-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 2
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
ibility of the reconciliation of the apparently differing schools Without insisting upon this creed as necessarily involved in my proposition . Mr . Hallam , in his wonderfully learned work , says : " ft is idle to argue from the principles of the English Constitution with those who have abandoned her communion . " In like manner my excogitations will be thrown away upon those who
beforehand have irrevocably made up their minds that Freemasonry is only a system of social combination to carry out thc Benthamite theory of the greatest good of the greatest number , a kind of " we are jolly good fellows , and so say all of us " as 5 o : iation , a " mutual admiration and help society , " add so forth . To those who hold these views the guild theory , even stripped of Anderson ' s aesthetic
attributes , will , of course , be all-sufficing , and they may spare themselves all further trouble of investigating the arguments for a probably higher derivation of the Order . This , as it seems to me , is the error into wbich the members of L'Orient have fallen . I designedly refrain from using thc conventional p hrase brethren . There arc individuals in the world whose spinal columns appear
to consist rather of cartilaginous than of osseous matter . There are creeds which pride themselves on the absence of creed— " Lucus a non lucendo , " believing because they don't believe , like Mr . Montague Tigg , in the novel , and so extravagantly tolerant , that with the old French Royalist , who was more loyal than the king himself , they cannot tolerate anybody who does not go their cwn lengths
in what they are pleased to call toleration . " Everybody in my kingdom , " says the proclamation of the burlesque monarch , " shall do as he pleases , and if he don ' t , he shall be made to do it ! " Such would stem to be the principle of our French so-called brethren , but if—and as I believe —the theory of the Divine origin of our Order has sufficient plausibility to command our intelligent acquiescence ,
Masonic communion with those who thus violently remove the chief landmark is impossible , and we are bound to regard them not as co-heirs , but , as usurpers of our traditions and privileges ; not of the household of faith , but impostors , using both lerms not as abusive epithets , but in their naked meaning , i . e ., usurpers—those who claim to inherit when there is no continuity of descent ; impostors , those
who prctentl to a character to which they have no title . For if I rightly interpret the Hutchinsonian theory , as expoundctl by the late Dr . Oliver , there is ascribed to Freemasonry an origin almost coeval with the first habitation by man of this planet , and the institution is regarded by those who hold these views as an esoteric community ,
consisting of those few living members of the family of man who constituted the salt of the earth—the very limited circle of those who recognised an abstract deity , amongst , but apart the from , vast majority whose dullness of preception would only enable them to conceive a concrete god . " Lo ' . the poor savage , whose untutored mind
Sees God in storms and hears him in the wind , " as Pope says . —Such a proposition I fully admit seems fantastic and extravagant , and . f am conscious that in pursuing thc enquiry as to how far it is based upon probability —or should I not rather say possibility—I am treading on very difficult and possibly very dangerous ground . But I beg mv brethren to recall the moment when their own
footsteps were entirely tentative , when in a halting posture and the most humble of humble , the lowliest of lowly , attitudes , they advanced falteringly to the light , and imagine that I am so groping now , propounding nothing as ascertained , nothing as posiiive , but diffidently hazarding a few crude speculations that have from time to time passed through my mind .
