-
Articles/Ads
Article TEETOTAL LODGES. ← Page 2 of 2 Article WHY BRO. GOULD DISCREDITS WREN'S CONNECTION WITH FREEMASONRY. Page 1 of 2 Article WHY BRO. GOULD DISCREDITS WREN'S CONNECTION WITH FREEMASONRY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Teetotal Lodges.
country which will not discourage by every means in its power the presence at its meetings of any brother wbr > may indulge in drinking to excess . If Bro . Dr . Richardson and his brother Teetotallers of the Lodge of King Solomon have made np their minds to fight the Demon of Drink ,
they must do so , not as Freemasons , bnt as individual members or a section of the great British Commonwealth . Their purpose is laudable enough , but their proposed plan of campaign is most objectionable , and wholly incompatible with the tolerant principles of Freemasonry . They
proceed on the assumption that there is only ono way of conquering this Demon , that is , by total abstinence from all intoxicating liquors—which by the way are only intoxicating wben they are taken to excess . In other words , these brethren—who it must be
remembered are quite as intemperate by reason of their abstinence as their opponents are by reason of their excess , only their intemperance manifests itself differently and unobjectionably—we say , these brethren have the bad taste to place the temperate use and the intemperate abuse of drink on
precisely the same footing . This idea of temperance and this mode of combating a particular form of intemperance are not provided for , either in the Ancient Charges or the modern Constitutions of Freemasonary , and we shall deeply regret if ever the day arrives when the perfection
of those Ancient Charges and modern Constitutions is destroyed by the intrusion into the provisions of either of the Teetotaller ' s creed . We have , as in dnty bound , ascribed to these good brethren a most praiseworthy desire to
promote the well-being of the community , but we are fully persuaded they have made a capital mistake in mixing up the pursuits of Teetotalism and Freemasonry together , and the sooner they set abont rectifying their mistake the better it will be for Teetotalism and Freemasonary , but especially for the latter .
Why Bro. Gould Discredits Wren's Connection With Freemasonry.
WHY BRO . GOULD DISCREDITS WREN'S CONNECTION WITH FREEMASONRY .
BY BRO . JACOB NORTON . THAT Sir Christopher Wren was not a Grand S . W . in 1663 , nor G . M . in 1685 , had long since been conceded by every impartial Masonic student , but that Sir Christopher was at one time an active member of the old Lodge that used to meet at the Goose and Gridiron , near St . Paul ' s , in 1717 , was received as a matter of fact beyond
dispute . In the first place , the Lodge claims an unbroken tradition of Sir Christopher ' s membership of its organization , Secondly , it claims to be in possession of three mahogany candlesticks , also a mallet , presented to it b y Sir Christopher Wren when he was a member thereof , and
besides other evidence , which will be referred to hereafter . Guess then our surprise when we first had the pleasure , in 1880 , of making the personal acquaintance of Bro . R . F . Gould , author of the " Four Old Lodges , " & c , to hear him deny the very connection of Sir C . Wren with the Masonic
fraternity ! " But what have you to say ( we urged ) against Aubrey ' s testimony ? " Aubrey was an intimate friend of Wren , they both belonged to the R . S ., and in a MS . volume of Aubrey , still in possession of the Royal Society , Aubrey himself recorded as follows :
"Memorandum . This day , May 18 th , being Monday after Rogation Sunday , is a great convention at St . Paul ' s Church of the Fraternity of the Accepted Masons ; where Sir Christopher Wren is to be adopted a brother , and Sir Henry Goodric of the Tower and divers others . There have been kings that have been of this sodality . "
The last remark , about the " kings of this sodality , " we admit , originated either in Aubrey ' s or some other person ' s imagination . But the fact of Wren ' s admission into the Masonic fraternity on the above date seemed indisputable .
