Masonic Discipline.

an answer is "correct" is nothing . I consider I should make out a very poor case if I did not prove , or at any rate endeavour to prove , the truth of whatever statements I mi ght put forward . The general tenor of the letter of H . C . induces the reader to conclude that the writer believes our theory and practice of Masonry to be perfectly correct , because

he _ never knew it to be otherwise . My opinion is that this belief is rapidly dying out , and that educated Masons are awakening to the fact that there is an urgent need of systematic instruction , promotion , and supervision throughout the whole Craft , which would include our " Constitutions , " rites , ceremonies , and ritual . Yours fraternally , London , 24 th August , 1869 . CRUX

Freemasonry About One Hundred And Fifty-Two Years Old.

FREEMASONRY ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-TWO YEARS OLD .

TO THE EDITOE OE THE EBEEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIIiliOK . Dear Sir and Brother , —Bro . W . P . Buchan thinks , in page 146 , that Bro . E . Sanderson and Saxelby will find their notes answered on the relative antiquity of Freemasonry by your giving his letter on that subject as sent to the North British Daily Mail . I should have liked if such had been the caseas I have little relish to enter

, the lists against such " veterans of famous service " in Masonry as Bros . Buchan , Hughan , and Lyon . Yet I cannot help submitting to our worthy brother first named , that his letter does not touch my position at all . What is the point at issue ? In page 88 , Bro . Buchan says , " If there be any reliable documentary evidence of the existence of previous to

Freemasonry what is desi gnated tho revival of A . D . 1717 , I should much like to know it , " & c . Now , in page 109 , I give " documentary evidence , " which I consider " reliable , " of the existence of a lodge of speculative Masons existing in this province ( Peebles and Selkirk ) as early as 1702 . This evidence Bro . Buchan does not attempt to call in

question , far less to overturn I do not for a moment affirm that the Masons of 1702 were up to the working of the " elaborate ritual" ofthe present day . Nay , I have shown in a former letter that they did not at that date seem to know anything of the third degree , yet I think their records clearly show that they met as speculative Masons . Their roll of membership showed no distinction to rank

as , class , or trade ; the short list I quoted in page 109 as applicants for initiation gives a baronet , a landed proprietor , a country wright , and others admission into tho lodge . This was done by obligations given and taken , and by " word " and " grip " in the usual maimer . They also examined and affiliated brethren into the lod them showing themselves " true Entered

ge upon Apprentices and Fellow Crafts , " of which wo have a minute dated 14 th January , 1704 . The funds of the lodge were devoted to the relief of distressed brethren and their widows , and in no part of the minute-book do 1 find a single reference made either directly or indirectly to Craft protection extended in any shape or form to operative Masonry .

On these grounds I consider the " documentary evidence " I have furnished worthy of a little more consideration than Bro . Buchan seems inclined to give it . How the lodge sprang up—where it got its charter ( if it ™ cl one)—I cannot say . But that it did exist is a fact which cannot be disputed ; and Haughfoot , the place where most of the lodge meetings were held , is not above a mile and a half distant from my present residence . Yours fraternally , R . SANDEKSOIT .

Early Bibles And Their Titles.

EARLY BIBLES AND THEIR TITLES .

TO THE EDIIOE OE THE EBEEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIRBOE . ' Dear Sir and Brother , —In the Masonic Mirror of the 7 th inst . ( p . 106 ) appears an article by Bro . W . P . Buchan , in which he mentions two or three Bibles with fac-simile titles—one by Miles Coverdale , printed at Zurich , 1535 ; one printed by Grafton at Whitchurch , in 1539 ; and the other Cranmer ' s Bible , printed in

London 1540- —the fac-similes to which were executed by me , that for the Coverdale nearly 40 years ago , and for Grafton ' s and Cranmer ' s about 30 years ago . _ At _ the former period there were only two known original titles to the Goverdale ' s one in the old library of the British Museum , date 1535 , partly made up from another editionthe otherin the possession of Earl Jersey

; , , perfect and unique ( date 1536 ) , the Cranmer , 1539 , the only title of that date with which I am acquainted , and from which I made my fac-simile for a copy in the possession of the late Right Hon . Thomas Grenville . This title has furnished all the imperfect copies of the three editions of Cranmer ' s Bible , viz ., of 1539 , 1540 , and 1541 . The typographical center being supplied according to

the date of the Bible for which it was required . About 20 years ago a copy of Goverdale ' s was discovered ( date 1535 ) with a perfect title , also a leaf of the address to the reader , on tho back of which is a list of the contents of the Book of Genesis , in the Gothic type , corresponding with the other leaves of contents of tlie several books -, this leaf is unique . Yours fraternally , J . HAKEIS . Royal Masonic Institution , Croydon .

Masonic Discipline.—Saluting.

MASONIC DISCIPLINE . —SALUTING .

TO THE EDITOR OE THE FREEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIEROE . Dear Sir and Brother , —I have read with considerable interest the excellent article by Crux in your number for 12 th June , 1869 . There is one point , however , in which I do not agree with him , and on which I should be glad to know which of us is right . Being a soldier as well as a Mason , I have visited lodges , English ,

Scotch , and Irish , in all parts of the world , as well as in the United Kingdom , and I have never seen the practice of saluting " right up " on entering , that is , saluting in the lower degrees , as Avell as that in wliich the lodge is at work , nor do 1 think it desirable . It is only proper and respectful to advance in front of the pedestal and , taking the stepive the salute of that degreebut

proper , g ; no more can be necessary . It is fortunate that in our lodges we acknowledge three degrees and no more , as otherwise a 33 rd degree man might be rather embarrassed ; whilst Bro . Morris ( who says he has taken 142 degrees ) , when attending the highest one , would not be able to take his seat at all , but would remain in the centre gesticulating the whole evening 1 I fear about

that centre he would be very liable to err . Again , Crux says , a brother leaving the lodge , and returning , only salutes in that degree in which the lodge is open on his return . So that two brethren entering together—say one havingbeen out to prove the other—salute differently . I think the etiquette is this : Ascertain from the Tyler in what degree the lodis on enteringadvance

ge open ; , in front of & e pedestal , take the step and give the sign of that degree ; if more than one enter , advance and salute together , taking the time from the brother on the right . I am sure Bro . Crux will not think that I am carping at his remarks . Like him , I set great store by smartness and uniformity , but I think the latter is often , injured by individual lod introducing some new mode

ges unknown to and unpractised by the Craft at large . Yours fraternally , CHARLES A . GOKHAM , P . M ., Malta . Past Dist . G . J . D . Andalusia .