Lodge Of Benevolence.

LODGE OF BENEVOLENCE .

The monthly meeting of the Lodge of Benevolence was held at Freemasons' Hall , on Wednesday , the 20 th inst . Bro . John Clabon , P . G . D ., the President , occupied the chair , and among other brethren present were the Vice-Presidents Bros . Nunn , P . G . S . B ., and Brett , P . G . P . ; the Grand Secretary , Bro . Hervey Bros . J . Smith ,

P . G . P ., W . Ough , P . G . P . ; J . Boyd , A . G . P . ; Gale , Walters , Mann , Halsey , Stevens ,

Thompson , & c . One of the grants requiring confirmation , namely , a sum of ^ 40 to Bro . E . W . P ., was ' not confirmed , after a somewhat long discussion . Grants were made to the following petitioners : —

Mrs . M . T ., Lodge 202 £ 20 „ T . E ., „ 20 S 10 „ CM . C . „ 77 i 4 o „ A . C „ 820 20 » J- C . „ IQ 2 20

„ M . D . J .,, 1076 ... . ... 10 Bro . O . D . C „ 376 30 „ J . 147 IS „ R . C . „ 392 20

„ E . B . C . „ 392 10 „ L . E . R . ., 43 8 30 „ J . . B . Scotch 20 ,, E . B . „ 515 20 „ W . D . F .,, 13 S 20 Two cases were deferred , and the Lodge was closed .

Poetry.

Poetry .

—?—SONNETS . [ From the American Freemason . '] THE EAST . The sun ascends his Orient throne at morn , To drive away the dark'ning shades of night :

From whence the day to open and adorn , He floods the earth with beams of golden light . To labour then the universe he calls—To work / to work ! the tacit summons falls , In majesty he mounts the azure sky ,

And rolls through vast ctherial realms on high . So in the EAST the MASTER rises too , To set the Craft to work , and to impart

The light and knowledge of our sacred Art , In lessons known but to the favour'd few ; And there we , the PILLAR OF WISDOM see , A firm supporter of Freemasonry .

THE SOUTH . Still higher up the blue expanse of heaven We now behold the glorious sun ascend , Bright golden tints are to the landscape given , And beauteous colours with each other blend ;

Yet higher up thc arch he moves along In splendour , the etheri .-il clouds among , Nor falters , stops , nor waves to either hand , Until within the SOUTH we see him stand . There , now he makes a grand , sublime display ,

For ' tis the beauty and the glory of thc day . Our J UNIOR WARDEN , too , that post commands , To superintend refreshment there he stands ;

And there we , thc PILLAR OK BEAUTY see , Another firm support to Masomy . EMMETT . Florence , Laurens Co ., Georgia .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents .

THE RITE OF MEMPHIS . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR AND BROTH ER , —Will you permit me to state , that the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis

of the United States of North America , which has but lately been introduced in this country by W . Bro . B . D . Hyam , Past Grand Master of Craft Masons of California , U . S ., and who was present

Original Correspondence.

as a visitor at the last Grand Lodge Quarterly Communication , has no connexion whatever with the spurious body of the Order of Memphis , or the Reformed Rite of Memphis , claiming the rights and privileges of a Grand Lodge , and

exercising the power of conferring the first three degrees . The American Rite originally obtained from the Grand Council of Rites of France , and for years holding fraternal relations therewith , admits

none but Master Masons , of good standing , belonging to a regularly-constituted Lodge of Craft Masons , and does not confer any degrees belonging to Craft Masonry . And many of the distinguished American 'visitors but lately feted

here hold hig h rank in the Order . Trusting to your sense of fair play to insert this , I am , Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , MEYER A . LOEWENSTARK . Devereux-court , Temple , W . C , Sept . 21 , 1871 .

THE TRANSACTIONS OF 1717 : WERE THEY , OR WERE THEY NOT , THE "REVIVAL" OF FREEMASONRY ?

