Table Of Contents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

PAGE RELATION OF ST . J OHN THE EVANGELIST TO FREEMASONRY 51 DISTRIBUTION OV THE HONOURS OF FREEMASONRY IN THE G . L . OF SCOTLAND ... 51 & 52

ENCYCLOPEDIA METROPOLITANS 52 ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS ... 52 THE CRAFTMetropolitan S 3 & 54 Provincial ... ... ... ... 54 & 55

BIRTHS , MARRIAGES , AND DEATHS 56 ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS 56 BOOKS RECEIVED 56 ROYAL MASONIC BENEVOLENT I NSTITUTION 56 & 57 MULTUM IN PARVO 57 & 58

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCEQualifications of Visitors to Lodges 58 Bro . Little and the " Testimonial" 5 § OUR AMERICAN C ONTEMPORARIES ... 5 & 59 ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR GIRLS ... 59

MASONIC MISCELLANEA ... 59 ROYAL ARCH 59 INSTRUCTION 59 THEATRICAL 59

SCOTLANDThe Craft ... 60 MARK MASONRYConsecration of tlie Callender Lodge , No . 123 60 Independent Order of Mark Masters ... 60 eS ; 61 ROYAL ARK MASONRY 61 ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED

RITEWilliam de Irwin Chapter , Weston-super-Mare 61 KING WILI IAM CITED FOR TRIAL 61 BRO . H . NEWNHAM AND THE VOLUNTEER BALL

IN LIVERPOOL 61 PROPOSED MASONIC HALL FOR LINCOLN ... 62 MASONIC MEETINGS FOR NF . XT W .-. xii 62 ADVERTISEMENTS 49 , 50 , 62 , 63 ^ 6 . 1

"The Relation Of St. John The Evangelist To Freemasonry."

"The RELATION of ST . JOHN the EVANGELIST to FREEMASONRY ."

ANSWER BY BRO . CHALMI . RS I . PATON . An article by me in THE FREEMASON of 29 th October , 1870 , on "The Relation of St . John the Evangelist to Freemasonry , " has attracted the attention of Bro . Samuel Evans , Boston

U S ., from whose pen the readers of THE FREEMASON have been favoured , on the 10 th December , 1 S 70 , with his thoughts and opinions on this subject , in what I might have designated a

letter to the editor , had not Bio . Evans himself thought proper formally to announce it as " A Criticism . " On this criticism 1 beg leave to offer a few remarks .

Bro . Evans begins by referring to my article as appearing " under the above caption , " by which I suppose he means the title , or headingthe same which he has prefixed to his criticism , and which I again prefix to this letter . The

word caption , however , is new to me in this sense . I know it as belonging to Scottish legal phraseology , in a sense accordant with its derivation from the Latin verb capio , I take , and as therefore not of pleasant sound in the ears of

poor debtors ; but Bro . Evans seems to have imagined that its derivation is from caput , a head I would not have noticed so trilling a blunder had it not awakened in me some doubt , before I had read two lines , of Iko . Evans ' s

capacity as a critic—a doubt which was confinned when in his second sentence I found him describing the designation whi .: h I had appended to my name , as prefixed to the article , ° f " Member of the Masonic Archaeological

Institute of England , & c , & c . " as a " naming of 'ts author ' s literary relationships . " It is not worth while in such a case to say much of the question of the singular and the plural , although it cannot but be observed that for the purpose

of creating a little prejudice against me at the outset of the " criticism , " the singular—had it hecn warranted—would have served better . Nor do I care to inquire if membership of the ^ or uo I care to inquire it membership of the Masonic

Archaeological Institute of England can properly be denominated a literary relationship . Ifro . Evans proceeds to say that " during years he has been interested in the question of

"The Relation Of St. John The Evangelist To Freemasonry."

the relationship of St . John the Evangelist and various other St . Johns to Freemasonry , but has never been able to discover that any such relationship existed , or could with any degree of plausibility be shown ever to have existed ;"

and that , therefore , the title of my article , and the naming of my literary relationships , having led him to look for something substantial as well as interesting in the article , he perused it with much interest , " for the purpose of finding out what more could be said that was either

new or true on so threadbare a theme by a member of an archaeological institute . " The reference to my being a member of that institute , with which any Freemason may well deem it an honour to be connected , is here again introduced , evidently in order to gain a little point at the commencement , which has nothing ,

however , to do with fair argument , with an honest criticism of my article , or a proper discussion of the subject of it ; in which , " during years , " Bro . Evans says he has been interested , but which he seems to have latterly dismissed as threadbare ; till in the perusal of THE FREEMASON his attention was recalled to it . And

the reference to the various other St . Johns , whose names have been mentioned in connection with Freemasonry , is equally remote from the only question fairly before Bro . Evans—the relation of St . John the Evangelist to Freemasonry . Bro . Evans , in a subsequent part of his

criticism , to which I shall further advert in due time , names in particular St . John the Baptist and St . John the Almoner . St . John the Baptist is mentioned in my article , and my critic was of course entitled to take what notice he thought proper of all that I had said about

him ; but the various other St . Johns , and in particular St . John the Almoner , might never have existed for anything of which it was the object of that article to treat . There are many St . Johns in the Roman Calendar ; no fewer than thirty are noticed . If anyone wishes to

establish a relation between any of them and Freemasonry , or to disprove the existence of such relation , each presents a distinct question to be considered by itself . In the discussion of any such question , I would not easily be persuaded to engage .