But , secured with this proviso , I can venture boldly to examine thc most startling hypothesis . Assume that such an organisation as I have above indicated grew up , take for granted the learned doctor ' s most extravagant view—we can discard it whenever wc will and whenever we find ourselves under any necessity to do so—and what we have then to enquire is whether thc marks by which
the gradually increasing family of true believers recognised its members were substantially the same as those now employed in speculative Freemasonry . Because if they werc , mere ritual , mere technical tradition , becomes insignificant , immaterial to the enquiry . The exact and historical truth of the legentl of the Third Degree , so much , and with so much plausibility , questioned
is no longer of importance . All that can be said of it is th * it whenever it was invented it was found to be—as it is still found to be—a convenient method , by means of a myth , of imparting a truthful principle of vital importance to the existence of the Order . We may even go so far as to admit its most recently ascribed origin ; we may even contemplate with equanimity the theory that ascribes it to
a legend invented to form a point of reunion for the Royalists after the tragedy outside the Banqueting Hall window in 1649 , although that deed , as Milton justifiably boasted with becoming dignity , " was not done in a corner , " because , whatever shape the story has been fashioned into by succeeding generations , we can detect in it traces of thc very earliest inculcation of the lesson that
teaches the sometimes necessary duty o ! martyrdom . Let me try to make my present proposition plain . Ex hypothesi that the .... and .... of the Three Decrees have been employed from the times of the earliest combinations formed amongst mankindfrom even before the probably apocryphal event which forms the subject of the Third Degree , but that thc varying
circumstances of man have from time to time necessitated the invention of legends or thc adoption of the known circumstances of actual events , to give practical illustrations of the .... communicated . Take for example thc last theory I have alluded to . If my speculation as to the cartoon by Raffaclle , * if the conjecture of my courteous brother , H . H . B . t as to the picture
* Sec my letter in your impression of the gth ult . t See correspondence in your columns of the 16 th ult ,
by Sebastian elel Piombo * had any value , the invention of these means of recognition cannot be attributed to an event occurring long after both of these great artists were in their graves , but an antecedent antl perhaps almost forgotten ceremonial may have had fresh point given to it by a recent tragedy , in which the fervent mind of the loyal
Mason would conceive he detected some resemblance to the martyrdom with the particulars of which he had long been familiar , and thus thc decapitation of Charles I . may have furnished " tin raison d'etre" for perhaps the revival , if not the continuance , of the Third Degree , although we need not go so far as to assert that it
was post hoc propter hoc , " that the legend was born of the political event rather than that the latter recalled the former . I propose to continue this investigation ii : your next , if your courtesy will allow ' rat space , anil if you are not
apprehensive that the dryness of the disquisition will repel your readers . And with fraternal regards , I remain , dear Sir and Brother , yours very faithfully , S . P ., P . M . 905 , 1491 .
LODGE OF BENEVOLENCE . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Though the question of , in any way , altering the existing composition of the Lodge of Benevolence , is probably shelved for a ( Masonic ) generation , it may be
permitted , without cavilling at the decision of the majority , to regret the summary manner in which that decision was expressed . The letter of Bro . the Rev . R . J . Simpson , in your last impression , induces me to offer a few remarks on this subject .
The ' number of country lodges is 920 , „ „ „ town do . is 276 , and the following is a comparative statement of their contributions to the fund of Benevolence for thc year ending 30 th September , 18 77 , that being the latest date up to which the accaunts of Grand Lodge have been
published : — Quarters ent'ing COUNTRY . 31 st December , 1876 £ * J 78 1 4 31 st March , 1877 1822 4 4 30 th June , 1877 1374 17 o 36 th September , 1877 845 1 10
Total £ 4720 4 6 Quarters eneling TOWN . 31 st December , 1876 £ 455 i ? d 3 istMarch , 1877 935 3 6 30 th June , 1877 349 8 o 30 th September , 1877 284 2 o
Total ... ... ... ... £ 2024 11 o Quarters ending TOTALS ( Counlry and Town ) . 31 st December , 1876 £ n .-l 3 lS 10 31 st March , 1877 3 757 7 I 0 301 I 1 June , 1877 1724 5 o 30 th September , 1877 1129 3 10
Grand Total £ » 744 15 6-t It appears , therefore , istly , that the country lodges outnumber the town lodges by more than 3 to 1 . 2 ndly . That the country contributions are to those of the town nearly in the ratio of -j to 2 , or to exhibit this result in another form , every £ 67 received as quarterage by the
Fund of Benevolence , is made up as follows * . —viz ., £ 47 is paid by the country lodges and £ 20 is paid by the town lodges . Now , can it be seriously contended that the present Lodge of Benevolence , whose function it is to administer the united contributions of town and country , is a really
representative body ? That it may be so , in theory , I admit , since the Masters of all lodges in England are members ; but , as a matter of fact , the Masters of country lodges generally , and those in our distant provincial towns especially , are seldom or never in a position to attend . To bring home to us , how our country brethren really are
circumstanced in this respect , let me by way of illustration state , what I believe would be , a parallel case . Let us suppose that all future meetings of the Lodge of Benevolence , as at prescntconstituted , were to be held at Liverpool ? It will not , I trust , be construed into an absence of
faith in the zeal of my metropolitan brethren , if I assume that the necessity of a journey to Liverpool once a month would seriously affect the regularity of their attendance . The natural result would be , a transference of the actual power of the Board , to the brethren at or near
Liver-* These two great works are readily accessible . Every brother in thc metropolis may examine them for himself . The former is at the South Kensington Museum ; the latter in the National Gallery . f These figures have been arrived at by separating the items of contribution to thc Fund of Benevolence , as shown
in the quarterly reports of Grand Lodge ; the totals , however , exhibit a discrepancy of £ 9 2 s . 3 d ., when compared with those of the March and June quarters , as appearing in the official balanceflsheets , abstract of which is subjoined .
