-
Articles/Ads
Article THE SUN, AT RISING, MERIDIAN, AND SETTING. ← Page 2 of 2 Article WAS SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN A FREEMASON ? Page 1 of 2 Article WAS SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN A FREEMASON ? Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Sun, At Rising, Meridian, And Setting.
Twelve , " not downward to the perpetual shades , and the burial that takes place at " Low Twelve . " Freemasonry has among its brethren and officers those who personify in this respect the rising , meridian and setting sun . The Brother who is elected to the first , that is the junior station in
the Craft , represents the rising sun—he is the Horus of to-day . All pay him respect and honour . He is the coming man . His future is bright . He will rise in the arc of authority . Bye-and-bye ho will attain the chief place , and illustrate the virtues which his predecessors in
the oriental chair made synonymous with the office . Then he will be the Ra of his time—the Supreme ruler . But all things have an end , official glory with the rest . The Horus of yesterday , the Ra of to-day , becomes the Osiris of tomorrow . The setting sun , all beautiful as it is , passes away .
Thus do our honours leave us , and we then stand alone , in our individuality , respected for what we are in ourselves , rather than for what we were when enveloped in the transient sheen of the rising or meridian sun . May the admonition not bo appropriately given to every Masonic officer :
" So live that when thy summons comes to join The innumerable caravan which moves To that mysterions realm where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death , Thongo #### § # Like one that wraps the drapery of his conch About him , and lies down to pleasant dreams . " —Keystone .
Was Sir Christopher Wren A Freemason ?
WAS SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN A FREEMASON ?
FROM THE FREEMASONS' REPOSITORY . AMONG the eminent English architects of the seventeenth century Sir Christopher Wren holds foremost place . A man of r aro genias and varied attainments , he is best remembered as having designed and had charge of the building of many chnrches and other pnblio edifices in London and elsewhere—noble structures many of them which well declare the merits and fame of the skilful architect .
St . Paul ' s Cathedral , one of the grandest edifices in Christendom , is his special memorial , occupying , as it did , his thought and time from 1675 , when the first stone was laid , to 1710 , the date of its completion . On this magnificent building Wren stamped many signal proofs of his genius , so that the inscription over the north porch is most appropriate in its four closing words : " Si monumentnm renniris
circumspice . The architect of St . Paul ' s has generally been regarded as actually and officially connected with the Freemasonry that existed in the latter part of the seventeenth century . Tbo common thought has been that Wren was a sort of connecting link between the old and the new—that while he was prominently identified with the Craft before
tho" Kevival" he yet lived to have some knowledge of the work accomplished in 1717 , as his death did not take place until 1723 . Wren ' s connection with the Craft has received an extended tradi . tional endorsement , while it has been affirmed by Masonic historians as a matter admitting of no doubt . Anderson , Dermott , Preston , and others , whose statements are usually held to be reliable , are all
in agreement on this point , and their declarations would seem to be conclusive , albeit they fail to give desired particulars relating to Wren ' s Masonic membership , and are unable to trace by any clear record his supposed career as a Craftsman . But it is now claimed as the result of a more critical investigation that the writers referred to were mistaken—that really there is no
adeqnate evidence to show that Wren was ever inside a Masonio Lod ge , and therefore there ought to be a reversal of the opinion which has so long been held respecting his connection with tho Craft . This is the position taken by Bro . Kobt . P . Gonld , of London , who is justly conspicuous for the ability and keen research so often displayed in matters of critical investigation . In the recently
published third volume of his valuable " History of Freemasonry , " he v | goronsl y opposes the commonly-accepted theory of Wren's Masonic membership . Bro . Jacob Norton , of Boston , has outlined the grounds ° < Bro . Gould ' s opposition , approving the same and adding thereto other arguments and inferences intended to support the view taken . Some of the points relied npon by these eminent brethren in their
endeavour to discredit the theory of Wren ' s Masonic connection are as follows : The testimony adduced in favour of such a connection is 'nsnfficient and conflicting ; the statements of contemporary writers who refer to Wren as a Mason are not entitled to credence ; Anderson , Dermott , and Preston are unreliable iu their affirmations on this Point , and there is a mass of negative testimony which can hardly
° overcome unless some new proofs are brought into the case . . "he testimony of Aubrey is regarded as having bnt a slight bear'"I ? on the question at issue . It will be remembered that this man ° l scholarl y attainments and unimpeachable character was an inti-Jnate friend of Wren ; they were often together and closely assorted in many ways . In a manuscript of Aubrey , which is still P ^ served , there appears a record in these words :
Memorandum . This day , May 18 tb , being Monday , after Rogaj } ° n Sunday is a great convention at St . Paul ' s Ohnrch of the ratei-nit y of the Accepted Masons ; where Sir Christopher Wren is 0 oo adopted a brother , and Sir Henry Goodvic , of the Tower and
Was Sir Christopher Wren A Freemason ?
