-
Articles/Ads
Article BRO. NORTON'S CRITICISMS. ← Page 2 of 2 Article BRO. NORTON'S CRITICISMS. Page 2 of 2
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Bro. Norton's Criticisms.
Lodges existed as announced in the paper , but whether or no there was a Lodge of Freemasons at this time in Philadelphia , and in such case , whether there is a connection between this and the Lodge No . 79 already referred to . In order to satisfy his mind as to the raothership of
Philadelphia , Bro . Norton is bent npon exacting the same evidence regarding tho existence of Lodges as we look for in these days when everything is in apple-pie order . The object we had in illustrating the certainly imperfect arrangements in America during the first half of last
century by known irregularities which occurred during the first half of this in ono of our Indian Lodges does not seem to have struck Bro . Norton . We say , if it were possible for irregularities to occur in 1823-31 in what is probably
the best organised Masonic government in the world , how much more must wo expect to find even greater irregularities at a timo when Masonry was hardly yet organised as to its government , in what was then a remote colony , and when communication between the latter and the mother
country was infrequent . But . notwithstanding all this we still find preserved in the archives of the mother Grand Lodge the original Deputation to Coxe , and we have in a Philadelphian newspaper of the time concurrent testimony to there being Freemasons' Lodges in the Province . Ought not reasonable men to be satisfied with these
two facts as to the existence of Freemasonry in Philadelphia in 1730 , and not only that , but of there being some kind of Masonic Government there , how imperfect soever it may have been . We feel we shall not satisfy Bro . Norton until wo can produce the Lodge
warrant , with Coxe ' s signature at foot , granted to the Lodge held at the Tun or Hoop in Water-street ; but our readers generally , both at home and abroad , are fortunately not so unreasonable in their expectations as our worthy and respected friend . There is this also to be
borne in mind , and it is important this should not be lost sight of . Even if Bro . Hughan and other historic experts fail to establish the identity of Lodge No . 79 , as per Pine ' s list , with the Lodge in Water street , Henry Price of Boston will never be more than the second in order of
seniority of the English American Provincial G . M . ' s . Thus , Pennsylvania will always share with New York and New Jersey the honour of having had placed in Masonic charge of them the first Provincial Grand Master ever appointed by any of our Grand Masters over any portion of what
was then our British American Colonies , and what is now the United States . All the casuistry in the world will fail to disturb this , which is an established and duly-authenticated fact . It was not till three years later that Henry Price received his Deputation . That it is easier to find more traces
of his work than of Coxe ' s is the most natural thing in the world . Three years is time enough for an institution to raise up unto itself a number of friends or foes ; indeed , we are inclined to believe that Price ' s Deptuation isa direct outcome of the Coxe Deputation , seeing that during these years
Freemasonry was making rapid strides in all directions , and what was being done in New York , New Jersey , and Pennsylvania would sooner or later find its way into Massachusetts , and vice versa . But , and we repeat it with due emphasis , it is impossible to disturb the fact that the
Coxe Deputation preceded that of Price , and whatever American city is privileged to call herself the mother city of American Freemasonry , it cannot possihly he Boston . And there are many things which point to Philadelphia as entitled to this privilege—even Bro . Norton ' s determined
argument that Franklin , though a Mason in 1732 , was not a Mason in 1730 . Pray listen to this , Bro . Norton , and read , mark , learn , and inwardly digest it witb all that intellectual force we know yon possess . If Franklin was not a Mason in 1730 , but was in 1732 , he must have heen made
in the interim . He cannot have been made by virtue of Price ' s Deputation , for that was not granted till the year 1733 . He must have oeen made in a Lodge , occasional or regular , and such Lodge must have been held , under some authority such as we know Coxe to have possessed .
Therefore , the fact of Franklin being a Mason in 1732 , but not in 1730 , would be proof positive that the Coxe Deputation had been in operation some time during the period for which it was granted , and the election of a G . M . in 1732 as announced by Franklin is testimony to the continuity of its existence .
