Masonic Notes And Queries.

Toleration is one especially promulgated by the Masonic Constitutions of 1723 , but as shown afc page 407 , ante , ifc had been already promulgated by "William Penn , as the " Great Pundamental " in his political constitutions drawn up for Pennsylvania , in 1681 . The doctrine of belief in and reverence for the

Great Architect of the Universe , also has existed long before 1717—yea , for ages . Then again certain words exist , and have existed in the Bible for many centuries past , yet , although all these existed before 1717 , viz .: toleration in the Pennsylvania Constitutions , belief in God , and certain words in the

Bible"What has that to do -with proving the existence of Freemasonry before 1717 ? certainly nothing . A new society might start up to-day , and adopting certain of our Masonic ideas , might promulgate them amongst other things as the basis of its constitution , yet that would not give it any right to date the period

of its existence as a society any further back than from to-day . So with our system of Speculative Masonry , or " Preemasonry , " it , as a Society , cannot date its existence before 1717 , because , although the doctrines it adopted existed elsewhere before 1717 , it as a Societyin its present formneither existednor

pro-, , , mulgated them before 1717 . The doctrines which the Good Templars promulgate , were promulgated by the Total Abstainers , many years ago ; but where did Good Templarism , with its system — copied from Preemasonry—of words , grips , signs , & c , ever exist until quite recently ?

Purther , the " doctrines " which Preemasonry teaches are only part of its system , aud even supposing the doctrines , in whole or in pait , existed before 1717 , we have noprooi ' thafc the ceremonies , degrees , & c „ existed before then . —W . P . B .

THE MANNINGHAM LETTER AND BRO . W . , T . HUGHAN . I have been attacked again and again within the last two years because I had stated my opinion that several of the statements in this Manningham Letter were untrue and could not be supported . By

turning hack to page 133 of the Magazine for August 15 th , 1868 , it will be seen that Bro . L . II . Hertzveld considers that this letter proved "That before 1717 , the now existing rituals have been worked . " I took exception to that , and considered ifc was not- " proved , " such was the case , as the statement made h y the "

" old brother of ninety , " which implied that as our Masonic ceremonies and degrees were wrought in 1757 , so were they wrought at the end of tbe seventeenth century , was untrue . . Now , as the old saying has it , " time trys all things , " and so with this ; for if it be true , as Bro . Hughan has just admittedthat

, "Masonic degrees were unknown before A . D . 1717 , " it follows that Bro . Buchan was perfectl y justified in having little faith in the story of this old brother of ninety ; more , it also follows that Bro . Buchan ' s ideas on the subject are now proved to be ri ght . —W . P . BUCHAN .

THE MASTER'S DEGREE AND THE ROYAL ARCH . It seems almost useless to reiterate what I have before said on these subjects , but , as Bro . Buchan , with amusing pertinacity , and with unabated confidence proclaims his favourite " dogmata , " I can onl y give once more a simple denial and contradiction to

his unwise and unqualified statements . Nothing can in truth be more incorrect , or unhistorie , than Bro . Buchan ' s repeated assertion that " the Master ' s Degree never existed before 1717 , " or "the Eoyal Arch until the 4 fch decade of last century . " As regard the " Master ' s Degree" there is plenty

, of indisputable evidence to prove that it was wellknown and practised in this country " before 1650 , while there is a great body of proof now forthcoming that the threefold division of Master , Pellow-Craft , and Apprentice , is coawal with the existence of the Masonic guilds in this country .

Tbat the speculative Grand Lodge of 1717 is the legitimate succession and continuation of the old operative Grand Assembly ; and that we , as Pree and Accepted Masons , preserve to-day the carefully guarded secrets and traditions of the Operative Sodalities in England , is , also , the further conclusion to whicli a careful study of Masonic history and archaeology , J feel myself convinced , must lead every

candid mind . Bufc Bro . Buchan has , unfortunately for himself , endorsed the hasty and ill-advised statement , that Preemasonry onl y dates from 1717 ; and he therefore completely ignores all evidence which seems to upset his favourite but visionary theory . So intent is he on asserting , what others besides

myself have denied and answered successfully before , as if assertion in the long run was to gain the day , that he remains utterly unconscious of the fact patent to all other students and all who take part in the controversy , that the very " excerpta" from old minute bookshe so carefully accumulatesand for

, , which he deserves our best thanks , actually entirely cut away the foundation on which he rests so complacently , and tend more than anything else to disprove the statement he has made so often and so unhesitatingly , with much more boldness than discretion .

Iu one sense I agree with Bro . Hughan , that before 1717 the present arrangement of Masonic Degrees was not systematized exactly in the way we have it now ; but that Bro . Hughan means to say , as Bro . Buchan would infer , that hefore 1717 the peculiar secrets of the three Craft Degreesand the

, traditions and ritual of the Eoyal Arch were altogether unknown to Masons , I for one , do not for a moment believe . Bro . Hughan is far too well versed in the archaeological history of our Order to make so rash an assertion .

With a learned brother who wrote some time hack , I am afraid thafc there is little practical good to be obtained from continuing this controversy , as Bro . Buchan has a way peculiar to himself of treating all evidence which oppose his pet and remarkable theory Por fear , however , that silence might be assumed to give consent , I am anxious to make one more

protest against his many assertions and assumptions in respect of the real antiquity of Preemasonrv-I hope my brethren generally will bear carefully in mind that , unsupported statements do not constitute proof , and that constant repetitions of oft-repeated fallacies do not supply us with a satisfactory , or credible , or authentic history of Preemasonry in this country . —A MASONIC STUDENT .