mistaken notion is a mere gratuitous assumption as to all that is essential in thc present
controversy . It amazes me that any man pretending to engage in a controversy of this kind—or of any kind—should thus mistake the state of the case , and accuse his opponent of re-retailing dreams and exploded notions , when he can say nothing more to the ' purposc than that he shall believe it after he has
seen proof . A little more modesty might have been more becoming , and a little more argument more suitable . The fourth of my alleged mistaken notions is that I can prove that our " three degrees existed before A . D . 1717 . " Br . Buchan surclv forgets that he is
engaged in controversy at all , when he sets this down as a mistake , ancl as one of those which warrant him in asserting that my letter is full of mistakes . It may almost be said that here again , in another form , we have tlie whole question at issue summarily decided . Bro . Buchan , however , has a
long note on this point , but he gives little more than mere assertions of his own opinion , instead of evidence and argument ; although he blames me for having forgotten " to give us any proof whatever of such having been the case "—that is , that the three degrees existed before 1717 . Yctin his next
sentence he shows that he had before his eyes proof which I did adduce ; for the sentence is as follows : " He alludes to Elias Ashmole being admitted a 'Fellow' of the Masons' Society in the 17 th century ; but as he might also have been admitted a •Fellow ' or honorary member of the Carpenters '
Society , such fellowship docs not prove that he was made a Master Mason such as we now are ; but rather the opposite . " I do not stay at present to show how unfairly my argument is slated as to the existence of the three degrees in the 17 th century ; but I utterly refuse to acknowledge Bro . Buchan ' s
comparison of thc Masons' Society ancl the imaginary Carpenters' Society as of any value whatever . It is evident , from the language employed by Ashmole , that he looked upon his admission by the Masons as something very different from admission into any ordinary society . I refer your readers to
their ., as they have appeared in your columns before . Bro . Buchan appeals to the minute books of the Edinburgh Lodge for 116 years before 1717 , and to those of " Mother Kilwinning" antl other lodges " long before 1717 , " as showing " that our systcm of Speculative Freemasonry was quite
unknown to any of them until after 1717 , when it was introduced from England . " I would not willingly accuse any brother of quibbling , although Bro . Buchan has not scrupled to employ that ugly term with evident reference to me ; but 1 would fain know more precisely what is meant by " our system
of Speculative Freemasonry , " for 1 have always maintained that there has been a progressive development and improvement of Freemasonry , so that our system , precisely as it exists at the present hour , is not that of Ashmole and his contemporaries , nor even that of" Desaguliers and Anderson . 1 only
maintain an essential identity of system or principle —not a perfect sameness . Bro . Buchan goes on to quote some remarks of Bro . D . Murray Lyon , than whom , he says , he does not "know a better Masonic student in Scotland . " I have no wish to dispute Bro . D . M . Lyon ' s claim
to the high honour thus given to him . I refuse , however , to . accept his verdict as final on any of thc disputed questions of Freemasonry , and Bro . Jhich . 111 may just as well assert his own opinion , in so far as any such question is concerned , as quote that of
Bro . D . . Al . Lyon . The " ivniarks " which he quotes as if they were someivh . it authoritative , are nothing more than a mere assertion of opinion , unsupported by even a tittle of evidence . " Non-operatives cannot be shown to have to any extent been admitted
Antiquity Of Freemasonry.