Quarters ending TOTALS ( Country and I own ) . 31 st December , 1876 ... £ 1133 18 10 31 st March , 1877 2748 6 7 30 th June , 1877 1724 4 o 30 th September , 1877 „ ¦ 112 9 3 10 Girand Total , . „ £ 6735 13 3
pool ; and I submit , that under the system at present ex isting , the entire power of thc Lodsje of Benevolence is exercised by the London members , who thcr-fore vote away , not only their own contributions , but also the far greater contributions of our country brethren . I think that at thc last Quarterly Communication a right decision might have been facilitated had we asked
ourselves two very simple questions , viz .: — istly . Is the pre ; cht system under which the Lodge ot Benevolence is administered a satisfactory one ? 2 ndly . Is the change proposed by the Board of General Purposes a substantial improvement upon the existing system ? As regards the ist question : Is the present system
satisfactory r The Presidents of the Board of General Purposes antl the Lodge of Benevolence have said , " No , " whilst Bros . Binckes and Mason have said , " Yes ; " and there thc matter rests , at least so far as argument and free discussion are concerned . By those , however , who sought for an open expression
of the views and opinions , of all brethren , who werc specially conversant , with the actual working of the Lodge of Benevolence , a strong feeling of disappointment was experienced , at being debarred , through the impatience of thc majority , from hearing what our Bros . Nunn and Brett , thc worthy Vice-Presidents of the Board , and also Bros . Rawson , Joseph Smith , and other regular attendants , might have
been able to contribute towards thc general information . To pass to the second question -. Would the proposed change have been a substantial improvement upon the existing system ? I submit that it woultl : istly . On the ground that the cumbersome character ol the Board would disappear .
2 ntlly . That thc change would provide a Board composed more or less of the same members , whereby unity of action woultl be better secured than at present . 3 rdly . That the proposed reconstitution of the Boanl would render it a really representative body . In conclusion , the statement will be permissible , as an individual expression of opinion , that the present Board of
General Purposes is so truly representative a bitly , that any proposal brought before Grand Lotlge , bearing thc endorse ment of the Board ' s unanimous approval ( as in the . late resolutions respecting the Lodge of Benevolence ) , would be absolutely certain to meet with the cordial and well-merited support of a large section of the Craft . Yours fraternally , R . V . Goui . n .
THE ROYAL ARCH . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have been advised to scntl these letters to you for publication in your able journal . 1 am , yours truly , N . II . LAMII , Scribe K Unity , 1151 . Fowey , Cornwall , April 4 , 18 7 8 .
