The Philadelphia Question.

brother invented a series of decrees , viz ., " Ancient and Accopted Eitf , " and crowds of our silk stocking brethren believe that said Rito is ancient ; another invented degrees , which he called tho " Primitive Kite , " and crowds of cotton stocking Masons now swear that it is a Primitive Rite . I reallv cannot understand how Masons who teach

that " truth is a divine attribute , and the foundation of every virtue , " shonld so zoatbusly come forward in defenco of those inventors and inventions , whilo the oxposorof thoso errors is compolled to vim the ganntlet . This proclivity on tho part of Masonic writors to falsify history , imposes upon tho Masonic student tho necessity of extra caution .

Thns , in studying any branch of history ( early ecclesiastical history always excepted ) wo may , as a rule , believe in tho statements made in original records , or by contemporary writers ; but in studying Masonic history , we are first bound to ascertain whether the records are original , and whether tho contemporary writers are reliable . For instance , since 18421 have been assured again and again by high

authorities that the Massachusetts Grand Lodge possessed original records from 30 th July 1733 . In 1867 , when conversing with . P . G . M , Dr . Winslow Lewis about tho claims of New Jersey to Masonic priority in America on account of Daniel Coxe ' s deputation of 1730 , " Oh ! " replied Bro . Lowis , " New Jersey has not got a sorap of

record of that period , while wo have original records from 1733 . " In I 860 , tho said records were submitted to'my examination , and in less than n quarter of an hour I became fully satisfied that up to 1750 Massachusetts had no record at all . And what is more , I found the whole record from 1733 to 1750 abounding in mis-statements .

Now , nnder date 21 th June 1734 , is the following paragraph : — " About this timo our Worshipful Bro . Benjamin Franklin , from Philadelphia , became acquainted with our Rt . W . Grand Master Mr . Price , who further instructed him ( Franklin ) in the Royal Art , and the said Franklin , on his retnrn to Philadelphia , called the brethren there together , who petitioned our Rt . W . G . Master for a constitution

to hold a Lodge ; and our Rt . W . Grand Master having this year Teceivod . orders from the G . L . of England to establish . Masonry in all North Amorica , did send a deputation to Philadelphia , appointing the Rt . W . Benjamin Franklin first Master , which is the beginning of Masonry there . " Since 1792 , when the Rev . Bro . Harris ' s history of Masonry in

Massachusetts was printed , until I overhauled the record in 1869 , every one believed in the above paragraph . In Moore ' s " Life of Price , 1857 , " he assures us that Franklin ' s warrant " bears date June 24 tb , 1734 , " & c , & c , though Franklin ' s petition was not written before the 28 th November following ; as Moore was a very high , authority , no one doubted his statements .

In January 1874 , Bro . MacOalla ' s article appeared in the " Masonic Magazine , " in which he stated , " The City of Boston , Massachusetts , is the mother of American Masonry . . . And from this G . L . the earliest Lodges in Pennsylvania , Virginina , Maryland , New Jersey , North Carolina , South Carolina , & c , & c , owed their origin . " In my article , in the same magazine , of April ensuing , I called

Bro . MacCalla ' s attention to Franklin ' s letter of 28 th November 1734 , signed "B . Franklin , G . M ., " and further informed him , that Hyneman ' s Register refers to a Masonic meeting in 1732 , at Philadelphia , and advised him to look over the Philadelphia newspapers of that time , & c . My arguments turned Bro . MacCalla ' s Masonic history topsy tarvy ; and Masonic fashion , he jumped from one error into another . Having

found out that in 1730 Coxe got a deputation , and that in 1732 a G . L . was organised at Philadelphia , he put this and that together and made one out of the two . And as soon as Bro . MacCalla proclaimed that he saw ( metaphorically speaking ) the Philadel phia tail wag tho lion , a crowd of Masonic luminaries immediately believed in the wagging lion . Now , as I was really the instigator of Bro .

