Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

—?—The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressad by Correspondents .

BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Without incurring the imputation of obtruding myself into the question under discussion between Bros . Hughan and Norton , may I be permitted to ask our American brother , for purposes apart from Masonry , though

imported by him into it , who are the " professors in Oxford" who "deny the biblical account of the creation , " and where and in what terms the " Encyclopaedia Britannica" does the same thing ? Let it be noted that the allegation is , they " deny the biblical account of the creation . " It will not be

enough to reply that they interpret the biblical account differently to what some others , and probably most others , do ; that is , that they regard the Mosaic text as a poetical or an allegorical description of the Divine Work , as Bishop Colenso does , and as Mr . Godwin , the author of the article

in " Essays and Reviews " does ; or that they and others interpret the Hebrew word , which the English version translates " day , " as denoting an indefinite period—a period of any length which is in harmony with the subject to which it applies . But this cannot be said to be a new thing—a thing not known in 1813 , for it was a mode of interpretation

existing from the second century of the Christian era , and one that has long been maintained by scholars and divines , whose faith in the divine character of the Mosaic records is not to be questioned . It is the "denial "by the authorities Bro . Norton refers to that I ask him to help me to . Yours fraternally , WILL . CARPENTER .

FOUR GRAND LODGES FOR THE DOMINION OF CANADA . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR , —I have to-day received from the Grand Secretary Grand Lodge of New Brunswick , in the Dominion of Canada , a copy of the" Proceedings" of that body at its third annual session held in September last . In the address of G . M . Peters there is , in my opinion , the most perfectly intelligible presentation of the issue between the Grand Lodges of the two Provinces , heretofore best known as Canada proper , that during the year ending October last , I have seen in print . In it , I am happy to say , Bro . Peters does not only assert but fairly proves

that under neither bearing of the American G . L . jurisdictional rule the brethren of the Province of Quebec had the right to erect a Grand body far that Province . The effect , he says , of such erection would be that Ontario , as well , should have a Grand Lodge , and this necessarily would cause the

dissolution of the Grand Lodge of Canada , the parent bodyanda generally recognized Grand organization . Now while I grant this conclusion as inevitable as it is indisputable , I beg the favour of a column of your space in which to inquire : —ist , What , if any , improper result would ensue from this act ? 2 nd ,

What is the object and purposes of a Masonic Grand Lodge ? and 3 rd , If it be proved that no improper result can ensue from the dissolution of one Masonic Grand Lodge , and the erection in its stead of two Masonic Grand Lodges , what is there in the institution known as Masonic to prevent such

a condition ? It is evident to every man who has watched the outcry about " principle , " " Grand Lodge sovereignty , " & c , in this matter for the past year that at the back of all those fancy cries , there is something of far greater importance , and that something

is nearly 50 , 000 dollars in the possession of the Grand Lodge of Canada which rightfully , ancl in case she recognize fraternally the Grand Lodge of Quebec , she would have to divide pro rata according lo lodge membership in the respective provinces , with the latter . By the balance sheet

of the Grand Lodge of Canada , cast up to the 29 th of January , 1870 , and which appears in the last printed proceedings of that body , there were 40 , 382 . 57 dollars at that dale in the treasury of that Grand Lodge . This is all money or the representative of money , stocks and bonds of the Dominion

of Canada , or other equally good securities , and accumulating interest . By the present time this amount has probably been increased 10 , 000 dollars , as the d ' . " !' ., & c ., for 1869 were nearly that sum . -MV I as this G 1 . id Lodge pays no mileage or per .....: to its members , the money received for charter fees , dues , certificates , & c , all amounting to this sum f jr

a year , with the accumulation by interest on the large sum above , leave the nearly 50 , 000 dollars mentioned as probably in the treasury by this time . Of course were the Grand Lodge of Canada to recognize the Grand Lodge of Quebec , the next movement would involve the division of this Treasury—the lodges of the two Provinces having

Original Correspondence.

