Table Of Contents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

PAGES "O RIGIN OF FREEMASONRY , " Sec—No . 2 623 , 624 , & 625 ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER OF IMPROVEMENT ... 625 T HE

CRAFTMetropolitan 625 Provincial ... 625 ROYAL ARCH 625 T HE ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED RITE ... 626 & 627 I LLUSTRATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF THE CRAFT 627 & 62 S

O RIGINAL C ORRESPONDENCE" Freemasonry and Judaism " 628 An Urgent Appeal 628 & 629 ¦ William Phillips Barrett ' s Candidature ... 629

C ONSECRATION OF THE CLAPTON LODGE , No . 1365 629 THE A MERICAN K . T . TOURISTS 629 MASONIC MEETINGS FOR NEXT WEEK ... 629 & 630 A DVERTISEMENTS 621 , 622 , 630 , 631 , & 632

"Origin Of Freemasonry," &C No. 2.

"ORIGIN OF FREEMASONRY , " & c No . 2 .

( Continued from page 485 . ) Bro . W . P . Buchan has favoured the readers of THE FREEMASON with the second of a series of three articles in support of the

negative side of the question of the "Revival " ( or non-revival ) of Freemasonry A . D . 1717 , and in his communication wishes me to " enter into the matter as fully and pointedly in my answer as I possibly can ,

so that he may have a chance of replying to my statements . " Surely , Bro . Buchan has mistaken the object of the discussion , which was entered on by me in the belief that something was to be advanced in

favour of the negative , which would prove the following words of mine to be wrong : " That the true history of Freemasonry in this country is the history of an operative body ; " and substantiate that " what took

place in 1717 was not the revival of operative Freemasonry , or of any other Freemasonry , nor is the Institution known as ' speculative Freemasonry' a lineal descendant of either operative masonry or

operative rrcemasonry . " At page 393 of THE FREEMASON , Bro . Buchan challenged my statement of the question , and , at page 442 , undertook to prove exactly what we have quoted above .

For what lie has offered as proof , the readers of THE FREICMASOXare respectfully referred to pages 442 and 600 , and I think they will agree with me in believing that Bro . Buchan

has utterly failed to produce one iota of evidence that militates against the transactions of 1717 being , in every legitimate sense , a " Revival oi Freemasonry . "

My first communication ( which would have becna lengthyanswer to Bro . Buchan ' s first article , if there had been anything in it requiring a detailed and explicit examination ) was mainly to show that the point

in dispute was not whether there were three degrees in operation before 1717 , because it is known that the parties to tin ' s discussion believe there were not three degrees in Masonry anterior to the last

century . In concluding my reply , I also mentioned at least five distinct propositions with respect to the " Revival of Freemasonry , " which it was in my power to

substantiate , and thought , naturally , that Bro . Buchan would object to one or more of these , seeing that if their truth was admitted , the position advocated by me would be abundantly verified . The contrary ,

"Origin Of Freemasonry," &C No. 2.

however , has been the case , for these separate and distinct propositions have been ignored ; and in the second letter on the negative , Bro . Buchan again returns to the antiquity of Masonic degrees , although he

must know they have nothing whatever to do with the question at issue between him and me . It is absurd to complain of the paucity of my first communication . It was the necessary effect of his barren article

( barren so far as evidence against my position is concerned ) . The challenger should certainly be prepared with facts in support of his right to challenge , and while I am quite ready and willing to have all my

observations with respect to the Fraternity challenged , I must certainly reserve to myself the right to expect that whenever any statement is disputed , the objector should be prepared with something like

prima facie grounds to justify his opposition . It is easy enough to challenge , and the work of a lifetime may be treated as though it were nothing , by some ; but , surely , the Craft would not sanction such a

treatment unless proof were forthcoming . It is not my province to furnish any fresh matter for Bro . Buchan to write upon during this discussion . To justify him in

challenging , he must be in possession of facts to disprove my statements in reference to the origin of Freemasonry ; and therefore it is for him to make them known through the

medium of this paper , especially as I have written often on this subject before , and there is , consequently , the less need for me to reiterate what has' already been said and re-said many times within the last few

years . The second letter by Bro . Buchan is now before me , and the following is my answer

to it , and , as he has done , I have written it , without any attempt to beg the question , and with a strong desire to promote truth and elicit information of value to the

