Bro. Hughan's Analysis.

unassailable . Therefore it is that as a Masonic student I wish to suggest , in all fraternal sympathy , one or two considerations for Bro . Hughan ' s notice ; and , above ail , for your readers generally . We are now in the full and flowing tide of Masonic investigation . After having neglected onr Masonic history until

it had become a disgrace to us all , we are now , in the spirit of reaction , plunging into the most difficult questions , sometimes , I cannot help thinking , rather heedlessly , and with an absence of reverence for the past , which is sure to lead us astray ere long . It therefore requires the greatest caution on the

part both of writers in and readers of the Magazine lest the zealous ardour of the former or the hasty acquiescence of the latter should without sufficient consideration lead us to condemn what our fathers trusted in , and rashly to accept plausible theories for what are the true facts of Masonic existence and

pro gress . _ Bro Hughan writes so clearly that there is no mistaking his views ; while , at the same time , he deserves the greatest credit for the skill and ability with which he has marshalled his successive statements .

The writer of these remarks began his studies in Freemasonry many years ago ; but every step he took forward made him feel only more decidedl y the need of the greatest caution , and the more he searched out for independent witness the more he became convinced that as yet we are but beginning the

investition , that an enormous mass of evidence has yet to be gone through before we can safely arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on many points—in fact , our motto must be , " Festiua Lente . " A few years more will give us a wonderful accumulation of evidence of which now we hardlsuspect

y the existence ; and then , but not until then , will it be safe for any Freemason to write positively on many interesting subjects of fair discussion , or to pronounce distinctly on many archaeological questions connected with our wonderful organisation . With these viewsthenstronglimpressed

, , y upon my mind , I venture , as an old Masonic student , most fraternally and friendly to except to one or two statements of Bro . Hughan ' s most able and valuable ""Analysis , " as conclusions hastily come to , and , as I venture to think , and hope to prove , on insufficient data .

First . I must he . permitted to question the historical correctness of this statement— " Antecedent to the last century Freemasons under Grand Lodges , Grand Blasters , and according to the system followed since 1717 , were not known to exist . "

It is very singular , if this be really so , that the author of " Multa Paucis , " writing about 1764 , gives even then the old title of " Grand Assembly " to every Grand Lodge of the Revival up to that date , which name is also found in all the " Constitutions . '' He clearly was of opinion that the Revival in 1717 was but the revival ofthe old Grand Assembl y , aud "

that the Grand Masters , subsequently to 1717 , were hut the successors of the Grand Masters previous to 1717 . The Grand Assembl y had apparently laid dormant from 1689 to 1717 , though mention is made of a large muster of Freemasons in 1710 . In the Harleiau MS ., 1942 , there is mention made of the "New Articles , "

which Dr . Oliver , if I remember rightly , asserts were made in 1663 , and in these new articles we have the first regular authority for admitting speculative Masons , though the custom was clearl y in use about 16-10 , and , if Dr . Plot is to be relied on , long before . The Grand Lodge of 1717 was then nothing but

the revived successor of the Grand Assembly of 16 S 9 . 2 . Neither can I agree with the statement , " that all degrees but the two first , are in all probability of a later age . "

All Constitutions and Catechisms extant point , on the contrary , clearly to three distinct degrees . In the Harleian MS . 2 , 054 , in the handwriting of Raudle Holmes , and which belonged to the Chester Guild of Freemasons , and which some think "the earliest copy there" there is to be found a passage

, ( fo . 33 '') which always has been , to my mind , decisive of the existence of the different degrees , with secrets belonging to each degree ; to say nothing of the Sloane MS . 3 , 329 , fo . 137 .

Of the antiquity of the third degree especially , I am fully persuaded—on a variety of grounds too many to obtrude upon you on this occasion , J . am sorry to venture to dispute the high authority of Bro . D . M . Lyon ; but the evidence of the Tork Fabric Rolls- is , I think , most decisive on the subject .

There is a most remarkable passage in them , dating hack to the end of the Llth or the early part ofthe 15 th century , respecting "lelogelathomorum , " which to a Masonic student suggests many most important conclusions . The evidence of the York Fabric Rolls would

show , as would all others when published , that "le loge lathomorum" was an independent and selfgoverned body , though attached to the monastery at York , and was employed by the authorities to do the necessary work of building anew and restoring , hut in no sense was the " Magister " an emjiloyer of labour . In the "Registrum of Wm . de Molash , " Prior of

Canterbury , there is also an entry , which fully shows that "leloge " was attached to the monastery . I do not know what the evidence of the Scotch Fabric Rolls may be , but it is certainly not the case in England as far as we have yet gone . Wm . Wykeham ' s will is also a direct proof to the

contrary , as well as the Westminster Fabric Rolls . Neither can I agree with him as to the common ceremoD ] ' for Master , Fellow , and Apprentice . Every evidence I have so far sifted , every existing and authentic record , points unmistakeably to the inviolate and inviolable distinction of degrees .

I , therefore , cannot understand on what ground Bro . Lyon lays down such a dogma , or why my able Bro . Hughan , so unreservedly accepts it . How does he get over the Catechism of 1724 ? or Plots statement ? to say nothing of every "Constitution ? " In fact , the whole Master degree , with one or two

trifling alterations , is , I feel sure , from itt archaisms , older than any other . With regard to the MSS . in the British Museum , the matter is so important , that I defer alluding to it until next week . Tours fraternally , A MASO - STUDENT .