Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.
CREDIBILITY OF EARLY AMERICAN MASONIC HISTORY .
TTTE are induced to offer some remarks on this subject , V V in consequence of a highly interesting letter from Bro . Jacob Norton , which appeared in these columns last week . Bro . Norton is an esteemed correspondent of ours . He treats of various subjects , and though his remarks are at
times inclined to be somewhat more forcibly expressed than is judicious in matters controversial , yet we willingly accord him space to say his say , because he invariably speaks bis mind frankly , and oftentimes throws a ray or two of light on matters of difficulty . It is needless to say that we
have had frequent occasions to differ with him , sometimes in part only , sometimes in toto , but these differences do not lessen the personal esteem in which we hold him . Like many other people , ho and we agree to differ , and we do so in a spirit of friendliness as become Masons . In the present
case , there are one or more points on which we feel it our bounden duty to join issue with him , and we trust , in the course of the remarks we are about to offer , wo shall be able-to show that his comments are the result of casuistry rather than legitimate argument .
In considering the amount of credibility which attaches to the few authentic data that exist in connection with the early history of Freemasonry in America , we must perforce approach the subject dispassionately . We must argue the merits of the case carefully , but we must not be
too exacting in the matter of positive and direct evidence . We must examine the question literally in tho same manner as we should examine any other matter of historical interest . We have said we must not be too exacting on the subject of direct and positive evidence , and we have
said it because there is a serious danger confronting us if we do so . Hitherto , the great defect in all Masonic histories has been the vast amount of assumption which tho writers have indulged in . They have even gone beyond the ordinary limit of acceptance which enthusiasts are in
the habit of laying- down for themselves . They have not only shown themselves prone to accept statements on the flimsiest data ; they have gone further , and have evolved history , most minnte in all its details , from what is commonly called their inner consciousness . We have a history ,
which has yet to be written , but what has hitherto passed current as a veritable record of our doings is , for the most part , based on circumstantial evidence , which is oftener more than less worthless . But tho spirit of inquiry is abroad , and men like Hughan and Fort , and others on both
sides of tho Atlantic , arc diligent in their researches after truth . Their efforts have been rewarded with a certain degree of success , but it is needless to say that errors of omission ancl commission in the past are very far from being corrected or made good . This is essentially the case
in America , where in the desire to obtain the most authentic particulars of the rise and progress of the Craft in that country , there is very naturally an eagerness to accept whatever new facts may , from time to time , be brought to light . In the letter of Bro . Norton ' s , which Ave
published last Aveek , it appears to ns he is somewhat too hasty in rejecting or doubting this or that particle of evidence . "We cannot , of course , expect to obtain the same authentic details of the early meetings of Masonic Lodges
in what was then a distant colony of Great Britain , which we look for in these days . But if we cannot obtain this much , we may reasonably accept the circumstantial evidence , if any , which may be forthcoming , if at least
Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.
on further inquiry , it will bear the test of fair criticism . Let us , then take , so far as need be , the seven points in the Philadelphia evidence , which Bro . Norton has set forth and commented upon .