As to Bro . Norton s argument against there being Lodges in Philadelphia , and not in Boston , on the ground of the latter being twice as old as the formei ' , we cannot compliment him on its adoption . He might as well affirm that
Bro. Norton's Criticisms.
Boston , as the elder of the two cities , should be at the present time the more populous . The " several Lodges " may be a euphuism for two or three Lodges ; or it may refer to Lodgo meetings , or , as we have already suggested , it may refer to " occasional Lodges "—we must not expect
literal accuracy in the description of whatwasthen a novelty ; but such imperfection does not vitiate the trustworthiness of the statement . Then , as to Bell ' s statement and Franklin ' s statement , Bro . Norton says , " Now both statements may bo false , bnt both cannot be true , and which of the
Philadelphia witnesses am I to believe ? " Onr reply to this question is , Believe either or neither , Bro . Norton , or , neither or both ; it will not affect the main evidence in the slightest degree if you reject them ; if you accept them , they confirm it . We must demur , however , to the
assertion that " both statements cannot be true . " Bell speaks of " the first Philadelphia Lodge in the autumn of 1730 , and Franklin of several Lodges on 3 rd December 1730 . " Why cannot both be true ? There is no absolute disagreement between the statements . The one Lodge of the autumn
might have grown to be two or threo in December . We do not think it likely , but we say it is not impossible . At the same time , we place greater reliance on Franklin ' s statement , written at the time , than on Bell ' s , written some four and twenty years later and from recollection , not
only from its having been so written—albeit not literally accurate—but likewise because we and the world generally know something of Franklin , whereas we know little or nothing of Bell . As to Franklin ' s evidence being untrustworthy , because he was a young man when he wrote it , and
was not over scrupulous in those days , we dismiss it at once as unworthy of any serious consideration . Similar statements were made in later years at intervals of time , and we do not suppose Franklin went on humbugging people periodically , when the general tenour of his whole life instructs us to
the contriry . The best , and therefore the most trustworthy among us , are those who commit the fewest faults . The suggestion that in order to sell a few more copies of his paper , Franklin either invented or got some one else to invent for him a Masonic expose , is so remarkable an absurdity
that we are surprised Bro . Norton has offered it . We judge of men not by a single act , but by the whole tenour of their lives ; nor should we dream of suggesting that the statement of an habitually sober man was not to be relied upon bocause it was made about the time when he was known to
have been intemperate on one or two occasions , though we should distrust any and everything that emanated from an intemperate man , even though we know it was made during one of his intervals of temperance . But this matter is not worth arguing . However , we think we have said enough in
vindication of the opinions we have expressed . The evidence in the Philadelphia case is as nearly complete as anything in the way of human evidence , relating to a remote transaction in a distant country by a secret society , working for the first time on new ground , is ever likely to be . The
Coxe Deputation of 1730 is a fact . That Franklin was a Mason in 1732 is based on his own statement and admitted by Bro . Norton ; we will describe it , therefore , as a fact or thing done at the time it was announced to have been done . We travel one year further forward , that is , to 1733 , and
we come upon another in the shape of Price ' s Deputation . Nothing , however , that Bro . Norton or the whole world of Freemasonry can state will induce us to believe that the third in order of sequence of these three facts takes precedence of the first and second . When Ave travel backwards
in respect of time ; when , in other words , we find it an established fact that the year which is to be comes before , instead of following , the year which is , well then , worthy Bro .
Norton , we will incline ourselves favourably towards your present views ; which , by the way , we have described as yom " new theory " only because we have not heard you enunciate it on any previous occasion .
The Provincial Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire will be holden on Wednesday , the 10 th inst ., at the Town Hall , Ripon , under the banner of the De Grey and Ripon Lodge , No . 837 . From the programme Ave glean there will be a procession to the Cathedral , where will be held a special
Masonic service , sermon by the Rev . Canon Burfield , M . A . The banquet will take place at the Unicorn Hotel , for which the Dean and Chapter of Ripon have accepted invitations . It is expected the Mayor and Corporation will join the procession to the Cathedral ,
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Bro. Norton's Criticisms.
