-
Articles/Ads
Article FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 2 Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 2 Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
First Impressions Of Freemasonry.
the writer can see nothing in the work or ceremonials of the Lodge to provoke levity , ancl where it is mixed with what should be a serious service , he believes contempt is cast upon the system and the institution . The teachings of Masonry are too valuable to have them lost through boyish antics , even though it bo " only for fun . "—Freemason ' s Repository .
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . All letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake lo return rejected communications .
THE HIRAM LODGE , U . S . A . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Out ; of respect to my Brother ; i LEX , " 1 acknowledge his communication respecting my opinion ou the " Hiram Lodge " controversy—which waa asked For by you , Sir , and which was given by me with due regard to all the facta of the case ,
so far as we iu England are concerned . Personally , we all regret the difficulties that have arisen , and many of us sympathize with the expelled Brethren and the erased Lodgo ( evidently ) ; but , unfortunately , all are powerless save to uphold the Grand Lodgo ; fche right or wrong of tho question or questions in dispute not in any way
concerning us . Subordinate Lodges are bound by the decisions of their Grand Lodges all the world over , and must either be content to obey the laws aud regulations or bo erased , ou whioh all other regular Grand Lodges will side with the Grand Lodge , not with tho erased Lodge . It is as well to face this fact at the outset , and thus save needless writing .
Bro . " LEX" declares that "we now are only at the beginning of it , " so it is perhaps better for me to say most positively that I shall have nothing to offer on the subject , from this time , in reply to auy brother who writes under a nom de plume . If we are to have a discussion , then it must be a contest loithout gloves or ma ^ ks , so far as I am concerned .
" LEX ' cannot " accept any one of the positions " I have taken up . That is a pity , surely—for " LEX "—as it strikes me ho will find the Grand Registrar of England will support them all , provided he is told all the facts . "Lex" refers to four main points to prove why he objects to my opinion .
1 . In . 1813 the "Union" was between two Grind Lodges , each keeping their old Warrants , tho United Grand Lodge not being a parallel case with "Hiram Lodgo" and 00111160110111- . But the poiut is this , and all hinges thereon—each Lodge under the United Grand Lodge became a subordinate of that body , and way ,
and is , bound to obey its laws ancl decisions ; even the two Lodges that are still working by "Immemorial Constitution . " So with " Hiram Lodge . " No matter what warrant it had , or had not , it became a subordinate of Connecticut when it left Massachusetts ; aud its new Warrant of 1790 , on being enrolled under Connecticut , made
it subject to the then new organisation . 2 . The continuance on the Koll of England until 1813 meant nothing beyond tho fact ; nothing more , iu short , thau the name cf Prico , as Prov . G . M ., being on the same Calendars years after he had died !
3 . The Earl of Zetland never interfered with the ( German ) Grand Lodge relative to the iuitiatiun of Israelites . All our lamented Grand Master did was to require tho admission of our members , as Visitors , without respect to their religious faith . Surely "LEX" has misunderstood the action of our G . M . At all events , tho ease cited is
wholly irrelevant . So also as to the Grand Orient . That refers to tho decision of a Grand Lodge , not a subordinate Lodge , anrl ; a ns irrelevant as the former case . If a Grand Lodge goes against , the wishes of other Grand Lodges , it can be ostracised , but subordinate Lodges must obey their Graud Lodge , or be erased ; and as lour' as
their disobedience is not due to any vital matter no regnlar Graud Lodgo will support them in their insubordination . 4 . " Hiram Lodge " is in a similar position to Lodges which existed prior to the formation of their present Grand Lodges , r . q ., our Lodge of " Antiquity " became a subordinate of the G . L . of England .
It rebelled iu 1779 . but returned to tho fold in 1790 , evidently realizing the fact that its rights were lost , so to speak , in tho voto of the majority , for the good of all . Sentiment is useless as to " Hiram Lodge . " It has for years beeu a subordinate of the G . L . of Conuecticut , and is now cut off for disobedience . Yours fraternally , W J . HUGHAN .
To the Editor of the FUKEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AXD BROTHER , —Since 1 wrote to you , I havo received two or throe communications on this subject , aud wish also to allitd-j to oue or two contributions towards clearing up what is both a difficult
and most important question . I always read I 5 r <> . MaeUnlla ' s communications with pleasnre and profit , aud have a great respect for his abilities and honesty , and admiration for tho great services ho has rendered Masonic archaeology and intellectuality . ' I quite enter into the normal American view of the great necessity
Correspondence.
of upholding the decision of a Grand Lodge , bnt I co not quit " follow " Bro . MacCalla in his treatment of the objection . He seems to ignore the Hiram Lodge altogether , whicb , in my humble opinion , is a great and fatal mistake . He says the cause of the quarrel is "infantine . "
Bnt is it really so ? And as on this poiut it is not quite clear , I await a letter from America before entering upon that branch of the discussion . I agree with tho general scope of " JI / STITIA ' " very able remarks , which demand careful consideration aud respectful study .
