-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
ass , saying "that six means more or less ' than six ? " The public have an interest in knowing who is the professor who thus teaches our youth , destined for the highest professionsdivinity , law , and statesmanship—the elements of arithmetic and logic . But this is a professor ;
the assertion was of many , or certainly of more than one . It would , however , gratify one ' s curiosity to ascertain who even this one extraordinary professor is , and in what manner he inculcates his principles of arithmetic and logic . Where and in what terms does the Encyclopedia deny the biblical account of the creation ? I asked . Here
is the " reply : " It is needless to say that the seventh and eighth editions of the work maintain the anti-biblical theory of creation . " Proof is asked for , and we are told it is needless even to say it is so ! Brother Norton says he might have " said scientific instead of Oxford , " but , then , he
did not ; and that he might have said "the teachers of geology , " instead of the " Oxford professors , " but that would not have been so damaging as he intended , and so he unjustifiably put forward the Oxford professors . But the teachers of geology no more deny the biblical account of the
creation than the Oxford professors do . " The geologists , without exception , " he says , "deny or disbelieve the Mosaic account of creation . " Oh , my worthy Brother Norton , how is it you are in the habit of making such rash assertions ? You cite Mr . C . W . Goodwin , author of the
" Mosaic Cosmogony , " in Essays and Reviews , as your authority for this bold and unqualified assertion ; but Mr . Goodwin makes no such statement—he knew better than to do so . What lie says is , that " geologists of all creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense
series of years , and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from the first creation to the appearance of man upon its surface . " He does not say that this is in opposition to the biblical account , but in opposition to " the school-books of the present day . " That there are teachers of
geology as rash and reckless as Bro . Norton , I know ; but to say that the geologists—or , as he more precisely puts it , " geologists without exception "—are so , is to scandalise a large number of the most eminent teachers of the science , who maintain , and furnish good reasons
for so doing , that the facts of geology and the Mosaic narrative are in as complete harmony as if Moses had been acquainted with all the phenomena which the crust of the earth exhibits . Although Brother Norton has not answered my question , he has introduced into what he calls
his "Reply to Brother Carpenter , " several things that tend only to aggravate his original offence . As the great French Atheist said he could have made a better world than this if the work had been entrusted to him , so Bro . Norton suggests that he could have found a better word than
Moses has employed to describe the six stages of creation . Be it so . I am satisfied to accept the word Moses uses , in the same sense in which it is used in many other parts of the Hebrew text , to denote an indefinite period of time . Others may differ from me in this without denying the
Bible account of the creation , as Dr . Pye Smith , Dr . John Harris , and others , who so read the Hebrew narrative as , without doing violence to it , to understand the days ( famim ) of Gen . i ., 3 et sea ., as natural days of 24 hours each , while the original creation and antiquity of the earth ,
with all the geological changes it had undergone in its internal structure , are indicated in verses 1 and 2 . Brother Norton takes credit for not having " given his personal opinion upon Bible questions , " because , as he says , " the ventilation of such opinions must tend to the introduction
of religious discussion , which should be avoided among Masons . " But he lias taken pretty good care to let us know what his opinions are ; and I have yet to learn that any one is entitled to any credit for representing another man ' s belief in what he holds of all tilings the most
important , as false and ridiculous , by inuendo and suggestion rather than by the more manly course of direct and open assault . Neither Brother Norton ' s opinion nor mine , on the question under discussion may be of any value ; but while he prefers to express his disbelief in the Bible account of the creation by approvingly referring to
Original Correspondence.
taose whom he alleges to so disbelieve it , I express my unshaken belief in it , and deem it more consistent with a rational reading of history and the uniform experience of mankind , in the use and application of human language , to think that the Bible was not
intended to teach astronomy , geology , or any other branch of natural science—that it was not designed to teach either the mere facts or the philosophy of history , but to teach the doctrine of God ' s government of the world , and that the events related in proof or illustration of the
doctrine are matters of fact—actual occurrences , divinely attested . I hold that the obvious purpose of the sacred writer in Gen . i . is to teach the great truth , that God is the Creator of all things : and that all the nature of the case
requires is , that however authropomorphic and popular the language employed may be , the events related in illustration of the truth should be actual occurrences ; and in this both the Encyclopedist and the Oxford Professors agree with me , and not with Bro . Norton . WILLIAM CARPENTER .
PROXY COMMISSIONS TO GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read the remarks upon this subject in your last number , but consider the writer has sadly wasted his time , for two reasons . First . Masonic Proxy Commissions are not granted by " Letters of Attorney . " Second .