divers others . There have been kings that have been of fchia sodality . " This record is not considered conclusive ; it does not state that Wren has been enrolled among the members of the Fraternity , bnt onlv that he is to be received into snoh a relation , leaving therefore
the whole matter in donbt even if the quotation is accepted according to its evident purport . But the memorandum is rejected by Bros . Gould and Norton on the ground that Aubrey was over credulous , possessed of a highly imaginative natnre , and that he most likely stated Wren was about to become a Freemason having heard some
flying rumour to that effect . In any caso his testimony cannot bo held as sufficient to establish Wren's connection with the Craft unless corroborated . Critical examination is given to the newspaper notices of the death
of Wren . The Postboy , of 5 th March 1723 , contained the following paragraph : " London , March 5 th . This evening the corpse of the worthy Freemason , Sir Christopher Wren , Knight , is to be interred nnder tbe dome of St . Paul's Cathedral . "
The British Journal , in its issne four days later , gave this announcement : " Sir Christopher Wren , that worthy Free-Mason , was splendidly interred in St . Paul ' s Church on Tuesday night last . " These newspaper notices do nob furnish the desired proof to the mind of Bro . Gonld . Ho says :
" I find in ray notes sixteen notices in all of Wren ' s death , or burial , occurring between February 26 th and March 9 th 1723 . Four are copied from the Postboy , and a similar nnmberfrom tho Daily Post Two each from the BritisJi Journal , the Weekly Jonrnal or Saturday
Post , and the WeeJily 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 . "
Such absence of designation is regarded as significant , while the reference to Wren as a Freemason by the Journal is supposed to be accounted for on the ground that this paper " had been previousl y selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of the " Book of Constitutions , " and was therefore quite willing
to ascribe Masonic membership to the distinguished builder of St . Paul ' s , whose assumed connection with the Craft might help the sale of the work advertised in the columns of the Journal . The announce , ment in the Postboy is dismissed with the remark that it is no cause of wonder that its editor should have applied the title Freemason to
Wren , when Dr . Anderson was so accustomed to thus designate important personages who were not Masons . Our thought is that such suggestions are wanting in force to set aside the statements in the Journal and Postboy . Iu dealing with tho proofs derived from Anderson much stress is laid upon the fact that in the first edition of Anderson ' s
Constitutions , published in 1723 , there is no declaration that Wren was a member of the Masonic Fraternity . In the history that accompanies the edition of 1738 he is spoken of as having been connected with the Craft and as having held tho office of Grand Master . " How or where , " it is askod , "did Anderson get tho oxtra information in 1738 ? " The intimation of Bro . Gould is that there was a complete falsification of history in tho statements put forth by Anderson in 1738 .