Bro . Gould , however , gave us some reasons for discrediting Aubrey's evidence . Soon after our return to Boston , we informed Bro . Gould by letter that in a newspaper , viz ., the Postboy of 1723 , he would find the following obituary notice of Wren , viz ,:
" London , March 5 th . This evening the corpse of the worthy Free-Mason , Sir Christopher Wren , Knig ht , is to be interred under the Dome of St . Paul ' s Cathedral . " Bro . Gould eventually found the Postboy of the above date , and moreover he found in the British Journal , of March 9 th , the following notice :
Why Bro. Gould Discredits Wren's Connection With Freemasonry.
" Sir Christopher Wren , that worthy Free-Mason , was splendidly interred in St . Paul's Churcb on Tuesday nigbt last . " The above paragraphs in two newspapers would seem to confirm the tradition of the Lodge of Antiquity of Wren ' s
membership of the Masonio fraternity , but our friend Gonld says : " I find in my notes sixteen notices in all of Wren ' s death or burial , occurring between 26 th February and 9 th March 1723 . Fonr are copied from the Postboy , and
a similar number from the Daily Post . Two each from the British Journal , the Weekly Journal or Saturday Post , and the Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer . Single notices are given in the London Journal and the Postman . In none of
these , except as above stated , is Sir Christopher designated a ' Freemason , ' and this expression is not again coupled with his name in any newspaper paragraph that I have seen of earlier date than 1738 . " Again , he says :
" It will be observed that the Journal announcing % n the first instance that Wren was a •Freemason' had been previously selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of the ' Book of Constitutions , ' aud
it is hardly to be wondered at that the editor of the Posthoy should have deemed a title [ Freemason ] so lavishly bestowed by Dr . Anderson upon persona and personages of
whom he had occasion to speak , including Inigo Jones , a predecessor of Wren in the office of Surveyor General , would be fitly applied to designate the great man whose funeral obsequies he was announcing . " *
In short , Wren ' s Freemasonry originated in the brain of the editor of the Postboy . It is not improbable that the said editor was a Mason , hence he soon became afflicted with the Masonic guessing fever . But , be this as it may , the writer had probably read Anderson's Constitutions , and
finding therein so many great men who were Masons , he improved on Anderson by Masonizing Wren . Anderson eventually seized the Postboy's hint , and improved upon it in his turn , by Grand Mastering Sir Christopher in bis Constitutions of i 738 . And , of course , Preston later on added
further improvements , as we shall show hereafter . That a newspaper reporter may , however , guess wrong , or may even make a deliberate misstatement , especially so when writing about Masonry , will not be denied . But to illustrate the unreliability of newspaper reports , we will give a few instances , thus :
A paragraph was copied in the Boston Post from a Philadelphia paper stating that a Masonic record was discovered in Philadelphia of between 1731 and 1738 , all in the handwriting of Benjamin Franklin ; and the said paragraph has since been reprinted in the Herald and in the
Advertiser , & c . Now , the trnth is , that not a word in the said record , was written by Franklin . The Boston Transcript of May 24 , informed us that "In England , the first four Lodges were established June 24 th , 1717 . " But the truth is , the said Lodges were older than 1717 . Again , The
leading spirits being Desaguliers . . , and Anderson , " Now Anderson was not a Mason in 1717 . And still again , " There are now 60 provincial Grand Lodges and twelve hundred Lodges in England . " Wrong , again , Mr . Transcript . The London Graphic of 19 th December 1874
made the Duke of Edinburgh a Mason , but the said Duke never was a Mason . The G . O . of France ( probably misinformed by a newspaper statement ) held a Lodge of Sorrow for Bro . Abraham Lincoln , but President Lincoln never was a Mason . But here is something still more funny .
