Conflicting Views As To The Character And Antiquity Of Freemasonry.

I can furnish many illustrations to prove tho wisdom suggested by Dr . Franklin : for instance , u-iti-hnvfl was a religions belief for thousands of years , but wo do not believe in it IUW . Tho Devil was also part of many theologies , but Dr . Farrar says that thero nc ver was a Devil . Within twenty-live years or so Bishop Colenso ' s works were published ; so were tho '' Essays and Reviews . " Ono of theso

Essayists is now a Bishop . The character of theso works need not be described , but ono thing may bo said , viz ., that those theologians no longer believe in tho old creeds . Professors and Doctors of Divinity havo published , in Holland , " Tho Religion of Israel , " also "The Biblo for Learners . " In England appeared , in 18 G 8 , tho second edition of Dr . Samuel Davidson ' s "Introduction to the Now

Testament . " By a Layman was written a work called " Supernatural Religion . " I cculd also namo two English Dukes ancl a Lord who havo written similar works—attacking tho inspiration of tho Old ancl Now Testaments . Our Brother Woodbury undermined our Theological chronology . Thus , according to the Jewish chronology , tho world is just 5 G 40 years old ; their new year begins to-uight

( 5 th Sept . ) , and the A . and A . Filters say that tho world is 5880 years old . Assuming their anno mundi to bo right , the world must have been created 4000 u . c . But our Bro . Charles Levi Woodbury showed that the Egyptians worshipped Fatah 400 years before tho creation of tho world . Having shown that theological creeds are breaking loose from their

anchors , I shall refer to but two changes of opinions ot yonr own within tho last three or four years . Thus , abont three years ago , you were pleased to pitch into me for opposing Bro . MacCalla ' s assumption that Daniel Coxe introduced Masonry into Pennsylvania in 1730 , and that an English chartered Lodge , No . 79 , was located in 1730 at the Hoop in Water-street , Philadelphia , while I maintained that

there was no proof of Coxe's connection with Philadelphian Masonry , and that Lodge No . 79 was originally located in London ; it became dormant before July 1733 , it was restored to its original rank about 1735 , and it was then held in St . Martin's-lane . Now , in Bro . Gould's " Four Old Lodges , " page 50 , thero is a list of Lodges from 1730 to 1732 , in which I find No . " 79 Castle in Highgate , " and during my

recent visit to London Bro . Gould showed me the original MS . list of the members of the said Lodgo ; and among the names was that of D . G . M . of 1730 , beside others who figured subsequently as Officers of tho Grand Lodge of England . Again , abont threo or four years ngo , yon refused to publish part of a letter of mine , in which I exposed tho unreliability of Dr . Oliver ,

for tho reason that Dr . Oliver was considered as a Masonic authority in England , and you did not wish to upset his authorityship . But now you have pitched into Dr . Oliver sledge hammer fashion . The desertion of creeds and opinions by high ecclesiastics , nobles , scholars , ancl Masons , demonstrates Dr . Franklin's suggestions of the absurdity of fixed creeds . We know what we believed yesterday , and

what we believe to-day ; but who knows what we shall believe tomorrow ? Fixed creeds aro especially unsuitable for a society composed of members of all denominations . Besides whieh , the history of our ritual demonstrates that bigotry knows neither law nor justice" give her an inch ancl she will grasp an ell ; " and , right or wrong , she sticks to what she grasps ; thus , the Andersouian Masonic creed was

belief in God , But this simple and undeniable creed was insufficient to satisfy sectarian bigotry ; hence our present Masonic creed is a mere bungle—one claims Masonry to bo Cosmopolitan , nnd another proves it to bo a Christian something . Looking upon the question from that point of view I felt justified in defending tho G . O . of Franco for ridding her ritual of all kinds of theological creeds .

I must here add , that the G . L . of Massachusetts appointed a Committee on the G . O . question on 12 th September 1878 . The Chairman of the Committee presented a Eeport , in the usual stereotyped language , condemning the said G . O . ; objections were , however , raised by some of the Committee . The result was—he was allowed to read his first resolution—consisting of " glittering generalities . " The remaininsr resolutions were re-committed . " No one has ever

called for them since , and no ono ever will . I had this from the highest authority . And now for other points in your editorial . The Eev . Bro . J . Milner was requested to deliver a St . John ' s Day oration . He never having read the works of Bros . Findel , Lyon , Hughan , Gould , the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE , tho Freemason , & c , took Oliver for a

guide , and recited a great deal of nonsense , such as " according to the tradition of our venerable Society , Enoch was a very eminent Mason ; " that " a Lodge must havo been in full working order on the plains of Shinar during the lifetime of Noah , " that " Pythagoras and Plato were initiated into a Jewish Lodge , " ancl "that the Pyramid was merely a spurious Lodge . " These statements you

pronounced absurd , and that " no sane man could for one moment seriously entertain snch propositions as these . " Now , my dear Bro ., I do not find fault with your remarks : nay , I even praise them ; thus again showing that I do praise where praise is due ; but I reall y can see no difference between the absurdities of Bros . Milner and

