-
Articles/Ads
Article HIRAM LODGE. ← Page 2 of 3 Article HIRAM LODGE. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Hiram Lodge.
llll ' - - — . plain and inevitable . That so long as Hiram Lodge holds in its custody and service this vital charter , it is a legal Lodge of Freemasons , and tho work which it does under it is regular , authentic and constitutional work , and the
Masons it makes cannot with right or justice , and only by arbitrary brute force ancl will , be held as irregular or clandestine Masons . They are legitimate Masons , entitled to be recognised and received as such by all regular Masons tho world over . c 5
_ _ _ _ Masonic history has certainly some parallel examples . We do not pretend to speak of them with minute and detailed accuracy . The authorities are not at our hand .
The general fact is sufficient . In Massachusetts , the jurisdiction to which we have before alluded—the Union of Grand Lodges in the present Massachusetts Grand Lodge took place in the year 1792 .
The Lodge of St . Andrew , located within its territorial jurisdiction , received its charter from the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1756 , thirty-six years before that union . Now the Lodge of St . Andrew did not come under the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge until 1809 , and then only upon the full permission of the Scotch Grand Lodge to do so . Ancl yet their members were freely recognised and received by
the subordinate Lodges , their neighbours , and by the Grand Lodge itself of Massachusetts . No restrictions were placed upon their Masonic intercourse or citizenship . They were neither excommunicated nor denounced as clandestine or
put in outlawry . Again , three Lodges in Montreal have retained their ancient allegiance to the English Grand Lodge , although
Grand Lodges have been formed in the Canadian Provinces ; and they rank and visit and are received as good Masons of regular standing .
Findel is authority for the statement that there are at present in Germany five Lodges whose members visit and are received in all other Lodges , and all Masonic courtesies and interchanges take place between them , and yet these five Lodges are independent Lodges , and belong to no Grand Lodge at all .
Now , in the next place , has anything occurred to impair or invalidate these Masonic rights of Hiram Lodge , or the Masonic character of its Masons ?
Before answering this question we are to notice that the Oxnard Charter having been granted by the Provincial Grand Master of North America in 1750 , before the existence of any American Grand Lodge having jurisdiction
over the territory of Connecticut Province , this Charter and its inherent rights are invaluable , historically and intrinsically , for they can only be lost by voluntary surrender and abandonment , or by legitimate arrest from the supreme authority from which it emanated .
The Grand Lodge of Connecticut has neither the right nor the power to arrest this Charter ; they are not privy to its life , either by way of grant , of its submission to them , or its adoption by them .
Again , the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts , the home of Oxnard , is not the successor to his privileges and prerogatives , and has no power over this Charter .
No other Grand Lodge , domestic or foreign , is in relation to arrest or interrupt this Charter , unless , and this is questionable , the Grand Lodge of England , who was the parent of Oxnard ' s power .
We now recur to the question , what has occurred to impair or invalidate the rights of Hiram Lodge and its members under the Oxnard Charter ?
The Grand Lodge of Connecticut issued its Warrant or Charter ( " of Recognition " ) to Hiram Lodge on or about the year 1789 . This Charter was either consistent or inconsistent with
the existence and potency of the Charter granted by Oxnard . It might have been consistent with it : there is nothing in the nature of the case why they should have been
exclusive the one of the other . The facts of the history are strongly presumptive that they were , and were regarded , as consistent . Moreover , they were both like instruments for a like purpose , ancl a like effectation of that purpose ,
except in the one additional fact of the Grand Lodge Charter , that so long as it existed and was used , Hiram Lodge should perform certain duties of representation , and
of legislative and executive service , none of which interfered or conflicted with any duty or privilege under the Oxnard Charter . They might therefore well consist . It would seem that this must have been the state of things , for the Grand Lodge of Connecticut recognized
Hiram Lodge.
examined , approved , recorded , certified , and returned the Oxnard Charter , without impeachment or limitation , to the donees and successors of its ancient powers . But let us suppose the provisions were more or less inconsistent , and what then ?
As they did not and could not annul it , and did not require its surrender or abandonment , but only validated and returned it , as " required / ' they left it alive for what it was worth . It was already a basis of life , and conld
continue to be so as long as its general purposes of Masonry wero continued . Hiram Lodge by " requiring" its return , ancl by its careful preservation held it thenceforth
tanto quanta—operative where it could be operative , silent where it must be silent , keeping continuous its ancient life ancl seniority—still alive , not dead , by the concensus of both parties .
What therefore must follow when the Grand Lodge of Connecticut sees fit to withdraw its grant ? Why this , of course : —The Grand Lodge Charter vacated , the Ancient one is either already in full exercise , as it has been all the
while or it comes into activity in all things wherein it had been suffered to rest , and is as valid , and will continue to be as valid in all respects , as if it had ever existed alone . For beyond a doubt a body may have two contemporaneous
ana concurrent claims to legal lite , as a man may nave two concurrent titles to land or other property . And , therefore , the withdrawal by the Grand Lodge of its Charter does not invalidate the Lodge , or take away the
character of its members . Only they are thenceforward nofc subject to its laws or amenable to its supervision , and cannot participate in its privileges as a Grand Lodge , or have a voice or presence in its legislation .
