Correspondence.

Dr . Knipe's letter , with the , intention , no doubt , of further consideration . My memorandum was actually in these words , " Ashmole , life of , see History of Berkshire , E . Curl ] , 1719 . " Lower down on the same page , but , unfortunately , without a line of separation to point to a different

reference , I had , and have still , this further note . " Page 165 . Knipe's letter to the publisher of Ashmole ' s life . " When I answered Bro . Hyde Clark's query , in Notes and Queries , I looked to my old notes to see what I had there about Dr . Knipo , as 1 remembered having lighted upon his nameand was led bthis notein itself

in-, y , accurate and careless , to give that mistaken reference to the History of Berkshire , which Bro . Matthew Cooke has dilated upon in the last number . I enter into these details to show hoAV simple , and yet how unintentional , has been the error on my part ; and that at any rate , say what you will about too hurried notes , I , myself , gave to anyone the means and opportunity of finding out ,

immediately , au unintentional error . I-found . out my own mistake last Tuesday , in the British Museum , when examining the History of Berkshire again , aud Ashmole ' s life and diary , in order to trace out , if possible , a little further , Dr . Thomas Knipe . Not having all my references with me , I was , for some time , fearful that I should not be able . again to stumble on the object of my search , but devoting Tuesday , Wednesday , and Thursday to the task , I was able to recover even more than I had temporarily lost . I . venture ,

therefore , to give you to-day the result of my long search , the more so , as Bro . Matthew Cooke has openly declined to do so , except partially , and as it may interest some Masonic student . Under the name "Ashmole" in the Biographia Britannica , vol . i ., first edition , 1718 , page 274 , note E , there is a long communication to the publisher , purporting to be

this very letter of Dr . Knipe . The same letter is to be found in the second edition ofthe Biographia Britannica , 1778 , under the name of "Ashmole , " and the same note E . In the Pocket Companion and History of Freemasons , London , 1759 , page 90 , the same quotation is to be found . Krause , in his valuable German work , published at Dresden , in 1819 , page 281 , gives the whole extract , from the

Biographia Britannica , in English . A reference to the same letter may also be found in more than one of Dr . Oliver ' s Avorks . I am convinced by the re-pernsal of tho letter , especially in the original quotation , both of its genuineness and authenticity , and hope to follow up one or two clues there given , Avhen time permits , so as to find out , perhaps ,

Dr . Knipe ' s authorities and Ashmole ' s evidences . I pass by to-day all other remarks of Bro . Matthew Cooke , to many of Avhich I might fairly take exceptionas , if there is one thing which Masomy ought to teach ns , it is this , especially in Masonic inquiry and Masonic research , that nothing is so hateful as personality , and nothing in the world so entirelbeneath the notice of

y every true and intelligent Mason . Thanking you for your continued courtesj' , I am , yours fraternally , A . F . A . WOODFOED . Swillington , Leeds , March 16 , 1863 .

Antiquity Of Masonic Degrees.

ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES .

10 THE EDITOB Ol' THE FHEEESIASOXs' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIHEOE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —As "Delta , " in your last number , expresses fraternally his regret for an observation I justly complained of , I shall not say another word on so purely a personal matter . With respect to the subject of our controversy , it will still , I fear , stand good of us both : — "A man convinced against his will , Is of the same opinion still . "

Delta and Ebor must then continue to agree to differ , as there is no likelihood of approximation or agreement between them . In his last letter , Delta distinctly records his deliberate opinion that " our practices are only a modification of the ancient Johnnite Templar ceremonies of York , and were those first practised here by the crusaders or

modified only by them . " Now as the Order of the Temple was instituted , according to the best authorities , in 1119 , under the auspices of the Knights Geoffrey of St . Omer , and Hugh de Pagen or Paganis , with the approbation of King Baldwin II , and the patriarch Eaymond or Guarimond , we havean assertion of "Delta ' s " herethat Masonry oAves even its oriin to the Knihts

, g g Templar . But when one comes carefully to analyze this remarkable statement , one cannot fail of being struck with its peculiar character and language . For the mention of the Crusaders carries us back at once to 1095 , before the Templars were in existence . Are we to understand that the Crusaders of that epoch ,,

or the Crusaders of a later epoch , only " modified " existing "Johnnite Templar ceremonies of York ?'' Or ivhat are we to suppose the sentence means ? Again , "The Johnnite Templar ceremonies , " a novel expression , would seem to imply that " Delta" links Templary on to its precursor , the Order of St . John of Jerusalemfounded in 1099 as also the oriin and

, , g preserver of Masonry . But if there is one thing clear in the history of thosetwo knightly Orders , it is this : that they were not only entirety different in their origin and organisation , but oftentimes entirely opposed , sometimes bitterly hostile to each other .

If , then , "Delta" wishes us to believe to day that our present ceremonies are but the result of Templar practices , derived from the Order of St . John of Jerusalem , and modified by the Crusaders , I suppose on their return , like Ivanhoe from the Holy Land , he is but sacrificing the very substance of Masonic reality and verity for the vain shadow of an hopeless and untenable

speculation . Is it not the more reasonable , the more probable , the more historical , the more common sense supposition , that the Knightly Orders , availing themselves of the secrecy and organisation ofthe operative Masonic guilds , adapted that secrecy and organisation , and even the Masonic ceremonies , to their own particular purposes ? As againstthenthis theory of Templar oriin and

, , g perservation of speculative Masonry , I will only set the words of Dr . Oliver , which , mutatis mtdandis , may beapplied to this Templar theory as Avell as to the theory of the Eosicruciau origin and perservation of Masonry , held equally , I know , by some . At page 158 of a Mirror for Johannite Masons , ed . 1818 , occur these words : — " Mr . Soane is bold enough to assert that tho

Freemasons never belonged to the working guilds . " Dr . Oliver goes on to speak of the " difficulties which surround Mr . Soane ' s theory , " and then adds that there were then " many Eosicrucians Avho Avere not Masons , and many Masons who were unacquainted Avith the Eosicruciau Cabala , whence will follow that Masonry at that period was not considered a branch of the Eosy Cross . "

1 would apply this forcible argument to ''Delta ' s " Templar theory . I cannot accede to " Delta ' s " declaration , " that thespeculative Masons are not , and never have been ,, governed by the operative constitutions , " in tbe sense , at least , he seeks to attach to the statement . Hio one ever said that our speculative constitutions

werealtogether word for word the same with the operative constitutions , but what I contend for is , that if any one at this present hour will compare carefully the old operative constitutions with our present speculative constitutions , he will rise from the task impressed with the coiiAdction of the exact identity between the operative and the speculative constitutions , and that the latter are