The Freemasons are a secret society , consequently I do not think the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer will , under the circumstances , " fash his thum '" about them and their proxies . As to the brother who is so wonderfully " desirous not only always to obey the law of the land himself , " & c , I suppose that is the same brother who
took such an extraordinary active part in this same matter at the last meeting of Grand Lodge , viz ., the W . M . of No . 3 bis , while the "Smillie" of "Smillie and Keith" is , I also suppose , the same Bro . Smillie who is also the Secretary of No . 3 bis . Further comment at present is unnecessary . 1 am , fraternally yours ,
A MEMBER OF THE G . L . OF SCOTLAND .
that whatever is said by me upon that subject tends to the overthrow of the generally accepted ideas regarding it , consequently from that fact alone whatever I may say is condemned by the many even before I have uttered it . I Am denounced as
THE 1717 THEORY . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In the position which I have taken up , after due consideration , as to the antiquity of our Freemasonry , I am aware
a Masonic heretic , while what I say which goes against the popular notions , is also , of course , rank heresy . Such being the case , 1 am all the more indebted to you therefore for the liberty which you have given me in expressing my views ; more
especially am I indebted to you at present for affording space at page 334 for the quotation I sent up upon the state of the building trade in the fifteenth century , of which " building trades " the Masons , or stone-cutters , only formed a section , with no distinction between them and the others
except in the material they wrought upon , the mason working the stone , the carpenter the wood , the smith the iron , and so on . Such a quotation at page 234 , and considering where it comes from , goes very far to answer the remarks of Bro . " Lupus " at page 223 . Further , Bro . "Lupus , " at page 233 states ,
, " 1 produced the statute of 1425 , which you printed in extenso . " Now you did not do so , simply , I suppose , because you did not get it ! As we perceive by turning back to page 641 , December 10 th , you only printed " cap . 1 , " which relates to Masons ; but where is cap . 2 , & c . ? However , as I already
stated , this first head of that statute simply refers to the meetings of the Masons as operatives , met to talk over their work and wages . If anything were necessary to prove this , we find it in this same statute itself , in the words " the good course and effect of the statutes of labourers be openly violate
and broken . " All the " speculative" Masonry here referred to therefore was the speculation of these " labourers" as to the best means of keeping up their wages , or of drawing an extra sixpence from the pockets of their paymasters . But as this was touching a tender point , down comes this 1425
statute in support of low charges—against the operatives , but in favour of those employing them . It had nothing earthly to do with what we nowadays know as " Freemasonry . " And in this view I am supported by several scholars , and also I consider by Toulmin Smith ' s " English Gilds , " and by
Original Correspondence.
the Aberdeen Burgh Records , many extracts from which I have already published ; and in reference to this the following from Bro . D . Murray Lyon ' s writings will also be useful : " There is no record extant , Masonic or profane , from which can be drawn any conclusion , further than that in their
organization the members of the Ancient Building Associations of Scotland were leagued together for the protection of their common rights , much after the manner of the trades' unions of modern times . " As it was with the Scots , so it was with the English . As to the imaginary " damaging little word
speculatyf , " it is neither " damaging " nor " little , " and simply means , as Mr . Bond , at page 234 , says " the theory of the science , " or as I expressed at page 642 , Dec . 10 th , it shows—accepting the legend pro tern . —he took an interest in the drawing and working out of the plans , f > c . most certainly not that
he knew aught of what we now know and practise as •'' Freemasonry . " Those who affirm otherwise are bound to prove the affirmative . More especially is Bro . " Lupus " bound to do so , if he can (?) after using such words as " mere bubble" to a theory which I deliberately challenge both him and all the
best Masonic writers in the world to upset . While as regards the remarks made by him at page 233 , the foregoing completely upsets them . Bro . " Lupus" will find it easier to run away from the 1717 theory , which he calls a " mere bubble , " than to burst it .
I am , yours fraternally , W . P . BUCHAN .
P . S . —As to the imagined high status of the Masons that , as I pointed out at page 652 , December 17 th , is a great mistake . More , we are told of King Edward III . joining the " Linen Armourers , " but I never have seen the slightest proof of any of our
Kings joining the Masons before the last century , viz ., after 1717 . Further , I return my sincere thanks to Bro . Hughan for what he has given at page 233 ; the reference to the Clothiers' Gild is just the very thing to support my ideas—think it over . W . P . B .
