Masonic Notes And Queries.

discussion of " most questions" like this , I venture to add my quota to-day towards the consideration of the whole matter . A great deal may undoubtedly be said , pro and con . the proposition that Freemasonry has come down to us through the Knights Templar , and a good many arguments may he adducedaud

authori-, ties quoted , for such a view of the subject . Tet it is after all , quite impossible , I think , to attempt to dogmatise one way or other upon the question itself , since it can be at best but matter of theory or premise , the proof being difficult to find , and the conclusion not easy of attainment . We haveindeedevery reason to

be-, , lieve that a very intimate connexion of some kind exists between the Templars and the Freemasons ; but what that connection , really and truly was remains as yet a matter of doubt and discussion , and has to be clearly shown and convincingly proved . So far as we have gone iu the inquirydespite much that has been

, said and written on the subject , both favourably and unfavourably , we are but groping , as it were , in the dark , and though much may be probable aud possible , little as yet is clear or certain . There seems

to be numberless and insurmountable difficulties in the way of a theory often put forward to-day , originally started , I believe , by au anonymous French writer in 1774 , in his " Historic de l'Origine de la Franc Maconnerie , " viz ., "That Freemasonry has descended to us from the Crusades and Masonic Knihtsespecially the Templarsand was' instituted

g , , by Godfrey de Bouillon , in Palestine , iu 1330 . '" _ Now , whatever may have been the exact meauing and ritual of the secret reception of the Templars , whatever even of a Masonic character may have purposely been thrown around it , it seems nevertheless difficult alike to prove ancl to believethatat the suppression

, , of that cruelly maligned order , their secrets and mysteries passed simply into the bauds of the operative lodges , and thence were handed down to our speculative brotherhood . For independently of the vast hiatus historically existing between the suppression of the Templars and the first traces we find of

any Templar tradition , as in the so-called York Lectures , which is , in itself , very hard to bridge over so as to satisfy any historical inquiry , we have a further and serious difficulty to contend with .

The earliest Masonic evidences in this countrywhich may safely be fixed about the middle of tlie ¦ seventeenth century , that is as regards Masonic teaching and usages , in the way of ritual or observancecontain no trace of any acknowledgment of a Templar descent , ancl in all probability that statement of

our commonly received Masonic history is correct , which makes the Knights Templar portions of our Order until the year 1199 , just as the Knights of Malta are said to have been patrons of the Order in 1500 ; and we have no difficulty in finding the rationale of such a union . Just as the operative Masons

admitted both monks and the clergy into their lodges : as speculative Masons and as directors , so they would naturally accept as affiliated members and patrons tbe then potent knightly orders . While the knightly -orders , perceiving the great value of the secret organisation and system of initiation and probation

of the Freemasons , would adopt it and use it , to strengthen and cement their own peculiar constitution ; so that whatever analogy may yet be traced ¦ between Templar and Masonic practices , whatever

may seem to he a common symbolism , is probably but the necessary result of this old alliance and connection ; while it is most certain that the allusions to the Templar theory were formed at a time when most of our Masonic literature had passed iuto the hands of many able and enthusiastic supporters of this

knightly theory . As opposed to this view , I believe that Freemasonry as we have it to-day , however overlaid by the purely speculative element , and affected by the lapse of time , is the same still in all its great landmarks as that which existed in this country in the operative lodges long before either the

Knights of St . John or the Knights Templar were formed into religious and militant orders . But though this be my own individual opinion on tlie subject , and I only give it for what it is worth as such , as a Masouic student , it is but fair to add that I by no means wish to question the right or ability of any

other brother to hold a diametrically opposite view , aud to bring forward many writers and authorities in support of his own deliberate conclusion . Freemasonry is wide enough , and tolerant enough , let us hope , for those who agree and those who differ . I therefore venture to offer this further answer to the query of "A Blue Mason , " as oue learns more and more , iu everything human , to value the wise axiom—¦ " audi alteram partem . "—EBOR .

ENGLAND AND EREEMASONRY . Foreign brethren very frequently make use of an ex pressiou equivalent to England being the birthplace ° f Freemasonry . What is the cause of this ?—A T RAVELLING BROTHER . —[ The cause of such an error is a want of the knowledge of the true

principles and history of the Order . Most , if indeed not all , of the Grand Lodges iu Europe were derived from England , after the revival of Freemasonry here in 1717 . Hence it is asserted that England is the birthplace of Freemasonry , and , proud as we should be-if it really was so , stern truth

demands that we should neither encourage nor claim the honour . Freemasonry is to be traced to Egypt as its cradle . The Jews during their captivity there , in that land of bondage , appear to have been initiated , ancl the principles of the Order to have culminated with them at the building of Solomon's Temple . This rational view entirely explodes the absurdity of

the guild theory , because we nowhere trace that Solomon or Hiram of Tyre were members of a building guild . That guilds and companies of the middle ages had Freemasons as members no one will deny , but to say that a guild of Freemasons were the depository of Craft secrets is as absurd as it is false . Freemasonry was known in the East before guilds were established

iu the West . It is stated to have been revived in Europe by the return of the Crusaders , having been established in the West and died out centuries before Christ . Its second revival was at the decline of the Eosicrucians , aud then , curiously enough , we find those of that order existing becoming Freemasons ,

and the Eosicrucians dying out in turn . Immediately upon this comes the second revival of 1717 , and in subsequent years many European nations established Provincial Grand Lodges under England , and when able to run alone cast off the mother Grand Lodge , and became INational Grand Lodges in their own right . Having derived their organisation from us at