[ Copy of letter sent to Grand Scribe E . J " I beg to call your attention to " Grand Chapter Constitutions" issued in 1875 , to page 18 , paragraph 51 , ami shall be glad of your opinion on the following case . " At our chapter meeting Principal Sojourner antl Scribe
N . were balloted for by scrip for the third chair , or J . -, by a majority Scribe N . was elected to succeed to that chair in June next . Several Past Z . ' s considered that on account of Scribe N . being only an assistant to Scribe E ., it is not a qualification to the third chair . " Your reply thereon will oblige . "
[ Copy of reply . ] " Freemasons' Hall , London , W . C , " 25 th March , 1858 . " Dear Sir and Companion ,- — " The Scribe N . or an Assistant Sojourner being an
installed Master arc elig ible to be elected to the J . Chair , in accordance with the R . A . Regulations , Art . 51 , page 18 . The laws say distinctly— ' have served the office of Scribe or Sojourner . ' Either of the Scribes and the three Sojourners are all equally eligible for thc J . chair if Installed Masters . "Yours fraternally , & c . "
THE VENERABLE BEDE . To the Editor 0 / " The Times . " Sir , —In the account of your extract from the apostolic letter by which the Scottish hierarchy was restored , Mr . J . Whitaker , in The Times of the 2 nd inst ., imputes an error to his Holiness . He states that the Venerable Bede was not a contemporary of St . Ninian , as tbe Pope , in his cursory
view of the Scotch Church , according to your version , had declared , but lived 241 years after St . Ninian ' s death . I beg leave to inform you that the passage in thc letter of the Pope which Mr . Whitaker is referring to is textually as follows : — " It is told that about the end of the fourth century St .
Ninian , who , as the Venerable Bede testifies , was instructed at Rome in faith . " Hoping you ; will kindly insert this rectification , I remain , your obedient servant , Amsterdam , April 4 . F . A . VAN DEN HEUVELL . [ We think it right to give this explanation of the alleged error . —En . ]
ERRATUM OR MISPRINT . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir antl Brother , — By a misprint in thc leader , " Financial Prospects , " the difference between estimated and actual revenue was
stated to be £ 1 , 18 9 , , whereas it should have been actually £ 617 , 29 8 . The actual increase of the year is correctly given at £ 1 , 198 , 000 . Yours fraternally , THE WairEit OF THE A RTICLE .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
ibility of the reconciliation of the apparently differing schools Without insisting upon this creed as necessarily involved in my proposition . Mr . Hallam , in his wonderfully learned work , says : " ft is idle to argue from the principles of the English Constitution with those who have abandoned her communion . " In like manner my excogitations will be thrown away upon those who
beforehand have irrevocably made up their minds that Freemasonry is only a system of social combination to carry out thc Benthamite theory of the greatest good of the greatest number , a kind of " we are jolly good fellows , and so say all of us " as 5 o : iation , a " mutual admiration and help society , " add so forth . To those who hold these views the guild theory , even stripped of Anderson ' s aesthetic
attributes , will , of course , be all-sufficing , and they may spare themselves all further trouble of investigating the arguments for a probably higher derivation of the Order . This , as it seems to me , is the error into wbich the members of L'Orient have fallen . I designedly refrain from using thc conventional p hrase brethren . There arc individuals in the world whose spinal columns appear
to consist rather of cartilaginous than of osseous matter . There are creeds which pride themselves on the absence of creed— " Lucus a non lucendo , " believing because they don't believe , like Mr . Montague Tigg , in the novel , and so extravagantly tolerant , that with the old French Royalist , who was more loyal than the king himself , they cannot tolerate anybody who does not go their cwn lengths
in what they are pleased to call toleration . " Everybody in my kingdom , " says the proclamation of the burlesque monarch , " shall do as he pleases , and if he don ' t , he shall be made to do it ! " Such would stem to be the principle of our French so-called brethren , but if—and as I believe —the theory of the Divine origin of our Order has sufficient plausibility to command our intelligent acquiescence ,
Masonic communion with those who thus violently remove the chief landmark is impossible , and we are bound to regard them not as co-heirs , but , as usurpers of our traditions and privileges ; not of the household of faith , but impostors , using both lerms not as abusive epithets , but in their naked meaning , i . e ., usurpers—those who claim to inherit when there is no continuity of descent ; impostors , those
who prctentl to a character to which they have no title . For if I rightly interpret the Hutchinsonian theory , as expoundctl by the late Dr . Oliver , there is ascribed to Freemasonry an origin almost coeval with the first habitation by man of this planet , and the institution is regarded by those who hold these views as an esoteric community ,
consisting of those few living members of the family of man who constituted the salt of the earth—the very limited circle of those who recognised an abstract deity , amongst , but apart the from , vast majority whose dullness of preception would only enable them to conceive a concrete god . " Lo ' . the poor savage , whose untutored mind
Sees God in storms and hears him in the wind , " as Pope says . —Such a proposition I fully admit seems fantastic and extravagant , and . f am conscious that in pursuing thc enquiry as to how far it is based upon probability —or should I not rather say possibility—I am treading on very difficult and possibly very dangerous ground . But I beg mv brethren to recall the moment when their own
footsteps were entirely tentative , when in a halting posture and the most humble of humble , the lowliest of lowly , attitudes , they advanced falteringly to the light , and imagine that I am so groping now , propounding nothing as ascertained , nothing as posiiive , but diffidently hazarding a few crude speculations that have from time to time passed through my mind .
