American Masonic Notions In The Second Decade Of This Century.

The above paragraph was italicised by Bro . Greenleaf , in his book , for the purpose of calling the reader ' s attention to the great piety of tho then Grand Master of New Hampshire But nevertheless , so far , it seems to have been recommendations , and recommendations only ; but , says oar author : —

" The earliest actual appropriation of the Funds of any Grand Tjod ^ e is believed to have been mad e by that of Vermont . Prior to June 1818 they appropriated one hundred dollars to the Vermont Bible Society , and thirty dollars more to the American Bible Society . " That was not all , —for they mado their " Grand Chaplain

a member for life . " I find also that Jordan Lodge , of Danvers , Massachusetts , sent thirty dollars to a missionary in Ceylon , and promised to send tho same sum annually , but I doubt whether the Lodge kept its promise . The Rev . Bro . Roberts showed me some newspaper scraps ,

giving the name of a Rev . Brother of that time who actually tried to bluff and browbeat a Lodge into a belief that , whereas some Lodges have contributed to missionary funds , therefore it was already an ancient Masonic landmark for Lodges to contribute to missionary purposes . the of its

The Lodge , however , deemed ^ needs own poor brethren at home of more importance than that of preaching to heathens . That , however , seems to have been the end of the new American Masonic craze . At all events , we hear of no more appeals for missionaries and for Bible Societies after the end of 1820 .

Bro . Greenleaf s lectures show unmistakable piety , but not the kind of piety which is peculiar , as a rule , to pious Masonic writers . Bro . Greenleaf did not invent lies for

benefiting the Church , nor did he defend lies invented by others , when knowing them to be such , for the above purpose . Bro . Greenleaf , indeed , wrote some nonsense , but I am persuaded that he conscientiously believed in his nonsense ; so we should not blame him for it . If parts of

his belief was wrong , m some parts he was right . For instance , he did not believe that Masonry originated at the building of King Solomon ' s Temple , and that Jews of olden times had anything to do with Masonry- Hern I

think Bro . Greenleaf was ri ght . But he imagined that operative Masonry was not the origin of our Masonry ; his head was full with theories about the Mysteries of the Druids , of Pythagoras , of Grecian and Roman Mysteries , and his Masonic " castles in the air " were built

accordingly . Thus the word Mason , he says , was derived from May ' s-son , " a devotee of the goddess of Justice . " Even the Hindoos , he says , had a "Maya . " It is highly probable , he says , " that it was in France that the term May ' s son was first applied to the worshippers of Maia , "

meaning " the first Cause . " But here is something more startling . " A similar mistake from the word Shibboleth , which is found ( he says ) in some ancient traditions of Masonry , and which has occasioned the belief that our Order was once exclusivel y Jewish ; but this word is

probably a corruption of another , the original of which is to be sought in the mythology of the Greeks and Romans , " for which theory he furnishes several illustrations . In a previous page , he said the French called Pythagoras Petagora , and our English brethrenin the

, days of Henry VI ., called him Peter-Gower , and as the name of Pythagoras was changed , so were some things changed into Mason and into Shibboleth . Again , Brother Greenleaf doubted whether the

Saints John were Masons ; furthermore , he looked upon mints' patronage as a Papal superstition , and the following will show that he did not know that St , John the Evangelist was elected Grand Master of Masons when he

was upwards of ninet y years of age . On page 86 he "Whether these holy men [ the Sts . John ] actually patronized » aaoury , or whether their names were assumed as the patrons of adrf f 7 ' - th ° 8 ° days of an P erstitl ' on , when every sect and fraternity impo t , t 8 „ tnte , n , | , y Saint ; are questions rather for curiosity than

,, ^ - Greenleaf believed the antiquity of our symbols , « ftt ia , not only the symbols which are known to English ^ asons , but also the symbols that Thomas Smith Webbmanufactured in 1797 , for the American ritual . Ail which io . trreenleaf supposed to have descended from antiauitv . ed

thoD ^ ' y traces al 1 of them to the mysteries of nw 0 r - i other Da S mysteries , and even to the afrpi Te l° ° earI * Christians , for the early Christians of fh a £ tl 8 m WOTe a white robe from which the white apron whit . ! T WaS ' derived - ^ eed , he even shows that robes were copied by Christians from the pagan