Whoever ho may be , he has placed tho matter most forcibly and compactly before your readers , and has pointed out conclusively how far reaching and wide extending , constitutionally , is tho subject matter before us , aud ono that cannot be disposed of by offhand denunciations and anathemata of any kind or degree whatever .
In Bro . Norton ' s facetious and fair comments I also heartily concur , as I have not a doubt he represents the cotnmonseuse view of the question , and points undoubtedly to grave results certain to arise , unless by wise couusol and mutual concessions this untoward matter is at once amicably and Masonically adjusted .
Bros . Norton and " Jusm'tA " seem to me to embody well in their remarks that groat and ever truo Masonic adage that , " next to the obedience to lawful authority , a firm and manly resistance to lawless aggression is the first step to social freedom , " and I may add Masonic unity and content .
A very wise and acuto friend of mine has sent me the following " memoranda " on some of tho points raised , and which I specially commend to the notice of yonr readers , and all interested in this serious question . 1 . Tho subject , ho remarks , is a " very big ono , " and requires both
careful thought and anxious consideration . Mother Kilwinning , Antiquity , St . Andrew ' s , Boston ( see Gould ' s History , IV . 450 ) , all three joined in forming a Grand Lodge , withdrew and rejoined ; and thongh it is , especially in America aud the Colonies , usual for Lodges to take out fresh Charters , aud surrender the old ones , the rule is not
universal , or without mauy exceptions . Such a position is not safe , if too broadly put , and the History of Freemasonry does not bear out such an absolute and abstract proposition . Can any one safely contend that any possible act on the part of a
Grand Lodge is to be held as " reasonable " ( without discussion ) by another or all other Grand Lodges ? Surely such a view is untenable and unsafe . If we are to lay it down that there is no getting behind the decision of a Grand Lodge with regard to declaring a Lodge irregular , not only will such a
proposition , historically , archo ) . logically , or in the concrete , not hold water , " but such a view raises necessarily other questions equally difficult and startling . 3 . There are always " Grand Lodgrs and Grand Lodges , " aud Freemasonry has its universal as well as its local side .
Let us ask ourselves tho question—would a member of the Lodge Hiram bo admitted into "Old Melrose , " or any of the German Independent Lodges , aud if so , within whit limits is the reasonableness restri tad ? ¦!• . We want a clear understanding of the actual pomt at issue .
Hiram has it ^ undoubted rights and prerogatives as well astheGravd Lodge of Connecticut , and nettling nvivi detrimental to the best interests of Freemasonry , ar ; d eventually subversive to all Lodge
life , will be that common ancl popular view whioh ignorei the fact tnat the Grand Lodgo itself , whatever its corporate position or actual powers may be , simply rests on tho nnit of the Lodge , as the source of all power , and tho limit really and truly of its very authority . Yours fraternally , LEX .
EROS . R . F . GOULD AND J . T . BRENtf AS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AXD BROTHER , —In Bro . Gould ' s letter of 19 ch Sept Lift , address d to the Editor of the Keystone , and published iu tl e
FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE of 22 nd Oetobe , he makes his points of inquiry npon the belief that Fraukliu was not mistaken in his stitement of 8 th December 1730 , iu Ids Pennsylvania Gazette . That statement is : —
"As there aro several Lodges of Freemasons erected in this Provinco , and people have lately been much amused with conj cturci concerning them , we think the following account of Fre ^ uicionry , from London , will not be unacceptable to our readers . " After copying this statement Bro . Gould says : — - "Here then , the
fact of there being in 1730 , not only one , but several Lodges at work in tho Province , is satisfactorily established . " In this comment , I beg leave to say , I think Bro . Gould errs , and has not exercised his nsual legal acumen regarding it . A mere newspaper statement , anv more in 1730 thau at present is m t a
satisfactory establishment ot anything , and more especially if inside by one who has no personal knowledge of what he states . Franklin was not , iu December 1730 , a Freemason , and could have his information but at second h-tnd . It was a simple matter for some person with whom he was intimate —even such person probably not a
Freemason—to make , tho statement to Franklin that there were , he believed , several Lodges in the Province—indeed , so to say , the woods were full of them—wh ° n , in fact , there might not have been one , and probably was nofc one . From the manner of his article it is oli ' ui Frat . klin was desirous of writing something , bnt he knew nothing
> iboiit Freemasons or Freemasonry , and therefore he gave the account lie found iu Loudon newspapers , ancl something which wo i'd not , is he thither says , be unacc-ptablo to his readers . Indeed Brother ' lovilcl will notice Franklin ' s remarks about this time , in his Pennsylvania Gazette on this subject , were very undetermined , a ; d as much bordering on pleasantry as he usually permitted himself to
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
First Impressions Of Freemasonry.
the writer can see nothing in the work or ceremonials of the Lodge to provoke levity , ancl where it is mixed with what should be a serious service , he believes contempt is cast upon the system and the institution . The teachings of Masonry are too valuable to have them lost through boyish antics , even though it bo " only for fun . "—Freemason ' s Repository .