But , secured with this proviso , I can venture boldly to examine thc most startling hypothesis . Assume that such an organisation as I have above indicated grew up , take for granted the learned doctor ' s most extravagant view—we can discard it whenever wc will and whenever we find ourselves under any necessity to do so—and what we have then to enquire is whether thc marks by which
the gradually increasing family of true believers recognised its members were substantially the same as those now employed in speculative Freemasonry . Because if they werc , mere ritual , mere technical tradition , becomes insignificant , immaterial to the enquiry . The exact and historical truth of the legentl of the Third Degree , so much , and with so much plausibility , questioned
is no longer of importance . All that can be said of it is th * it whenever it was invented it was found to be—as it is still found to be—a convenient method , by means of a myth , of imparting a truthful principle of vital importance to the existence of the Order . We may even go so far as to admit its most recently ascribed origin ; we may even contemplate with equanimity the theory that ascribes it to
a legend invented to form a point of reunion for the Royalists after the tragedy outside the Banqueting Hall window in 1649 , although that deed , as Milton justifiably boasted with becoming dignity , " was not done in a corner , " because , whatever shape the story has been fashioned into by succeeding generations , we can detect in it traces of thc very earliest inculcation of the lesson that
teaches the sometimes necessary duty o ! martyrdom . Let me try to make my present proposition plain . Ex hypothesi that the .... and .... of the Three Decrees have been employed from the times of the earliest combinations formed amongst mankindfrom even before the probably apocryphal event which forms the subject of the Third Degree , but that thc varying
circumstances of man have from time to time necessitated the invention of legends or thc adoption of the known circumstances of actual events , to give practical illustrations of the .... communicated . Take for example thc last theory I have alluded to . If my speculation as to the cartoon by Raffaclle , * if the conjecture of my courteous brother , H . H . B . t as to the picture
* Sec my letter in your impression of the gth ult . t See correspondence in your columns of the 16 th ult ,
by Sebastian elel Piombo * had any value , the invention of these means of recognition cannot be attributed to an event occurring long after both of these great artists were in their graves , but an antecedent antl perhaps almost forgotten ceremonial may have had fresh point given to it by a recent tragedy , in which the fervent mind of the loyal
Mason would conceive he detected some resemblance to the martyrdom with the particulars of which he had long been familiar , and thus thc decapitation of Charles I . may have furnished " tin raison d'etre" for perhaps the revival , if not the continuance , of the Third Degree , although we need not go so far as to assert that it
was post hoc propter hoc , " that the legend was born of the political event rather than that the latter recalled the former . I propose to continue this investigation ii : your next , if your courtesy will allow ' rat space , anil if you are not
apprehensive that the dryness of the disquisition will repel your readers . And with fraternal regards , I remain , dear Sir and Brother , yours very faithfully , S . P ., P . M . 905 , 1491 .