Devmott's roforonoei to Wrcn ' . H Masonio circer are dismissed as unreliable because it is shown that , so many of the statements of this writer conflict with known facts . For instance , Dermott endorsed Anderson ' s statement about Wren ' s neglecting the Lodges and attempted to explain the cause of such neglect . The explanation given is the bad treatment which Wren received from those high in
authority , his removal from the office of Surveyor-General of the royal buildings , his great age and infirmities—whereas none of these causes existed in 1710 , when , as is claimed , he ceased to visit and regulate tho Lodges . Sir Christopher Wren was not deposed from office until 1718 ; he was a member of Parliament as late as 1712 j in 1713 he wrote an able report on Westminster Abbey , and in 1717
made a vigorous defence of the course be had pursued in the building of St . Paul ' s . According to tbo best testimony the mental faculties of Wren were unimpaired and his bodily health was good at the time of his dismissal from office in 1718 . Evidently these are discrepancies in Dermott ' s narrative which detract greatly from its authority .
Preston ' s evidence is rejected , because , beginning with almost nothing , it grew so rapidly in successive editions of his works , and because one portion of tho testimony is often found to conflict with another . " Comparing the editions of Preston ' s works , " says Bro . Gould , " we find such glaring discrepancies that , unless wo believe that bis information was acquired as he inserts it , piecemeal , or like
Mahomet and Joseph Smith , each fresh eflorfc was preceded by a special revelation , we mast refuse credence to statements which are unsupported by authority , contradictory to all known testimony , and even inconsistent with each other . " The various additions made by Preston in his references to Wren ' s Masonic connection are thus pointed out :
•" In 1775 , it is first stated that Wren presided over the old Lidge of St . Paul's during the building of the Cathedral . Between 1775 and 1778 , the only noteworthy circumstance recorded is the possession by the said Lodge of tho historic mallet employed to lay the foundation stone of St . Paul ' s . In 1792 , however , a mass of
information is forthcoming , viz ., that Wren patronised the Lodge of Antiquity for eighteen years , that he presented it with three candlesticks dnring the period of his Mastership , and 'lodged' with the same body of which Gabriel Gibber and Edward Strong were members—the mallet so often alluded to . " It is intimated that Preston ' s membership in the Lodge of Auti-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Sun, At Rising, Meridian, And Setting.
Twelve , " not downward to the perpetual shades , and the burial that takes place at " Low Twelve . " Freemasonry has among its brethren and officers those who personify in this respect the rising , meridian and setting sun . The Brother who is elected to the first , that is the junior station in
the Craft , represents the rising sun—he is the Horus of to-day . All pay him respect and honour . He is the coming man . His future is bright . He will rise in the arc of authority . Bye-and-bye ho will attain the chief place , and illustrate the virtues which his predecessors in
the oriental chair made synonymous with the office . Then he will be the Ra of his time—the Supreme ruler . But all things have an end , official glory with the rest . The Horus of yesterday , the Ra of to-day , becomes the Osiris of tomorrow . The setting sun , all beautiful as it is , passes away .
Thus do our honours leave us , and we then stand alone , in our individuality , respected for what we are in ourselves , rather than for what we were when enveloped in the transient sheen of the rising or meridian sun . May the admonition not bo appropriately given to every Masonic officer :
" So live that when thy summons comes to join The innumerable caravan which moves To that mysterions realm where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death , Thongo #### § # Like one that wraps the drapery of his conch About him , and lies down to pleasant dreams . " —Keystone .
Was Sir Christopher Wren A Freemason ?
WAS SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN A FREEMASON ?
FROM THE FREEMASONS' REPOSITORY . AMONG the eminent English architects of the seventeenth century Sir Christopher Wren holds foremost place . A man of r aro genias and varied attainments , he is best remembered as having designed and had charge of the building of many chnrches and other pnblio edifices in London and elsewhere—noble structures many of them which well declare the merits and fame of the skilful architect .