1 . The article in the Pennsylvania Gazette , 3 rd to 8 th December 17 ' 30 . " As there aro several Freemasons '
Lodges in this Province , " & c , which proves the existence of Lodges there in 1730 . On this , Bro . Norton remarks that the article " was a burlesque or satire on Masonry . Franklin , therefore , could not have been a Mason in 1730 , and he could not have known whether they were Masonic
Lodges or secret societies of some other kind . " This , unfortunately , for Bro . Norton , is one of the most lamentable iion scquiturs it has been our misfortune to read . Where , Bro : Norton , is your logic gone to , when you affirm without the possibility of proof , that because Franklin
published in 1730 an item of Masonic news which turns out to be a " burlesque or satire on Masonry , " therefore ho coidd not have been in 1730 what we havo it , on his own evidence , he was in tho mouth of Juno 1732 . Wo clo nofc say thafc Franklin was a Mason in December 1730 , because
he gave publicity in the journal , of which he was the proprietor , to an item of Masonic news , followed by a " burlesque or satire on Masonry , " though we confess we see no serious improbability that ho was such . We do say this , however , that the statement in Franklin ' s newspaper ,
published on his responsibility , is reasonably acceptable , especially as it is a well-authenticated fact that , in June of the same year , a deputation was issued by our then Grand Master , the Duke of Norfolk , appointing Bro . Daniel Coxe to be Provincial Grand Master of New ifork , New Jersey ,
and Pennsylvania for a period of two years , from St . John the Baptist ' s Day next ensuing . The wording of the preamble of the Deputation is clear and distinct enough . " Whereas application has been made unto ns by our Right Worshipful and well-beloved brother , Daniel Cox , of New
Jersey , Esq ., and by several other brethren , Free and Accepted Masons , residing' and about to reside in the said Provinces of New York , New Jersey , and Pensilvauia . " Whore there were already resident brethren , and others
about to reside in a certain locality , there we may reasonably infer that Lodges would sooner or later be established . Whether Bro . Coxo took any active part in the establishment of such Lodges is immaterial to the main question ; but the statement that there were " several Freemasons '
Lodges " at this distant date cannot be upset , merely because the article which followed was a " burlesque or satire on Masonry . " Nor is there the slightest evidence to show that Franklin could nofc have been a Mason , because ho allowed such a burlesque to appear in the columns of his own journal .
2 . As to the announcement in the samo gazette of the 26 th June 1732 , thafc , at a Grand Lodge held on the 24 th of the month , William Allen was chosen G . M ., Benj . Franklin Junior Warden , & c , Bro . Norton is pleased to remark " there is no evidence that the said Grand Lodge
was legally constituted . ' There is thus much to be said in opposition to Bro . Norton ' s remark . The election of a Provincial Grand Master on St . John the Baptises Day , 1732 , when the two years' tenure of office b y Bro . Coxe had determined was in strict accordance with the letter of the
deputation granted b y the Duke of Norfolk on 5 th June 1730 . "We may reasonably assume the legal constitution of the Grand Lodge , when we learn from the columns of a Philadelphia journal of the day that the action of the Grand Lodge was strictly legal . There is a circumstantialit y about the announcement in the Pennsylvania Gazette which
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.
CREDIBILITY OF EARLY AMERICAN MASONIC HISTORY .
TTTE are induced to offer some remarks on this subject , V V in consequence of a highly interesting letter from Bro . Jacob Norton , which appeared in these columns last week . Bro . Norton is an esteemed correspondent of ours . He treats of various subjects , and though his remarks are at
times inclined to be somewhat more forcibly expressed than is judicious in matters controversial , yet we willingly accord him space to say his say , because he invariably speaks bis mind frankly , and oftentimes throws a ray or two of light on matters of difficulty . It is needless to say that we
have had frequent occasions to differ with him , sometimes in part only , sometimes in toto , but these differences do not lessen the personal esteem in which we hold him . Like many other people , ho and we agree to differ , and we do so in a spirit of friendliness as become Masons . In the present
case , there are one or more points on which we feel it our bounden duty to join issue with him , and we trust , in the course of the remarks we are about to offer , wo shall be able-to show that his comments are the result of casuistry rather than legitimate argument .
In considering the amount of credibility which attaches to the few authentic data that exist in connection with the early history of Freemasonry in America , we must perforce approach the subject dispassionately . We must argue the merits of the case carefully , but we must not be
too exacting in the matter of positive and direct evidence . We must examine the question literally in tho same manner as we should examine any other matter of historical interest . We have said we must not be too exacting on the subject of direct and positive evidence , and we have
said it because there is a serious danger confronting us if we do so . Hitherto , the great defect in all Masonic histories has been the vast amount of assumption which tho writers have indulged in . They have even gone beyond the ordinary limit of acceptance which enthusiasts are in
the habit of laying- down for themselves . They have not only shown themselves prone to accept statements on the flimsiest data ; they have gone further , and have evolved history , most minnte in all its details , from what is commonly called their inner consciousness . We have a history ,
which has yet to be written , but what has hitherto passed current as a veritable record of our doings is , for the most part , based on circumstantial evidence , which is oftener more than less worthless . But tho spirit of inquiry is abroad , and men like Hughan and Fort , and others on both
sides of tho Atlantic , arc diligent in their researches after truth . Their efforts have been rewarded with a certain degree of success , but it is needless to say that errors of omission ancl commission in the past are very far from being corrected or made good . This is essentially the case
in America , where in the desire to obtain the most authentic particulars of the rise and progress of the Craft in that country , there is very naturally an eagerness to accept whatever new facts may , from time to time , be brought to light . In the letter of Bro . Norton ' s , which Ave
published last Aveek , it appears to ns he is somewhat too hasty in rejecting or doubting this or that particle of evidence . "We cannot , of course , expect to obtain the same authentic details of the early meetings of Masonic Lodges
in what was then a distant colony of Great Britain , which we look for in these days . But if we cannot obtain this much , we may reasonably accept the circumstantial evidence , if any , which may be forthcoming , if at least
Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.