Craft : — ( a ) The first point to examine in Bro . Buchan ' s defence of his position is , " It is well known that our system is one of

degrees ; it follows that if neither these degrees , nor any degrees at all , existed before 1716 , then our system could not have existed before then either . " It is

quite true our present system of Freemasonry is one of " degrees , " but it is not clear that at the " Revival" it was so , and for several years afterwards it certainly was not so in England generally . The

majority of the lodges were not in possession of the secrets of the Third Degree , especially , for some years after the " Revival , " and many were quite content at being Apprentices or Fellow-Crafts , in proof of which

may be adduced the early minutes of lodges wherein Fellow-Crafts were registered as such , and even appointed as deputations to open new lodges , so late as A . D . 1751 , and also the vote of Grand Lodge permitting

ordinary lodges to confer the Third Degree a few years after its institution . Now , although it is hereby admitted that there was no series of degrees anterior to 1717 such as we have had since , yet it is my firm conviction that the main secrets known to

Masons before the " Revival were incorporated into the ceremonies of Freemasonry about A . D . 1717 and since . My belief is based upon a number of floating proofs which should be carefully consulted , and

which decidedly point us to the conclusion mentioned . The question is , what were the peculiar secretsof Masons , known to the Craft

as such before the last century , and have these been retained ? In Scotland , the ancient documents still preserved appear only to refer to the " Mason-word , " and so long as

"Origin Of Freemasonry," &C No. 2.

this word is contained in connection with the present ritual , and the manners and customs of the ancient Fraternity are preserved , their traditions kept , and their charges delivered in lodges ( which we firmly

believe to be the case ) , then , as the Craft did revive in Scotland A . D . 1736 , the proceedings may fairly be termed a " Revival " of the ancient Order . But if so in Scotland , how much more so in England ? There is

plenty of evidence in print to satisfy the most exacting that there were signs ( not only a sign , but signs ) used by Freema sons in their chapters years before the " Revival . " In the " Natural History of

Staffordshire , " by Robert Plot , LL . D ., printed at Oxford in the year 1686 , zue find , on perusal , the following relating to Freemasons : " They proceed to the admission of them , which chiefly consists in the

communication of certain secret signs , whereby they are known to one another all over the nation , by which means they have maintenance whither ever they travel ; for if any man appear , though altogether unknown ,

that can show any of these signs to a Fellow of the Society , whom they otherwise call an Accepted Mason , he is obliged presently to come to him . " After alluding to certain laws which are found in a " schrole or

parchment volume they have amongst them , " Dr . Plot goes on to observe : " But some others they have ( to which they are sworn after their fashion ) that none know but themselves" . . , I found persons

of the most eminent quality , that did not disdain to be of this Felloivship . " Other printed evidence of the customs of the Freemasons as to their having " signs , " & c , before the " Revival" are in existence :

but this will suffice for the present . In MSS . there are two of importance , one of which all judges , so far , have admitted it to be about A . D . 1650 , and the other , the date of which has been questioned , and , in fact .

is just now in process of elucidation by "A Masonic Student , " and others . The first MS . is No . 2054 , f . 33 ( HarleianMS . British

Museum ) . For the benefit of all concerned I present a copy of it from my ' ¦ ' Masonic Sketches and Reprints , " p . 46 , part 2 , wherein it was printed for the first time : —

" I here is Severall words and signes of a freemason to be reveiled to yu . web . as yu . will answ . before God at the Great & terrible day of Tudcmt . yu . keep

secret & not to revaile the same in the heares of any person or to any but to the Mrs . & fellows of the said Society of free masons so hclpe me God , & c . "

The second document is the Sloane MS ., No . 3329 , f . 142 , of which I have a certified copy , but which I do not see my way clear at present to publish . Bro . Buchan devotes a considerable portion of his letter

to the consideration of the probable date of this MS ., and fixes it according to what appears to him the nearest approximation , viz ., " not any older than 1717 . " At first sight I was inclined to think it belonged to

the early part of the last century , but after a careful examination of it , in connection with the foregoing work by Dr . Plot , it seems to me to be difficult to decide , and at present we prefer waiting the result of " A

Masonic Student ' s" investigation . Bro . J . G . Findel , the Masonic historian of Germany , believes Dr . Plot knew of it when writing his history in 1686 , and , certainly , it is a fact that we find in his work of A . D .

1686 , and in the MS ., what we can find nowhere else . Bro . the Rev . A . F . A . Woodford ( an excellent authority on the subject ) believes it was written before the middle of the 17 th century , and the late Mr . J . R . Wallbran ( a gentleman well versed in