St . Paul ' s Cathedral , one of the grandest edifices in Christendom , is his special memorial , occupying , as it did , his thought and time from 1675 , when the first stone was laid , to 1710 , the date of its completion . On this magnificent building Wren stamped many signal proofs of his genius , so that the inscription over the north porch is most appropriate in its four closing words : " Si monumentnm renniris
circumspice . The architect of St . Paul ' s has generally been regarded as actually and officially connected with the Freemasonry that existed in the latter part of the seventeenth century . Tbo common thought has been that Wren was a sort of connecting link between the old and the new—that while he was prominently identified with the Craft before
tho" Kevival" he yet lived to have some knowledge of the work accomplished in 1717 , as his death did not take place until 1723 . Wren ' s connection with the Craft has received an extended tradi . tional endorsement , while it has been affirmed by Masonic historians as a matter admitting of no doubt . Anderson , Dermott , Preston , and others , whose statements are usually held to be reliable , are all
in agreement on this point , and their declarations would seem to be conclusive , albeit they fail to give desired particulars relating to Wren ' s Masonic membership , and are unable to trace by any clear record his supposed career as a Craftsman . But it is now claimed as the result of a more critical investigation that the writers referred to were mistaken—that really there is no
adeqnate evidence to show that Wren was ever inside a Masonio Lod ge , and therefore there ought to be a reversal of the opinion which has so long been held respecting his connection with tho Craft . This is the position taken by Bro . Kobt . P . Gonld , of London , who is justly conspicuous for the ability and keen research so often displayed in matters of critical investigation . In the recently
published third volume of his valuable " History of Freemasonry , " he v | goronsl y opposes the commonly-accepted theory of Wren's Masonic membership . Bro . Jacob Norton , of Boston , has outlined the grounds ° < Bro . Gould ' s opposition , approving the same and adding thereto other arguments and inferences intended to support the view taken . Some of the points relied npon by these eminent brethren in their
endeavour to discredit the theory of Wren ' s Masonic connection are as follows : The testimony adduced in favour of such a connection is 'nsnfficient and conflicting ; the statements of contemporary writers who refer to Wren as a Mason are not entitled to credence ; Anderson , Dermott , and Preston are unreliable iu their affirmations on this Point , and there is a mass of negative testimony which can hardly
° overcome unless some new proofs are brought into the case . . "he testimony of Aubrey is regarded as having bnt a slight bear'"I ? on the question at issue . It will be remembered that this man ° l scholarl y attainments and unimpeachable character was an inti-Jnate friend of Wren ; they were often together and closely assorted in many ways . In a manuscript of Aubrey , which is still P ^ served , there appears a record in these words :
Memorandum . This day , May 18 tb , being Monday , after Rogaj } ° n Sunday is a great convention at St . Paul ' s Ohnrch of the ratei-nit y of the Accepted Masons ; where Sir Christopher Wren is 0 oo adopted a brother , and Sir Henry Goodvic , of the Tower and
Was Sir Christopher Wren A Freemason ?