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . All letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake lo return rejected communications .
THE HIRAM LODGE , U . S . A . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Out ; of respect to my Brother ; i LEX , " 1 acknowledge his communication respecting my opinion ou the " Hiram Lodge " controversy—which waa asked For by you , Sir , and which was given by me with due regard to all the facta of the case ,
so far as we iu England are concerned . Personally , we all regret the difficulties that have arisen , and many of us sympathize with the expelled Brethren and the erased Lodgo ( evidently ) ; but , unfortunately , all are powerless save to uphold the Grand Lodgo ; fche right or wrong of tho question or questions in dispute not in any way
concerning us . Subordinate Lodges are bound by the decisions of their Grand Lodges all the world over , and must either be content to obey the laws aud regulations or bo erased , ou whioh all other regular Grand Lodges will side with the Grand Lodge , not with tho erased Lodge . It is as well to face this fact at the outset , and thus save needless writing .
Bro . " LEX" declares that "we now are only at the beginning of it , " so it is perhaps better for me to say most positively that I shall have nothing to offer on the subject , from this time , in reply to auy brother who writes under a nom de plume . If we are to have a discussion , then it must be a contest loithout gloves or ma ^ ks , so far as I am concerned .
" LEX ' cannot " accept any one of the positions " I have taken up . That is a pity , surely—for " LEX "—as it strikes me ho will find the Grand Registrar of England will support them all , provided he is told all the facts . "Lex" refers to four main points to prove why he objects to my opinion .
1 . In . 1813 the "Union" was between two Grind Lodges , each keeping their old Warrants , tho United Grand Lodge not being a parallel case with "Hiram Lodgo" and 00111160110111- . But the poiut is this , and all hinges thereon—each Lodge under the United Grand Lodge became a subordinate of that body , and way ,
and is , bound to obey its laws ancl decisions ; even the two Lodges that are still working by "Immemorial Constitution . " So with " Hiram Lodge . " No matter what warrant it had , or had not , it became a subordinate of Connecticut when it left Massachusetts ; aud its new Warrant of 1790 , on being enrolled under Connecticut , made
it subject to the then new organisation . 2 . The continuance on the Koll of England until 1813 meant nothing beyond tho fact ; nothing more , iu short , thau the name cf Prico , as Prov . G . M ., being on the same Calendars years after he had died !
3 . The Earl of Zetland never interfered with the ( German ) Grand Lodge relative to the iuitiatiun of Israelites . All our lamented Grand Master did was to require tho admission of our members , as Visitors , without respect to their religious faith . Surely "LEX" has misunderstood the action of our G . M . At all events , tho ease cited is
wholly irrelevant . So also as to the Grand Orient . That refers to tho decision of a Grand Lodge , not a subordinate Lodge , anrl ; a ns irrelevant as the former case . If a Grand Lodge goes against , the wishes of other Grand Lodges , it can be ostracised , but subordinate Lodges must obey their Graud Lodge , or be erased ; and as lour' as
their disobedience is not due to any vital matter no regnlar Graud Lodgo will support them in their insubordination . 4 . " Hiram Lodge " is in a similar position to Lodges which existed prior to the formation of their present Grand Lodges , r . q ., our Lodge of " Antiquity " became a subordinate of the G . L . of England .
It rebelled iu 1779 . but returned to tho fold in 1790 , evidently realizing the fact that its rights were lost , so to speak , in tho voto of the majority , for the good of all . Sentiment is useless as to " Hiram Lodge . " It has for years beeu a subordinate of the G . L . of Conuecticut , and is now cut off for disobedience . Yours fraternally , W J . HUGHAN .
To the Editor of the FUKEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AXD BROTHER , —Since 1 wrote to you , I havo received two or throe communications on this subject , aud wish also to allitd-j to oue or two contributions towards clearing up what is both a difficult
and most important question . I always read I 5 r <> . MaeUnlla ' s communications with pleasnre and profit , aud have a great respect for his abilities and honesty , and admiration for tho great services ho has rendered Masonic archaeology and intellectuality . ' I quite enter into the normal American view of the great necessity
Correspondence.
of upholding the decision of a Grand Lodge , bnt I co not quit " follow " Bro . MacCalla in his treatment of the objection . He seems to ignore the Hiram Lodge altogether , whicb , in my humble opinion , is a great and fatal mistake . He says the cause of the quarrel is "infantine . "
Bnt is it really so ? And as on this poiut it is not quite clear , I await a letter from America before entering upon that branch of the discussion . I agree with tho general scope of " JI / STITIA ' " very able remarks , which demand careful consideration aud respectful study .
