Correspondence.

vious information , would entitle him to receive the whole of Preemasonry . But in due time he is astonished to find that , although he has been brought to light , he is still in the thick darkness of imperfection , and no matter how much merit or ability he may possess , he cannot emerge from the chrysalis of the Craft

into the gay butterfiyism of tbe Eoyal Arch " completion , '' unless he will pay £ 3 or £ 4 additional , which , with tinsel and millinery , will amount to about £ 7 . Is not this invidious and subversive of the principles of Masonry ? Can a man of honour remember a certain peculiar momentand not blush with shame

, to think that he has deserted the first grand principle , and basely betrayed the former companions of his labours ? If he can , he has my pity ; but his conduct cannot provoke my resentment , which is reserved for that detestable system which offers a snobbish distinction within the very sanctuary of Masonry , and

degrades the nobility of the Craft into a sordid and an avaricious mercenary . Therefore let the brother of " low degree" rejoice that he is not exalted , and let him despise those who acquire rank by dishonour . With a view to cure the existing mania for " high degrees , " I have had submitted to me a project , for

forming a body to confer every degree , from the Royal Arch to the 33 rd , upon any worthy M . M ., without fee or reward , as I am convinced that my obligations to the Craft degrees are superior to all subsequent engagements , and it appears that nothing but a homceopathic treatment will eradicate the deeply rooted disease . Tours fraternally , EIAT Lux .

Royal Arch Masonry.

ROYAL ARCH MASONRY .

10 THE EDITOU OE TEE EEEE 3 IAS 0 NS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC HIEROH . Dear Sir and Brother , — "We have had lately in the Freemason ' s Magazine and Masonic Mirror two very opposite theories advocated with respect to the origin of Eoyal Arch Masonry—advocated , apparently , by brethren well able to defend their views and support

their opinions by logical arguments ; and provided their premises be admitted , their conclusions must follow . Of course it is admitted that to " talk of such a degree , or , indeed , any other , being the completion of the third is to offer an outrage to common sense , especially when we consider the position which the Eoyal

Arch occupies in this country , where its dependent degradation excites the melancholy pity of its friends and the derision of its enemies . ATI that " Fiat Lux " has said iu the Freemason ' s Magazine may readily be believed . Again , when Masons generally adopt the views of

Bro . John iarker ( a well-known literary brother ) , and acknowledge " the Eoyal Arch degree is older than 1717 , " it is easy to thereafter find many who will strenuously maintain that the revival of Ereemaaonry , A . D . 1716 , was not antecedent to the introduction of Eoyal Arch Masonry . 'We admit neither hypothesis ,

because we consider both to be contrary to fact . In the first place , to attempt to argue that " Eoyal Arch Masonry was not in existence A . D . 1740 , nor till long after , " would seem to me quite superfluous , as records are vouched for by several excellent Masons of date 1743 referring to the degree ; and even if this fact were not accepted , I have in my possession a work by

Royal Arch Masonry.

Dr . Dassigny , A . D . 174-1 ' , which most distinctly mentions the Eoyal Arch , and that more than once in a favouable manner . In " Ahiman Eezon , " . D . 1756 , there is a prayer to be " repeated in the Eoyal Arch Lodge , " and also a defence of the degree by Bro . Dermottwho "he firmlbelieves it to be tho

, says y root , heart , and marrow of Preemasonry . " "Whether this brother ' s opinion is worth much or not , I do not here enquire , but simply offer this quotation because of its date , and also because Dr . Dassigny ' s work is alluded to in it .

There is , therefore sufficient evidence to prove that the degree is nothing like so modern as " Eiat Lux " states it to be , neither is it so ancient as Bro . Yarker advocates , so far as we know . If we are not to accept the evidence of our " records , " I should like to know on what grounds we are to base our views of Masonry .

Unless we can prove a tradition to have more than a , merely traditional character , why should we receive it , and ignore the negative proof of minutes ? If there are no records before 1740 that refer to the Eoyal Arch degree in any way , and no works after that date for some years that attempt to prove its antiquity , on what grounds can ib be reasonably acknowledged to have an existence before 1717 ?

If , as some think , the third degree consisted of two parts before 1740 , and after that the innovators put the second part in the Eoyal Arch degree , or , rather , divided the third , and called the last part Eoyal Arch Masonry , surely that would not decide the antiquity of the Eoyal Arch degree ; especially as we know there is not a work known that refers to the third degree as a separate degree that was printed or written before A . D . 1710 . "What evidence there can be of the

existence of the Eoyal Arch degree " long prior to the date 1740 " aeems to me inexplicable . I have searched everywhere possible , and left no means unemployed whereby to procure every possible information on the subject , and still I fall back on the late Bro . the Eev . Dr . George Oliver ' s " History and Oriin of the Eoyal

g Arch" ( Spencer , London ) as the most reliable and trustworthy on the matter , and therein it is distinctly stated not to have had an existence prior to 1740 , and , what is more , there is plenty of evidence in support of the learned writer ' s assertions .

"Whilst , " however , objecting to the claims of antiquity for the Eoyal Arch offered by Bro . Yarker , I do not at all accept the startling assertion of " Eiat Lux" that the degree is totally subversive of the principles of Masonry , " and " as one of the high degrees , ifc is only contemptible . " My views partake more of

the via media ; and whilst partly admitting that "Eiat Lux" is correct respecting its being a modern degree ( although not so modern as he states ) , at the same time I think it is equally evident that Eoyal Arch Masonry is far from being the " bungling" degree that some would have us believe . These are a few of

my thoughts on the subject , which may be wrong , but which , until they are confuted , will remain as facts . of Masonic history , according to my judgment . Let them , however , be shown to be erroneous , and I will reject them at once . Our pursuit is for truth . We may not agree as to theories , but in accumulating

facts we are faithfully serving the Craft universal . Yours fraternally , "W . J . HUGHAN .