Lodges existed as announced in the paper , but whether or no there was a Lodge of Freemasons at this time in Philadelphia , and in such case , whether there is a connection between this and the Lodge No . 79 already referred to . In order to satisfy his mind as to the raothership of
Philadelphia , Bro . Norton is bent npon exacting the same evidence regarding tho existence of Lodges as we look for in these days when everything is in apple-pie order . The object we had in illustrating the certainly imperfect arrangements in America during the first half of last
century by known irregularities which occurred during the first half of this in ono of our Indian Lodges does not seem to have struck Bro . Norton . We say , if it were possible for irregularities to occur in 1823-31 in what is probably
the best organised Masonic government in the world , how much more must wo expect to find even greater irregularities at a timo when Masonry was hardly yet organised as to its government , in what was then a remote colony , and when communication between the latter and the mother
country was infrequent . But . notwithstanding all this we still find preserved in the archives of the mother Grand Lodge the original Deputation to Coxe , and we have in a Philadelphian newspaper of the time concurrent testimony to there being Freemasons' Lodges in the Province . Ought not reasonable men to be satisfied with these
two facts as to the existence of Freemasonry in Philadelphia in 1730 , and not only that , but of there being some kind of Masonic Government there , how imperfect soever it may have been . We feel we shall not satisfy Bro . Norton until wo can produce the Lodge
warrant , with Coxe ' s signature at foot , granted to the Lodge held at the Tun or Hoop in Water-street ; but our readers generally , both at home and abroad , are fortunately not so unreasonable in their expectations as our worthy and respected friend . There is this also to be
borne in mind , and it is important this should not be lost sight of . Even if Bro . Hughan and other historic experts fail to establish the identity of Lodge No . 79 , as per Pine ' s list , with the Lodge in Water street , Henry Price of Boston will never be more than the second in order of
seniority of the English American Provincial G . M . ' s . Thus , Pennsylvania will always share with New York and New Jersey the honour of having had placed in Masonic charge of them the first Provincial Grand Master ever appointed by any of our Grand Masters over any portion of what
was then our British American Colonies , and what is now the United States . All the casuistry in the world will fail to disturb this , which is an established and duly-authenticated fact . It was not till three years later that Henry Price received his Deputation . That it is easier to find more traces
of his work than of Coxe ' s is the most natural thing in the world . Three years is time enough for an institution to raise up unto itself a number of friends or foes ; indeed , we are inclined to believe that Price ' s Deptuation isa direct outcome of the Coxe Deputation , seeing that during these years
Freemasonry was making rapid strides in all directions , and what was being done in New York , New Jersey , and Pennsylvania would sooner or later find its way into Massachusetts , and vice versa . But , and we repeat it with due emphasis , it is impossible to disturb the fact that the
Coxe Deputation preceded that of Price , and whatever American city is privileged to call herself the mother city of American Freemasonry , it cannot possihly he Boston . And there are many things which point to Philadelphia as entitled to this privilege—even Bro . Norton ' s determined
argument that Franklin , though a Mason in 1732 , was not a Mason in 1730 . Pray listen to this , Bro . Norton , and read , mark , learn , and inwardly digest it witb all that intellectual force we know yon possess . If Franklin was not a Mason in 1730 , but was in 1732 , he must have heen made
in the interim . He cannot have been made by virtue of Price ' s Deputation , for that was not granted till the year 1733 . He must have oeen made in a Lodge , occasional or regular , and such Lodge must have been held , under some authority such as we know Coxe to have possessed .
Therefore , the fact of Franklin being a Mason in 1732 , but not in 1730 , would be proof positive that the Coxe Deputation had been in operation some time during the period for which it was granted , and the election of a G . M . in 1732 as announced by Franklin is testimony to the continuity of its existence .
