Old Freemasonry Before Grand Lodge.

and in France , and as a revised rite alleged to date from 1686 , " may be considered as " Speculative Masonry , ' and differing alike from " strict operative and guild Masonry / ' and " the system of the present Grand Lodge . '

There can be no greater possible mistake , no greater hindrance to the spread of true Masonic archasology , than to run away with that modern but mistaken theory—that there is any real substantial difference between the landmarks of the

operative order and those which belong to our speculative order to-day ! The only actual difference being that the lodges were entirely or mainly operative to the middle of the 17 th century , whereas now they are entirely or mainly

nonoperative , or speculative . But in the next place , I am afraid , that there is not the slightest reliable evidence forthcoming ; that such a system of " seven or eight degrees " ever did prevail at York at all , or in London , or in France , until after about 1730 .

As regards York , there is unimpeachable evidence in existing records to prove that , about 1740 , when , after an abeyance of some duration , the Autient Grand Lodge was revived under Drake , the historian , the only degrees then known

at York were the three full Craft degrees . The Master s Degree was then conferred almost entirely in the annual Grand Lodge , and there is evidence of a previously existing Grand A . ssembly , or Grand Lodge , in the 17 fch century .

But there is no trace of any such system of " seven or eight degrees '—of anything , in short , but Craft Masonry . The Royal Arch , as a separate distinction as a chapter , first appears about 1760 , and the earliest traces of the Masonic Knights Templar may be found between 1775 and 1780 .

In York , therefore , this system , as far as I can make out , was never known or practised at all , and in London and in France it clearly was the handiwork of the Chevalier Ramsay , —no trace of it existing in London before his visit to this

country . For it is just as true that the " Rite Ecossaise " came from Scotland , as that the- "Antient York Rite "—as it is perversely called—ever was practised at

York-How D Assigny s work , published by our able Bro . Hughan , proves that "these degrees were practised at York in 1744 , I must leave to Bro .

Yarker with his customary ability to prove . I do not profess to understand what he means . He seems to think that there was a sort of revival at York in 1761 , and he gives the names of the " series at York" at that time as then in use ,

but of which I have never as yet met the slightest trace on any reliable evidence . That a system may have been in existence , calling itself the "York Rite , ' and practised in Lancashire , I do not dispute with Bro . Yarker , but

what I do contend for is , that it had nothing whatever to do with the genuine system as practised by the Antient Grand Lodge of York , and is altogether a misnomer . And even as regards the evidence of " certificates / 5 and warrants with the date of 1686 , one would like to know a little about them .

Such a name as " Templar Priests / for instance , I should regard with grave suspiciom , as the Masonic Knights Templar were at York so late as 1780 called "Knights of the Holy Tabernacle of Jerusalem , ' or of " St . John of Jerusalem . '

Bro . Yarker , I think , will admit that there is no little historical difficulty in the " transmission through the Scottish order of the Templar traditions , and to this subject I will venture to call his attention in the next number of the MAGAZINE .

I should he sorry to seem to disparage the evidence Bro . Yarker has gathered with so much ability and care , on behalf of the Christian degrees , but I have treated the whole matter as a subject of evidence , and evidence alone .

I do not go the length of some , who deny that that there exists any connection whatever between the old Knightly orders and operative Masonry ; on the contrary , I believe that such connection

truly and certainly existed . But at present there is , as far as I am aware , no good historical evidence of any of our high grades before the earl y part of the 27 th century . Bro . Yarker may , nevertheless , be in possession

of such evidence , and especially as regards the alleged revision in 1686 , and I should be glad to give to any statements of his a most attentive and respectful consideration . But until we have such evidence clearly before

us , I could not accept the statements he has made in his able letter to-day without a friendly and fraternal protest , as I sincerely believe in the cause of historical accuracy and Masonic truth . A MASONIC STUDENT .