divers others . There have been kings that have been of fchia sodality . " This record is not considered conclusive ; it does not state that Wren has been enrolled among the members of the Fraternity , bnt onlv that he is to be received into snoh a relation , leaving therefore
the whole matter in donbt even if the quotation is accepted according to its evident purport . But the memorandum is rejected by Bros . Gould and Norton on the ground that Aubrey was over credulous , possessed of a highly imaginative natnre , and that he most likely stated Wren was about to become a Freemason having heard some
flying rumour to that effect . In any caso his testimony cannot bo held as sufficient to establish Wren's connection with the Craft unless corroborated . Critical examination is given to the newspaper notices of the death
of Wren . The Postboy , of 5 th March 1723 , contained the following paragraph : " London , March 5 th . This evening the corpse of the worthy Freemason , Sir Christopher Wren , Knight , is to be interred nnder tbe dome of St . Paul's Cathedral . "
The British Journal , in its issne four days later , gave this announcement : " Sir Christopher Wren , that worthy Free-Mason , was splendidly interred in St . Paul ' s Church on Tuesday night last . " These newspaper notices do nob furnish the desired proof to the mind of Bro . Gonld . Ho says :
" I find in ray notes sixteen notices in all of Wren ' s death , or burial , occurring between February 26 th and March 9 th 1723 . Four are copied from the Postboy , and a similar nnmberfrom tho Daily Post Two each from the BritisJi Journal , the Weekly Jonrnal or Saturday
Post , and the WeeJily 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 . "
Such absence of designation is regarded as significant , while the reference to Wren as a Freemason by the Journal is supposed to be accounted for on the ground that this paper " had been previousl y selected as the advertising medium through which to recommend the sale of the " Book of Constitutions , " and was therefore quite willing
to ascribe Masonic membership to the distinguished builder of St . Paul ' s , whose assumed connection with the Craft might help the sale of the work advertised in the columns of the Journal . The announce , ment in the Postboy is dismissed with the remark that it is no cause of wonder that its editor should have applied the title Freemason to
Wren , when Dr . Anderson was so accustomed to thus designate important personages who were not Masons . Our thought is that such suggestions are wanting in force to set aside the statements in the Journal and Postboy . Iu dealing with tho proofs derived from Anderson much stress is laid upon the fact that in the first edition of Anderson ' s
Constitutions , published in 1723 , there is no declaration that Wren was a member of the Masonic Fraternity . In the history that accompanies the edition of 1738 he is spoken of as having been connected with the Craft and as having held tho office of Grand Master . " How or where , " it is askod , "did Anderson get tho oxtra information in 1738 ? " The intimation of Bro . Gould is that there was a complete falsification of history in tho statements put forth by Anderson in 1738 .
Devmott's roforonoei to Wrcn ' . H Masonio circer are dismissed as unreliable because it is shown that , so many of the statements of this writer conflict with known facts . For instance , Dermott endorsed Anderson ' s statement about Wren ' s neglecting the Lodges and attempted to explain the cause of such neglect . The explanation given is the bad treatment which Wren received from those high in
authority , his removal from the office of Surveyor-General of the royal buildings , his great age and infirmities—whereas none of these causes existed in 1710 , when , as is claimed , he ceased to visit and regulate tho Lodges . Sir Christopher Wren was not deposed from office until 1718 ; he was a member of Parliament as late as 1712 j in 1713 he wrote an able report on Westminster Abbey , and in 1717
made a vigorous defence of the course be had pursued in the building of St . Paul ' s . According to tbo best testimony the mental faculties of Wren were unimpaired and his bodily health was good at the time of his dismissal from office in 1718 . Evidently these are discrepancies in Dermott ' s narrative which detract greatly from its authority .
Preston ' s evidence is rejected , because , beginning with almost nothing , it grew so rapidly in successive editions of his works , and because one portion of tho testimony is often found to conflict with another . " Comparing the editions of Preston ' s works , " says Bro . Gould , " we find such glaring discrepancies that , unless wo believe that bis information was acquired as he inserts it , piecemeal , or like
Mahomet and Joseph Smith , each fresh eflorfc was preceded by a special revelation , we mast refuse credence to statements which are unsupported by authority , contradictory to all known testimony , and even inconsistent with each other . " The various additions made by Preston in his references to Wren ' s Masonic connection are thus pointed out :
•" In 1775 , it is first stated that Wren presided over the old Lidge of St . Paul's during the building of the Cathedral . Between 1775 and 1778 , the only noteworthy circumstance recorded is the possession by the said Lodge of tho historic mallet employed to lay the foundation stone of St . Paul ' s . In 1792 , however , a mass of
information is forthcoming , viz ., that Wren patronised the Lodge of Antiquity for eighteen years , that he presented it with three candlesticks dnring the period of his Mastership , and 'lodged' with the same body of which Gabriel Gibber and Edward Strong were members—the mallet so often alluded to . " It is intimated that Preston ' s membership in the Lodge of Auti-