MacCalla ' s researches , and as I am not over and above in Iovo with the G . L . of Massachusetts , I would have been anything but sorry had the pride of the Massachusetts G . L . been pulled a little further down . But , as I do not allow my likes and dislikes to bias my judgment on historical questions , I was compelled to take issue with Bro . MacCalla ' s assumption .

In my subsequent reply to Bro . MacCalla , I called his attention to the strongest evidence on his side , viz ., the letter of Henry Bell , of 1754 ( already quoted in this paper by Bros . Gould and Hnghan ) , which had slipped Bro . MacCalla ' s memory . But I added my want of faith in its authenticity . The existence of that letter was first revealed to the world at the dedication of the Philadelphia Masonic

Temple , in 1873 , and but a fragment of it was quoted by the orator . The questions I asked were , —Who has got that letter ? Why do they not print tho whole document ? and how came that letter to be preserved from 1754 to 1873 ? These questions must bo answered before the said letter is admitted as evidence ; we must also be satisfied that the letter is genuine , and that the writer of it was reliable . The late

Bro . Leon Hyneman , a Philadelphia P . M ., told me that he did not believe in tho said letter , and he wrote the same to P . G . M . Nickorson , of Boston . I shall now call attention to a fact which ought to shako tho credulity of even Bros . Philadelphos and Hnghan . I have referred above to Hyiienmii ' s Register , which was published in 1860 . I glanced

over the said work long before J . began to write for the Masonic press . Therein I lirst read Franklin ' s letter , and also about tho Masonic ingathering at Philadelphia 1732 . I also remembered some allusion therein to Thomas Oxnard having granted a charter or deputation to Philadelp hia . A few clays ago I thought that I ought to refresh my memory about these subjects , and the following paragraph therefrom will I hope throw new light upon the question at issue . Bro .

Hyneman ' s book says ( p 3 oo)—" On the 10 th of July 1749 , Thomas Oxnard , Esq ., who had received the appointment of Provincial Grand Master of North America , appointed Benjamin Franklin , Esq ., Provincial Grand Master of Pennsylvania , with authority to appoint other Grand Officers , to hold a Grand Lodge , i .-wio warrants , & o . Under fchis warrant a Grand Lodge was held on tho 5 th of September 5749 , at the ' Royal Standard , ' on Market-sU-eet , near Second ; and Grand Master

The Philadelphia Question.

Franklin appointed Dr . Thomas Bond D . G . M . ; Joseph Shippen S . G . W . ; Philip Syng J . G . W . ; William Plnmsted G . Treasurer ; Daniel Bylos G . Secretary . At the same meeting a warrant was granted for a new Lodge in the City of Philadelphia to James Pogreen and others . At a communication of the Grand Lodge , held 13 th March 5750 , William Allen , Esq ., Recorder of the City of Philadelphia ,

presented his commission from tho Grand Lodge of England , appointing him P . G . M . His commission was recognised , and he appointed Benjamin Franklin D . G . M . " To which Bro . Hyneman adds : — " The record from which we extract the above states , 'As far as the minutes of the modern G . L . go , Dr . Franklin was never absent from the meetings . '"

Having discussed the two theories advanced for the origin of legitimate Masonry in Philadelphia , and having shown that both are untenable , I shall now proceed to argue , from the above paragraph , that Oxnard was the actual foundor of legitimate Masonry there . Henry Price claimed to have been appointed in 1733 P . G . M . of New England , and to have received from the G . L . of England , in 1734 , power to establish

Masonry in all North America . I believe that his claims were unfounded . Bnfc be that as it may , Robert Tomlinson was certainly appointed P . G . M . of New England , in 1736 . Tomlinson was lost by shipwreck in 1742 , or 43 ; then Oxnard succeeded Tomlinson , with the additional title of P . G . M . of North America ; or at least , over those colonies where no P . G . M . was appointed by the ~& . h . of