contributed this money—and such a division would be but eminently right and proper . The majority of the Quebec brethren , after a year spent in the occupancy of that position , are determined to have a Grand Lodge for that Province . This leaves the Grand Lodge of Canada—a title that under such

circumstances is a misnomer—the Province of Ontario only ; and its persistence in refusing to recognize the Grand Lodge of Quebec must have some more tangible basis than imaginary infraction of its authority . Is not the possession of 50 , 000 dollars a sufficiently tangible basis ? What else is

there involved in the issue that should continue this assertion of Masonic justice and fraternal right on the one hand , and the denial of the same on the other ? Will it be successfully affirmed that , had the Grand Lodge of Canada no greater Treasury this day than has the Grand Lodge of Quebec , so

persistent a stand would be maintained by the former ? How will either Canadian Masonry perse , or Masonry universal be injured , or suffer to the slightest extent by the dissolution of the Grand Lodge of Canada and the erection in its stead of the Grand Lodge of Ontario ? The same men ,

except residents of the Quebec jurisdiction , will probably become officers of the latter—is it supposable that it is those men who lead the maintenance of non-recognition?—assuredly it should not be conceivable that , at most , half-a-dozen men thus situated could rule this matter . And suppose that

under neither bearing of the " American rule" as to jurisdiction of Grand Lodges the action of the Quebec brethren is not right , who can successfully affirm that this " American rule " itself is right ; or is there nothing higher or better by which to determine this matter than a " rule" originally made by

a few malcontents who , when all Masonic authority was dead in that colony , erected themselves into a Grand Lodge for Massachusetts in 1777 , in defiance of every rule at that time known as to the manner of regularly organizing a Grand Lodge of Freemasons ? Are notjJMasonic justice and the rights of

brethren who , having elected that thenceforth they should as Freemasons govern themselves , to the best of their knowledge and ability and with no undue haste , proceeded to the formation of a Grand Lodge for that purpose , a higher consideration and more important than the rule styled " American , "

adopted in , or a year or so after , 1777 , by a then organization which , except by itself , was not recognized to any extent by Freemasons as a Grand Lodge for Massachusetts ? Is that which is establishedin assumption , in a country in a condition of rebellion , to be for ever after in Freemasonry

recognized as a rule that must govern in time of profound peace as in time of war ? 2 nd . What are the objects and purposes of a Masonic Grand Lodge ? This question would properly be introduced by a definition , of the objects and purpose of modern Freemasonry . It being ,

however , granted th it these are known to your readers , I will proceed to state that a Masonic Grand Lodge is a creation of Masonic , private , operative , or " subordinate" lodges , as the American preferred term is , and this creation is for the general government and better administration of justice

among such lodges . No Mason will assert tnat this is not true , or that any Grand Lodge is created for the benefit of Freemasons not members of its lodges . Now inasmuch as this condition may be considered indisputable , does it not follow that those who legitimately erected a Grand Lodge can

also legitimately dissolve the same ? Is the creation more enduring than its creator ? Is not Vox Populi Vox Dei in any organization of MEN ? Certain changes being considered reasonable and necessary for the perfect settlement of this question , what is there to prevent these changes having

place ? I have elsewhere , and before this said , and I think proved that a grand lodge is but a name , provided it has n » treasury to constitute something more . A grand lodge is a body composed of representatives from the lodges of a territory , province , state , principality , kingdom , empire , or any

other division of a territorial government . Those representatives elect officers for a Grand Lodge , to serve until their successors are elected and installed , and by this act a Grand Lodge is organized . The object of this body is to govern the lodges of its jurisdiction , and administer justice to every

brother therein . Such a body may be dissolved today by the voice of a majority of those representatives , and rc-crcctcd to-morrow under another name , if such be the wish of that majority . There has never been any dispute about the propriety of two or more Grand Lodges of Freemasons

uniting . Why should there be any dispute about one ( irand Lodge dividing into two or more ; or of one Grand Lodge dissolving and another thereupon , being at once erected with the materials of tlie first ? Than such erection following such

dissolution in the case present nothing can be more simple ; as , for example : To-day the Grand Lodge of Canada , in annual or emergent session , assembles , and is opened in ample form . A preamble and two resolutions are prepared . The adoption by a

