-
Articles/Ads
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.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions oj our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . AU Letters must lear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , hut as a guarantee of good faith .
THE SECTARIAN QUESTION IN PRUSSIA .
To the Editor of THE FREEMASONS CHRONICLE . DEAK SIR AND BEOTHEE , —In 1845 , daring a visit to England by the Crown Prince of Prussia , Protector of Freemasonry in Prussia , a motion was brought forward in the G . L . of England to vote an address to the said exalted personage . My esteemed friend , tho late Bro . Henry Faudel , opposed the motion , on the ground of the refusal of
admission by Prussian Lodges to Masons of the Hebrew faith . Bro . Faudel was , however , prevailed upon to Buffer the motion to pass unanimously : but the Grand Master , the Earl of Zetland , assured the G . L . that he would endeavour to indnce the Grand Lodges in Prussia to bring Prussian Freemasonry into harmony with the principle of universality . When the Earl of Zetland found that hia efforts were
fruitless , he caused , in 1846 , the withdrawal of the English represen . tative in Prussia , and the Prussian repreaentabive from Grand Lodge , England . While these efforts were being made by the G . M . of England , and , I may add , by the Grand Orient of France and other Grand Lodges in Europe and America , a letter , signed St * Lux appeared in the
Freemasons' Quarterly Review . The writer began by stating that tho subject he was about to discuss wonld require a series of papers ; and , at the conclusion , he promised to continue the series . The subject implied danger to the Craft , because the Catholic and Protestant clergy were opposed to Freemasonry . The writer referred to an article by Bro . Oliver about a crusade against Masonry by the
Anglo-Indian clergy . The Bishop of Exeter , and Mr . Blunt in England , wero also hostile to the brotherhood , all which threatening trouble Sit Lux attributed to the heresy of the Duke of Sussex and other Grand Officers , who sanctioned alterations in the Masonio ritual in 1815 or thereabouts , when tho St . Johns were removed from the Lodge work , & c . Tho writer quoted a long paragraph from a speech
made " by our distinguished Bro . Dr . Oliver , showing that Masonry was full of Christian types , & o ., & o . Sit Lux then went on after the following strain : — "If the original plan of Freemasonry is a Christian institution , as it undoubtedly is , it is no wonder that the Jews , when they acquire influence in any Lodge , should become dissenters from the original
plan , and use that influence to endeavour to withdraw from the lectures every reference to Christianity . But it is an abused attempt . Can any man possessing common sense suppose that , if every reference to the sublime plan of human redemption were to be withdrawn from onr " pnro ancl unsullied system , " it would bo any longercalled a system of light . Impossible ! It would then become a
system of the purest darkness—of that darkness which once covered all the nations of earth j bnt , in a greater degree of grossuess than the once favoured people of God , which was only dispelled by tho rising of the Sun of Righteousness . No wonder that the Grand Lodge of Prussia—if they are aware of the innovations above alluded to—should feel jealous about admitting among them those who have
been exerting themselves to introduce such innovations . The Jewa shonld remember that it is not many years since they were first admitted into our Order in England , bnt were looked npon as aliens and outcasts , both in civil and religious society . If , then , we admit them to an equality with ourselves , it is very ungracious on their part to aim at ascendency . However , they are not so much to blame
as the Grand Master and his Officers , who preside over the Order , who are morally responsible to the fraternity for preservation of the ancient landmarks which are committed to their care , and whether they have taken an active or passive part in the innovations which have been introduced during tho late Grand Mastership of thirty years , their responsibility is the same . "
Tho Masonic system advocated by Sit Lux is in full blast in American Lodges . Jews are initiated here under the solemn assur . ance by the W . M . " on the word and honour of a gentleman and Mason " that there is nothing in the institution to interfere with any one ' s religion or political opinions , and that men of all religions enjoy the same privileges , etc ., but it is all a sham ; no Israelite can take the
office of W . M . without having to use phrases which go against his grain . Our Masons are in harmony with the teachings of the old saintly bigots , viz ., "It is a virtue to be and deceive when the good of the church can be promoted thereby . " At first our Masonic luminaries defended their inconsistency under the plea of ancient landmarks , which amounts to this , " if our ancient brethren were
unjust , and resorted to lying in behalf of the church , we must , therefore continue to lie and be unjust . " But since the "ancient landmark , " superstition has been exploded , they answer with an indignant air - , " Do you expect that we are going to eliminate all allusions to tho truth of Christianity from our Lodge work . " Now , let me die . tinctly state , that I regard the American Masonic practice as more
offensive and blameworthy than that of the Prussians ; the misconduct of the latter is open and above board , but that of the former ia simply Jesuitical . And now I will go back to Sit Lux . In 1845 the late C . W . Moore G . S . of Massachusetts , called my attention to that very Sit Lux letter , but he could not inform me
the real name of its author . Recently I had occasion to borrow several volumes of . the Freemasons' Quarterly Review from the Masonic Library , at the Temple , when I came across the very same Sit Lux letter , and after a careful perusal of it , notwithstanding the writer relets to "' our distinguished brother , Dr . Oliver , " I came to the
Correspondence.