SUBORDINATION IN THE HIGHER DEGREES .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , — In spite of what Bro . Ashworth says as to my gross fabrication respecting the price charged for his Rochdale and Todmorden high degrees , I am afraid I must simply reiterate the statement , that it is currently reported
in Lancashire that the price charged for them is about the sum I have stated , is . 6 d . Indeed I believe I overstated the amount ; at all events , it is said that at Todmorden they charge thirteen pence halfpenny for each degree . Perhaps Bro . Ashworth has heard of the late
Bro . Newall — verb / an sap . Will Bro . Ashworth kindly tell us , if my information is not correct , what he and his friends do charge for the 30 ° , 31 and 32 , and whence , apart from so-called " timeimmemorial rights , " they derive their authority to confer them ? Does Bro . A . fondly imagine that no
one has seen Bro . Hughan's " Masonic Reprints , " in which that able Mason disposes of Bro . Yarker ' s preposterous claims with reference to these degrees ? The warrant under which these high degrees are given at Eastwood Todmorden was granted by Rodwcll Wright in 1 S 12 , and is simply an old
Templar warrant , similar to those at Newcastlc-on-Tyne and Ipswich ; and on the strength of ils being addressed "To the Knights Companions of the Royal Exalted Religious and Military Order of H . R . D . M ., K . D . S . H . Grand Elected Knights Templars of St . John of Jerusalem . " these brethren claim
to be able to confer the highest degrees in the Ancient and Accepted Rite . I am aware that the Knights Templar degree was sanctioned and acknowledged by the Grand Lodge of All England at York so early as 17 S 0 , but the 31 and 32 , as such , were never given—I may say , never heard of—at that time .
If Brother Ashworth had seen the Freemasons Magazine of March 25 th , he would remark that I was quite aware that the Rose Croix chapter at Rochdale is not a legally-constituted one , though I must admit that on first seeing it so prominently noticed in THE FREEMASON , and before looking at
my " Cosmopolitan Calendar , " I thought it was . With its members the Supreme Grand Council have nothing to do , any further than protesting against its interfering with their jurisdiction ; but it is a different matter with Bro . Yarker and others who have taken an oath of allegiance to the S . G . C . and
then forsworn themselves . One cannot help feeling that if the regulations of the Ancient and Accepted were only properly carried out , and chapters reminded that high social and moral character are indispensable requisites before any one can be
admitted as members of that rite , wc should have less of this breaking of obligations , and less of that insufferable vanity exhibited by men who seem anxious to drag their names before the Masonic public and glory in their shame .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
ass , saying "that six means more or less ' than six ? " The public have an interest in knowing who is the professor who thus teaches our youth , destined for the highest professionsdivinity , law , and statesmanship—the elements of arithmetic and logic . But this is a professor ;
the assertion was of many , or certainly of more than one . It would , however , gratify one ' s curiosity to ascertain who even this one extraordinary professor is , and in what manner he inculcates his principles of arithmetic and logic . Where and in what terms does the Encyclopedia deny the biblical account of the creation ? I asked . Here
is the " reply : " It is needless to say that the seventh and eighth editions of the work maintain the anti-biblical theory of creation . " Proof is asked for , and we are told it is needless even to say it is so ! Brother Norton says he might have " said scientific instead of Oxford , " but , then , he
did not ; and that he might have said "the teachers of geology , " instead of the " Oxford professors , " but that would not have been so damaging as he intended , and so he unjustifiably put forward the Oxford professors . But the teachers of geology no more deny the biblical account of the
creation than the Oxford professors do . " The geologists , without exception , " he says , "deny or disbelieve the Mosaic account of creation . " Oh , my worthy Brother Norton , how is it you are in the habit of making such rash assertions ? You cite Mr . C . W . Goodwin , author of the
" Mosaic Cosmogony , " in Essays and Reviews , as your authority for this bold and unqualified assertion ; but Mr . Goodwin makes no such statement—he knew better than to do so . What lie says is , that " geologists of all creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense
series of years , and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from the first creation to the appearance of man upon its surface . " He does not say that this is in opposition to the biblical account , but in opposition to " the school-books of the present day . " That there are teachers of
geology as rash and reckless as Bro . Norton , I know ; but to say that the geologists—or , as he more precisely puts it , " geologists without exception "—are so , is to scandalise a large number of the most eminent teachers of the science , who maintain , and furnish good reasons
for so doing , that the facts of geology and the Mosaic narrative are in as complete harmony as if Moses had been acquainted with all the phenomena which the crust of the earth exhibits . Although Brother Norton has not answered my question , he has introduced into what he calls
his "Reply to Brother Carpenter , " several things that tend only to aggravate his original offence . As the great French Atheist said he could have made a better world than this if the work had been entrusted to him , so Bro . Norton suggests that he could have found a better word than
Moses has employed to describe the six stages of creation . Be it so . I am satisfied to accept the word Moses uses , in the same sense in which it is used in many other parts of the Hebrew text , to denote an indefinite period of time . Others may differ from me in this without denying the
Bible account of the creation , as Dr . Pye Smith , Dr . John Harris , and others , who so read the Hebrew narrative as , without doing violence to it , to understand the days ( famim ) of Gen . i ., 3 et sea ., as natural days of 24 hours each , while the original creation and antiquity of the earth ,
with all the geological changes it had undergone in its internal structure , are indicated in verses 1 and 2 . Brother Norton takes credit for not having " given his personal opinion upon Bible questions , " because , as he says , " the ventilation of such opinions must tend to the introduction
of religious discussion , which should be avoided among Masons . " But he lias taken pretty good care to let us know what his opinions are ; and I have yet to learn that any one is entitled to any credit for representing another man ' s belief in what he holds of all tilings the most
important , as false and ridiculous , by inuendo and suggestion rather than by the more manly course of direct and open assault . Neither Brother Norton ' s opinion nor mine , on the question under discussion may be of any value ; but while he prefers to express his disbelief in the Bible account of the creation by approvingly referring to
Original Correspondence.