Whoever ho may be , he has placed tho matter most forcibly and compactly before your readers , and has pointed out conclusively how far reaching and wide extending , constitutionally , is tho subject matter before us , aud ono that cannot be disposed of by offhand denunciations and anathemata of any kind or degree whatever .
In Bro . Norton ' s facetious and fair comments I also heartily concur , as I have not a doubt he represents the cotnmonseuse view of the question , and points undoubtedly to grave results certain to arise , unless by wise couusol and mutual concessions this untoward matter is at once amicably and Masonically adjusted .
Bros . Norton and " Jusm'tA " seem to me to embody well in their remarks that groat and ever truo Masonic adage that , " next to the obedience to lawful authority , a firm and manly resistance to lawless aggression is the first step to social freedom , " and I may add Masonic unity and content .
A very wise and acuto friend of mine has sent me the following " memoranda " on some of tho points raised , and which I specially commend to the notice of yonr readers , and all interested in this serious question . 1 . Tho subject , ho remarks , is a " very big ono , " and requires both
careful thought and anxious consideration . Mother Kilwinning , Antiquity , St . Andrew ' s , Boston ( see Gould ' s History , IV . 450 ) , all three joined in forming a Grand Lodge , withdrew and rejoined ; and thongh it is , especially in America aud the Colonies , usual for Lodges to take out fresh Charters , aud surrender the old ones , the rule is not
universal , or without mauy exceptions . Such a position is not safe , if too broadly put , and the History of Freemasonry does not bear out such an absolute and abstract proposition . Can any one safely contend that any possible act on the part of a
Grand Lodge is to be held as " reasonable " ( without discussion ) by another or all other Grand Lodges ? Surely such a view is untenable and unsafe . If we are to lay it down that there is no getting behind the decision of a Grand Lodge with regard to declaring a Lodge irregular , not only will such a
proposition , historically , archo ) . logically , or in the concrete , not hold water , " but such a view raises necessarily other questions equally difficult and startling . 3 . There are always " Grand Lodgrs and Grand Lodges , " aud Freemasonry has its universal as well as its local side .
Let us ask ourselves tho question—would a member of the Lodge Hiram bo admitted into "Old Melrose , " or any of the German Independent Lodges , aud if so , within whit limits is the reasonableness restri tad ? ¦!• . We want a clear understanding of the actual pomt at issue .
Hiram has it ^ undoubted rights and prerogatives as well astheGravd Lodge of Connecticut , and nettling nvivi detrimental to the best interests of Freemasonry , ar ; d eventually subversive to all Lodge
life , will be that common ancl popular view whioh ignorei the fact tnat the Grand Lodgo itself , whatever its corporate position or actual powers may be , simply rests on tho nnit of the Lodge , as the source of all power , and tho limit really and truly of its very authority . Yours fraternally , LEX .
EROS . R . F . GOULD AND J . T . BRENtf AS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AXD BROTHER , —In Bro . Gould ' s letter of 19 ch Sept Lift , address d to the Editor of the Keystone , and published iu tl e
FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE of 22 nd Oetobe , he makes his points of inquiry npon the belief that Fraukliu was not mistaken in his stitement of 8 th December 1730 , iu Ids Pennsylvania Gazette . That statement is : —
"As there aro several Lodges of Freemasons erected in this Provinco , and people have lately been much amused with conj cturci concerning them , we think the following account of Fre ^ uicionry , from London , will not be unacceptable to our readers . " After copying this statement Bro . Gould says : — - "Here then , the
fact of there being in 1730 , not only one , but several Lodges at work in tho Province , is satisfactorily established . " In this comment , I beg leave to say , I think Bro . Gould errs , and has not exercised his nsual legal acumen regarding it . A mere newspaper statement , anv more in 1730 thau at present is m t a
satisfactory establishment ot anything , and more especially if inside by one who has no personal knowledge of what he states . Franklin was not , iu December 1730 , a Freemason , and could have his information but at second h-tnd . It was a simple matter for some person with whom he was intimate —even such person probably not a
Freemason—to make , tho statement to Franklin that there were , he believed , several Lodges in the Province—indeed , so to say , the woods were full of them—wh ° n , in fact , there might not have been one , and probably was nofc one . From the manner of his article it is oli ' ui Frat . klin was desirous of writing something , bnt he knew nothing
> iboiit Freemasons or Freemasonry , and therefore he gave the account lie found iu Loudon newspapers , ancl something which wo i'd not , is he thither says , be unacc-ptablo to his readers . Indeed Brother ' lovilcl will notice Franklin ' s remarks about this time , in his Pennsylvania Gazette on this subject , were very undetermined , a ; d as much bordering on pleasantry as he usually permitted himself to