conclusion that Dr . Oliver himaelf waa the author of the Sit Luv letter . One of the replies to Sit Lux in tho Freemasons' Quarterly Review in 1846 , was by the Rev . Bro . Slade D . D . Bro . Slade was a genuine , hearted Freemason , and his defence of unsectarian Freemasonry will
be as welcome and seasonable now as it was then . The Prussian . Grand Lodge , which still sticks to Zinnendorf ' s corrupt Masonio system , will doubtless be compelled to yield ere long to the pressure brought against it from without as well as within . It will donbtlesa ere long consent to modify its constitution by removing the Jewish
disabilities . But that is not enough . It will have to adapt its ritual to the standard of Masonio universality ; otherwise they will have in Prussia a similar kind of a Masonio mongrel to what we have in America . Bro . Slade ' s letter , which I will send you , and which I hope will be reprinted in your valuable journal , will show our deluded
bigots in Prussia , as well as in America , tho honest opinion as to the true aim and intent of Freemasonry of au English clergyman of thirty-two years ago , and I have no doubt that there are many dis . tinguished clerical brethren in England now who wonld cheerfully endorse Bro . Slade ' a opinion on Freemasonry .
Fraternally and respectfully yonra , Boston , U . S ., 13 th April 1877 . JACOB NORTON . [ We have felt it our duty to elide tho reasons of our fraternal correspondent . Ho is a most painstaking searcher after truth , but occasionally brusque in delivering his opinions . Dr . Oliver ia dead , but respect for his memory is almost a landmark among English Freemasons . —ED . F . C ]
THE RECENT ELECTION FOR THE BOYS ' SCHOOL .
To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHIR , —I really am very sorry my harmleaa letter , inserted in your issue of the 14 th instant , should have given so mncii offence to our Rev . Bro . Dr . Ace . I trust he will pardon me for saying that , in his very natural anxiety to defend the wisdom of his own proposition , he has hurriedly described my remarks aa
irrelevant and vituperative , when , in very truth , they were neither the one nor the other . Permit me to say I have not had the presumption to assert that Dr . Ace ' s proposition was unwise . My words were " I do not think the adoption of such a rule as the former " ( that ia , Dr . Ace ) " pro . poses would be wise , aud for this reason . " The gist of my reaion WM
as follows : —Here is a very deserving case , emanating from the Province of Devon , which commands a certain number of votes , and likewise known to , and recommended by , certain influential brethren who have at their disposal certain other votes . Yet , after six con . secutive attempts to obtain admission into the School , it ia found the lad has secured only 381 votes , or less than a third of the number
again and again secured at a single trial . My inference is that those who have had charge of the case have either wofully misreckoned or misdirected their efforts , and if BO , the adoption of such a rule would not tend to improve matters , and , therefore , would be unwise . In the second paragraph of his letter , Dr . Ace shifts his ground . Hitherto he has described my opinion as an assertion , now he says ,
" the writer proceeds to give a reason not , I venture to think , very conclusively for his assertion . " At the outset the " assertion" I did not make was no " proof , " but here the " reason" for this assertion is not conclusive . I venture to think I convict our Rev . Bro . of a want of logical tact . I fully concede that my opinion may be wrong ; but why this confusion between an " assertion" I never made , and a " reason" which is not conclusive . I will further ask him how a
reason which is only not conclusive can be irrevelant . Again , "it is an easy reply to any case of distress that there ia something wrong , but that is neither charitable nor relieving . " In the next paragraph , my reason is " a vote of censure on the Devon , shire brethren , as I suspect , very undeservedly . " Can Dr . Ace have read the whole of my letter ? I said , towards the end of it , " I know
there have been other cases emanating from Devonshire , and these may hare commanded , and , no doubt , justly commanded most of the support , directly or indirectly , of the Province . " Surely , these words , if they have any meaning at all , do actually furnish the only explanation which is possible of the apparent indifference of the Province to this particular case . I fancy , indeed , this explanation is not so un >
complimentary as the suggestion contained in Dr . Ace ' a letter , pub . liahed in your columns last October . He then wrote , " Why the Province of Devon has not taken up this deserving case , I know not ; except it be that the widowed mother has removed from Devonshire to Glebe Cottage , Staustead , Sudbury , Suffolk . " That is , Devon forgot all about a distressing and deserving case , when the widowed
mother removed to another Province .
