Masonic Notes And Queries.

other instances of his personal strength , continued the Square , 'but the repetition of them will not be interesting to you . ' Poor Topham ! With all his strength he was as meek as a lamb , and a perfect slave at home , for his termagant helpmate led him a very unquiet life ; and , in the end , ruined him , and forced him from his dwelling . It was at this point of time that Dr . Desaguliers became his friend ancl patron ; for , as a professor of experimental philosophy , betook great interest in his performances .

He placed him in another public-house at the Hermitage , with the sign of the Ship ; ancl , after making him a Mason , established a lodge at bis house , as a means of increasing his business by the introduction of his friends . And , -I must say , the loclge was well conducted , with Bro . Desaguliers at its head as the Master ; and increased rapidly in numbers and respectability . Its cognizance was the redoubtable Thomas Topham matching his strength against that of a horsewith his feet propped by the fragment

, of a wall ; and its name , the Strong-man Lodge . Topham , bowever , unfortunately took to drinking , and the business fell into other hands ; but the lodge , prospered , and was considered a crack establishment when the poor fellow and his patron were no more . " —BOOKWOHM . MONSTER MASONIC MEETING . The centenary of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts

was celebrated on the 21 th June , 1862 . A procession was formed of 54 » Masonic bodies , composed of 2500 brethren , with 8 bands of music ; ifc was upwards of a mile in length . In the banquetting pavilion , 3000 plates Avere laid . One ¦ thousand pounds of boned turkeys Avas an insignificant item in the bill of fare . TEMPLAR OPERATIVE CONSTITUTIONS

Are there any known Templar documents , or rules , for the governance of the . Operative Masons . The existing Constitutions are those of the Gothic builders , which style is supposed to have been introduced by the Crusaders . —A .

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents . THE ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES . TO THE EDITOR OP THE 1 'ItEEiIASOJtS' MAGAZINE AKD 3 TASOXIG MIRROR . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I should not have ventured again to trespass on your limited space , had it not been for " Delta ' s " letter in the MAGAZINE of to-day .

My answer to it is partly anticipated by your " Notice to Correspondents , " where , as " Delta" will see , you kindly correct the errata in last number , by substituting " sever " for " sneer , " which was a misprint . I hope thafc long before even "Delta" reads these words of mine , he Avill have dismissed from his mind any idea of personality .

I can , I think , safely say that my motto has been defence , not defiance , in everything that I have ventured to advance ; and I may fairly claim for these , my lucubrations , whether sound or unsound , the unchanging Interest and painstaking study of over 20 years as a Mason . Feeling thai ? some of " Delta ' s " remarks aud allusions

concerning myself may be the result of a misconception , -caused by an accidental misprint in my last , I pass them by to day , thou gh I might justly take serious exception to them , especially to one most uumasonic expressiongulled . I am , however , most anxious that our so far -friendly controversy should remain clear of anything like personal rejoinder , and therefore think it better to leave

the matter where it stands . "Delta" asks , however , one question Avhich requires a reply . " What then becomes , " he enquires , " of Ebor ' s boasted agreement between operative and accepted Masonry ?" This query is based on a statement of Preston ' s , that Sir Christopher Wreu was elected Grand Master in 1684 of the Operative Grand Assembly on the death of the Earl oi Arlington .

"NOAV , we all know , " adds "Delta , " "that Sir Christopher Wren Avas not made an Accepted Mason till 1691 . " As "Delta" Avould seemingly put it , Sir Christopher Wren , according to Preston , was elected Grand Master of the Operative Grand Assembly in 1684 ; bufc we have an account of his admission at St . Paul ' s , in 1691 , into

the fraternity of adopted Masons , ergo operative and speculative Masonry are not the same , bufc distinct and separate altogether . JSOAV , to say nothing of the non sei / ai-tar of such an argument , can the facts "Delta" adduces be relied on to prove this supposed decision and contradiction ? The author oi Malta Pa . ut ; es states that Lord Arlington

Avas Grand Master in 1684 , and that Sir Christopher Wren was elected Grand Master in 1685 , so thafc great authorities differ even as to this fact . No doubt ; the author of Multa Pa-aces mentions Wren before 1691—indeed , so for back as 1661 . I agree with '' Delta" that Ave have from Aubrey , as quoted by Bro . Halliwell , the real account of Sir

Christopher Wren ' s admission into the accepted brotherhood in 1691 . But Avhat I contend for is , thafc this accepted brotherhood in 1691 was but the same with tho operative brotherhood in 1684 . . The very words which Aubrey uses—the terms he employs , the place of admission , the names of the coinitiates—all combine to show that Ave have here the

only account on which Ave can safely rely . However it may interfere with other statements , however antagonise received dates , I feel convinced myself thafc Aubrey gives us the true chronology of Sir Christopher Wren ' s admission to the secrets and niA'steries of Freemasonry .

The history of those times is still so confused , our own Masonic annals are so scanty , and , I must add , so unsatisfactory , thafc little reliance can he placed on the conflicting tradition of our OAVU historians . Aubrey ' s statement ignores , I quite admit , any previous connection of Sir Christopher Wren with the Craft—ignores , too , the claim of his assumed Grand Mastership , whether

in 1684 or 1655 , unless one is prepared to adopt " Delta ' s " hypothesis of the distinct existence then of operative and speculative Masonry . But yet Aubrey ' s account seems so straightforward and matter of fact , that unless we could suppose him to be altogether incorrect in his dates , we cannot remove the force of his contemporary witness .

But , in saying this , I by no means acquiesce in " Delta ' s " favourite assertion , that operative and speculative Masonry was , even in 1691 , altogether distinct . I may observe that neither Preston nor the author of Multa Fauces , whether their chronology be correct or not , have the slightest doubt thafc the Grand Lodge of 1717 ivas the legitimate successor of the Operative

Assembly in 1684 . All that " Delta" does establish is what I have also sought to establish , thafc our historical dates aud chronology require a careful revision—but revision is not disavowal—amendment is not destruction . " Delta , " on . the contrary , would ruthlessly sweep away all our Craft traditions previous to 1717 , aud make Masonry then the revival of an adulfc Order preserved

mysteriously in the bosom of a Templar or Hose Croix Chapter . Here we end , as Ave began , as far as the poles asunder . There is no historical difficulty in supposing thafc Sir Christopher Wreu was not admitted to our Order till 1691 , —as he did not ; die till 1723—and St . Paul's was not completed till 1710 , though " nearly completed " in

1691 . If the speculative and operative lodges were so distinct ; in 1691 , as "Delta" will have ifc , why should Sir Christopher Wreu go to St . Paul ' s—the great gathering place of Operative Masons—to be made a Speculative Mason ? Tours fraternally , February 28 th , 1863 . EBOE .