England ; and his deputation was dated 23 rd September 1743 . Now , it seems that in 1749 Messrs . Allen , Franklin , and Co ., of Philadelphia , got tired of playing bogus Grand Masters , and were desirous of having a G . M . appointed by the G . M . of England . And as the English G . M . would have refused a deputation to bogus Masons , hence Oxnard made Franklin G . M ., in 1749 a Philadelphia G . L . was

established , & c , & c ; and this appointment by Oxnard answered the purpose ; for Bro . Allen received from Lord Byron ( the English G . M . ) a deputation a few months after Oxnard established legiti . mate Freemasonry in Pennsylvania . Within a few days Bro . P . G . M . Nickerson called my attention to a minute in the Boston G . L . record . under date April 10 th 1752 ; viz .

" For the Lodge at Philadelphia , Bro . MaoDaniel appeared , and paid for their Constitution £ 3110 s . " * The above minute confirms the truth of Bro . Hyneman ' s quotation from a Philadelphia record of the Franklin G . L . When I wrote upon the Philadelphia subject about four weeks ago ( the paper was differently headed ) I intended to find serious fault

with Bro . Gonld for the hesitating and ambiguous style of his first communication . But in the succeeding articles he makes amends , and we now stand on the same platform on the Philadelphia question , Bro . Gould disbelieves that No . 79 was a Philadelphia Lodge , and disagrees with the interpretation ascribed to tb . e Henry Bell letter , if he does not even doubt its authenticity . So far so good . But I

think that he ought to have given Bro . Hughan's knuckles a few sharp raps , which he richly deserved . Instead of doing so , in order to comfort Bro . Hnghan , Bro . Gonld made suggestions as unfounded and opposed to reason as the Coxe-Philadelphia theory itself . To remove a cancer effectually , every rootlet and particle must be cut out , and the same must bo done when removing Masonic errors . I

wish Bro . Hughan , from the bottom of my heart , all the comfort m the world he desires , save and except the comfort of indulging in Masonic errors ; for he is justly accepted as a great Masonic authority , hence his indulgence in error is apt to make a great number of converts ; and this very diffusion of error goes , as it were , against my grain . Now , to comfort Bro . Hughan , Bro . Gould assures him that

he agrees with him in the belief " that the entry in the Dublin Pocket Com / panion referring to Lodge No . 79 was no invention of the [ Dublin ] compiler . " And he intimates that the Dublin editor copied " No . 79 , Hoop , etc ., Philadelphia , " from an English Lodge list of 1734 . That " 79 , Hoop in Water Street , " etc ., is a pure fabrication , Bro . Gould does not deny . But why he attributes the said fabrication to an

English Mason of 1734 , instead of to an Irish Mason of 1735 , is more than I can conjecture . Surely English Masons have enough sins to answer for in the fabrication line , and I cannot see why Bro . Gould shonld take the trouble of laying an additional sin upon English shoulderswhen the evidence clearly denotes that the sin belongB

, to an Iri 3 h shoulder . Bro . Gould ' s suggestion abont a pictnre of a tun having been mistaken for a picture of a hoop , is equally farfetched and unfounded ; for I do not believe that either a Philadelphia tun , or a Philadelphia hoop , was ever engraved on an English Lodge list . Let us not forget the adage , —

" A man convinced against his will , Remains of the same opinion still . " Hence , while Bro . Hnghan at last submits to Bro . Gould's decision on the question at issue , the suggestions _ of Bro . Gould above referred to , may , I very much fear , cause in Bro . Hughan ' s mind

a revival of all the errors against which I have been contending . In conclusion , I thank Bro . Gould for the trouble he has-taken on behalf of reason and truth , and I hope aud trust that in the next editioTi of Bro . Woodford ' s Cyclopaedia the account of the origin of legitimate Masonry in Pennsylvania will differ from that of tho first edition of said work .

Boston , U . S ., 7 th January 1881 .