Will Dr . Ace kindly point out where I have laid it down that " no distressing case is to be placed on the list of the Committee , unless the parties to the recommendation are prepai'ed to carry their candidate successfully . " I merely reiterated a suggestion , I fancy I have seen in the columns of your Journal , " that brethren should not permit an applicant ' s name to be placed on the list of candidatea
nnless they are prepared to support him ( or her , aa the case may be ) thoroughly . " I need hardly point out to our reverend and learned brother that there is a wide distinction between carrying a candidate successfully and supporting him thoroughly . It is in no man ' s power to command success , but in every one ' s to work for it . I should be trespassing unduly on your valuable space if I followed
Dr . Ace through all the points he baa raised in hia letter of last week . I fully agree with him , that " it will not add to our reputation for Masonic charity if it be known as a matter of fact that a poor orphan is not to be aided on the merits of his case , but solely on account of his being theprotige" of the influential aud wealthy . " But may I ask what this ha » to do with the question I have raised ? If I have
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions oj our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . AU Letters must lear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , hut as a guarantee of good faith .
THE SECTARIAN QUESTION IN PRUSSIA .
To the Editor of THE FREEMASONS CHRONICLE . DEAK SIR AND BEOTHEE , —In 1845 , daring a visit to England by the Crown Prince of Prussia , Protector of Freemasonry in Prussia , a motion was brought forward in the G . L . of England to vote an address to the said exalted personage . My esteemed friend , tho late Bro . Henry Faudel , opposed the motion , on the ground of the refusal of
admission by Prussian Lodges to Masons of the Hebrew faith . Bro . Faudel was , however , prevailed upon to Buffer the motion to pass unanimously : but the Grand Master , the Earl of Zetland , assured the G . L . that he would endeavour to indnce the Grand Lodges in Prussia to bring Prussian Freemasonry into harmony with the principle of universality . When the Earl of Zetland found that hia efforts were
fruitless , he caused , in 1846 , the withdrawal of the English represen . tative in Prussia , and the Prussian repreaentabive from Grand Lodge , England . While these efforts were being made by the G . M . of England , and , I may add , by the Grand Orient of France and other Grand Lodges in Europe and America , a letter , signed St * Lux appeared in the
Freemasons' Quarterly Review . The writer began by stating that tho subject he was about to discuss wonld require a series of papers ; and , at the conclusion , he promised to continue the series . The subject implied danger to the Craft , because the Catholic and Protestant clergy were opposed to Freemasonry . The writer referred to an article by Bro . Oliver about a crusade against Masonry by the
Anglo-Indian clergy . The Bishop of Exeter , and Mr . Blunt in England , wero also hostile to the brotherhood , all which threatening trouble Sit Lux attributed to the heresy of the Duke of Sussex and other Grand Officers , who sanctioned alterations in the Masonio ritual in 1815 or thereabouts , when tho St . Johns were removed from the Lodge work , & c . Tho writer quoted a long paragraph from a speech
made " by our distinguished Bro . Dr . Oliver , showing that Masonry was full of Christian types , & o ., & o . Sit Lux then went on after the following strain : — "If the original plan of Freemasonry is a Christian institution , as it undoubtedly is , it is no wonder that the Jews , when they acquire influence in any Lodge , should become dissenters from the original
plan , and use that influence to endeavour to withdraw from the lectures every reference to Christianity . But it is an abused attempt . Can any man possessing common sense suppose that , if every reference to the sublime plan of human redemption were to be withdrawn from onr " pnro ancl unsullied system , " it would bo any longercalled a system of light . Impossible ! It would then become a
