Ancient Masonic Lodges, No. 1.

which are still preserved . Bro . Woodford expresses an important fact in stating that " There is no 'privilege du Eoi' in tho collation of MSS ., or the criticism of ancient documents , " and therefore Ave have

oidy to consult those records , Avhich are virtually the common property of the fraternity to knoAV of the truth or error of what we hold to be the history of the Society .

NOAV Avhat do the old lodge minutes say on the subject 1 We have had authorized excerpts from these valuable books published , ( ivith few exceptions ) the Avhole of the volumes have been most diligently and

carefully searched , the result made known , and every Masonic student famished with the testimony of these important Avitnesses , all of which , from the sixteenth century to the first half of the second decade of the

eighteenth century , unite in proving that there is no register of any assembly of Masons working ceremonies , or communicating " secrets " front Avhich any portion of the fraternity Avas excluded or denied participation ; neither can there be found a

single reference in these lodge minutes to justify one in assuming " three degrees " to he even known to the brethren prior to A . D . 1716-7 . Of course there can be no doubt as to what may be termed grades in

ancient Masonry . Apprentices had to serve their " regular time " before being accounteel FelloAV Crafts , and then subsequently the office or position of Master Mason was

bestowed upon a select few , but no Avord is ever said about " degrees , " all the members were evidently eligible to attend at tlie introduction of Fellow Crafts , and Master Masons , as Avell as at the admission of apprentices , and so far as the records throw

h ght on the customs of our early brethren , ™ e apprentices were as welcome at the election and reception of Masters , as the latter were required to participate in the vitiation of the former . "We are quite Avilling to grant for the

sake of argument that a word may haA e been whispered in the ear of the Master of the lodge ( or of Master Masons ) , on their introduction or constitution in the lodge , but supposing that such were tho case , and Ave think the position is at least probable ,

the " three degrees " are as far from being proved as before , especially as Ave have never yet traced any intimation ever so slight of a special ceremony at the " passing " of FelloAV Crafts , peculiar to that

grade , and from Avhich apprentices were excluded . If AVO have overlooked such a minute , Ave shall be only too glad to acknoAvledge the fact , but at present Ave must reiterate our conviction that Avhatever the

ceremonies may Imve been at the introduction of Fellow Crafts and Master Masons , anterior to the last century , they Avere hot such as to require the exclusion of apprentices from the lodge meetings ; and in the absence of any positive information on the

subject Ave are not justified in assuming the existence of "three degrees of Masonry " at that period , or in other Avoids Ave can only fairly advocate that to have existed of Avhich Ave have evidence , and Avhatever else we may fancy was knoivn should only be

advocated on the grounds of probabilhry . If the proof of "three degrees" before 1717 is to rest on the authority of the Sloane MS ., 3329 , Ave shall be glad to give our opinion on the subject .

With all respect then for our worth y brother the BeA . A . F . A . Woodford , Avhose exertions and contributions to Masonic literature have been continuous and most valuable for many years , we feel bound to state Ave do not believe , according to tlie

evidences accumulated , that the " three degrees Avere distinct grades in the Operative Order " but that the term Apprentice , FelloAV Craft and Master Mason , simply denoted Masonic relative or official positions . Of course , as Bro . Woodford observes , " this ' voxata qmestio " is not by any means decisively closed , " and when