The London Freemason , of 1 st July 1871 , contains an account of a Masonic banquet g iven at Belfast to a squad of American Knight Templars , when , after the Qneen ' s health was drank , the United States President ' s health was also drank •, Bro . Gardiner , an Illinois Masonic luminary ,
in returning thanks for the toast , designed to compliment the American visitors , wound up thus : " One thing I can say about the President of the United States that you could not say of your Queen—he is a Mason . " The announcement was received with cheers , and General Grant would
have been Masonized , at least outside of America , if we had not contradicted it ( see Freemason , 1871 , pp 413—505 ) . Nor can we forget the assertion made in 1730 , in the Pennsylvania Gazette , of there being then " in the province several Lodges . " It is possible that one self-constituted
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Teetotal Lodges.
country which will not discourage by every means in its power the presence at its meetings of any brother wbr > may indulge in drinking to excess . If Bro . Dr . Richardson and his brother Teetotallers of the Lodge of King Solomon have made np their minds to fight the Demon of Drink ,
they must do so , not as Freemasons , bnt as individual members or a section of the great British Commonwealth . Their purpose is laudable enough , but their proposed plan of campaign is most objectionable , and wholly incompatible with the tolerant principles of Freemasonry . They
proceed on the assumption that there is only ono way of conquering this Demon , that is , by total abstinence from all intoxicating liquors—which by the way are only intoxicating wben they are taken to excess . In other words , these brethren—who it must be
remembered are quite as intemperate by reason of their abstinence as their opponents are by reason of their excess , only their intemperance manifests itself differently and unobjectionably—we say , these brethren have the bad taste to place the temperate use and the intemperate abuse of drink on
precisely the same footing . This idea of temperance and this mode of combating a particular form of intemperance are not provided for , either in the Ancient Charges or the modern Constitutions of Freemasonary , and we shall deeply regret if ever the day arrives when the perfection
of those Ancient Charges and modern Constitutions is destroyed by the intrusion into the provisions of either of the Teetotaller ' s creed . We have , as in dnty bound , ascribed to these good brethren a most praiseworthy desire to
promote the well-being of the community , but we are fully persuaded they have made a capital mistake in mixing up the pursuits of Teetotalism and Freemasonry together , and the sooner they set abont rectifying their mistake the better it will be for Teetotalism and Freemasonary , but especially for the latter .
Why Bro. Gould Discredits Wren's Connection With Freemasonry.
WHY BRO . GOULD DISCREDITS WREN'S CONNECTION WITH FREEMASONRY .
BY BRO . JACOB NORTON . THAT Sir Christopher Wren was not a Grand S . W . in 1663 , nor G . M . in 1685 , had long since been conceded by every impartial Masonic student , but that Sir Christopher was at one time an active member of the old Lodge that used to meet at the Goose and Gridiron , near St . Paul ' s , in 1717 , was received as a matter of fact beyond
dispute . In the first place , the Lodge claims an unbroken tradition of Sir Christopher ' s membership of its organization , Secondly , it claims to be in possession of three mahogany candlesticks , also a mallet , presented to it b y Sir Christopher Wren when he was a member thereof , and
besides other evidence , which will be referred to hereafter . Guess then our surprise when we first had the pleasure , in 1880 , of making the personal acquaintance of Bro . R . F . Gould , author of the " Four Old Lodges , " & c , to hear him deny the very connection of Sir C . Wren with the Masonic
fraternity ! " But what have you to say ( we urged ) against Aubrey ' s testimony ? " Aubrey was an intimate friend of Wren , they both belonged to the R . S ., and in a MS . volume of Aubrey , still in possession of the Royal Society , Aubrey himself recorded as follows :
"Memorandum . This day , May 18 th , being Monday after Rogation Sunday , is a great convention at St . Paul ' s Church of the Fraternity of the Accepted Masons ; where Sir Christopher Wren is to be adopted a brother , and Sir Henry Goodric of the Tower and divers others . There have been kings that have been of this sodality . "
The last remark , about the " kings of this sodality , " we admit , originated either in Aubrey ' s or some other person ' s imagination . But the fact of Wren ' s admission into the Masonic fraternity on the above date seemed indisputable .
Bro . Gould , however , gave us some reasons for discrediting Aubrey's evidence . Soon after our return to Boston , we informed Bro . Gould by letter that in a newspaper , viz ., the Postboy of 1723 , he would find the following obituary notice of Wren , viz ,:
" London , March 5 th . This evening the corpse of the worthy Free-Mason , Sir Christopher Wren , Knig ht , is to be interred under the Dome of St . Paul ' s Cathedral . " Bro . Gould eventually found the Postboy of the above date , and moreover he found in the British Journal , of March 9 th , the following notice :
Why Bro. Gould Discredits Wren's Connection With Freemasonry.