on further inquiry , it will bear the test of fair criticism . Let us , then take , so far as need be , the seven points in the Philadelphia evidence , which Bro . Norton has set forth and commented upon .
1 . The article in the Pennsylvania Gazette , 3 rd to 8 th December 17 ' 30 . " As there aro several Freemasons '
Lodges in this Province , " & c , which proves the existence of Lodges there in 1730 . On this , Bro . Norton remarks that the article " was a burlesque or satire on Masonry . Franklin , therefore , could not have been a Mason in 1730 , and he could not have known whether they were Masonic
Lodges or secret societies of some other kind . " This , unfortunately , for Bro . Norton , is one of the most lamentable iion scquiturs it has been our misfortune to read . Where , Bro : Norton , is your logic gone to , when you affirm without the possibility of proof , that because Franklin
published in 1730 an item of Masonic news which turns out to be a " burlesque or satire on Masonry , " therefore ho coidd not have been in 1730 what we havo it , on his own evidence , he was in tho mouth of Juno 1732 . Wo clo nofc say thafc Franklin was a Mason in December 1730 , because
he gave publicity in the journal , of which he was the proprietor , to an item of Masonic news , followed by a " burlesque or satire on Masonry , " though we confess we see no serious improbability that ho was such . We do say this , however , that the statement in Franklin ' s newspaper ,
published on his responsibility , is reasonably acceptable , especially as it is a well-authenticated fact that , in June of the same year , a deputation was issued by our then Grand Master , the Duke of Norfolk , appointing Bro . Daniel Coxe to be Provincial Grand Master of New ifork , New Jersey ,
and Pennsylvania for a period of two years , from St . John the Baptist ' s Day next ensuing . The wording of the preamble of the Deputation is clear and distinct enough . " Whereas application has been made unto ns by our Right Worshipful and well-beloved brother , Daniel Cox , of New
Jersey , Esq ., and by several other brethren , Free and Accepted Masons , residing' and about to reside in the said Provinces of New York , New Jersey , and Pensilvauia . " Whore there were already resident brethren , and others
about to reside in a certain locality , there we may reasonably infer that Lodges would sooner or later be established . Whether Bro . Coxo took any active part in the establishment of such Lodges is immaterial to the main question ; but the statement that there were " several Freemasons '
Lodges " at this distant date cannot be upset , merely because the article which followed was a " burlesque or satire on Masonry . " Nor is there the slightest evidence to show that Franklin could nofc have been a Mason , because ho allowed such a burlesque to appear in the columns of his own journal .
2 . As to the announcement in the samo gazette of the 26 th June 1732 , thafc , at a Grand Lodge held on the 24 th of the month , William Allen was chosen G . M ., Benj . Franklin Junior Warden , & c , Bro . Norton is pleased to remark " there is no evidence that the said Grand Lodge
was legally constituted . ' There is thus much to be said in opposition to Bro . Norton ' s remark . The election of a Provincial Grand Master on St . John the Baptises Day , 1732 , when the two years' tenure of office b y Bro . Coxe had determined was in strict accordance with the letter of the
deputation granted b y the Duke of Norfolk on 5 th June 1730 . "We may reasonably assume the legal constitution of the Grand Lodge , when we learn from the columns of a Philadelphia journal of the day that the action of the Grand Lodge was strictly legal . There is a circumstantialit y about the announcement in the Pennsylvania Gazette which