-
Articles/Ads
Article TO THE EDITOR. Page 1 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To The Editor.
TO THE EDITOR .
Sin , —I have lately read several papers on the uses and abuses of Freemasonry , and it is a subject which has engaged my attention for some time . I cannot think of it without feelings of the deepest regret , for I have an impression upon my mind , that Masonry—original Masonry—will , ere long , be entirely lost sight of , —indeed it is almost so already . I meet with other Brethren of the same opinion . The desire for change is , generally speaking , a dangerous propensity , particularly
so in ancient institutions ; and 1 have observed , that for the last thirty years , there have been in Masonry such frequent and unwarrantable changes , such " innovations on the ancientlandmarks , " such " dissenting from the original plan of Freemasonry , " that I am fearful of results fatal to the interests of genuine Freemasonry . I can scarcely go into any two towns in the Provinces and see the same mode of working in eacheither as regards Craft or Arch Masonry ; indeedI am a member
, , of two Lodges in neighbouring towns , and occasionally visit a third town , and , strange to say , in each of these three Lodges the mode of working differs materially . In the Lodge where I reside , we practise the system , or reputed system , of the Union , as at present practised by the Emulation Lodge of Improvement . The other Lodge to which I belong , practise what they term the Shadbolt system ; and the third practise what they term the system of Dr . Hemming ; and as the Doctor was
Master of the Lodge of Reconciliation , they pride themselves upon the purity of their mode . AVhat then , I would ask , was the object of the Union , twenty nine years ago ?— " To effect the most perfect unity of obligation , of discipline ,
of working the Lodges & c . ; so that but one pure unsullied systemaccording to the genuine landmarks , laws , and traditions , of the Craft —shall be maintained , upheld , and practised , throughout the Masonic world until time shall be no more . "—( 3 rd Article of Union ) . Which object has never yet been carried into effect ; indeed , it never was attempted , beyond the limits of the bills of mortality . —How , then , can it be expected , that there should be a perfect unity of system
throughout the Lodges holding warrants undei-jj the United Grand Lodge ? I am residing two hundred miles from London ; and about a fortnight ago , a very intelligent Brother and Past Master , from one of the eastern counties , ( Norfolk , 1 think ) , visited our Lodge , where he witnessed an initiation according to the Union system ; he afterwards expressed his surprise to me , at the great difference between his own and our mode ;
and said he had never seen the ceremony performed in that manner before . Is there , then , no possibility of remedying ( his ? I read in Preston , p . 370 , 15 th edition , that on St . JohiVs-day , 18 l ' . 5 , the day of the Union , in Grand Lodge assembled , " The recognised obligation was pronounced aloud by the Rev . Dr . Hemming , the whole Fraternity repeating the same with joined hands . & c & c . " And yet , in the three Lodges above alluded tothey use three different obligations ; and in
, the Lod ge professing to use Dr . Hemming ' s , the obligation differs materially from the Union mode . How are we to arrive at the right onethe one " pronounced aloud by the reverend Doctor ? " In the Lectures , however , there is a still greater difference ; and I cannot learn that any authorised change took place at the Union in the old lectures , which
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To The Editor.
TO THE EDITOR .
Sin , —I have lately read several papers on the uses and abuses of Freemasonry , and it is a subject which has engaged my attention for some time . I cannot think of it without feelings of the deepest regret , for I have an impression upon my mind , that Masonry—original Masonry—will , ere long , be entirely lost sight of , —indeed it is almost so already . I meet with other Brethren of the same opinion . The desire for change is , generally speaking , a dangerous propensity , particularly
so in ancient institutions ; and 1 have observed , that for the last thirty years , there have been in Masonry such frequent and unwarrantable changes , such " innovations on the ancientlandmarks , " such " dissenting from the original plan of Freemasonry , " that I am fearful of results fatal to the interests of genuine Freemasonry . I can scarcely go into any two towns in the Provinces and see the same mode of working in eacheither as regards Craft or Arch Masonry ; indeedI am a member
, , of two Lodges in neighbouring towns , and occasionally visit a third town , and , strange to say , in each of these three Lodges the mode of working differs materially . In the Lodge where I reside , we practise the system , or reputed system , of the Union , as at present practised by the Emulation Lodge of Improvement . The other Lodge to which I belong , practise what they term the Shadbolt system ; and the third practise what they term the system of Dr . Hemming ; and as the Doctor was
Master of the Lodge of Reconciliation , they pride themselves upon the purity of their mode . AVhat then , I would ask , was the object of the Union , twenty nine years ago ?— " To effect the most perfect unity of obligation , of discipline ,
of working the Lodges & c . ; so that but one pure unsullied systemaccording to the genuine landmarks , laws , and traditions , of the Craft —shall be maintained , upheld , and practised , throughout the Masonic world until time shall be no more . "—( 3 rd Article of Union ) . Which object has never yet been carried into effect ; indeed , it never was attempted , beyond the limits of the bills of mortality . —How , then , can it be expected , that there should be a perfect unity of system
throughout the Lodges holding warrants undei-jj the United Grand Lodge ? I am residing two hundred miles from London ; and about a fortnight ago , a very intelligent Brother and Past Master , from one of the eastern counties , ( Norfolk , 1 think ) , visited our Lodge , where he witnessed an initiation according to the Union system ; he afterwards expressed his surprise to me , at the great difference between his own and our mode ;
and said he had never seen the ceremony performed in that manner before . Is there , then , no possibility of remedying ( his ? I read in Preston , p . 370 , 15 th edition , that on St . JohiVs-day , 18 l ' . 5 , the day of the Union , in Grand Lodge assembled , " The recognised obligation was pronounced aloud by the Rev . Dr . Hemming , the whole Fraternity repeating the same with joined hands . & c & c . " And yet , in the three Lodges above alluded tothey use three different obligations ; and in
, the Lod ge professing to use Dr . Hemming ' s , the obligation differs materially from the Union mode . How are we to arrive at the right onethe one " pronounced aloud by the reverend Doctor ? " In the Lectures , however , there is a still greater difference ; and I cannot learn that any authorised change took place at the Union in the old lectures , which