Masonic Notes And Queries.

CIVILIZATION . Brother F ., where Christianity can get a footing , make the progress of civilization attend upon the 'progress of Christianity ; but , where Christianity cannot get a footing , make the progress of civilization attend upon the progress of true Freemasonry . —C P . COOPER .

THE EOXAL ARCH . It is something quite new , and very pleasant , in our Masonic controversies , to find so able and so courteous an opponent as Bro . Hughan , aud not only do I thank him for the good example he sets , but I augur well for the future of our Masonic investigations . Both he and I , have only one end in view , Truth .

I think , however , there is still a little difference , 'though most fraternal , between us . As I understood his position originally , he seemed 'to me to question not only the name but the matter of the Royal Arch Degree . I at once give up any question as to name , which is probably modern as

such , and cannot , perhaps , be dated earlier than ; about the beginning of the ISth century , though even on this point I should not like to pronounce a decided -opinion , as we really at present are hardly in a position to decide upon this and kindred points of Masonic archteology . In factthe question of the

, name is not essential to the matter iu dispute . But I ventured to contend that the substance of vfche Eoyal Arch Degree was very ancient , coeval with our earliest traditions , bearing on the face of it the marks of a high antiquity , and undoubtedly both in ¦ symbols and tradition well known to our earliest

brethren , and was only the second part of the third -degree . I alluded to the theory of some very able brethren , that the Master Builders alone were entrusted originally with the secrets of the 2 nd part . But I was met with this further argumenteven the third

, degree is " not earlier than 1715 , " and how could the Eoyal Arch Degree be old ? It must , therefore , be either a compilation of Eamsay , or a recltauffee of the '" Eite de Bouillon . "

To this I called attention to the fact , that there was numismatic evidence , of a very early date , to the traditions of the actual third degree ! Bro . Hughan and myself now happily agree in this , leaving the words " Eoyal Arch " out of debate , that the sub--stance of the fourth degree is very old , and the

conclusion simply oi the third degree . Bro . Hughan is quite right in supposing that the MS . I alluded to is marked C That , at any rate , shows distinct traces of the three separate degrees , and Bro . Findel ' s remarks are quite true , that we must not take it for more than it is worthas an

, authoritative exponent of our rites , as the writer of it , whether Mason or non-Mason , was but illacquainted evidently with the whole subject , and jumbled together the several parts of a system which he imperfectly understood . I may observe that in the catechism of 1724 of

, which I have a folio copy , there is most distinct allusion to "The Master , " "" The Masters , " and 41 Fellows . " No doubt in primitive times a good deal of confusion may exist as to the usage of specific names ;

but the earliest Constitutions point to the three degrees , and up to a very late period under the old Grand Lodge of York , while the degrees of Apprentice and Fellow Craft were conferred in the private lodge , the degree of Master was only conferred in the Grand Lodge itself .

I think , in conclusion , that such remarks and researches as Bro . Hughan is carrying on are of the utmost value and importance to our Order . There is a mine as yet of neglected and unexplored wealth for Masonic investigators in the collections of our guildsthe public rolls of our Minstersand

num-, , berless other sources of interesting yet miuute inquiry ; and so I trust that we are now in a fair way of progress at last . One word as regards Bro . Dr . Oliver ' s opinion . No doubt his authority is very ,

high ; but as he refers us to the Eite de Bouillon what , after all , is the Eite de Bouillon ? It is , evidently , as anyone who has looked into the question of the foreign grades will know , on the face of it , a manufactured rite . I have seeu collections of all these degrees abroad , and if there is one truth

connected with them , it is this , that they are all most modern , and making the three full craft degrees their basis , are developed by their authors into certain specific traditions of no value , and generally utterly meauiugless . That the Rite de Bouillon is but the counterfeit of a true and ancient form I venture most

earnestly to express my opinion , and can be of no authority in the question . In his earlier works Dr . Oliver never alluded to it , and most distinctly stated that the Eoyal Arch was purely English . —A MASONIC STUDENT .

THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED IN EREEMiSONET AS A ' UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION . Dear Brother J ., there are three things to be considered in Fremasonry as a universal institution . First , the religion . The religion of Freemasonry as a universal institution is natural religion . Nextthe

, object . The object of Freemasonry as a universal institution is the amelioration of our fellow-creatures by the dissemination of a better knowledge of natural religion , and by endeavours to bring about a stricter observance of its precepts . Thirdly , the organisation . The organisation is designed for the attainment of the

object . ... Is it not , therefore , plain that in Freemasonry as a universal institution it is the relig ion which is essential , and that the organisation is subsidiary only ? Is it not p lain that without the relig ion there can be no real Freemasonry?—C . P . COOPER .

RENEGADES . In true Freemasonry renegades are individuals who , having acknowledged the G-reat Architect ot the universe , afterwards adopt Atheism or some kind of Pantheism . In some continental lodges renegades , it is said , are very numerous . —C P . COOPER .

NATURAL RELIGION AND EEEEMASONRY . It is correct to say that where there is natural religion , there true Freemasonry is possible . But it is not correct to say that where there is natural religion there is also true Freemasonry . It does not follow because the essence of a thing exists that tha thing itself exists . —C . P . COOPEE .