Chair Degree.

CHAIR DEGREE .

( To the Editor of the Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read with much interest the letters in THE FREEMASON upon the above degree ; but I question if the formality called " Chairing" in the Scotch three-step lodges is a distinct degree at all . I received it as part of

the M . M . degree , and have bestowed it as such often since . The obligation proves that a M . M . is entitled to receive it , without relation of his election to the chair of the lodge , although election to the latter is now the only way that a M . M . is entitled to receive it , in shape of installation , aceordins

to Grand Lodge laws . I am of opinion that the Grand Lodge of Scotland has allowed itself to be cozened out of this by the R . A . C . in its scramble for degrees , and that chairing belongs as much to the M . M . degree as the Mark does to the F . C . The new mode of " Chairing" may be renovated Masonry , but is certainly not the Masonry practised

by our forefathers , and if correct as I saw it performed latel y in my lodge , is little better than a farce , and is diametrically opposed to the first principles of Masonry . Yours fraternally , R . CRAIG , P . M . of St . John ' s , 157 . Beith , May 8 th , 1869 .

( To the Editor of the Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Iu THE FREEMASON of April 3 , p . 5 , and again of April 24 th , p . 9 , I made some remarks upon the above subject which do uot seem to please ' * Ammi . " Neither does he seem to fully understand some of them ; becauseas

, I suppose , he has not read them carefully . However , I shall try to give him a little " more light " upon the subject . English Masons practise a ceremony connected with Blue Masonry , which is conducted in what is called a " Board of Installed Masters , " said ceremony being over and above the

three degrees . Therefore I hold that if English Masons do so , Scottish Masons may also practise something similar if they choose . However , we need not speculate at all upon the subject , for the case of a lodge working the ceremony of tlie chair was brought up before the Grand Lodge of Scotland ;

and turning to Laurie ' s History , pages 422 and 423 , we read as follows : — " In modern times it has been the practice of many of the Royal Arch Chapters to give the Mark Master ' s and Chair Master ' s Ceremonial as separate Degrees , classing them after the Master ' s Degree ; this is contrary to thc

practice of the Ancient Craft Lodges , who class the former with the Fellow-craft , and the latter with the Master Mason Degree . Dr . Oliver , in referring to the Mark Master , in his Landmarks , remarks , ' that this is usually classed after the Master ' s Degree , but in strict propriety it ought to precede

it , for the Mark Master is but the Master of a Lodge of Fellow-crafts . '" ( It will be understood I differ from Dr . Oliver on some points ; my remarks show where ) . "This difference of opinion was decided by tlie Grand Lodge of Scotland , in so far as it affected the lodges under her jurisdiction , at

the Quarterly Communication held in November , 1858 . On that occasion a representation was made by tho Provincial Graud Lodge of Glasgow that tho Lodge of Glasgow , St . John , was practising the Mark and Chair Master Degrees ; which degrees , said the memorialists , were neither recognised nor

practised by the Grand Lodge of Scotland . In defence it was alleged that the Lodge of Glasgow , St . John , did not recognise them as separate degrees , but as portions of the Fellow-craft and Master ' s degrees "—( I did not call it a separate degree , but " the chair , " or " chairing , " or " a sort of side

degree . " The reasoning of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and mine are somewhat different , but our conclusions are the same , viz ., to keep up the chair ) , — "sanctioned by the laws and constitutions of the Grand Lodge . After mature deliberation , the Grand Lodge , without a division , found that the

Lodge of Ghusgow St . John was in perfect order , and dismissed the complaint . " I know that Royal Arch Masons are rather sore upon this point ; but I cannot help that ; they wish to keep the Mark and the Chair to themselves , but you see the Grand Lodge of Scotland says no ! The

Royal Arch may keep all its ether points , lights , secrets , & c , to itself , but not thc Mark and Chair , for the working of them on the Blue , the Grand Lodge of Scotland says , " was in perfect order ! " Just think of that , Bro . " Ammi " —wasn't that too bad of the Grand Lodge—casting aside your

suggestion too , as given at page 9 of THE FREEMASON for April 17 th— " Let Grand Lodgo make an example by suspending lodges working those degrees , then farewell to Chair on the Blue . " Too bad ! Of course if any lodges practise other Royal Arch degrees , or make Knights Templar ,