LODGE OF BENEVOLENCE . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Though the question of , in any way , altering the existing composition of the Lodge of Benevolence , is probably shelved for a ( Masonic ) generation , it may be
permitted , without cavilling at the decision of the majority , to regret the summary manner in which that decision was expressed . The letter of Bro . the Rev . R . J . Simpson , in your last impression , induces me to offer a few remarks on this subject .
The ' number of country lodges is 920 , „ „ „ town do . is 276 , and the following is a comparative statement of their contributions to the fund of Benevolence for thc year ending 30 th September , 18 77 , that being the latest date up to which the accaunts of Grand Lodge have been
published : — Quarters ent'ing COUNTRY . 31 st December , 1876 £ * J 78 1 4 31 st March , 1877 1822 4 4 30 th June , 1877 1374 17 o 36 th September , 1877 845 1 10
Total £ 4720 4 6 Quarters eneling TOWN . 31 st December , 1876 £ 455 i ? d 3 istMarch , 1877 935 3 6 30 th June , 1877 349 8 o 30 th September , 1877 284 2 o
Total ... ... ... ... £ 2024 11 o Quarters ending TOTALS ( Counlry and Town ) . 31 st December , 1876 £ n .-l 3 lS 10 31 st March , 1877 3 757 7 I 0 301 I 1 June , 1877 1724 5 o 30 th September , 1877 1129 3 10
Grand Total £ » 744 15 6-t It appears , therefore , istly , that the country lodges outnumber the town lodges by more than 3 to 1 . 2 ndly . That the country contributions are to those of the town nearly in the ratio of -j to 2 , or to exhibit this result in another form , every £ 67 received as quarterage by the
Fund of Benevolence , is made up as follows * . —viz ., £ 47 is paid by the country lodges and £ 20 is paid by the town lodges . Now , can it be seriously contended that the present Lodge of Benevolence , whose function it is to administer the united contributions of town and country , is a really
representative body ? That it may be so , in theory , I admit , since the Masters of all lodges in England are members ; but , as a matter of fact , the Masters of country lodges generally , and those in our distant provincial towns especially , are seldom or never in a position to attend . To bring home to us , how our country brethren really are
circumstanced in this respect , let me by way of illustration state , what I believe would be , a parallel case . Let us suppose that all future meetings of the Lodge of Benevolence , as at prescntconstituted , were to be held at Liverpool ? It will not , I trust , be construed into an absence of
faith in the zeal of my metropolitan brethren , if I assume that the necessity of a journey to Liverpool once a month would seriously affect the regularity of their attendance . The natural result would be , a transference of the actual power of the Board , to the brethren at or near
Liver-* These two great works are readily accessible . Every brother in thc metropolis may examine them for himself . The former is at the South Kensington Museum ; the latter in the National Gallery . f These figures have been arrived at by separating the items of contribution to thc Fund of Benevolence , as shown
in the quarterly reports of Grand Lodge ; the totals , however , exhibit a discrepancy of £ 9 2 s . 3 d ., when compared with those of the March and June quarters , as appearing in the official balanceflsheets , abstract of which is subjoined .
Quarters ending TOTALS ( Country and I own ) . 31 st December , 1876 ... £ 1133 18 10 31 st March , 1877 2748 6 7 30 th June , 1877 1724 4 o 30 th September , 1877 „ ¦ 112 9 3 10 Girand Total , . „ £ 6735 13 3
pool ; and I submit , that under the system at present ex isting , the entire power of thc Lodsje of Benevolence is exercised by the London members , who thcr-fore vote away , not only their own contributions , but also the far greater contributions of our country brethren . I think that at thc last Quarterly Communication a right decision might have been facilitated had we asked
ourselves two very simple questions , viz .: — istly . Is the pre ; cht system under which the Lodge ot Benevolence is administered a satisfactory one ? 2 ndly . Is the change proposed by the Board of General Purposes a substantial improvement upon the existing system ? As regards the ist question : Is the present system
satisfactory r The Presidents of the Board of General Purposes antl the Lodge of Benevolence have said , " No , " whilst Bros . Binckes and Mason have said , " Yes ; " and there thc matter rests , at least so far as argument and free discussion are concerned . By those , however , who sought for an open expression
of the views and opinions , of all brethren , who werc specially conversant , with the actual working of the Lodge of Benevolence , a strong feeling of disappointment was experienced , at being debarred , through the impatience of thc majority , from hearing what our Bros . Nunn and Brett , thc worthy Vice-Presidents of the Board , and also Bros . Rawson , Joseph Smith , and other regular attendants , might have
been able to contribute towards thc general information . To pass to the second question -. Would the proposed change have been a substantial improvement upon the existing system ? I submit that it woultl : istly . On the ground that the cumbersome character ol the Board would disappear .