In perusing the first paragraph ofthe criticism , I was much puzzled as to the meaning of the statement already quoted , that Bro . Evans had never been able to discover that any relationships of any of the St . Johns to Freemasonry " existed or could with any respectable degree of plausibility be shown ever to have existed . " It seeme to me that if it ever existed—if it existed

during the lifetime of the Saint—it must be regarded as an unchangeable historic fact . I began to see , however , what Bro . Evans might be supposed to have in view when I came to a paragraph beginning , " The idea of saints' patronage is universally discarded by intelligent men ,

and the Masonic Institution should consist of none other than intelligent men . " I have a higher opinion of many members of the Roman Catholic Church than to refuse them credit for intelligence , and high intelligence ; and although I am as decided a Protestant as Bro . Evans can

be , and would be as far as he from saint worship , or from looking up to heaven for the patronage of any saint in the calendar , I must seek some other way than he has chosen of expressing opinion on this subject . It would be contrary to the first principles of Freemasonry

to refuse admission in the Masonic Brotherhood to a Roman Catholic applying for it , because of his being a Roman Catholic and holding the doctrine of his church respecting saints . But the question remains as to the existence of connection between any " saint" and the Masonic

body during his life upon the cartli ; and if such connection could be shown to have existed , an important relation must be deemed still to exist . His memory would fitly be cherished with peculiar regard by Freemasons , who would with

delight and benefit call to mind the excellency of his character and the works by which he contributed to the welfare of his fellow-men . Protestants refuse to accord anything like worship even to the Apostles , but they do not , therefore , refuse reverence to the memory of the

"The Relation Of St. John The Evangelist To Freemasonry."

Apostles , nor fail to rejoice in the thought that the power of Christianity was gloriously illustrated in their lives and in their deaths . A church dwells affectionately on the histories of its founders and its martyrs ; a nation rev ' eres

the memory of its distinguished patriots ; and the Masonic Brotherhood must , in like manner , ever hold specially dear the names of those whose connection with it gave it lustre , and imparted to it , through their influence , something of their own excellence in former times , however remote . ( To be continued . )

Distribution Of The Honours Of Freemasonry In The Grand Lodge Of Scotland.

DISTRIBUTION of the HONOURS of FREEMASONRY in THE GRAND LODGE of SCOTLAND .

BY BRO . THOMAS SWINTON , Sub . Master , Lodge of Edinburgh , Maiy ' s Chapel , No . 1 , The Grand Lodge of Scotland ought to command the respect of all the Freemasons of Scotland and its dependencies , and to be dear to

them all as the highest representative body of their Order . But this must depend on the manner in which the affairs of the Grand Lodge are conducted ; and , unhappily , this has not hitherto been such as to make Freemasons

generally regard it with the confidence which is so much to be desired , nor with the respect which , from its relation to all the daughter lodges in Scotland , ought to be deemed due to it . The reason of this is simply that the Grand Lodge

has long been under the control and management of a few individuals , who have divided amongst themselves all its high offices—officebearers being re-elected from time to time—so that some of the most honourable places have

been filled by the same brethren for twelve years or more , whilst others , equally worthy of these honours , have never been permitted to enjoy them . It is unnecessary to employ the term " clique , " which might be deemed offensive ; it

is enough to say that a few individuals have got the management of the affairs of the Grand Lodge in their hands , and for many years have managed them according to their own pleasure . This is not as it ought to be . The provincial

lodges of Scotland , as well as those of the capital , ought not only to be represented in the Grand Lodge , but their most eminent members ought often to be elected to honourable offices in the Grand Lodge , by which the feeling of

common brotherhood would be promoted , and the members of the Order throughout the whole country would be united together in affection , and not merely in name . There are brethren in many of the provincial lodges who have signalized themselves by their zealous endeavours to

promote the cause of l * reemasonry , and have , with great liberality , been the means of erecting buildings for their several lodges , or have bestowed upon them munificent gifts . But all these things seem never to have been considered by the rulers of the Grand Lodge , who have contribute to distribute the honours at their

disposal as if there were no brethren worthy of regard but those resident in Edinburgh ; and , in fact , even of these none have had the least chance of being elected to any high office but those of a certain very small and select circle , who can hold a private meeting before the meeting ofthe

Grand Lodge , and arrange all that is to take place in it . It is not to the honour ofthe Grand Lodge of Scotland , nor of Freemasonry in Scotland , that the Grand Lodge has come to be commonly spoken of as the Grand Lodge of Edinburgh , instead of the Grand Lodge of Scotland . But there is no wonder that this is the

case , when it is considered how exclusively the honourable offices ofthe Grand Lodge are filled by brethren resident in Edinburgh , and to how great an extent the Grand Lodge itself is composed of the members of Edinburgh lodges .

One Edinburgh lodge sends no fewer than twelve Grand Stewards as its representatives to the Grand Lodge , which is out of all proportion beyond the representation of any provincial lodge . The provincial lodges are thus discouraged , and their representatives do not care to