Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

Hie Editor is not responsible for tlie opinions expressed by Correspondents . ARK MARINERS . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The suggestion of

Bro . " Lex" for trying the legality of the above degree reminds one of the Chinaman immortalized by " Elia , " who used to burn his house down whenever he wanted roast pork for dinner .

The Act 3 Q Geo . III ., cap . 79 , is a highly penal statute directed against secret political societies ' but is quite wide enough in its terms to include scores of very innocent social fraternities . Lodges of Freemasons are exempted , but the exemption is hampered with a variety of conditions and

formalities which , I am strongly inclined to think , would render it no exemption at all to the great majority of Masonic bodies outside the Craft proper ; if , indeed ( which I very much doubt ) , all Craft lodges are technically in a position to claim it . The practical exemption rests on the generally acknowledged

truth that Masonic bodies , whether consisting of craftsmen or of Masons who arc not only craftsmen but also members of one or other of the now unacknowledged degrees , are as a rule composed of men of private and political honour and integrity . I am not an " Ark Mariner , " and am disposed ,

quite as much as " Lex , " to deplore the multiplication of different Masonic jurisdictions ; but in the name not only of fraternity , but of common sense , do not let us invoke a penal statute to settle a purely Masonic question . Let the matter be simply brought before Grand Lodge . If they countenance the Ark

degree , well and good ; if they do not , and a handful of Masons still choose to personate Noah in the ark ( or even the animals ) , I don ' t think Masonry in general , or " Lex" in particular , will be very much the worse for it . Yours fraternally , A BARRISTER . Lincoln ' s Inn , 25 June , 1 S 70 .

HEAR ME ONCE MORE . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Dr . Samuel Johnson once addressed his friend Boswell after the following fashion , " If you are about attacking an infidel , begin with finding fault , if you cannot find fault with his logic , do so with his grammar . If he is

not good looking , find fault with his ugliness , in short he advised him to find fault with anything , with everthing , only find fault . " Our Bro . Carpenter has evidently taken a hint from Boswell ' s life of Johnson , for the first thing in his letter ( May 28 ) in reply to mine , begins with fault-finding , he intimates

that I have an "ill-temper . " Why ! my dear Sir and Brother , my wife , God bless her , thinks me an excellent tempered husband , my children think of mc the same as a father , so do my neighbours as a neighbour , and Bro . Geo . Kenning , with whom I once had the pleasure of conversing , must bear

witness , that I look anything but ill-tempered . So having disposed of these erroneous notions , I might now with equal reason retort , and charge my worthy opponent with ill-temper . This , however , I will not do ; I have no disposition to descend to personalities or fault finding . Indeed , I rejoice to acknowledge

my pleasure at finding that I was mistaken in Bro . Carpenter ' s and your own intentions . I may perhaps still misunderstand him , but I will do my best to give his ideas as I understand them now . Bro . Carpenter wishes that Jewish brethren should manifest no offence in a Masonic lodge , at his

eulogisingChristianityas his dearly-prized and cherished creed , upon which his faith and hope rests , which he would rather die than abjure , of his readiness if need be to stand up in its defence . And if a Jew is a Jew by conviction , he ought to listen with equanimity to Bro . Carpenter ' s declaration of the infinite value

of the Christian religion . Now I have shown Bro . Carpenter's remarks to brethren , members of Evangical Churches , some ofthe best I mpered men I am acquainted with , and they admitted that the infinite value of my religion , implies the finite value , or the no value oi your religion , in short , it is vaunting

the superiority of my religion , over every other oae ' s present . But Bro . Carpenter adds , " providing it is not done unnecessarily or in an offensive manner . " Very well . You will now pardon me for prefacing my remarks with an anecdote . I recently attended a meeting

of the Society of Arts , ( Boston . ) where , as usual , new inventions are exhibited and explained . Among others , Mr . Jones , was invited by the chaiimin to explain some improvements in a tubular boiler , which he exhibited , Mr . ( ones thereupon brought

upon the stand , a folio manuscript volume of about one hundred pages , and very deliberately began with the beginning of steam boilers , he next started to describe the laws and nature of steam , and then launched into the biographies of Black , Watt , Foulton . Stevenson , & c , & c , all which , was of