As to Bro . Norton s argument against there being Lodges in Philadelphia , and not in Boston , on the ground of the latter being twice as old as the formei ' , we cannot compliment him on its adoption . He might as well affirm that
Bro. Norton's Criticisms.
Boston , as the elder of the two cities , should be at the present time the more populous . The " several Lodges " may be a euphuism for two or three Lodges ; or it may refer to Lodgo meetings , or , as we have already suggested , it may refer to " occasional Lodges "—we must not expect
literal accuracy in the description of whatwasthen a novelty ; but such imperfection does not vitiate the trustworthiness of the statement . Then , as to Bell ' s statement and Franklin ' s statement , Bro . Norton says , " Now both statements may bo false , bnt both cannot be true , and which of the
Philadelphia witnesses am I to believe ? " Onr reply to this question is , Believe either or neither , Bro . Norton , or , neither or both ; it will not affect the main evidence in the slightest degree if you reject them ; if you accept them , they confirm it . We must demur , however , to the
assertion that " both statements cannot be true . " Bell speaks of " the first Philadelphia Lodge in the autumn of 1730 , and Franklin of several Lodges on 3 rd December 1730 . " Why cannot both be true ? There is no absolute disagreement between the statements . The one Lodge of the autumn
might have grown to be two or threo in December . We do not think it likely , but we say it is not impossible . At the same time , we place greater reliance on Franklin ' s statement , written at the time , than on Bell ' s , written some four and twenty years later and from recollection , not
only from its having been so written—albeit not literally accurate—but likewise because we and the world generally know something of Franklin , whereas we know little or nothing of Bell . As to Franklin ' s evidence being untrustworthy , because he was a young man when he wrote it , and
was not over scrupulous in those days , we dismiss it at once as unworthy of any serious consideration . Similar statements were made in later years at intervals of time , and we do not suppose Franklin went on humbugging people periodically , when the general tenour of his whole life instructs us to
the contriry . The best , and therefore the most trustworthy among us , are those who commit the fewest faults . The suggestion that in order to sell a few more copies of his paper , Franklin either invented or got some one else to invent for him a Masonic expose , is so remarkable an absurdity
that we are surprised Bro . Norton has offered it . We judge of men not by a single act , but by the whole tenour of their lives ; nor should we dream of suggesting that the statement of an habitually sober man was not to be relied upon bocause it was made about the time when he was known to
have been intemperate on one or two occasions , though we should distrust any and everything that emanated from an intemperate man , even though we know it was made during one of his intervals of temperance . But this matter is not worth arguing . However , we think we have said enough in
vindication of the opinions we have expressed . The evidence in the Philadelphia case is as nearly complete as anything in the way of human evidence , relating to a remote transaction in a distant country by a secret society , working for the first time on new ground , is ever likely to be . The
Coxe Deputation of 1730 is a fact . That Franklin was a Mason in 1732 is based on his own statement and admitted by Bro . Norton ; we will describe it , therefore , as a fact or thing done at the time it was announced to have been done . We travel one year further forward , that is , to 1733 , and
we come upon another in the shape of Price ' s Deputation . Nothing , however , that Bro . Norton or the whole world of Freemasonry can state will induce us to believe that the third in order of sequence of these three facts takes precedence of the first and second . When Ave travel backwards
in respect of time ; when , in other words , we find it an established fact that the year which is to be comes before , instead of following , the year which is , well then , worthy Bro .
Norton , we will incline ourselves favourably towards your present views ; which , by the way , we have described as yom " new theory " only because we have not heard you enunciate it on any previous occasion .
The Provincial Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire will be holden on Wednesday , the 10 th inst ., at the Town Hall , Ripon , under the banner of the De Grey and Ripon Lodge , No . 837 . From the programme Ave glean there will be a procession to the Cathedral , where will be held a special
Masonic service , sermon by the Rev . Canon Burfield , M . A . The banquet will take place at the Unicorn Hotel , for which the Dean and Chapter of Ripon have accepted invitations . It is expected the Mayor and Corporation will join the procession to the Cathedral ,