taose whom he alleges to so disbelieve it , I express my unshaken belief in it , and deem it more consistent with a rational reading of history and the uniform experience of mankind , in the use and application of human language , to think that the Bible was not
intended to teach astronomy , geology , or any other branch of natural science—that it was not designed to teach either the mere facts or the philosophy of history , but to teach the doctrine of God ' s government of the world , and that the events related in proof or illustration of the
doctrine are matters of fact—actual occurrences , divinely attested . I hold that the obvious purpose of the sacred writer in Gen . i . is to teach the great truth , that God is the Creator of all things : and that all the nature of the case
requires is , that however authropomorphic and popular the language employed may be , the events related in illustration of the truth should be actual occurrences ; and in this both the Encyclopedist and the Oxford Professors agree with me , and not with Bro . Norton . WILLIAM CARPENTER .
PROXY COMMISSIONS TO GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read the remarks upon this subject in your last number , but consider the writer has sadly wasted his time , for two reasons . First . Masonic Proxy Commissions are not granted by " Letters of Attorney . " Second .
The Freemasons are a secret society , consequently I do not think the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer will , under the circumstances , " fash his thum '" about them and their proxies . As to the brother who is so wonderfully " desirous not only always to obey the law of the land himself , " & c , I suppose that is the same brother who
took such an extraordinary active part in this same matter at the last meeting of Grand Lodge , viz ., the W . M . of No . 3 bis , while the "Smillie" of "Smillie and Keith" is , I also suppose , the same Bro . Smillie who is also the Secretary of No . 3 bis . Further comment at present is unnecessary . 1 am , fraternally yours ,
A MEMBER OF THE G . L . OF SCOTLAND .
that whatever is said by me upon that subject tends to the overthrow of the generally accepted ideas regarding it , consequently from that fact alone whatever I may say is condemned by the many even before I have uttered it . I Am denounced as
THE 1717 THEORY . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —In the position which I have taken up , after due consideration , as to the antiquity of our Freemasonry , I am aware
a Masonic heretic , while what I say which goes against the popular notions , is also , of course , rank heresy . Such being the case , 1 am all the more indebted to you therefore for the liberty which you have given me in expressing my views ; more
especially am I indebted to you at present for affording space at page 334 for the quotation I sent up upon the state of the building trade in the fifteenth century , of which " building trades " the Masons , or stone-cutters , only formed a section , with no distinction between them and the others
except in the material they wrought upon , the mason working the stone , the carpenter the wood , the smith the iron , and so on . Such a quotation at page 234 , and considering where it comes from , goes very far to answer the remarks of Bro . " Lupus " at page 223 . Further , Bro . "Lupus , " at page 233 states ,
, " 1 produced the statute of 1425 , which you printed in extenso . " Now you did not do so , simply , I suppose , because you did not get it ! As we perceive by turning back to page 641 , December 10 th , you only printed " cap . 1 , " which relates to Masons ; but where is cap . 2 , & c . ? However , as I already
stated , this first head of that statute simply refers to the meetings of the Masons as operatives , met to talk over their work and wages . If anything were necessary to prove this , we find it in this same statute itself , in the words " the good course and effect of the statutes of labourers be openly violate
and broken . " All the " speculative" Masonry here referred to therefore was the speculation of these " labourers" as to the best means of keeping up their wages , or of drawing an extra sixpence from the pockets of their paymasters . But as this was touching a tender point , down comes this 1425
statute in support of low charges—against the operatives , but in favour of those employing them . It had nothing earthly to do with what we nowadays know as " Freemasonry . " And in this view I am supported by several scholars , and also I consider by Toulmin Smith ' s " English Gilds , " and by
Original Correspondence.
