Bro. Paton And The 1717 Theory.

BRO . PATON AND THE 1717 THEORY .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —It was with much sorrow that I perused the remarks by Bro . Paton at page 415 . I have hitherto advocated the idea that the words gentleman and Mason should be

equivalent , but I am very sorry to say that the word "gentlemanly " does not , under the circumstances , apply to the remarks at page 415 . About a year ago Bro . Paton was told—at his ( Bro . Paton ' s ) own request—who Bro . " Leo " was ; but that was sub rosa , and upon the understanding

that he was not to use the information . Yet we now find him—writing for a purpose— pretending not to know . He " supposes , " he " would fain know , " he " would be glad to know , " who Bro . Leo is ! Could anything be more unmanly ? He knows alreadyso do several other correspondents of THE

FREEMASON—who Bro . "Leo" is , so lie need not pretend ignorance . However , as I would take it , the great point is not , who is Bro . "Leo" ? but , what docs Bro . "Leo" say ? Bro . Paton finds fault with " Leo " for interfering anent the 1717 theory discussion , yet he confesses that " Leo" had " very little to say . "

Now , if " Leo " had so very little to say , what was the use of Bro . Paton making such a noise , and breaking faith , for so "very little" ? Although " Leo " said little , it was not because he had nothing new to say , for he could say a good deal—more , perhaps , ( to the point , too , ) than the Editor might

© are to publish—but because he did not wish to interfere any further than he could help ; and it must be remembered that " Leo " corresponded in THE FREEMASON long before anything appeared from " \\ . P . Buchan . " Further , why is it that Bro . Paton objects so strongly at " Leo" interfering ? Is

it because "Leo" is opposed to him ? If so , he mig ht also object to Bro . Hughan interfering at page 379 , or Bro . Lyon doing so at page 331 , or even to Bro . Doric ' s remarks at page 404 . I am afraid thai Bro . Paton , finding himself in a fix , docs not very well know what lo do , so for want of a

better excuse he attempts to throw all the blame of his failure upon "Leo , " for acting as the ghost of Bro . Buchan ! I trust that Bro . C . Goodwyn , at page 3 6 9 , was not allowing himself to be made a tool of to frighten away this terrible ghost . \ A 1 iat an awful thing it must be to have to fight a man and

his ghost too—more especially when one knows whose ghost it is ! ! \ A cre I the "champion" under such circumstances , instead of beginning to cry , and give out the key-note , Booh , boo , boo ! I should only be the more amused , and , giving my belt an extra pull , sing out , " Come on , Macduff ! "

However , to go back to Bro . Paton ' s objection to Bro . "Leo" interfering at page 3 6 7 : that interference , such as it was , was not Bro . " Leo ' s " blame , for it was Bro . Paton himself , who , at page 307 , opening up a new point , brought out " Leo " against himin short , ibis was simply a sort of side-light , and if

Bro . Paton feels that he has got the worst of it , lie should have kept quiet and not aired his supposed wrongs in the foolish—yea , even , as 1 judge , dishonourable , manner he lias done . As to the pseudo-heraldry Bro . Paton introduces , I can make nothing of it . Heraldic scholars , I

greatly fear , are rather scarce in Scotland , and if Bro . Paton knows no more of the subject than I do he knows very little indeed . AA'hal the original relation between the Buchans and the Buchanans was I do not know , unless the Buchanans were the little Buchans . The arms of the Buchanans of that

ilk is a lion ( lion rampant , sable ); not ' the crest . " The crest is a dexter hand holding a cap of maintenance , surmounted by a rose , between two laurel branches—if I remember correctly . The crest of some of the Buchans is a demi-lion rampant , & c , but whether Bro . AA . P . Buchan be descended from

some of the old s . iouuouut of Buchan , from the Comyns , or from some of their retainers , or otherwise , I do not know , any more than I know what that has to do with our discussion on the history of Freemasonry . Further . Bro . Paton is a Paton , so is Bro . Buchan , hence , what a wonderful discovery

it would be should they turn out to be forty-second cousins , and that , too , after all their lighting ! The hitters ancestors fought with the sword ; now , the race has become so degenerated that they light with the pen ! What are things coming to ? 1 am , yours fraternally , A \ . P . BUCHAN .