& c . ( neither of which I ever saw done ) , I have no objection that they should be suspended , if you like , when they unwarrantably practise such tomfoolery . In THE FREEMASON for April 21 th , page 9 , I spoke of old Scottish lodges ( many of which as operative Masonic Lodges existed long before A . D . 1700 , aud

Chair Degree.

which in process of time gradually were turned into the Free-masonic Lodges ) , whose "Fellowcrafts got their Marks recorded iu their books long before the Royal Arch was born , aud whose master , when elected , filled the chair long before the Royal Arch was ever heard of . Your Royal Arch ideas are a new creation , merely of last century , whereas we were in existence lono- before . "

" Filled the chair , " that is , sat in the chair , and discharged the duties bclouging to the office of a Master . Thus the " chairing" of the Master or Deacon , and the office of Master was in existence long before the Master Mason degree . AVhen the new Master was formerly elected he was placed in his chair , aud had to "payoff" to the whole lodge

assembled , while the members no doubt paid him due honour . The chairing not taking place as now in England , merely before those who had previously held the office of Master , but before the whole lodge , consequently the Scottish brethren seem to have in this respect kept nearer the " old landmarks . " The practice of ' * chairing" may have existed iu the old operative lodges for above four centuries back

although not exactly under the same circumstances , or with precisely the same ceremony , as now . If I have committed any mistakes in the above or former remarks , I shall be most happy to acknowledge them when pointed out to me , or when proved

to be such , my only object being to give or receive " more light . " I am , yours fraternally , LEO .

SOLOMON'S TEMPLE . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , — " Ammi" asks what I " think of the Masonry that existed at the building of Solomon ' s Temple ? " in answer to which I can tell him , that I consider thero was nothing

extraordinary about it ; and I believe it was " possibly excelled by other co-existent structures . " And as for its size it was undoubtedly much smaller than many of the noble buildings which existed among the neighbouring nations . As a temple of architecture Solomon ' s Temple , per se , hail , in comparison

with other then extant productions , nothing to boast of . AVe have been too apt " to forget that the great glory of Solomon ' s Temple did not consist iu its structure , but in its worship , and the ideas connected therewith . " One circumstance about the site of Solomon ' s

Temple has been an altogether unnecessary matter of wonder-, viz ., the high wall or dyke which the nature , of the ground rendered it necessary to build up , so as to enlarge the area as required for the foundations of the intended building . Now , what peoplo can see extraordinary about a high plain

wall I know not . Give any common sensible mason a sufficient foundation , and money to pay the expense , and he could easily put up a wall twice as high as Solomon ' s . There is a hundred times more architectural skill , or knowledge , ability , or brain-work , required and

displayed in the structure of one of our still extant old Gothic Cathedrals , with their beautiful high spires , & c , i £ c , than in ten Solomon ' s Temples . AVhile saying so I trust I shall not be misunderstood , for , at the same time I assert that for many important reasons the excavations now going on at

Jerusalem deserve to be viewed with great interest by all , especially Christians and Bible-readers , there being more in it than the mere shape or size of the stones ; therefore all Christian churches and Masonic lodges ought to contribute to the exploration fund . As a specimen of architecture , that Petit Temple

or pretty little Temple of Solomon ' s , might now , comparatively speaking , be almost called a " Nchushtan . " AVhy , it might be sot down in one of our large cathedrals , and take up no more room relatively than a common bandbox ( or hat-box )

inside a large chest . Or to compare Solomon ' s Temple to sonic of the pre-Christiau Grecian edifices would be to liken some of our modern classic church abortions ( steeple ! and all included ) to the Parthenon .

I hope that Bro . " Ammi " will be satisfied with my opinion " of the Masonry that existed at the building of Solomon ' s Temple . " It may be new to him ; but he would do well to think over it before he says much about it . And as for any " Freemasonry " supposed to have existed then , that is a mere dream .

