Antiquity Of The Third Degree.

my researches at the Reformation in 1668 , as I am unacquainted with any valid evidence to prove its existence before that period . The histories tell us , that iu the reign of Elizabeth learning of all sorts revived ; the Augustan style began to take the place of Gothic architecture , and it would have made great progress if the Queen had possessed a taste for building ; but hearing

that tho Masons had certain secrets that could not be revealed to her , and being jealous of all secret assemblies , she sent an armed force to break up their annual Grand Lodge at York , on St . John's Day , 1561 . But Sir Thomas Sackville , the Grand Master , took care to make some of the chief men sent on that errand

Freemasons ; who then , joining in that communication an honourable report to the Queen , she never more attempted to disturb them I —( Noorth ., p . 120 ) . But the Queen unfortunately did not possess a taste for building , aud therefore the lodges in her reign were so thinly scattered , that she was unable to find one in existence in the south of England ; ancl hence a modern writer

judiciously observes , that' the bard of Avon , who has ranged air , earth , and ocean iu search of similes and figures of speech , would , in some way or other , have alluded to the Freemasons had the institution been known in his day . Undoubtedly , some of the heroes , wise men , and clowns of his plays would have had something to say of or about Masonry—some commendations to bestow upon it , or

satires to play off at its expense , had the society then been in existence . ' It will be vain , therefore , to search for a legendary degree of speculative Freemasonry in the reign of Elizabeth . "—( St _ one , * p . 25 . ) Dr . Oliverendorses this anti-Masonic opinion , italicising the words " had the institution heen Icnoivn in his day ; " and on the whole he builds this extraordinary conclusion - — " It

. will be vain , therefore , to seek for a legendary degi-ee of speculative Freemasonry in the reign of Elizabeth . " Because Shakespeare has not mentioned Masonry , therefore it did not exist I Because Shakespeare has not mentioned Masonry , therefore there was no third degree in his time I Is it not possible and probable that , fearful as our Masonic ancestors were of publicity , Shakespeare

knew little or nothing of them ; not enough , at all events , to enable him either to praise or blame them ? May , is it not possible that he was a Mason himself , sworn to solemn secresy , for all that we know ? Then we have Elias Ashmole , the antiquary , brought forward as a witness . He says he was made a Mason in October , 164-6 , by " Mr . R . Penket , the Warden , and the

Fellow-Crafts . " Again , in 1682 , he attended an initiation , and remarks that he was the Senior Fellow present , it having been . 35 years since he was made . Upon this evidence Dr . Oliver comes to the conclusion that there

was no separate M . M . degree in the early part of the 17 th century , because . the antiquary would certainly have investigated it if there had . How does our learned brother know that ho did not ? By his not mentioning it , and by his calling himself a Fellow after being 35 years a Mason . I answer that neither does he mention the second as such ; he goes into no particulars about

degrees ; are we to infer that there were none ? And I refer simply to the Ancient Charges , which distinctly state that in ancient times no brother , however well skilled in the Craft , was called a Master Masou until he had been elected into the chair of a lodge . Again Dr . Oliver says : — " Besides , it is evident from this very record that there were no regular lodges at

that time , and the brethren met at considerable intervals , as chance might direct . In all cases the Senior Fellow Craft present took the chair as a matter of course , and was Master of the lodge for that evening . Hence it follows that there could not have been a Master ' s degree in existence , because such an institution would have extinguished the right or claim of any Fellow Craft to take the chair in preference to a genuine Master Mason . This

truth is fully corroborated in a MS . dated 1646 , in the British Museum , which , though professing to give tho entire * Masonic ritual , does not contain a single word about the legend of Hiram or the Master ' s degree . And a code of laws enacted a few years later provided that " Ye shall call all Masons your fellows , or your brethren , ancl no other names . " *

How all this , brethren , is simply inaccurate aud erroneous . "This vez-y record" states "that there were present , besides myself , the Fellows after named :- —Mr . Thomas Wise , Master of the Mason ' s Company this year . " Here is a proof of an annual Mastership , and an instance of a Master being called a Fellow . In the reign of James II ., too , 1685-88 , we find Installed Masters . The doctor ' s assertion about the Senior Fellow

Craft taking the chair " as a matter of course , is obviously an error . Aud is our brother prepared to state that the installation of these Masters was then a modern innovation , and that they were not installed with the ceremonies of the third degree ? I set aside the fact of Dr . Oliver ' s appealing tothe work of a perjurer , which professes only to give the Masonic ritual , although

I apprehend that this alone would utterly invalidate any arguments founded on the work in question . . Now observe , all this time our rev . brother is denying the then existence in Freemasonry of a third as a separate degree . He also assumes that the Fellow Craft's degree contained nothing more than it does at present . Therefore ( and from these premises the inference is

logical enough ) , that the allegory of the third degree was altogether unknown . See further . All this is mere negative evidence , originating in the fact of there being no early English records asserting the existence of a third as a separate degree . For positive evidence we have the following : — According to Lawrence Dermott , author of the "Ahiman Rezon , " about the year 1717 , some joyous companions who had passed the degree of a Craft met to

compare notes , in order to recollect what hacl formerly been told them . If this were found to be impossible , by reason of the rustiness of the brethren aforesaid , they were to substitute something new . " At this meeting the question was asked whether any person in tho assembly knew the Master's part ; and being answered in the negative , it was resolved that the deficiency should

be made up by a new composition . "f Dr . Oliver on this admits the obvious inference that there had been a Master ' s part previously—that there was a deficiency . He presumes thafc it was so short that the legend and ceremony together would not have occupied five minutes in rehearsal . ( No foundation is given for this presumption . ) The degree became subsequently more widely

diffused ; but up to the middle of tho century no private lodge was allowed to confer it . This being the case , can we wonder at the silence so provokingly maintained by the earlier writers ? It was a deeply mysterious and exclusive degree , and ninety-nine out of every hundred brethren were not supposed to how anything about ifc . But a Master ' s part ( supposing Dermott to be correct , and he is Oliver ' s authority ) there was , and hacl been .