-
Articles/Ads
Article ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Antiquity Of Masonic Degrees.
ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES .
\ ZO JS DOF , SATURDAY , FEBRUARY 21 , 18 G 3 .
( From a Correspondent . ) Like Delta , I had not intended asain to trespass 0 Ii your space , had not , as he well puts it , the interest attached to the discussion seemed to serve as an excuse for still further craving , on my part ,
your patient indulgence . I am sorry to learn that Delta is reduced to the strait of " believing" Masonry to be "Templary , " or that " our three first ceremonies are the invention of the eig hteenth century . "
Not being reduced to such a "forlorn hope" myself , and trusting that thousands of my brethren are equally far removed from so lamentable a state of mind , I propose to take once again Delta ' s remarks seriatim , and show once more , as I think I have already sho wa , that he is sacrificing the substance of
true Masonry , in order to grasp a fantastic and disappointing shadow . Delta assumes what I have never yet conceded , though I thought it beside our immediate controversy , that modern and Masonic Templary , is indeed the same as aucient Templary , ou that I express no deliberate opinion , though niauy
good Masons doubt it , and to say the least , the historical evidence of it , nay , the Masonic evidence of it , is very scanty . But this by the way . In his orig inal letter , Delta denied that the three Craft degrees had any connection with operative Masonry , but asserted that they were a compilation
not later than the beginning of the eighteenth century , and that Templary was , if not tlie source , at any rate , the more ancient preserver of true Masonry . Though asked to give proof of such sweeping assertions , Delta travels from the record , leaves unnoticed the request for proof , but simply reiterates his firm conviction that the matter is as he first
stated it . But now Delta brings forward a newtheory , viz ., that Mark Masonry is identical with operative Masonry . Whatever be the importance of Mark Masonry to our general system , and that it has some importance I at once concede , yet it is impossible not to
demur to so categorical a demand ou our assent . I cannot now recall to mind the poetical extract of the fifteenth century , given , as Delta says , by our Bro . Matthew Cooke , " and beautifully showing the system of the working Masons ; " but of this I am quite confident , and this I again assert , that none of
the ancient operative charges or constitutions , or rules , or catechisms , which are still extant , afford to Delta the sli ghtest ground for attempting to sneer , as he does , at operative and speculative Masonry . I have not the fourth volume of-the MAGAZINE by
me , so am also unable to refer to the authority ot Bro . Matthew Cooke , whom Delta quotes , iu regard , as I understand him , to signs , & c , though naturally anything which Bro . Matthew Cooke puts forward deserves , at the hand of any Masonic student , respectful consideration . The Craft are greatly
indebted to him for the publication , of the " constitutions , " and I hope that he will continue to prosecute Eis valuable ancl unwearied researches . But yet I am not aware of any such authority existing , as "Delta" seems to imply . There is , in the Sloane MSS ., a paper which
professes to give the words and signs of a Preemason , together with a catechism , but that is in no wise confined to Operative Masonry . But is in truth fatal to Delta ' s theory , as it distinctly recognises the Master Mason and tlie Eellow Craft , and has , in fact , much to interest , perhaps more to amuse , every
Speculative Mason . Dr . Oliver in his last work , The Masonic Treasury , talks of a Sloane MS ., 38-18 , which disproves the antiquity of the Masters ' s degree . I believe Dr . Oliver has been misinformed , as 3 S 1 S Sloane , is but another transcript of the Masonic Constitutions ,
written probably early in the 16 th century , but having the endorsement of a Bro . Sanley , in 1646 . Dr . Oliver probably means the MS . 3228 , fo . 137 ,
but which , in itself , is decisive , as to the question of the Craft degrees . Delta seems to derive Masonry from Mesouraneo . One should have thought , by this time , that such a derivation would have been exploded altogether . It is , as a derivation , too absurd , in truth , to give the
slightest heed to . We have evidence from the York fabric rolls , that in 1370 , "Le loye , " was in use in England , to express the operative lodge . Magon , a JM ason , and magonner , to do Masons work , were in use at the same time in
Prance . That the Norman Prench word , " is lof / e , " is derived from the corrupt Latin , locjerium , or lor / eta , while magon , is equally derived , from the corrupt Latin memsio . Boquepart shows , in his Vocabtdaire de la lanque
" Romance , that even in the 12 th century , ma .-ointer had yet the meaning , to form a secret conspiracy-The remark that Delta makes , about Aubrey ' s paragraph respecting Ashmole , is truly astounding ,, for if that proves anything , it proves incontestable
this , that Ashmole , a purely speculative Mason , ivas admitted into an operative lodge ancl the regulations still exist in the British Museum , long anterior to 1717 , which governed the first gradual , but at last general admission of the speculative element . That Ashmole was a Eosicrucian may he the fact , but that he thereby learned the true speculative Masonry , is not proven in the remotest degree .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Antiquity Of Masonic Degrees.
ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES .
\ ZO JS DOF , SATURDAY , FEBRUARY 21 , 18 G 3 .
( From a Correspondent . ) Like Delta , I had not intended asain to trespass 0 Ii your space , had not , as he well puts it , the interest attached to the discussion seemed to serve as an excuse for still further craving , on my part ,
your patient indulgence . I am sorry to learn that Delta is reduced to the strait of " believing" Masonry to be "Templary , " or that " our three first ceremonies are the invention of the eig hteenth century . "
Not being reduced to such a "forlorn hope" myself , and trusting that thousands of my brethren are equally far removed from so lamentable a state of mind , I propose to take once again Delta ' s remarks seriatim , and show once more , as I think I have already sho wa , that he is sacrificing the substance of
true Masonry , in order to grasp a fantastic and disappointing shadow . Delta assumes what I have never yet conceded , though I thought it beside our immediate controversy , that modern and Masonic Templary , is indeed the same as aucient Templary , ou that I express no deliberate opinion , though niauy
good Masons doubt it , and to say the least , the historical evidence of it , nay , the Masonic evidence of it , is very scanty . But this by the way . In his orig inal letter , Delta denied that the three Craft degrees had any connection with operative Masonry , but asserted that they were a compilation
not later than the beginning of the eighteenth century , and that Templary was , if not tlie source , at any rate , the more ancient preserver of true Masonry . Though asked to give proof of such sweeping assertions , Delta travels from the record , leaves unnoticed the request for proof , but simply reiterates his firm conviction that the matter is as he first
stated it . But now Delta brings forward a newtheory , viz ., that Mark Masonry is identical with operative Masonry . Whatever be the importance of Mark Masonry to our general system , and that it has some importance I at once concede , yet it is impossible not to
demur to so categorical a demand ou our assent . I cannot now recall to mind the poetical extract of the fifteenth century , given , as Delta says , by our Bro . Matthew Cooke , " and beautifully showing the system of the working Masons ; " but of this I am quite confident , and this I again assert , that none of
the ancient operative charges or constitutions , or rules , or catechisms , which are still extant , afford to Delta the sli ghtest ground for attempting to sneer , as he does , at operative and speculative Masonry . I have not the fourth volume of-the MAGAZINE by
me , so am also unable to refer to the authority ot Bro . Matthew Cooke , whom Delta quotes , iu regard , as I understand him , to signs , & c , though naturally anything which Bro . Matthew Cooke puts forward deserves , at the hand of any Masonic student , respectful consideration . The Craft are greatly
indebted to him for the publication , of the " constitutions , " and I hope that he will continue to prosecute Eis valuable ancl unwearied researches . But yet I am not aware of any such authority existing , as "Delta" seems to imply . There is , in the Sloane MSS ., a paper which
professes to give the words and signs of a Preemason , together with a catechism , but that is in no wise confined to Operative Masonry . But is in truth fatal to Delta ' s theory , as it distinctly recognises the Master Mason and tlie Eellow Craft , and has , in fact , much to interest , perhaps more to amuse , every
Speculative Mason . Dr . Oliver in his last work , The Masonic Treasury , talks of a Sloane MS ., 38-18 , which disproves the antiquity of the Masters ' s degree . I believe Dr . Oliver has been misinformed , as 3 S 1 S Sloane , is but another transcript of the Masonic Constitutions ,
written probably early in the 16 th century , but having the endorsement of a Bro . Sanley , in 1646 . Dr . Oliver probably means the MS . 3228 , fo . 137 ,
but which , in itself , is decisive , as to the question of the Craft degrees . Delta seems to derive Masonry from Mesouraneo . One should have thought , by this time , that such a derivation would have been exploded altogether . It is , as a derivation , too absurd , in truth , to give the
slightest heed to . We have evidence from the York fabric rolls , that in 1370 , "Le loye , " was in use in England , to express the operative lodge . Magon , a JM ason , and magonner , to do Masons work , were in use at the same time in
Prance . That the Norman Prench word , " is lof / e , " is derived from the corrupt Latin , locjerium , or lor / eta , while magon , is equally derived , from the corrupt Latin memsio . Boquepart shows , in his Vocabtdaire de la lanque
" Romance , that even in the 12 th century , ma .-ointer had yet the meaning , to form a secret conspiracy-The remark that Delta makes , about Aubrey ' s paragraph respecting Ashmole , is truly astounding ,, for if that proves anything , it proves incontestable
this , that Ashmole , a purely speculative Mason , ivas admitted into an operative lodge ancl the regulations still exist in the British Museum , long anterior to 1717 , which governed the first gradual , but at last general admission of the speculative element . That Ashmole was a Eosicrucian may he the fact , but that he thereby learned the true speculative Masonry , is not proven in the remotest degree .