Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents . MASONIC DISCIPLINE . Br CRUX .

TO THE EDITOH OF THE FHEEilASOXS MAGAZINE AXD SrASOSlC 3-IItROH . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the " Gentleman ' s Magazine'' for March , I find the following quotation in an article about the new House of Commons : — " Nor are these friendships confined to the men who sit on the same side of the House . Many of the men oppositewhose cheers you fling back and whose

, taunts you retort , are your very good neighbours and intimate boon companions . With them you lend and borrow , shoot and hunt , sit in judgment on poachers , highway roads , and county bridges , and with their families you marry and intermarry . There is usually ¦ a certain flavour of formality or punctiliousness in the

intercourse of the men who sit opposite to each other ; but with a score of them you would trust your life , and to serve these you would go to Nova Zembla . " The above seems to me to have a fine chivalrous ring about it ; and , in the spirit therein described , would I cross swords , or differ in opinion , with " Crux " or any

-other worthy contributor to the Magazine . To the point then . " Crux " is not to get off so ¦ easily as he would give out . The words which I ¦ quoted at page 169 , aud which " Crux " used at page 144 , are , — " the rites aud ceremonies belonging to a -fraternity coeval with the creation of the firmament . " But now , at page 208 , " Crux " alters his story to , — " The pn'inci jiles of our ancient and honourable institution were coeval with the creation of the

firmament , which is rather different— " rites and ceremonies " are one thing , " principles " * another—so I need say nothing further about that faux pas ; but I would refer to a remark in that repertoire of facts and fancies , "A Lexicon t of Freemasonry , " by an esteemed brother , A . G . Mackay , M . D .: — " Freemasonry is in its princi ples undoubtedly coeval with

the creation , but in its organization , as a peculiar institution , such as it now exists , we dare not trace it further back than to the building of King Solomon ' s Temple . " I would be inclined to put that as follows : — "The principles of Freemasonry—or , rather , the principles which Freemasonry has adopted , copied , or assumed—are undoubtedly coeval with the creation ; but the origin of its organization as a peculiar

institution dates only a few centuries back , at the moat with the building fraternities of the middle ages ; but , ' such as it now exists , " its rise dates at most about the 17 th century . Any pretended historical or real connexion with Solomon ' s Temple is unfounded . " I need not ask " Crux" to give any sensibly

historic authority for the words he used at page 144 . or for many at page 208 . When he says , —¦ " I decline all controversy respecting the antiquity of the Order , " it is about as much as to say , better leave that alone— -the Greek warning says it is dangerous ground . "Crux , " however , tells us that , on the

" Supreme authority of his Grand Lodge certificate , " he is justified in saying that Freemasonry is about G , 000 years old , but in saying so it " is simply the corbororation of a printed fact " A . L . 5873 . Oh ! Crux , Crux ! what special pleading ! because a statement is " printed " by the Grand Lodge does that constitute

it a "fact ?" I know of no " supreme authority " I would stand up for in a question of historic fact , if I knew that supreme authority to be mistaken—as it mig ht be . Because the French are a nation and the Jews were a nation , does that prove that the French nation is

descended from , or ever had any connexion with , the Jewish nation ? Certainly not . Because the Freemasons have secrets and ceremonies and the ancient mystics hail secrets and ceremonies , does that prove that the Freemasons are descended from , or ever had any connexion with , the ancient mystics ? Certainly not .

" Crux " then tries to pass off his idea of " our Masonic predecessors getting into the saddle" by telling us about the builders of the Second Temple ; but I would ask , what had they to do with Freemasonry ? And there is no account of their having been horse-soldiers , they were simply footmen .

However , tbe picture of the old Jewish builders at their work , sword , in hand , would make a good simile if properly brought in . *' I object to the common and popular mode of writing and speaking about Freemasonry so largely in vogue , because it is so highly calculated to mislead many

worthy brethren who have not the education and time to examine things properly for themselves ; and the fact is , many who indulge in doing so , come ultimately to mystify even themselves , until they become much more believing than they ever intended . There is any quantity of room for Masonic

rhetorical flights in dealing with the " principles " of our Order , if only one takes the proper plan ; p lenty of room , too , with us for any amouut of " intellectuality , ' ' ancl " capital feeds" and they are not to be despised either , both are good in their own p laces . Freemasonry knows that the body requires food as well as the mind ,

and the mind requires food as well as the body ; therefore , tbe intellectual and material wants must both be seen to , —only do not allow the one to encroach or usurp the place of the other ; and , as it is his intellect that raises man above the brute , let tbe " intellectual ' , have the greater honour .

In conclusion , in regard to the subject of " Masonic Disci pline , " I can assure "Crux ' ' most sincerely that I highly esteem his very valuable articles