Grand Chapter.

GRAND CHAPTER .

LONDON , SATURDAY , FEBRTTAXY 7 , 1863 .

The Quarterly Convocation of that sham of shams , G-rand Chapter , which ought long since to have been numbered with the institutions of the past , Avas held on Wednesday , and like the celebrated army of a King of 3 ? rance , which marched up the hill and down

again—did nothing . It is true G-rand Chapter was opened—one or two questions talked over—and Grand Chapter was closed ; being entirely barren of results . When will the Companions determine to sweep away the nuisance entirely ? If Freemasonry , as the Soo 7 c

of Constitutions declares , consists of three degrees ( including the Royal Arch ) , be one institution—a fact , by the way , which Companion Savage declares to be only theoretical ; then the management should vest only in Grand Lodge , and Masonry be one and indivisible .

Antiquity Of Masonic Degrees.

ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES .

( From a Gorrespondenti ) In the hope that this interesting subject may yet attract the attention and the study of many , who are well qualified to throw light upon it , I venture once more to trespass upon your space . The seasonable publication in your last number ofthe MAGAZINE , of the communication of Bro . Matthew Cooke ' s able

correspondent , together with the appearance of "Delta's " reply , may be fairly taken as proof that the matter has . some little interest for the Craft at large . It was with that view that the remarks were put together , which you were good enough to insert in the MAGAZINE of the week before last .

They were , in fact , the result of "Delta ' s" note amongst Masonic Notes and Queries , in the preceding number , and were confined to his statements which seemed to ask for some notice , on the part of those who hold a diametrically opposite theory . " Delta , " in his reply , in your last numberappears

, to me somewhat to forget and to wander from the real point in controversy between us . Itis , shortly stated , what is the actual antiquity of our present Craft degrees ? Are they anterior to 1717 ? or are they a compilation made just at that time ?

Is Masonry itself , in fact , the precursor of Templary , or was Templary the origin of Masonry ? If words have meaning " Delta " laid down , in his original communication , that our present Speculative Masonry was the product of the Grand Lodge of 1717

; that that Grand Lodge , —rather a startling assertion , — "was founded by a few rusty Speculative Masons who had passed the degree of a Craft . " I

suppose he means EellowCraft , but where , he does not say . In fact , this Grand Lodge , he proceeds to state , was the formation of "Masons ignorant and careless against the degree of a Master . " Having thus satisfactorily disposed of the antiquity of Craft Masonry , he goes on to examine the

superior antiquity of Temjilar Masonry . The Templar Knights having , as he says , re-established their lodges in 1314 , that they were ' at York in 1561 , and from 1700 to 1787 ; and having alluded to other high degrees and ancient Masonry , and Dermott's attack

on the Order , he leaves it to be inferred that from these same high and knightly degrees Masonry derived its origin . If this be so—coedit questio—all our belief in the antiquity of Craft Masonry , its ritual , its traditions ,

its marks , its unity , is swept away for ever . To meet this untenable theory , I ventured to submit that explanation , which I firmly believe is the true one , and which subsequent research Avill incontestably establish , viz ., that our present Grand Lodge

of Speculative and Accepted Masonry is but ; the legitimate and lineal successor ofthe Grand Assembly of Operative Masonry , revived after the civil wars , and with the absorption of the operative by the speculative element , through the progress of time , and the

conditions of the general body . I do not see , I confess , when I even " partially admit , " in saying this , what "Delta" is contending , for .

On the contrary , if I understand him , and he understands me , we differ toto ccelo , and are , in truth , as far as the poles asunder . Eor observe the difference between us . " Delta " looks for the origin of Masonry in some secret speculative body , whether of knightly or of high degree ; I trace the history of speculative

Masonry to-day—through the operative guilds before 1700—through the operative feudalities of the middle and earlier ages—to the Roman colleges , and thence to the Tyrian and Hebrew Masons . re . I might enlarge a great deal on this subject , but I

spare your readers' time and patience . As regards the connection between the operative and speculative Masons in this country previous to 1700 , which I asserted existed , and of which I gave a few proofs , I observe that Delta takes no notice of Dr . Plot ' s

evidence , w hich , ' pro tanto , is most important as' showing the antiquity before 1687 , of conjoint lodges of operative and speculative Masons . Neither does " Delta " allude to the very striking evidence of that Masonic poem , written by Mr . Marsh in the latter part of the fourteenth century , and which led Mr .

Halliwell , a non-Mason , to admit , that " the identity of the legend in the ancient poem with , that in the modern constitutions is a decisive argument in . favour of the connection between the old societies of Masons and the benefit clubs of the seventeenth century . " Mr . Halliwell , who as a Cowan , speaks thus ignorantly of Masonry itself , in calling it a benefit club , unhesitatingly connects the revival in the 17 th