Masonic Notes And Queries.

aprons while working at their stones in ancieiit times ? —TV . P . B . ANCIENT MAEKS . " Antiquarian" and his friends thank Bro . Hughan for his courteous information on this subject , of which they will avail themselvesand respectfullsuggest

, y the propriety of any Mason possessing similar marks to kindl y forward them to the Editor of the Magazine , so that when a sufficient number shall have been collected , a lithograph of the same may be published if thought desirable . They also desire to thank their redoubtable Bro . Buchan , who has evidently a

constitutional horror of " antiquarian" insinuations . C 2 KATIVE—KENOVATIVE ( page 205 ) . A careful perusal and study of the Constitutions aud other works of the period tend to prove that the undertaking of Desaguliers , Anderson , and Co ., was creative , which , of course , they knew . —W . P . B .

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

The Editor it not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents THE EOYAL AECH DEGREE .

TO THE EDITOU OF TIIE FEEEMASOlfS' MAGAZINE AMD MASONIC MIEI 10 E . Dear Sir and Brother , — Tour correspondent ' ¦ ' E . A . M . " will readily excuse me for not having noticed his communication sooner , when I explain that my reply has been delayed by absence from home in order to pay the last sad tribute of respect to departed meritin the of one who was endeared

, person to me as well by the ties of filial affection , as by those of Masonic fraternity . The beauty and the pleasantness of unity cannot be too hi ghly appreciated , for without it we can achieve nothing of importance , and ultimate disaster is rendered more than probable . To secure unity , howeverthere must be

, something more than a mere connection—the component parts must be komogeneous ^ otherwise aggregation will prove a source of weakness and confusion , for we cannot unite oil and water , winter and summer , light and darkness . Unfortunately enough , our own constitution is a singular illustration of this futile attempt to reconcile opposites by connecting the Eoyal Arch with Craft

Masonry , and sorry indeed am I to iind that Bro . "William James Hughan should lend the respectabilit y of his name to a cause so utterly unworthy . But he ought to have remembered that ifc was lie and not I who undertook to defend Lawrence Dermott ' s "Holy " Eoyal Arch as a part of ancient Masonry , and

consequently it remains with him to show cause why a decree nisi should not be granted to dissolve this hetercgeneous _ and unhol y alliance . Notwithstanding his admiration of facts , and my repeated inquiries , no evidence has yet been produced . Judgment must therefore go by default ; for if Bro . Hughan does not

think his case worth y or capable of defence , he will doubtless acquit me of any intention to commit so gross an outrage upon Craft Masonry . Although his opinion is very different to mine , it is entitled to my respect , from reasons of a personal character ; but let me ask what are the Masonic public to think when a prominent feature of our Masonry , and one which distinguishes ours from other constitutions , is left wholly unsupported b y its avowed defender—Bro .

Correspondence.

Hughan ? Let me entreat him to examine again the present position of the Eoyal Arch , its absurd pretensions , and its monstrous usurpations thoroughly and impartially , before publishing his contemplated work , and certain am I that his decision will be the reverse of his present opinion on this subject .

Suppose that he can prove the existence of the Eoyal Arch in 1740 , does that make it a part of Craft Masonry ? I trow not . My principal objection to the Eoyal Arch does not rest upon the date of its origin , which we may conjecture took place amongst the " Anfcient" schismaticsand was by them palmed upon

, us at the Union— -but upon the fact that it is needless , invidious , and wholly subversive of the principles of Craft Masonry . That which is emphatically termed the legend or allegory would require to be grossly misinterpreted , and understood in a literal sense—a very illiterate blunder—before anyone could see the

necessity for any perfection or " completion" of its sublimity . If , in consequence of the primal transgression , mankind lost the truth , where can they hope to find it out of the Eternal ? I cannot be more explicit . Hence , any attempt to supplement the Craft degrees is a gilding of refined gold ; and though we

may admit that in itself the diamond of our Craft Masonry loses no brilliancy through its Eoyal Arch setting , the world can form only one opinion of the understanding of such a lapidary . The contempt with which nearly every other Grand Lodge has rejected the Eoyal Arch is a flattering testimony that our constitution not only possesses age without discretion .

Does it not ill become us , above all others , to attempt to make folly venerable ? Can we contemplate the classic and philosophic beauty of Craft Masonry without feelings of the highest admiration ? If not invented by King Solomon , it is at least worthy of his world-renowned wisdom . But , says our constititutionpointing to the Eoyal Archthis is the

com-, , pletion of the third . A greater than Solomon is here ! Can we view such a contrast without laughter , or receive such an insult to common sense without feelings of the deepest indignation ? But , fortunately for the Craft , the manufacturers of the Eoyal Arch were but bunglers at their profession ; and although they

have achieved an inglorious triumph at our expense , which some men of genius might envy , they have , by a formal recognition on our part , taken special care to make us a conspicuous example of negative instruction to the Masonic universe .

Bro . Hughan , however , seems to ignore the value or force of such a proof , and although he does not think it necessary to produce evidence to support a theory in direct opposition to that which forms the basis of the jurisdictions of the world , he calls upon me to demonstrate this self-evident truth . The novelty of his zeal for facts deserves some encouragement from

me , and I am quite willing to hope great things from it ; but is ifc not unfortunate that the first instance of this newly-born zeal cannot be gratified without the most malignant exposure of the constitution ? However , I lay this sin to his charge . Bro . Hughan will recollect thatwhen an Apprenticehe was told that

, , there were several degrees in Freemasonry , & e ., and that these were not conferred indiscriminately , but according to merit and ability . He would also naturally infer that the fees subsequently paid , as by pre-