American Masonic Notions In The Second Decade Of This Century.

mysteries . The Knight Templars and ineffable degrees , he says , have not that distinguishing type which marks the others , viz ., the three first degrees , the former were formed for persons who bolievcd in Jesus Christ , and he goes on to say :

"But the Masonry of the three first degrees has not that distinctness of type which marks the othois . Like the remains of noma vast edifies of unknown sacrednes ? , which has been benten by storms of ages unnumbered , its general outlines and its gri-at proportions remain , while its lightly finis-hiuga are no longer discerned ; the pedestal and

the column still exist , but ruthless time has destroyed the characteristio ornaments of the tabluture . It is still recognized and admired as a venerable specimen of architecture , but the particular order is unknown . There is nothing to be fonnd in ancient Masonry that has

any relation to monkish leg ? ndt > , nor to chivalry , nor to the crusades . It breathes another spirit . Its traditions Lave no exclusive aud necessary reference to war , nor to tho second building of Solomon ' s Temple . They are more easily and naturally referred , as will be seen hereafter , to the religious ceremonies of earlier ages . "

An intelligent Mason will doubtless think that Bro . Greenleaf ' s notions about the origin of Masonry are very funny , and so they are ; but do we not find equally funny notions promulgated by learned brethren of to-day ? Just take up the Transactions of the Q . C . Lodge , last issued ,

and you will find therein even funnyer notions than those of Bro . Greenleaf , and not the least funny notion therein is the one urged by my esteemed friend Bro . Gould , that in the 14 th and 15 th centuries , Masons had Masonic degrees and speculative Masonry !

Bro . Greenleaf firmly believed in the York story of V-2 G Ho says :

" This tradition is placed boy on d reasonable doubt by the fact thnt the Grand Lodge has from time immemorial been holden at tbe Cii y of York , has been styled Ancient York Masons , and has i variably traced its existence to thii period . That appellation is well known , and invariably respected , in Europe and America Y « rk

was deemed the oiiginal sent of Masonio Government , npon tho priuoiple by which Lodges have since been subordinate to a Grand Lodge , is rather evident from the circumstance that no other pluco has ever pretended to claim it , and that the whole fraternity havo at various times acknowledged ailegianoe to the authority established there . "

Brother Greenleaf believed in the gonumeness of the Henry VI . MS ., which he inserted into his book , together with notes , glossary , & c . Tbe list of pre-1717 English Grand Masters he somewhat lengthened by beginning with St . Alban , 303 . He however added to the list King

Alfred , 872 ; Ethelred King of Morcia , " about 901 ; " and Ethelred , 920 ; he makes Edwin Grand Master in 924 , but King Athelstan is not mentioned . He also gives a list of

the Scotch Grand Masters , beginning with James I ., 1424 , tp James VI . Brother Greenleaf , however , did not know ( what is now well known to every Knight Templar ) about the Grand Mastership of Robert Bruce .

One more startling fact I must give . In one of his lectures Brother Greenleaf cites several prayers used in Lodges in his days , but not one of them is sectarian . We see now how Masonic notions in America have changed within the last seventy years ; then Lodge prayers wore

unsectarian , but now , as a rule , Lodge prayers are sectarian . Then , all agreed that it was the duty of Masonic Grand Lodges and Lodges to subscribe to Bible and Missionary Societies , but now intelligent and

wellinformed Masons cannot believe that such notions were ever entertained by Masons of seventy years ago , unless they see the fact in the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Maine of 1820 . BOSTON , MASSACHUSETTS , 9 th May 1890 .

At a recent meeting of the New Shoreham Local Board a letter was read from the Secretary of the Bnrrell Lodge , No . 1829 , stating that as the Board could not make the necessary alterations required by them , the Lodge would be removed to Brighton . Mr . E . R . Harmsworth

said he was sure the Board did not wish the Freomasons to leave Shoreham , aud if there was any possible means for them ( the Freemasons ) to be able to re-consider their decision , he hoped it would be done . He had been told that it was only one little thing they wanted , and that was , for the

Board to make a doorway through the little room adjoin , ing that Board room . He would propose , if it was in order , that a letter be sent to them , informing them that the Board would be willing to do anything for thera Mr . Spencer Reed seconded this proposition , which was carried .