They are left , ancl must live and work as an independent lawful Lodge , making good Masons , who may visit or be visited . They are remitted to their ancient condition ,
clothed with all its legality as regular and upright Masons , inherently invested with full Masonic rights and privileges as individuals and as a separate Lodge ; but
deprived also of certain communal and representative privileges and enjoyments which pertain to every organised and federated existence . The position is perfectly normal , and has its parallels in many relations of society .
And now the Grand Lodge of Connecticut is rising its Masonic power , and the instruments of its confederated organisation , and the courtesies of its Masonic associations to ignore and destroy this Lodge , and the Masonic rights
and privileges , the Masonic standing and character of all its " multitudinous " membership . And this confessedly not for any breach of Masonry , law , landmark , or principle , but because , while after almost a hundred years of
continuous uniform teaching and practice , the Grand Lodge has seen fit to deny its own instruction , and law , and ceremonial . Hiram Lodge has not summarily sunk its own consistency , but adheres also to the forms of its own ancient investiture . And what is this Masonic coercion ? Nothing more than the application of blind , indiscriminate , wilful power
to discredit this Lodge , and to compel it to give up the
rights which it possesses by a title older and quite as legitimate and honourable as that by which the Grand Lodge holds its power . It is the Masonic "buckthorn , " the most effective weapon she knows or possesses , striking
them upon the head , on the one hand , while on the other she tenders them , as an inducement and bribe to forsake and deny , to become traitors to , their inherited rites and duties , the offer of Masonic peace and membership within her own fold .
More than this , she appeals to her sister Grand Lodges ( a most remarkable adventure !) and some of them unthinkingly , not to say wickedly , join with her in organising and applying a Masonic " boycott" to this Lodge , living and working under its ancient , legitimate , unsurrendered , unrevoked and unrevokable Charter , and subjecting multitudes of its " exceeding multitude" of members in the
different parts of the globe to the disgrace , and ignominy , and deprivations which load and burden the clandestine Mason . We believe this is mainly inconsiderate action , resulting from a misunderstanding of the true position and facts of the case . Masonry boasts herself to be governed by an enlightened
justice and charity ; and in this land of individual intelligence and freedom , a departure from these fundamental principles of her life can only result in a disturbance of her peaceful relations , putting brother at war with
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Hiram Lodge.
llll ' - - — . plain and inevitable . That so long as Hiram Lodge holds in its custody and service this vital charter , it is a legal Lodge of Freemasons , and tho work which it does under it is regular , authentic and constitutional work , and the
Masons it makes cannot with right or justice , and only by arbitrary brute force ancl will , be held as irregular or clandestine Masons . They are legitimate Masons , entitled to be recognised and received as such by all regular Masons tho world over . c 5
_ _ _ _ Masonic history has certainly some parallel examples . We do not pretend to speak of them with minute and detailed accuracy . The authorities are not at our hand .
The general fact is sufficient . In Massachusetts , the jurisdiction to which we have before alluded—the Union of Grand Lodges in the present Massachusetts Grand Lodge took place in the year 1792 .
The Lodge of St . Andrew , located within its territorial jurisdiction , received its charter from the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1756 , thirty-six years before that union . Now the Lodge of St . Andrew did not come under the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge until 1809 , and then only upon the full permission of the Scotch Grand Lodge to do so . Ancl yet their members were freely recognised and received by
the subordinate Lodges , their neighbours , and by the Grand Lodge itself of Massachusetts . No restrictions were placed upon their Masonic intercourse or citizenship . They were neither excommunicated nor denounced as clandestine or
put in outlawry . Again , three Lodges in Montreal have retained their ancient allegiance to the English Grand Lodge , although
Grand Lodges have been formed in the Canadian Provinces ; and they rank and visit and are received as good Masons of regular standing .
Findel is authority for the statement that there are at present in Germany five Lodges whose members visit and are received in all other Lodges , and all Masonic courtesies and interchanges take place between them , and yet these five Lodges are independent Lodges , and belong to no Grand Lodge at all .
Now , in the next place , has anything occurred to impair or invalidate these Masonic rights of Hiram Lodge , or the Masonic character of its Masons ?
Before answering this question we are to notice that the Oxnard Charter having been granted by the Provincial Grand Master of North America in 1750 , before the existence of any American Grand Lodge having jurisdiction
over the territory of Connecticut Province , this Charter and its inherent rights are invaluable , historically and intrinsically , for they can only be lost by voluntary surrender and abandonment , or by legitimate arrest from the supreme authority from which it emanated .
The Grand Lodge of Connecticut has neither the right nor the power to arrest this Charter ; they are not privy to its life , either by way of grant , of its submission to them , or its adoption by them .