system of the purest darkness—of that darkness which once covered all the nations of earth j bnt , in a greater degree of grossuess than the once favoured people of God , which was only dispelled by tho rising of the Sun of Righteousness . No wonder that the Grand Lodge of Prussia—if they are aware of the innovations above alluded to—should feel jealous about admitting among them those who have
been exerting themselves to introduce such innovations . The Jewa shonld remember that it is not many years since they were first admitted into our Order in England , bnt were looked npon as aliens and outcasts , both in civil and religious society . If , then , we admit them to an equality with ourselves , it is very ungracious on their part to aim at ascendency . However , they are not so much to blame
as the Grand Master and his Officers , who preside over the Order , who are morally responsible to the fraternity for preservation of the ancient landmarks which are committed to their care , and whether they have taken an active or passive part in the innovations which have been introduced during tho late Grand Mastership of thirty years , their responsibility is the same . "
Tho Masonic system advocated by Sit Lux is in full blast in American Lodges . Jews are initiated here under the solemn assur . ance by the W . M . " on the word and honour of a gentleman and Mason " that there is nothing in the institution to interfere with any one ' s religion or political opinions , and that men of all religions enjoy the same privileges , etc ., but it is all a sham ; no Israelite can take the
office of W . M . without having to use phrases which go against his grain . Our Masons are in harmony with the teachings of the old saintly bigots , viz ., "It is a virtue to be and deceive when the good of the church can be promoted thereby . " At first our Masonic luminaries defended their inconsistency under the plea of ancient landmarks , which amounts to this , " if our ancient brethren were
unjust , and resorted to lying in behalf of the church , we must , therefore continue to lie and be unjust . " But since the "ancient landmark , " superstition has been exploded , they answer with an indignant air - , " Do you expect that we are going to eliminate all allusions to tho truth of Christianity from our Lodge work . " Now , let me die . tinctly state , that I regard the American Masonic practice as more
offensive and blameworthy than that of the Prussians ; the misconduct of the latter is open and above board , but that of the former ia simply Jesuitical . And now I will go back to Sit Lux . In 1845 the late C . W . Moore G . S . of Massachusetts , called my attention to that very Sit Lux letter , but he could not inform me
the real name of its author . Recently I had occasion to borrow several volumes of . the Freemasons' Quarterly Review from the Masonic Library , at the Temple , when I came across the very same Sit Lux letter , and after a careful perusal of it , notwithstanding the writer relets to "' our distinguished brother , Dr . Oliver , " I came to the
Correspondence.
conclusion that Dr . Oliver himaelf waa the author of the Sit Luv letter . One of the replies to Sit Lux in tho Freemasons' Quarterly Review in 1846 , was by the Rev . Bro . Slade D . D . Bro . Slade was a genuine , hearted Freemason , and his defence of unsectarian Freemasonry will
be as welcome and seasonable now as it was then . The Prussian . Grand Lodge , which still sticks to Zinnendorf ' s corrupt Masonio system , will doubtless be compelled to yield ere long to the pressure brought against it from without as well as within . It will donbtlesa ere long consent to modify its constitution by removing the Jewish
disabilities . But that is not enough . It will have to adapt its ritual to the standard of Masonio universality ; otherwise they will have in Prussia a similar kind of a Masonio mongrel to what we have in America . Bro . Slade ' s letter , which I will send you , and which I hope will be reprinted in your valuable journal , will show our deluded
bigots in Prussia , as well as in America , tho honest opinion as to the true aim and intent of Freemasonry of au English clergyman of thirty-two years ago , and I have no doubt that there are many dis . tinguished clerical brethren in England now who wonld cheerfully endorse Bro . Slade ' a opinion on Freemasonry .
