Correspondence.

pletion ofthe third . " Now this theorem demands , as postulate , that the present word and ceremonies of the Royal Arch were , in 1740 , part of the third degree ; also that the Royal Arch is this identical completion ; and , as corollaries , that the Royal Arch was in existence in 1740 ; and that the present third either formed part of the other two degrees below it , or that it has since been manufactured . These I am not

prepared to concede , although , in the absence of evidence , they are said to be evident . I need not remind my friend that it will be necessary for him to prove the truth of these statements before he can demonstrate that my suggestion to abolish the connection between Craft and Eoyal Arch Masonry is " wrong . " He ought to have established the truth of his premises

before he allowed his favourite bias to hurry him to a conclusion , and to have shown , by at least one wellauthenticated example , the place where and the time when the " Holy" Royal Arch was ever a part of Ancient Masonry prior ' to the manifesto of 1813 . A very superficial acquaintance with the legends and

ceremonials of the Royal Arch demonstrate the absurdity of its pretensions . Like the intruder who had not on the wedding garment , it is found self-convicted and speechless within the sanctuarv of Craft Masonry . As to the date of 1740 , "Res Nem Yerbum" cannot prove that the Eoyal Arch was then in existence , nor

till long after . He is silent as to the separate constitution , the different clothing , the chapter instead of the lodge , the different titles , aud the extra fee required—all of which are , in his opinion at least , necessarily separate , in order to secure unity and " completion . " No proof ' s are given , and iu this respect , at least , he is consistent , for his own few remarks contain the bitterest reflections upon the union he he advocates , to which his facts , his illustrations , aud

his suppositious are alike unfavourable . After showing us that he has been obliged to leave the precincts of the oldest constitution in order to defend its principles , be finds that a different usage " in some parts of Germany" is a striking proof of the wisdom and propriety of our own—that a coincidence in one respect exhibits the details of a "system" —and because there

are imperfections in other constitutions , that reform in this is thereby rendered unnecessary . As one ofthe workers in English Masonry , I trust that we shall prove our own work good aud square , and just such work as the builders require , before we attract the criticism of all others ; aud without

indulging in any self-conceited ideas of perfection , labour on zealously to make it so complete , as not onl y to invite comparison , but to defy amendment . A fc present , however , there is sufficient cause for humility in the presence of all other constitutions . Gnu even imprudence itself forget that we have lately placed on

record a precedent—the abolition of a Provincial Grand Lodge—alarming enough to excite the dullest apprehension , and one at which ice ought to turn pale ? Is there anyone so lost to every sense of honour as to look upon this sacrifice of our mutual liberty and of the dignity of so many excellent brethren with indifference ? Dare we presume to talk boastfully of such fruits ? Oh , shame and indignity ! Such au event is calculated to arouse the callous indifference of the

most ignorant and careless—in fact , all but the enemies of our Oreler—and to make them unite to preserve the forms , at least , of Masonic government . Relief is ,

Correspondence.

however , sure to come . The continued subserviency of those who are willing to make a tame surrender of our remaining liberties , will ultimately work out its own remedy , as well as its own destruction , and , like the blind fury of Samson , pull dow the pillars which

support the edifice . Tours fraternally , FIAT LUX .

OUR BRO . BUCHAN . ' TO THE EDITOE OF THE FEEEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIMOB . Dear Sir and Brother , —Letters of numerous correspondents reach me full of remarks of all kinds respecting our Bro . Buchan . These letteis differ from that of a distinguished Masonwhichbeing forwarded

, , by a Past Provincial Grand Master , was in the exercise of your discretion , inserted in our periodical , vol . xxi ., page 391 . One only of the letters referred to seems to need notice at present . It comes from a Cambridge Fellow Craft , and complains—first , that Bro . Buchan marvellousldisregardsthe rulealthough

y , there was , not long ago , occasion to quote it ( ibid . page 272 , letter signed " J . A- H . " ) that our traditions ' to be rejected must not merely be denied , but must be proved to be false . Next , that Bro . Buchan deliberately turns his eyes ( ibid ., page 410 ) from evidence which every Court of Law and Equity sitting in

Westminster Hall would consider conclusive on the question of the existence of Speculative Masonry at the close of the ] . 7 th century . Tours fraternally , CHAELES PUETON COOPEE .

THE GRAND LODGE OF MARK MASTERS AND TEE S . G . E . A . CHAPTER OF SCOTLAND .

TO Tier . EmToi : or Tin ; FIIESMASONS MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIEEOE . Dear Sir and Brother , —As you have inserted the correspondence , with accompanying extracts from minutes , & c , between Comp . Mackersey and myself , at the request of the former , will you do me the favour to insert my reply to Comp . Mackersey ' s last

letter to me . I make this request lest it should be thought by brethren who take an interest in the subjects uuder discussion , that I am content to allow judgment to go by default , or that Comp . Mackersey ' s position is unassailable , and his arguments unanswerable . The

main question , however , has been treated so often at length , that I see no advantage in further dilating upon it , aud I hope to be spared any such necessity . Tours fraternally , FEEDEEICK BINCKES . London , 21 st January , 1870 .

To L . R , MAOK ' EESEX , Esq . Dear Sir and Brother , —The delay in my reply to yours of the Sth inst . has not arisen from any want of courtesy , but from a combination of causes ( which need not be particularly defined ) entirely preventing the devotion of time necessary for a proper considera-