Again , the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts , the home of Oxnard , is not the successor to his privileges and prerogatives , and has no power over this Charter .
No other Grand Lodge , domestic or foreign , is in relation to arrest or interrupt this Charter , unless , and this is questionable , the Grand Lodge of England , who was the parent of Oxnard ' s power .
We now recur to the question , what has occurred to impair or invalidate the rights of Hiram Lodge and its members under the Oxnard Charter ?
The Grand Lodge of Connecticut issued its Warrant or Charter ( " of Recognition " ) to Hiram Lodge on or about the year 1789 . This Charter was either consistent or inconsistent with
the existence and potency of the Charter granted by Oxnard . It might have been consistent with it : there is nothing in the nature of the case why they should have been
exclusive the one of the other . The facts of the history are strongly presumptive that they were , and were regarded , as consistent . Moreover , they were both like instruments for a like purpose , ancl a like effectation of that purpose ,
except in the one additional fact of the Grand Lodge Charter , that so long as it existed and was used , Hiram Lodge should perform certain duties of representation , and
of legislative and executive service , none of which interfered or conflicted with any duty or privilege under the Oxnard Charter . They might therefore well consist . It would seem that this must have been the state of things , for the Grand Lodge of Connecticut recognized
Hiram Lodge.
examined , approved , recorded , certified , and returned the Oxnard Charter , without impeachment or limitation , to the donees and successors of its ancient powers . But let us suppose the provisions were more or less inconsistent , and what then ?
As they did not and could not annul it , and did not require its surrender or abandonment , but only validated and returned it , as " required / ' they left it alive for what it was worth . It was already a basis of life , and conld
continue to be so as long as its general purposes of Masonry wero continued . Hiram Lodge by " requiring" its return , ancl by its careful preservation held it thenceforth
tanto quanta—operative where it could be operative , silent where it must be silent , keeping continuous its ancient life ancl seniority—still alive , not dead , by the concensus of both parties .
What therefore must follow when the Grand Lodge of Connecticut sees fit to withdraw its grant ? Why this , of course : —The Grand Lodge Charter vacated , the Ancient one is either already in full exercise , as it has been all the
while or it comes into activity in all things wherein it had been suffered to rest , and is as valid , and will continue to be as valid in all respects , as if it had ever existed alone . For beyond a doubt a body may have two contemporaneous
ana concurrent claims to legal lite , as a man may nave two concurrent titles to land or other property . And , therefore , the withdrawal by the Grand Lodge of its Charter does not invalidate the Lodge , or take away the
character of its members . Only they are thenceforward nofc subject to its laws or amenable to its supervision , and cannot participate in its privileges as a Grand Lodge , or have a voice or presence in its legislation .
They are left , ancl must live and work as an independent lawful Lodge , making good Masons , who may visit or be visited . They are remitted to their ancient condition ,
clothed with all its legality as regular and upright Masons , inherently invested with full Masonic rights and privileges as individuals and as a separate Lodge ; but
deprived also of certain communal and representative privileges and enjoyments which pertain to every organised and federated existence . The position is perfectly normal , and has its parallels in many relations of society .
And now the Grand Lodge of Connecticut is rising its Masonic power , and the instruments of its confederated organisation , and the courtesies of its Masonic associations to ignore and destroy this Lodge , and the Masonic rights
and privileges , the Masonic standing and character of all its " multitudinous " membership . And this confessedly not for any breach of Masonry , law , landmark , or principle , but because , while after almost a hundred years of
continuous uniform teaching and practice , the Grand Lodge has seen fit to deny its own instruction , and law , and ceremonial . Hiram Lodge has not summarily sunk its own consistency , but adheres also to the forms of its own ancient investiture . And what is this Masonic coercion ? Nothing more than the application of blind , indiscriminate , wilful power
to discredit this Lodge , and to compel it to give up the
rights which it possesses by a title older and quite as legitimate and honourable as that by which the Grand Lodge holds its power . It is the Masonic "buckthorn , " the most effective weapon she knows or possesses , striking
them upon the head , on the one hand , while on the other she tenders them , as an inducement and bribe to forsake and deny , to become traitors to , their inherited rites and duties , the offer of Masonic peace and membership within her own fold .
More than this , she appeals to her sister Grand Lodges ( a most remarkable adventure !) and some of them unthinkingly , not to say wickedly , join with her in organising and applying a Masonic " boycott" to this Lodge , living and working under its ancient , legitimate , unsurrendered , unrevoked and unrevokable Charter , and subjecting multitudes of its " exceeding multitude" of members in the
different parts of the globe to the disgrace , and ignominy , and deprivations which load and burden the clandestine Mason . We believe this is mainly inconsiderate action , resulting from a misunderstanding of the true position and facts of the case . Masonry boasts herself to be governed by an enlightened
justice and charity ; and in this land of individual intelligence and freedom , a departure from these fundamental principles of her life can only result in a disturbance of her peaceful relations , putting brother at war with