Woodbury . Thus , if Mentn-Hotep wore a Grand Master ' s regalia he might have presided over hia Grand Lodge inside the Pyramid , and the same reasons you have used against Bro . Milner ' s absurdities can be with equal force be applied to those of Bro . Woodbury ' s . You say

further" Bro . Woodbury has sought , not in our opinion successfully , to establish a connection between the architectural mysteries of ancient Egypt and the mysteries of our speculative Masonry of to-day . " Bro . Woodbury certainly sought to establish such a connection , but he not only failed to prove an Egyptian "Speculative Masonry , " in our sense of the phrase , but he oven furnished no evidence

that Egyptian architects practised any mysteries whatever . All Bro . Woodbury did prove was the antiquity of laying cornerstones , the names of tho then architects , ancl also that they were held in high esteem by the then kings : that one at least was a humane , just , and pious man , as piety was then understood , but what has all this to do with mysteries and Speculative Masonry ? The

Conflicting Views As To The Character And Antiquity Of Freemasonry.

masons now employed in building tho Cathedrals havo no mysteries , and need no mysteries , ancl the masons of 5 , 000 years ago also needed no mysteries . Before , therefore , you , my clear Brother , undertook to combat my views about the mysteries ancl Speculative Masonry of tho Egyptian Masons , you should , in tho outset , havo famished

evidence about the very existence of mysteries among the Egyptian architects ; and this you failed to do . True , yon say that " Lord Carnarvon holds that Freemasonry dates back from remote anti .

quity . " Well , I presume that thousands believe as Lord Carnarvon does , lint you will find upon inquiry thafc these—Lord Carnarvon included—have no other base for their belief than tradition , and about tradition Dr . Arnold truly but humorously remarked , —

" I am satisfied that if yon let in but one little finger of tradition , you will have in tho whole monster—horns , tail and all , " Truth , my good Brother , is one and indivisible ; Error is multiform . The moment we allow ourselves to drift away from the central point of truth we plunge into a sea of error . Of course there

are various degrees of error , but whether of a greater or lesser degree they are still errors , and should be alike avoided . Thus , you laugh at tho "Oliver School" for believing without evidence ( except tradition ) about the Grand Mastership of Enoch , Noah , Solomon , the St . Johns ancl Co ., and others will surely laugh at your supposition that

the Essenes , though they were not Masons , but because they had secret mysteries , were , therefore , Speculative Masons . While , on the other hand , as to the old Egyptian architects , though there ia no evidence of their having practised secret mysteries , because they were architects you imagine they were also Speculative Masons .

In short , on comparing the errors of the " Oliver School with those of Bro . Woodbury , I find merely " a distinction without a difference . " I once more beg to express my gratification at your outspoken

fearless remarks about what you designate as " the Oliver School , " and from the progress you thus make in the right direction I am led to hope that you will continue to proceed onward and onward in tho path of rational criticism .

I remain , Dear Sir and Brother , Yonrs respectfully and fraternall y , JACOB NORTON .

P . S . —Your review in the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE , 21 st August of Dr . Weisse ' s ' Obelisk' book , pleased me much , ancl in the peculiarl y expressive words of Eip Van Winkle I say , "Aha ! dat ish iverru goof J

Boston , U . S ., 5 th September 1880 .

Voigt V. Trevor And Others.

VOIGT v . TREVOR AND OTHERS .

To the Edxtor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am not inclined—even after seeing the heartrending appeal of Brother Trevor in your , and your contemporary's columns , and the one-sided letters of his partisans—to enter into a wordy war on this subject , as I can afford to treat the effusions of defeated litigant and his colleagues with indifference and

equanimity . Nor should I have put pen to paper in the matter if I had not felt it my duty , ns a Mason , to put myself right with my brother Masons npon one point , npon which they all appear to agree , namely , that if I commenced the action and went forward with it to trial I was in the highest degree to blame . If my brother Masons , without going beyond this question , and seeking to prove ( which they cannot

possibly do without a public investigation before the authorities ) which party to the suit has acted ri ghtly in the matter , and whose conduct is most culpable , will confine themselves—as I shall for the present—to this one point , I will endeavour to show them who is really responsible for the cause coming before a jury , and whose con . duct is therefore to be the most condemned . A few words will suffice to do this .

In the first place , before even issuing the writ in this action , I had the express permission of the Provincial Masonic authorities for doing so . This I am ready to prove whenever called upon to do so . Secondly , after tho writ was issued , I demurred to some of the defendant ' s pleadings . Having finally succeeded in my demurrers ,

I then abandoned the action for libel . At the end of two years from that time , however , and when I had given np all thoughts of proceeding with my case , judge of my astonishment at receiving from my solicitor , Brother John Hearfield ( who with his brother , Mr . T . W . Hearfielcl , was my solicitor in the action ) , the following letter , which , as will be seen , was written in consequence of the defendant Trevor's proceedings : — " Hull , 23 rd January 1880 .

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE . " Yourself v . Trevor and others . "DEAR SIR , —You will remember that in the argument of a demurrer in this action before Mr . Justice Field , his lordship expressed a very strong opinion that the matter ought not to go into

Public Court , and that it shonld be arranged by the Grand Lodge . In deference to that opinion tho matter has since remained in abeyance , but yesterday Trevor , one of the defendant ' s , took out a summons to obtain an order dismissing the action for want of prosecution , ancl that you should pay the defendants' costs . Thus you will see that your forbearance from prosecuting your claim meets

with no appreciation , bnt simply emboldens the defendant to demand his costs . If an action is not proceeded with any defendant is entitled as a matter of course to get an order dismissing same , for want of prosecution , and in this case such an order has been made , unless yon give notice of trial within seven days from this day . We strongly advise you to let us take this case for trial , and we feel