AVere Freemasons generally to study the literature of Freemasonry , in conjunction with the history of architecture and general history , rather more than has been yet done , we might by-and-bye soon get out of the eternal circle of Frcemasonic nonsense which has until lately been so current . Then , as now , Masonry—i . e ., operative Masonry—existed ,

but not _ roemasonry ; therefore , as I have already stated , the noblest laurels of " Freemasonry" do not lie in thc past , but in the future—they have yet to be won . And as for " Masonic Marks , " why , if a mason then lifted a soft brick ho would very likely leave the marks of his fingers on it , which would be

Chair Degree.

nothing mysterious , although made by a mason ; and suppose a masou was cutting stones , and the overseer desired to measure off his work , and give each man his particular portion to execute , what more commonplace or sensible than that the workman would have to put some distinguishing

marksimply " his mark "—upon the stones he wrought . This " mason ' s mark" on the stone , therefore , simply showed who did the work , and would also enable the overseer , or master of tho work , to understand where it was to go , and who to blame if it was not correctly wrought . But "Ammi" may

say—these marks must have a mysterious meaning , because , see , there are " circles , triangles , & c , " to . which I answer , suppose they are " circles , triangles , & c , " what about it 1 what else could they be ? If a mark is to be made at all it must be of some shape , and their variety shows that a needful

circumstance was that the mark of one party should be different from that of another . And the mark which a mason would be likely to adopt would be some figure , letter , sign or symbol which , having seen somewhere , had caught his fancy . Again , although some of these " mason ' s marks" on

stones should happen to be similar to some religious or civil symbol , it does not therefore follow that said figure , when used as a " mason ' s mark " on the stone , has either the same meaning or intention as the symbol which is used under other

circumstances . Many of those supposed symbols on the stones are , I consider , simply the mark of the workman , or perhaps sometimes of the overseer , or the initial of , or sign , or symbol for , his name . I am , yours fraternally , LEO .

MASONIC RITUALS . ( To thc Editor of thc Freemason . ) DEAR SIB , KST > BROTHIM ,, —I am sorry to have again to differ from " Delta . " In the Freemason for April 24 th , p . 9 , I was not " writing on a wholly different subject , " for although my letter then was headed " Chair Degree , " it ia only the first

paragraph , of 28 lines , that refers thereto ; all the rest of the lutter , as any one could easily perceive from the prefatory remark , line 29 th , refers to what "Delta , " & c , had been treating on . But bo that as it may—to the point . "Deba" said , "In a ritual preserved , as that of Masonry is , by tradition

only . " I denied that , and I do so still . "Delta " now adds , "I need hardly premise that my observation applied only to Blue or Craft Masonry , which alone formed the subject of my letter ; and subject to this limitation , I think it will appear that my words were strietly correct . " "Delta " now jumps out of the frying-pan into the fire ;

because , even " subject to this limitation , ' I still have to inform him , that , allowing it was "Blue or Craft Masonry which alone formed the subject of /•/ -letter , " his words were—as he knows , or ought to know , and as his letter of May 8 th , p . !) , to any with half an eye distinctly proves—anything but " atrict . lv correct . "

Speaking generally , I consider there has been far too many " white lies , ' or , too much " writing ingeniously , " ancnt Freemasonry ; it is high time this was stopped . Our Order teaches us to act upon tho square , which of course includes that we are also to write upon the square , neither attempting to deceive

our brethren , ourselves , or the public at large . So shall we be respected by all . Further , as regards our rituals , except perhaps part of the first degree , they arc new creations since the beginning of last century , and any "traditions" regarding the connection of said rituals with our "Freemasonry "

could only have existed since then ; but I can go further , and say that there was no such thing in existence as our present Frcemisonry previous to about A . D . 1700 . I may have more to say upon this point again ; meantime I can refer to THE FREEMASON of April 10 th , page 6 , for some of my

ideas there auent . Before closing , I would not wish to leave our esteemed brother , " Delta , " in the well ; but , holding out the right hand of fellowship by which terra firma is reached , I would merely add—Wc can surely understand each other . I am , yours fraternally , LEO .

ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTIOX FOR GIRLS . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . )

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , — 1 shall teel obliged if you will permit me , through tho medium of your journal , to mako it known to the brethren who attended tho festival yesterday , that it is my intention to bring before the next Board of Stewards the stylo in which we wero treated by the contractor for the

banquet , and that I shall be happy to receive any written communication from brethren on this subject . 1 am , dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , H . W . IIEMSWORTII , W . M ., And Steward for the Oak Lodge , 190 . 17 , Stratford Place , W , May 13 .