Can A Warden Initiate, &C. ?

aud unsullied when they have been consigned to oblivion , amongst old musty volumes , aud covered with dust , damp , and mildew for tho space of half-a-century ? The simple matter is that the union , in 1813 , did an amount of mischief to the principles of catholic Freemasonry such as no other event in the whole range of Masonic history can equal ; and wc , half-a-century later ,

feel it most keenly . The S 3 'stem revised by the Duke of Sussex , aud his agents , severed English Freemasonry from the Freemasonry of every other part of the world . It turned orders , degrees , landmarks , laws , faith , and every other fundamental principle upside down . It devised new rituals , tests , laws , and lectures ; and , in a spirit of solemn mockery , declared the power of its being able

to alter , repeal , and abrogate those laws which it professed could not be altered , repealed , or abrogated by any man or body of men . Holding , for myself , that a Warden can initiate , my object in addressing you is not so much to enter into that question , but to caution our younger brethren against the errors of Bro . William Blackburn for whom

I entertain , personally , very groat respect , but whose opinions , backed by his official rank , may cause many to adopt his mistakes and further confuse our already obscured system of Freemasonry . I am , dear Sir and Brother , Yours truly aud fraternally , M . C .

The Luxury Of Freemasonry.

THE LUXURY OF FREEMASONRY .

TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMASON * ' MACrAZIXE A > 'D MASOXIC MIRROR . DEAR SIR AND BIIOTUEU , —In your report of the last meeting of the Royal Masonic Institutions for Boys , Bro . Udall concludes by saying , " Ho was decidedly of opinion that they should not educate the children of men who were in the receipt of £ 100 a year and upwards . " Permit me to enquire if £ 100 a year is the maximum

or the minimum sum at which the luxury of Freemasonry should be indulged in ? Because , if it is the maximum , it may be very properly presumed that nearly all Freemasons would require some aid to educate their sons . If it is the minimum , then those who were not possessed of that income ought not to have been made Freemasons .

Is the Boj's' School for the benefit of Freemasons who cannot afford to educate their children , or , as Bro . Udall delicately puts it , for the sons of " men " with less than £ 100 a year ? And , in the hitter case , is it not holding out a premium for such " men " to , literally , act accordins ; to the words of the marriage service , — " bo fruitful and multiply

and replenish the earth . " One more question only . Does the possession of an income of less than £ 100 a year reduce , or elevate , a brother , whom the lodge teaches all to look on as an equal to—the rank of one of those made in God's own image- —a " man " ? Yours sincerely and fraternally , A MAN ASD A BROTHER .

On The Christianity Of Masonry.

ON THE CHRISTIANITY OF MASONRY .

IO THE EDITOR OP TIIE 1 'ilEEMASOXs' . "ItAGAZIi'E AXD MASOXIC MIRROR . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I hasten to correct a slight mistake on my part which , on perusal , I find to exist in my letter on the above subject . The register of Wm . Molash , by a careless error of my own , is said to be in the library of Christ Church CollegeOxfordwhereas it is to be found among the Tanner

, , MSS . in the Bodleian Library , Oxford . There are registers extant ' in Christ Church College Library , but the one I made mention of is in the Bodleian Library . Yours fraternally , THIRD DEGREE .

The Antiquity Of Masonic Degrees.

THE ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES .

50 THE EDITOR OF THE TREEMASOXS' MAGAZINE AXD MASOXIC MIRROR . DEMI SIR AND BROTHER , —I observe a short communication , signed "Rosa Crucis , " in your number of tho 17 th inst ., ancl which , though both personal in its tone and un-Masonic in its spirit , I am unwilling to allow to remain altogether unnoticed . Indeed , as "Rosa Crucis" seems disposed to pour

upon my devoted head the excess of his indignation , because I have sought to uphold the antiquity and validity of our Craft ritual , I readily accept the challenge which he so rashly offers . I might , indeed , have felt myself excused , from the obvious ignorance on his part of the forms of common courtesy and the sentiments of Masonic

forbearance ; but I prefer to leave unworthy personalities to himself , ancl simply answer that hasty and inconsiderate letter . "Rosa Crucis" sets by way of contrast , " -the modern Craft and Royal Arch rituals drawn up and tinkered , " he is pleased to assert , " by half-a-dozen hands to suit the vagaries of the Duke of Sussex , after tho union in

1813 , " against that "of the chivalric degrees " which , he declares , " a century before were worked in York and . Bristol . " I will say nothing now of the singular bad taste which marks such an ebullition of un-Masonic feeling , but will content myself with observing , that a more childish or preposterous claim never could be made , a more

unhistorical account never could be given , than this , which is so irreverently obtruded by "Rosa Crucis" on thepatience and forbearance of the Craft . Even to take the statement of "Rosa Crucis " per so , and to consider it in its plain and direct meaning . Ho will not venture to assert that our present Craft ritual was not worked Ions before 1813—nay , he knows as well as I do that , in 1715 , and long before 1715 , the same system we have now was in full operation , in all its

leading particulars , in this country . Of this , plenty of evidence is happily forthcoming ; indeed , it may without fear of contradiction bo affirmed , that there is substantial evidence which goes back to the middle of the 17 th century , as to the identity of our Craft ritual , now as then . What then , becomes , of tho first polite suggestion of

" Rosa Crucis , " that our present ritual is nothing but the tinkering of half-a-dozen hands after the union in 1813 ,. and hence ilia superior antiquity of the chivalric degrees which were worked a century before , that would be 1713 ,. iu York and Bristol . But , in the next place , what does "Rosa Crneis" " mean by the magnificent term " chivalric degrees ? "

It is absolutely necessary that wc should have a clear understanding on this point , since of late we have been so overpowered with this and like expressions , that we have witnessed , as a certain consequence , both the mystification of the unlearned and the easy gratification of the credulous . Does " Rosa Crucis" mean then , by the word chivalric ,

that interminable list of so called knightly degrees , with their absurd names and absurder ceremonies , which still , to the hurt of true Masonry , prevails largely in many parts of the Continent ? Or docs he mean that- reduced list which suits the more sober taste of our own country ? But I will assume that " Rosa Crucis" alludes by

this epithet mainl } ' to the Templar body . What , then , is the real history of that Masonic organisation now amongst us ? With every respect and kindly feeling for the Templar Masons , I never yet met with a member of that Order , who would deliberately affirm , or actually believed , that the present Templar Ritual was in the remotest degree connected with the real old Templar body . Dr . Leeson , who is a far better authority than "Rosa Crucis " on all such matters as these , seems to hold but