" Sir Christopher Wren , that worthy Free-Mason , was splendidly interred in St . Paul's Churcb on Tuesday nigbt last . " The above paragraphs in two newspapers would seem to confirm the tradition of the Lodge of Antiquity of Wren ' s
membership of the Masonio fraternity , but our friend Gonld says : " I find in my notes sixteen notices in all of Wren ' s death or burial , occurring between 26 th February and 9 th March 1723 . Fonr are copied from the Postboy , and
a similar number from the Daily Post . Two each from the British Journal , the Weekly Journal or Saturday Post , and the Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer . Single notices are given in the London Journal and the Postman . In none of
these , except as above stated , is Sir Christopher designated a ' Freemason , ' and this expression is not again coupled with his name in any newspaper paragraph that I have seen of earlier date than 1738 . " Again , he says :
" It will be observed that the Journal announcing % n the first instance that Wren was a •Freemason' had been previously selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of the ' Book of Constitutions , ' aud
it is hardly to be wondered at that the editor of the Posthoy should have deemed a title [ Freemason ] so lavishly bestowed by Dr . Anderson upon persona and personages of
whom he had occasion to speak , including Inigo Jones , a predecessor of Wren in the office of Surveyor General , would be fitly applied to designate the great man whose funeral obsequies he was announcing . " *
In short , Wren ' s Freemasonry originated in the brain of the editor of the Postboy . It is not improbable that the said editor was a Mason , hence he soon became afflicted with the Masonic guessing fever . But , be this as it may , the writer had probably read Anderson's Constitutions , and
finding therein so many great men who were Masons , he improved on Anderson by Masonizing Wren . Anderson eventually seized the Postboy's hint , and improved upon it in his turn , by Grand Mastering Sir Christopher in bis Constitutions of i 738 . And , of course , Preston later on added
further improvements , as we shall show hereafter . That a newspaper reporter may , however , guess wrong , or may even make a deliberate misstatement , especially so when writing about Masonry , will not be denied . But to illustrate the unreliability of newspaper reports , we will give a few instances , thus :
A paragraph was copied in the Boston Post from a Philadelphia paper stating that a Masonic record was discovered in Philadelphia of between 1731 and 1738 , all in the handwriting of Benjamin Franklin ; and the said paragraph has since been reprinted in the Herald and in the
Advertiser , & c . Now , the trnth is , that not a word in the said record , was written by Franklin . The Boston Transcript of May 24 , informed us that "In England , the first four Lodges were established June 24 th , 1717 . " But the truth is , the said Lodges were older than 1717 . Again , The
leading spirits being Desaguliers . . , and Anderson , " Now Anderson was not a Mason in 1717 . And still again , " There are now 60 provincial Grand Lodges and twelve hundred Lodges in England . " Wrong , again , Mr . Transcript . The London Graphic of 19 th December 1874
made the Duke of Edinburgh a Mason , but the said Duke never was a Mason . The G . O . of France ( probably misinformed by a newspaper statement ) held a Lodge of Sorrow for Bro . Abraham Lincoln , but President Lincoln never was a Mason . But here is something still more funny .
The London Freemason , of 1 st July 1871 , contains an account of a Masonic banquet g iven at Belfast to a squad of American Knight Templars , when , after the Qneen ' s health was drank , the United States President ' s health was also drank •, Bro . Gardiner , an Illinois Masonic luminary ,
in returning thanks for the toast , designed to compliment the American visitors , wound up thus : " One thing I can say about the President of the United States that you could not say of your Queen—he is a Mason . " The announcement was received with cheers , and General Grant would
have been Masonized , at least outside of America , if we had not contradicted it ( see Freemason , 1871 , pp 413—505 ) . Nor can we forget the assertion made in 1730 , in the Pennsylvania Gazette , of there being then " in the province several Lodges . " It is possible that one self-constituted