Original Correspondence.

course familiar to every one present since the days of their boyhood , By degrees impatience began to manifest itself . The worthy Professor who presided over the meeting , after turning his head to the right and to the left , turned round to the speaker , very good temperedly , as good tempered as I was when

I wrote my letter , and politely said , " Excuse me Sir , there is really no necessity here of all this explanation . " Now , if a Mahometan , a Hindoo , a Japanese , a Mormon or even a Jew , was desirous of addressing a lodge about the infinite value of his religion , there

might be some necessity to listen to him or them . Because , all religions but the Christian , are painted in every Christian Church , in the blackest colour , and as all the members of the lodge , might never before have had an opportunity of listening to either or all of their religionists on the subject of their

respective creeds , an explanation of that kind would at least tend to impart information , that might be new to most , if not to all the members present . We do not indeed admit the propriety of allowing these subjects to be discussed at all in a Masonic lodge , but yet , there might be some mitigating excuse if the

religion to be explained was an outlandish religion . But Bro . Carpenter wants the liberty of expatiating in a lodge on the infinite value of Christianity . Now , might not some one turn round in the middle of Bro . Carpenter ' s discourse , withan " Excuse mc , Sir , there is really no necessity here of all this explanation . " Is

there a man in an English lodge , to whom the information of Bro . Carpenter or anyotherChristian brother , on the same subject , would be very new ? Why , my dear brother , even Bro . Moses , of Dukes-place , could assure Bro . Carpenter that he can scarcely leave his door or window open for a minute without

finding the floor covered with tracts about the infinite value of the Christian religion ; and if Bro . Moses is not too polite , he might add that he had already been over-dosed ad nauseum with the subject . But that is not all . What necessity is there in a Masonic lodge , where no one ' s religion is disputed ,

for anyone to tell the brethren that he is ready " to stand up in defence of his religion , " or to proclaim that " he is ready to die for his religion , " where nobody has the slightest idea of killing him for it . Such expression may be very appropriate in a Knight Templar Commandery , but certainly not in

a Masonic lodge . Having shewn that there is not the least necessity for introducing these disturbing elements into a a lodge , I come now to the second proviso—viz ., " providing it is not done in an offensive manner . " Now , how is that to bc ascertained beforehand ?

If Bro . Carpenter , or any other brother , begins to address the lodge on the infinite value of hisreligion , who can foretell that it will not be offensive to some ofthe brethren ? In order to obviate giving offence , I think it will bc more than just for the W . M . to ask permission of the lodge- visitors included—to

put the question thus : "Are you willing to listen to Bro . on the subject of the infinite value of his religion ? " And when so put , how many lodges will you find within a radius often miles from St . Paul ' s who would unanimously consent to such a proposition ?

The truth is , Bro . Carpenter and myself agree perfectly on the most essentia " , points . Wc fully agree that eveiy man , and woman , too , should obtain the fullest information regarding the religions which divide mankind . We agree to the fullest

hbery of discussion on religion , both in print and otherwise . But yet I maintain " that there is a time and place for all things , " and that a Masonic lodge is not the proper place for such questions to be discussed in . We must remember that free

discussion is a two-edged sword . If wc allow the Jew and Christian to advocate in a lodge the infinite value of either religion , wc must also allow the believer in natural religion a chance of expatiating on the infinite value of his religion . The result may be , that a brother who may have entered the

lodge a firm believer in Christianity may go home with some doubts on his mind . This may come to the ears of the bishop . The bishop may in the House of Lords denounce Masonic lodges as infernal hot-beds of infidelity . The Protestant Church may unite witli the Pope of Rome against us ; pious

maidens will shun the acquaintance of young Masons ; pious wives will prevent husbands being initiated ; and what will become of our dearly cherished institution , when bishops , churches , popes , wives , and sweethearts declare open war

against us ? With the best wishes for the health and happiness of our worthy though erring brother , and also yourself , and with the best temper in the world , I have the honour to subscribe myself , Fraternally and respectfully yours ,

JACOB NORTON Boston , U . S ., ] unc 13 , 1 S 70 .