2 ntlly . That thc change would provide a Board composed more or less of the same members , whereby unity of action woultl be better secured than at present . 3 rdly . That the proposed reconstitution of the Boanl would render it a really representative body . In conclusion , the statement will be permissible , as an individual expression of opinion , that the present Board of
General Purposes is so truly representative a bitly , that any proposal brought before Grand Lotlge , bearing thc endorse ment of the Board ' s unanimous approval ( as in the . late resolutions respecting the Lodge of Benevolence ) , would be absolutely certain to meet with the cordial and well-merited support of a large section of the Craft . Yours fraternally , R . V . Goui . n .
THE ROYAL ARCH . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have been advised to scntl these letters to you for publication in your able journal . 1 am , yours truly , N . II . LAMII , Scribe K Unity , 1151 . Fowey , Cornwall , April 4 , 18 7 8 .
[ Copy of letter sent to Grand Scribe E . J " I beg to call your attention to " Grand Chapter Constitutions" issued in 1875 , to page 18 , paragraph 51 , ami shall be glad of your opinion on the following case . " At our chapter meeting Principal Sojourner antl Scribe
N . were balloted for by scrip for the third chair , or J . -, by a majority Scribe N . was elected to succeed to that chair in June next . Several Past Z . ' s considered that on account of Scribe N . being only an assistant to Scribe E ., it is not a qualification to the third chair . " Your reply thereon will oblige . "
[ Copy of reply . ] " Freemasons' Hall , London , W . C , " 25 th March , 1858 . " Dear Sir and Companion ,- — " The Scribe N . or an Assistant Sojourner being an
installed Master arc elig ible to be elected to the J . Chair , in accordance with the R . A . Regulations , Art . 51 , page 18 . The laws say distinctly— ' have served the office of Scribe or Sojourner . ' Either of the Scribes and the three Sojourners are all equally eligible for thc J . chair if Installed Masters . "Yours fraternally , & c . "
THE VENERABLE BEDE . To the Editor 0 / " The Times . " Sir , —In the account of your extract from the apostolic letter by which the Scottish hierarchy was restored , Mr . J . Whitaker , in The Times of the 2 nd inst ., imputes an error to his Holiness . He states that the Venerable Bede was not a contemporary of St . Ninian , as tbe Pope , in his cursory
view of the Scotch Church , according to your version , had declared , but lived 241 years after St . Ninian ' s death . I beg leave to inform you that the passage in thc letter of the Pope which Mr . Whitaker is referring to is textually as follows : — " It is told that about the end of the fourth century St .
Ninian , who , as the Venerable Bede testifies , was instructed at Rome in faith . " Hoping you ; will kindly insert this rectification , I remain , your obedient servant , Amsterdam , April 4 . F . A . VAN DEN HEUVELL . [ We think it right to give this explanation of the alleged error . —En . ]
ERRATUM OR MISPRINT . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir antl Brother , — By a misprint in thc leader , " Financial Prospects , " the difference between estimated and actual revenue was
stated to be £ 1 , 18 9 , , whereas it should have been actually £ 617 , 29 8 . The actual increase of the year is correctly given at £ 1 , 198 , 000 . Yours fraternally , THE WairEit OF THE A RTICLE .