Fraternally and respectfully yonra , Boston , U . S ., 13 th April 1877 . JACOB NORTON . [ We have felt it our duty to elide tho reasons of our fraternal correspondent . Ho is a most painstaking searcher after truth , but occasionally brusque in delivering his opinions . Dr . Oliver ia dead , but respect for his memory is almost a landmark among English Freemasons . —ED . F . C ]
THE RECENT ELECTION FOR THE BOYS ' SCHOOL .
To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHIR , —I really am very sorry my harmleaa letter , inserted in your issue of the 14 th instant , should have given so mncii offence to our Rev . Bro . Dr . Ace . I trust he will pardon me for saying that , in his very natural anxiety to defend the wisdom of his own proposition , he has hurriedly described my remarks aa
irrelevant and vituperative , when , in very truth , they were neither the one nor the other . Permit me to say I have not had the presumption to assert that Dr . Ace ' s proposition was unwise . My words were " I do not think the adoption of such a rule as the former " ( that ia , Dr . Ace ) " pro . poses would be wise , aud for this reason . " The gist of my reaion WM
as follows : —Here is a very deserving case , emanating from the Province of Devon , which commands a certain number of votes , and likewise known to , and recommended by , certain influential brethren who have at their disposal certain other votes . Yet , after six con . secutive attempts to obtain admission into the School , it ia found the lad has secured only 381 votes , or less than a third of the number
again and again secured at a single trial . My inference is that those who have had charge of the case have either wofully misreckoned or misdirected their efforts , and if BO , the adoption of such a rule would not tend to improve matters , and , therefore , would be unwise . In the second paragraph of his letter , Dr . Ace shifts his ground . Hitherto he has described my opinion as an assertion , now he says ,
" the writer proceeds to give a reason not , I venture to think , very conclusively for his assertion . " At the outset the " assertion" I did not make was no " proof , " but here the " reason" for this assertion is not conclusive . I venture to think I convict our Rev . Bro . of a want of logical tact . I fully concede that my opinion may be wrong ; but why this confusion between an " assertion" I never made , and a " reason" which is not conclusive . I will further ask him how a
reason which is only not conclusive can be irrevelant . Again , "it is an easy reply to any case of distress that there ia something wrong , but that is neither charitable nor relieving . " In the next paragraph , my reason is " a vote of censure on the Devon , shire brethren , as I suspect , very undeservedly . " Can Dr . Ace have read the whole of my letter ? I said , towards the end of it , " I know
there have been other cases emanating from Devonshire , and these may hare commanded , and , no doubt , justly commanded most of the support , directly or indirectly , of the Province . " Surely , these words , if they have any meaning at all , do actually furnish the only explanation which is possible of the apparent indifference of the Province to this particular case . I fancy , indeed , this explanation is not so un >
complimentary as the suggestion contained in Dr . Ace ' a letter , pub . liahed in your columns last October . He then wrote , " Why the Province of Devon has not taken up this deserving case , I know not ; except it be that the widowed mother has removed from Devonshire to Glebe Cottage , Staustead , Sudbury , Suffolk . " That is , Devon forgot all about a distressing and deserving case , when the widowed
mother removed to another Province .
Will Dr . Ace kindly point out where I have laid it down that " no distressing case is to be placed on the list of the Committee , unless the parties to the recommendation are prepai'ed to carry their candidate successfully . " I merely reiterated a suggestion , I fancy I have seen in the columns of your Journal , " that brethren should not permit an applicant ' s name to be placed on the list of candidatea
nnless they are prepared to support him ( or her , aa the case may be ) thoroughly . " I need hardly point out to our reverend and learned brother that there is a wide distinction between carrying a candidate successfully and supporting him thoroughly . It is in no man ' s power to command success , but in every one ' s to work for it . I should be trespassing unduly on your valuable space if I followed
Dr . Ace through all the points he baa raised in hia letter of last week . I fully agree with him , that " it will not add to our reputation for Masonic charity if it be known as a matter of fact that a poor orphan is not to be aided on the merits of his case , but solely on account of his being theprotige" of the influential aud wealthy . " But may I ask what this ha » to do with the question I have raised ? If I have