THE 1717 THEORY . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —On page 114 of pre

Original Correspondence.

sent volume of your paper occurs the following , signed " Homo " : — " In No . 26 of The Tatter , for 9 th June , 1709 , I find this passage , which seems to dispose of some of Bro . ' Leo ' s' ill-considered theories as to ' 1717 ' Freemasonry . The allusion made is to certain fops known then as

'Pretty Fellows' : — " 'You see them accost each other with effeminate airs—they have their signs aud tokens like Freemasons ' " In my humble opinion the writings of ' Leo' are to be classed with those of one Pinkerton , whose antimasonic lucubrations have been recently published , to the

disgust of many brethren , in the columns of your contemporary , the F . M . M . " It is a little odd , Bro . Editor , that this writer should have fallen upon exactly the same style and extent of evidence to demolish " Leo ' s " 1717 theory , and which is as well the theory of Bro .

Buchan , as did a prominent New York brother , in i 860 , in a contribution he made in that year to a small monthly published in the New York City , styled the Masonic Eclectic , and which was somewhat fully responded to by the Editor of the monthly magazine , the American Freemason . In

that response the point made was that had Sir Richard written just six years previous to the time he did , he should have lacked the illustration he used when speaking of the " Pretty Fellows . " If it were not too long , I would be pleased to have you reproduce the whole of that article for the

edification , if not satisfaction , of " Homo , " and brethren of his mode of thought ; but written for a monthly of some So odd pages the writer was at liberty to , as we say in the West , " spread himself ; " and which he does very extendedly , going into the history of Operative Masonry from the invasion of

Britain by the Romans , and bringing it down to the time of Sir Christopher Wren ; and when , after the completion of St . Paul ' s Cathedral , there were in London but four lodges of those Operative Masons extant . He also gives , in proof , the seal of the Freemasons' Company , copying it from the work

of Howe's , and showing that that seal was , with but a change of the crest—the substitution of a dove at rest for the bent arm and hand grasping a trowel—the arms or seal of the Grand Lodge of England until after the Union of 1813 , when the present arms or seal of the Athol Grand Lodge or Royal Arch was substituted . He shows that the

Freemasons' Company , or Companies , was organised in London in 1417 , at which time it received its seal and the No . 30—the same being its company number—and in accordance with which it would in all public processions take rank ; and . the seal , or arms , three castle towers on a silver field with the

compasses extended and supported at an angle of twenty-five degrees , surmounted by the crest cf a naked and bent arm grasping a trowel , and the whole supported by two beavers rampant . With no change , I repeat , except in the matter of the crest , this identical seal , or arms , was adopted

by the organisation of 1717 as that ofthe Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England ; and it remained unchanged by that body for nearly one hundred years , and until the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813 . I do not believe I can do the writer justice , however , in his closing

statements without copying him entire . Bro . Brennan has a flow of language at times , when he lets himself out , as he did in the case before me , that cannot very satisfactorily be condensed , and which by any attempt to do so would be greatly enfeebled . Will you , then , Bro . Editor , kindly grant mc space

wherein to copy the closing portion of his article ? I will begin where he is speaking of the Act of Parliament under which the Freemasons' Company was organised , in 1417 , and the later or 1425 Act , by which they were interdicted from assembling . He says : —

" This Act of Parliament has been made much of by our Masonic historians of the 19 th century to prove that Masonry , as wc have it , existed in England at the time of the passing of this Act ; but it is plain to the candid mind that it proves no such thing . The Freemasons , in common with other

free corporations or companies , enjoyed the privilege of making laws to regulate their business operations , and which laws were binding upon themselves and upon those who engaged their services , so long as they did not contravene the laws of England ; but in that event they had to be checked .

Possibly an historian for the free goldsmiths , free armourers , free joiners , or free corelwainers , did he but search with as much zeal for some recognition in past centuries of those companies among the Acts of England's Parliament , he might find equal notice taken of them . The whole pith and object of this Act amounts to nothing more than that the

pay demanded by these Operatives being considered excessive— those who required th r ici vices deemed it proper to have it reduced and fixed by an Act of Parliament . " We are not aware that any authority worthy of respect has ever attempted to prove that Masonry triginaled with Dr . Anderson , Dr . Desag ' uliers , and others , who fashioned the first Grand Lodge