Original Correspondence.

majority vote of this preamble , and the first of those resolutions dissolve the Grand Lodge of Canada for ever . The adoption of the second resolution and consequent action re-erects the Grand Lodge under its proper name of the Grand Lodge of Ontario First preamble and first resolution may read thus :

"Whereas circumstances , which the members of the Grand Lodge of Canada have been unable to control , having rendered the title , ' Grand Lodge of Canada ' a misnomer , therefore be it resolved : ist . That with the adoption of this preamble and resolution by a majority } of the members of this

Grand Lodge here present , the Grand Lodge of Canada is for evermore dissolved . " That being adopted , the next resolution would read : Resolved . 2 nd . That the Grand Lodge of Ontario be forthwith organised by the election of officers for that body . " This resolution being adopted , and the

election proceeded with to completion , and the officers-elect installed , the Grand Lodge of Ontario is thereupon properly organised for the dispatch of business ; the first business in . order being the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Quebec , and the division of the funds with that body on a pro rata basis .

3 rd . If it be proven , & c . To this third inquiry I answer—Nothing ! If any other answer can be satisfactorily given I would be highly gratified to see it in your columns . Grand Master Peters , following Grand Master Stevenson , asserts in his address to his Grand Lodge that in this Canadian

issue " the great doctrine of Grand Lodge sovereignty is on its trial . " Since when , may I ask those gentlemen , has Grand Lodge sovereignty beeen a " great doctrine" ? Would it not be as much in good taste , as truthful and appropriate , to speak of the sovereignty of the Canadian

Parliament as to speak of the sovereignty of the Grand Lodge of Canada , or any other body of the kind ? A Grand Lodge is a responsible , and not an irresponsible body . The convenience and accommodation of the creators of Grand Lodges are , taken , together , a much greater " doctrine " than the

sovereignty " of any Grand Lodge . Freemasons existed , increased , and performed their greatest works before Grand Lodges were invented ; and they would probably continue to perform all they arc performing were those " sovereignties " to the last one for ever dissolved . Lodges exist without

a Grand Lodge ; but no Grand Lodge can exist without lodges . Of itself , it is nothing but a name . Sovereignty , the lexicographers inform us , is " the right to exercise supreme power , or dominion . " In the matter of a Grand Lodge of Masons , how can this apply : Except for crime a Grand Lodge can

exercise over the individual no power at all , and then it can but confirm the vote of that body in which the criminal was convicted . How can this be called supreme power or dominion over any person or thing ? A little more modesty exercised by those eminent Grand Masters in their choice of terms would be praiseworthy , and the omission of

this virtue is much to be regretted . It is , possibly , from the recurrence of such expressions as that of Grand Masters Stevenson and Peters that inquiry follows as to whether an ulterior object is or not entertained by Freemasons generally , when they get entirely consolidated—an object not published on the house-tops nor intended to be known of all men .

I remain , fraternally yours , FLETCHER BRENNAN . Editor of the American Freemason .

Masonic Miscellanea.

Masonic Miscellanea .

—?—WE are glad to announce that all the Masonic meetings held at Freemasons '

Hall , Woolwich , retire to Bro . De Grey ' s for refreshment . The Nelson Lodge , No . 700 , now holds its banquets at Bro . De Greys ' .

ON the eve of the Anniversary Festival , in connection with which a strong appeal for support is made to the brethren , it must be very gratifying to those who wish well to the interests of this Educational

Institution to receive assurances and proofs of its efficiency and success . These are found in the fact that the whole of the pupils—six in number—who were entered for the

Cambridge Local Middle-class Examinations in December last , passed through the severe ordeal wilh credit . One attained honour in the second class , three in the third class , and two satisfied the examiners .