COSMOPOLITANISM AND SECTARIAN'ISM ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AMI BROTHER , —Bro . Jacob Norton is " still harping on my daughter . " His catholic spiiit has so toleration for sectarianism ; but I can't help thinking that in his zeal against

sectarianism he invests it with attributes which it does not possess , and gives it an aspect of unloveliess which is very unlike its true one . I leave it lo others more competent than myself to vindicate the reputation for honesty and ingenuousness of those early Masons lo whom we are indebted for our ritual , and , according lo the 1717 theory , for

Bro. Paton And The 1717 Theory.

laying the foundation of that system of moral teaching which it is the glory of Freemasonry to possess . My purpose is to submit—which I do with all deference— that there is an irreligious sectarianism as ugly in its aspect and as fierce and intolerant in its spirit as the narrowest religious sectarianism can be , and that Bro . Norton , in his ardour for "

universality , " unconsciously exhibits something of this spirit and aspect . Truth is precious to the man who has sought and found it , or who believes he has found it , and to demand of him so to ignore the fact that it shall never be known , or so to treat what to him is truth as if it were of no value ; is to demand of him that which is dishonourable alike to

truth and to his own moral obligations and responsibilities . I have , in a former communication ( in two or three , I might say ) , guarded myself against any just imputation of a desire to introduce sectarian disputation into Masonry , and I need not do it

again ; but while I am , as desirous as the Cosmopolitans " or " Universalists " can be to exclude religious discussions from our Masonic work and Masonic gatherings , I cannot consent to be any party to the sweeping away of those religious landmarks which have hitherto characterised the Craft ,

and which I hold to be the very foundation upon which it rests . AA e have the Bible in our lodges " to rule and govern our faith , " a circumstance which Bro . Norton seems to deplore , but which I trust will ever be found there , and for its present avowed purpose . But who are they to whom Bro .

Norton refers , who exhibit such ' sectarian hankering and bigotry " as to be desirous of seeing a law passed " to admit no disbeliever in the inspiration of the Bible" ? I have not heard of such brethren , and I doubt whether half a dozen such arc to be found . The proofs which Bro . Norton adduces of

such a desire fail of their purpose , for they not only fall far short of what he alleges as a fact , but they are the expressions of only two or three individual brothers , and cannot , therefore , be taken as the expression of the Craft . The Bible , as Bro . Norton says , consists of two

parts , one of which the Jew rejects , while the Mohammedan rejects both . But while the Jew accepts the Old Testament to " rule and govern his faith , " he cannot object to the Christian accepting both Testaments to " rule and govern his faith . " If he docs so , he caimot belong to the "

cosmopolitan " school , which is free from all " sectarianism" and "bigotry , " and is a model of the broadest toleration . As for the Mohammedan , he , I presume , must be left to take care of himself ; but I believe there will generally be found , among intelligent men who are still followers of the Arabian

Prophet , so much respect for the Bible that they feel no repugnance to its recognition as a " rule of faith " for Jews and Christians . To us—Jews and Christians—the Bible , as part of the furniture of the lodge , is " sacred scripture , '' " sacred law , " " morning star , " & c , and while we so regard and

reverence it , we must try to be indifferent to the charge of being under the domination of" sectarian prejudice . " I do not impute lo Bro . Norton any intention of magnifying or exaggerating thedifferences to be found in biblical manuscripts and translations , in order to

make it appear that there can be no sort ol unity in the Christian world , but if that be not his intention he writes very much as if it WCYQ . "The Catholic and the Protestant Bibles differ , " he says , " and besides these tivo there are fifty other translations , differing from each other . " Be it so . Is that anv

disparagement of the Bible ? If Bro . Norton were to translate the Odyssey , I may venture to say it would , in many respects , differ from the translation of Pope ; but the Greek text would remain the same , notwithstanding the differences in the translation ; and its value would not be lessened in the

estimation of scholars , because Jacob Norton rendered some of the Greek into English words differing from those used by Alexander Pope . " Besides , " he adds , " even the three oldest manuscript Testaments existing in the world differ from each other . " Why is this statement made ? Is is to damage

" sectarian hankering and bigotry , " or to damage the "Testament ? " Is it intended to put Masons out of love with " sectarianism , " or out of love with the Bible ? If the former , I fail to see its pertinence or potency ; if the latter , it is or . e of the very old devices of infidelity , which has been exploded again

and again . Like all other ancient writings , the Bible has suffered many mischances at the hands of those who have copied it ; and the hundreds of manuscripts which have been collated , exhibit many thousands of " various readings ; " but , as Tischendorf has said , " Providence has ordained for the New Testament more sources of the greatest

antiquity than are possessed by all the eld Greek literature put together , " and of these , the manuscripts to which Bro . Norton refers , as "differing from each other , and from the English version "—the Vatican , the Alexandria ? , and the Sinaitic ( which , it should be observed , contains the Old Testament as well as the New)—are especially esteemed by

Bro. Paton And The 1717 Theory.