members of lodges before 1634 , and then only they were admitted as Fellows of the Masonic Craft , just as in our day the Prince of Wales or any other nonprofessional gentleman may be received as an honorary member of the Fishmongers' Society . " I would like to ask what evidence we have of
nonprofessional gentlemen being received by the Masons as honorary members . The term , I suppose , was not in use in the 17 th century , and I am inclined to think that the thing intended by it was equally unknown . Bro . D . M . Lyon's next sentence , as quoted by Bro . Buchan , is worthy of some remark ,
and I cannot but say of severe remark : " Such admission had something to do in paving the way for thc more easy adoption of the Speculative Freemasonry that was afterwards manufactured by Desaguliers and Co . " If we look back on the whole history of Masonrv , it is easy to admit that the
admission of non-operative members bad a connection with the further progress or growth of Speculative Masonry , although that it paved the way for it may be denied . The sentence just quoted from Bro . D . M . Lyon —( I accept it as an accurate quotation on Bro . Buchan's authority)—is evidently full
of mere assumption and assertion . Nothing can be more completely unsustained by evidence or argument than any assertion which it contains . It is , moreover , liable to a very grave charge , in that it brings very grave charges against brethren who have long ago passed away from this world , and that
without a shadow of evidence . No name in the history of Freemasonry is more honourable than that of Dr . Desaguliers , and any one who chooses to inquire , may readily learn that he was a man highly distinguished in private life , and highly distinguished —more than only two or three of his
contemporaries—as a man of science . His close associate in what I consider the resuscitation of Freemasonry in England in 1717 , was Dr . Anderson , a Presbyterian minister in London—a man of unimpeachable character . And yet now we have these men disrespectfully spoken of as Desaguliers and Co ., and as
having •' manufactured " the system of Speculative Freemasonry ! It is impossible to believe , without the most conclusive evidence , that such charges are justly brought against them , and it rather moves indignation to find them brought , and brought in so coarse a manner—Desaguliers ancl Co . ! Let Bro .
D . M . Lyon and Bro . AV . P . Buchan think again before they repeat this contemptuous expression concerning men whose names will continue to be known , and whose memories will continue to be honoured , when their , have passed into utter oblivion .
It is not necessary to follow out in every particular the argument , if such it may be called , which Bro . Buchan has adduced on this point , of the existence , or non-existence , of the three degrees before 1717 . He proceeds to quote Bro . D . M . Lyon , as if his opinion was authoritative and conclusive ; Bro .
D . M . Lyon declaring himself convinced , from the Mary ' s Chapel Lodge records , that " 1721 may be pointed to as the date of thc formal inauguration in Scotland of the English system of Freemasonry , as manufactured by Desaguliers , Anderson , and Co . " Here , again we have
the unwarrantable—shall I not say indecentintroduction of names long honoured , as the names of impostors presuming on the simplicity or stupidity of mankind . Again , liro . Buchan quotes from Bro . D . M . Lyon concerning the antiquity of the third degree : " It has hitherto been pointed to , in proof
of the antiquity of thc third degree , that Robert Moray , a soldier , was made a Master Mason in 1641 , in thc Lodge of Edinburgh , Mary's Chapel . He was not made a Master Mason , but , like some other non-operatives , had an honorary connection with that Masons' Society . " How , I would ask
does Bro . D . M . Lyon know this which he so confidently asserts ? It is his opinion that Robert Moray was a mere honorary memberof the Masons ' Society , and nothing more ; but he may fairly be called upon lo prove this , and it may be difficult for him to produce the proof . It may be difficult for
him to prove that , at the date in question , honorary members were admitted into any of thc crafts , of which he supposes the " Masons' Society " to have been one similar to the rest . I refrain from commenting on the "few words " which Bro . Buchan quotes from Bro , AA . J . Hughan
of Truro , " whose writings , " he says , " have thrown a flood of light upon many points of the history of Freemasonry in England " AA'hat does it import that" wrichtes ancl maisoncs" were often classed together , and that Acts of Parliament , relating merely to the crafts as operative , took no notice of
any distinction among them , and of anything bke the Cxi-,.,.,.. ' * of the Masonic system ? It is :., re negative evidence , and leaves abundant room for the . supposition of peculiarities in thc system of Masonry , with which the Legislature did not
concern itself . Bro . Hughan triumphantly says , " No proof of the third degree having been worked as a degree , apart from any other degree , and confined to members only of that degree , anterior to the eighteenth century has ever been given . Let those