Ar00100

( S-Otttetttg . PAGE . Masonic Discipline—By Crux 121 Bibles , & c—By Bro . Henry Melville 123 lodge Minutes—By Bro . W . P . Buchan 124 Freemasonry in Sweden 125 The Earl of Dalhousie and the Grand Mastership of Scotland ... 126

Masonic Notes and Queries 126 Correspondence 128 Masonic Mems 129 CRAFT LODGE MEETINGS : — Metropolitan 130 Provincial 130 Scotland 134 Ireland .. 134

Ceylon 135 Royal Arch 137 Mark Masonry 137 Masonic Festivities 137 Literature , Science , Music , Drama , and the Fine Arts 139 Masonic Lifeboat Fund 139 List of Lodge , & c , Meetings for ensuing week 140 To Correspondents 140

Masonic Discipline.—Xviii.

MASONIC DISCIPLINE . —XVIII .

ZONDON , SATURDAY , AUGUST 14 , 1869 .

BY CEUX . The term " Masons , " it will be universally acknowledged , is general in its signification , and unless qualified by a distinguishing prefix or adjunct cannot be properly applied to denote

brethren of any particular degree , where it is necessary to mark the distinction between that degree and others . This observation is made a propos to the command of the W . M . to the brethren to " appear to order . " We have known it to be

strongly insisted upon that the command of the W . M . at the opening of alodge in thefirst degree , should be , " to order brethren as Masons / 5 thereby implying that the term " Masons " signifies Masons of the first degree . To this opinion we do not assent , nor do we see upon what grounds it

can be defended . Upon calling to memory the similar commands given at the opening and closing of a lodge in the two other degrees , it will be found that the degree in which the lodge is at the time , is distinctly specified , and that the brethren

are addressed by the W . M . as Masons in the second a , nd third degrees respectively . In the cause of uniformity , consistency , and in order to establish that sequence , that necessary and obvious connection which ought to run through the whole ofthe

ritualistic dialogue in all the degrees , we submit that the correct words of the command are "to order , brethren , as Masons in the first degree . " The principal reason for insisting upon these points , is that they all constitute the separate links of the great chain of uniformity which is so urgently needed in the Craft . It is true that some of the

3 ? links may not appear of so much importance as others , but it must be borne in mind that the strength of the whole depends upon that of its components , and that one unsound link will jeopardise

the safety of the entire chain . After the parting of the cable , comes the wreck of the vessel ! The next point that claims onr attention , is the answer given by the S . W . respecting the number of assistant officers in the lodge . If this be

compared with the previous answer returned by the J . W ., it will be at once apparent , that there is a want of similarity of diction in the two , whereas they should resemble each other as closely as possible . Nothing can be more distinct , terse , and

satisfactory than the reply " Three ; namely the W . M . and the S . and J . W s . " The exact number of principal officers is first specified , and then they are named in the consecutive order of their rank and precedence in the lodge . Let us now

examine the' other answer " Three ; besides the O . G . or T . ; namely , the S . and J . D . ' s and the I . G . " In the first place , neglecting for the moment the qualifying clause , the number stated is incorrect . There are not three , but four assistant officers . The first paragraph of the "Constitutions" relating to " private lodges 55 includes

them all under that category in the words " with their assistants the two D's . I . G . and T . " As the reply stands , the impression left on the mind ofthe hearer is that the O . G . or T ., has no claims to be included strictly in the list of

assistant officers . He is thrown in , as it were , as a kind of supernumerary official , but the pith of theanswer relates to his superiors . It is very important that this impression should be altogether removed , and those , Avho like ourselves are well

aware of the working value of our T s . will at once endorse our observation . We do not mean , for an instant to imply that any slight or depreciation of the one officer is intended at the expense of the others , but merely to point out that the imperfect

wording of the sentence , renders it possible to place that construction upon it . There is a still more important point involved in the phrase " besides the O . G-. ancl T . " This violates the order of precedency which is stringently adhered to , by the laws

of Masonic etiquette . No Mason ever thinks of assuming a rank to which he is not entitled , or of claiming a superior position in the scale of " order , than that for which his office or degree qualifies him . In the above reply the O . G . is alluded to before his superior officers , and it is therefore im-