scholars ; and , as the laborious and accomplished critic I have just named above observes , "True , ' the three great manuscripts alluded to differ from each other both in age and authority , and no one of them can be said to stand so high that its sole verdict is sufficient to silence all contradiction ; but , " he

adds , " no single work of ancient Greek or classical antiquity can command three such original witnesses as the Sinaitic , Vatican , and Alexandrine manuscripts , to the integrity and accuracy of its texts . " Yes , the three oldest manuscripts of both Old and New Testaments , differ from each other , and from

hundreds of other manuscripts in many thousands of places , but they do not exhibit such differences as Bro . Norton ' s manner of putting the fact would induce one who knew nothing of the subject to believe . Most of the differences are simply differences of orthography , as if the word honour were spelt in

one manuscript with the u , and in another without it . Many are simply diversities in the collocation of the words , as if one should say , " Jesus went up to Jerusalem , " and another should say " To Jerusalem Jesus went up . " Sometimes the article has dropped out , and sometimes an . accidental transposition of

words has taken place . Not fifty of the 150 , 000 " various readings" which the collation of Greek manuscripts has brought to light , make any change whatever in the meaning ; and those which seriously affect the sense may almost be counted on the fingers , while not a single difference is to be found

which throws doubt or difficulty on any point of faith or practice . The " obscurity " of sundry passages in the Bible need give us no more serious concern than its " various readings " should do . Like everything else worth understanding , the Bible must be studied ; and it will be time enough

to find objections to its place in a lodge of Craft Masons when any attempt shall be made to enforce a particular interpretation of its text , or to insist on a particular theory of its inspiration . Those who accept the Bible " to rule and govern their faith , " however much they may differ in their

interpretation of certain phrases , are not at all likely to quarrel over cither its " differences " or " obscurities " so long as they are left to criticise and interpret , each for himself , as all now are , any more than they arc likely to quarrel over two writers , because one has labour and the other labor ; or over two

newspapers , because one calls that the " Duchy" which the other calls " Luxembourg . " I believe it is in this case , as in many besides—we transfer to others , and that in an exaggerated degree , the notions and feelings which have a place in ourselves . The " sectarianism"attributed to those who accept the

Bible is , for the most part , imaginary ; that is , if the term mean ( as those who use it generally mean ) an exclusiveness and opposition in spirit and purpose . It is not a time to attribute this to them , when they are preaching in each other ' s churches and chapels , assembling together for the purpose

of public worship , contributing in common to circulate their common Bible throughout the world , and heartily and actively co-operating to furnish the means of relief to the wounded and comfort to the bereaved—to Prussian and French , Catholic and Protestant alike , without distinction . Yours fraternally , WILLIAM CARPENTER .

Presentation To Bro. H. J. Garnett, Wentworth Lodge, Sheffield.

PRESENTATION to Bro . H . J . GARNETT , WENTWORTH LODGE , SHEFFIELD .

This young and flourishing lodge held its regular monthly meeting on Munday , the 5 th inst ., in the Picemasons' Hall , Siiney-Nlrct'l , Sheffield . The lodge was opened by the AA ' . M ., Bro . 11 . Matthews , assisted by Bros . II . J . Ganiclt , I . P . M . ; Pfeilschmidt , S . AV . ; Ilcuthwnite , J . AV ., pro . tent . ; Wostinliolm , Sec . ; G . K . Bennett , S . D . ;

Sc . irgill , J . D . ; AA ' arcl , I . G . ; ami a number of members ami visitors , amongst the latter were Bros . Brittain ( AA' . M . 139 ) , Hay ( P . M . 139 ) , Piatt ( P . M . 139 ) , Collison ( S . W . 39 ) . Arnison ( P . M . 296 , and P . G . S . ) , Edwards ( Sec . 296 ) , . Siicklcy ( 2 y 6 ) , I Icutliw . iitc ( S . D . 1042 ) , Acton ( 409 ) , AVindtnarlch ( 444 India ) , Sugilcn ( 390 , America ) , Mabham ( 291 ")) , anil Winder A ' ant of Amsterdam . liro . Long < len ,

P . M ., P . Z . of 130 , and l' . l ' . G . J . D . of AVcst York , was elected as 1 Iimor . iry Mcniberoflhelodge . liro . Swift , having proved his efficiency , as a I- ' . C was ordered to retire , . iii ' l on being re-admitted was admitted lo lhe sublime degree of a M .. AI . The lodge being resumed in the first degree . Mr . G . Ii . Kllis was initiated in a very impressive manner . Labour being ended , the brethren adjourned to the

banquet , presided over by the AA ' . M . After the cloth was drawn , the usual loyal and Masonic toasts were given , ami heartily responded lo , when Bro . L CIXCDKN , P . M ., P . P . J . G . D ., rose and said :- " The toast I have now the honour to propose , is one that I am sure will he heartily responded lo , as it is the licall " of the worthy brother who has the honour of presiding ovct

our Judge as its Worshipful Master . Jt gives mcimich p leasure , indeed , lo submit this toast to you , as ever since lie was initiated in the Britannia Lodge , 139 , I have notice " the interest he has taken in the Craft , and have watched l » s progress with great delight . AVhen he had been a Mas »»

but six months , lie could give the charge ii : the first degree in such a very able and impressive manner , as to cause m ° lo . say Bro . Matthews will make a good AV . M . I thi " * brethren , lhe very excellent manner in which he invariably discharges the duties imposed upon him by his hig h office , proves I was not wrong hi my opinion , anal would strongly