the Aberdeen Burgh Records , many extracts from which I have already published ; and in reference to this the following from Bro . D . Murray Lyon ' s writings will also be useful : " There is no record extant , Masonic or profane , from which can be drawn any conclusion , further than that in their
organization the members of the Ancient Building Associations of Scotland were leagued together for the protection of their common rights , much after the manner of the trades' unions of modern times . " As it was with the Scots , so it was with the English . As to the imaginary " damaging little word
speculatyf , " it is neither " damaging " nor " little , " and simply means , as Mr . Bond , at page 234 , says " the theory of the science , " or as I expressed at page 642 , Dec . 10 th , it shows—accepting the legend pro tern . —he took an interest in the drawing and working out of the plans , f > c . most certainly not that
he knew aught of what we now know and practise as •'' Freemasonry . " Those who affirm otherwise are bound to prove the affirmative . More especially is Bro . " Lupus " bound to do so , if he can (?) after using such words as " mere bubble" to a theory which I deliberately challenge both him and all the
best Masonic writers in the world to upset . While as regards the remarks made by him at page 233 , the foregoing completely upsets them . Bro . " Lupus" will find it easier to run away from the 1717 theory , which he calls a " mere bubble , " than to burst it .
I am , yours fraternally , W . P . BUCHAN .
P . S . —As to the imagined high status of the Masons that , as I pointed out at page 652 , December 17 th , is a great mistake . More , we are told of King Edward III . joining the " Linen Armourers , " but I never have seen the slightest proof of any of our
Kings joining the Masons before the last century , viz ., after 1717 . Further , I return my sincere thanks to Bro . Hughan for what he has given at page 233 ; the reference to the Clothiers' Gild is just the very thing to support my ideas—think it over . W . P . B .
SUBORDINATION IN THE HIGHER DEGREES .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , — In spite of what Bro . Ashworth says as to my gross fabrication respecting the price charged for his Rochdale and Todmorden high degrees , I am afraid I must simply reiterate the statement , that it is currently reported
in Lancashire that the price charged for them is about the sum I have stated , is . 6 d . Indeed I believe I overstated the amount ; at all events , it is said that at Todmorden they charge thirteen pence halfpenny for each degree . Perhaps Bro . Ashworth has heard of the late
Bro . Newall — verb / an sap . Will Bro . Ashworth kindly tell us , if my information is not correct , what he and his friends do charge for the 30 ° , 31 and 32 , and whence , apart from so-called " timeimmemorial rights , " they derive their authority to confer them ? Does Bro . A . fondly imagine that no
one has seen Bro . Hughan's " Masonic Reprints , " in which that able Mason disposes of Bro . Yarker ' s preposterous claims with reference to these degrees ? The warrant under which these high degrees are given at Eastwood Todmorden was granted by Rodwcll Wright in 1 S 12 , and is simply an old
Templar warrant , similar to those at Newcastlc-on-Tyne and Ipswich ; and on the strength of ils being addressed "To the Knights Companions of the Royal Exalted Religious and Military Order of H . R . D . M ., K . D . S . H . Grand Elected Knights Templars of St . John of Jerusalem . " these brethren claim
to be able to confer the highest degrees in the Ancient and Accepted Rite . I am aware that the Knights Templar degree was sanctioned and acknowledged by the Grand Lodge of All England at York so early as 17 S 0 , but the 31 and 32 , as such , were never given—I may say , never heard of—at that time .
If Brother Ashworth had seen the Freemasons Magazine of March 25 th , he would remark that I was quite aware that the Rose Croix chapter at Rochdale is not a legally-constituted one , though I must admit that on first seeing it so prominently noticed in THE FREEMASON , and before looking at
my " Cosmopolitan Calendar , " I thought it was . With its members the Supreme Grand Council have nothing to do , any further than protesting against its interfering with their jurisdiction ; but it is a different matter with Bro . Yarker and others who have taken an oath of allegiance to the S . G . C . and
then forsworn themselves . One cannot help feeling that if the regulations of the Ancient and Accepted were only properly carried out , and chapters reminded that high social and moral character are indispensable requisites before any one can be
admitted as members of that rite , wc should have less of this breaking of obligations , and less of that insufferable vanity exhibited by men who seem anxious to drag their names before the Masonic public and glory in their shame .