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am sorry to have to differ upon this subject from one I esteem so highly , and to whom I am so much indebted , as Bro . Hughan , but according to the evidence as yet

before me , I feel bound so to do . If Bro . Hughan , instead of merely alluding—as he does at page 484—to something he has formerly said , perhaps elsewhere , which he considersor imagines , supports his views , will here state properly

and definitely—as we think he is entitled to do , and which the readers of THE FREEMASONS have a right to expect—what that evidence really is , then we shall all be able to examine it personally and see what it is worth ; but instead of doing so

definitely , he contents himself with a mere allusion ! Now that will not do , it is satisfactory proof to the point , that is wanted . More , we want that proof laid Infore us here , in ihe pages of THE FREEMASON , SO that all your readers may be able

to read and study it for themselves—that is to say , if such proof really exists ! However , as I expressed at page 442 , I doubt the existence of any such proof ; and what is also curious , Bro . Hughan himself backs me up

in my ideas , for at page 491 we find him saying : " In fact , Masonic degrees were unknown before A . D . 1716 , so that they are all inventions of modern times . " Now , as it is well known that our system is one of degrees , it follows that if

neither these degrees , nor any degrees at all , existed before 1716 , then our system could not have existed before then , either , and as a consequence , the application of the term " Revival " to the transactions of 1717 is either an

imposition , or a misnomer , and as a further consequence Bro . Hughan is not justified in continuing the use of any such term whenever it can be shown that its use is unjustifiable . No doubt certain extraordinary transactions in connection with the

Masonic body did take place in 1717 , but as these consisted in the introduction of something new and extraneous , then it is a mistake to speak of them as a " Revival of Freemasonry . " Transition would be an honester word . "

Transition " implies change , but that change is not necessarily a " Revival ; " eg ., our nineteenthcentury steam-shipping , although an improvement upon the old sailing vessels , cannot properly be called a " revival , " seeing steamers never

formerly existed . Their introduction was more than a simple evolution , it was a revolution , or a construction on an entirely new and different basis . So with our 1717 Freemasonry , it also was a construction on a new and different basis .

Of course an old lodge could undergo a metamorphosis , just an old sailing ressel could be transformed into a steamer by having the necessary

Original Correspondence.

new apparatus put into it , but that would not be a " revival , " but a transformation . To turn " common gavels " into swords would hardly be reviving then , the transaction wouldmore properly be denominated a transition . To revive , is to impart new life to something going to decay , but

Masonic lodges in 1717 were not decaying , nor , in many cases , until long after did what would cause such decay come into force . The remarks of Preston and many others upon the state of Masonic lodges in and about 1717 were made , in my opinion , either through ignorance or from the

desire of imposing ; or , as I may otherwise express it , knowing nothing properly of the subject , they made use of fanciful speculations in order to hide their real ignorance , and fill up their books . As to Bro . Hughan telling us ( page 485 ) , that " the great majority of Masonic

authors have believed'in the ' revival' of 1716 or 1717 , ** I ask : What has that to do with proving it ? Certainly nothing . It only shows how largely ignorance and credulity existed among them ; just as with myself before May , 1868 . There is another point here , however , which I

wish to draw attention to , viz ., I do not consider that all those who have written upon Masonry have done so in good faith , i . e ., really believing what they were promulgating . Many write in ignorance—they are to he pitied ; others , howover , with longer heads , simply write whatever

suits the popular taste at the time , or what will find a market ; as to what they write or publish being true , that is only a secondary consideration , —these latter are to be scorned . It is only recently that we find real trustworth y pilots in Masonic maters ; and among them all Bro .

Hughan is one of the best , yet , as history shows , none if us are infallible ; consequently , while Bro . Hughan is generally right , in this case , in continuing to use the word " Revival , " and especially as done and understood , I think he is wrong . Supposing ( page 485 ) that our " Freemasonry "

was a " reconstruction of an ancient society , " that is not the point . The question is—Is our Freemasonry either a " Revival , " or continuation of , the fifteenth and sixteenth century Freemasonrie ? Supposing , as I expressed at page 442 , that our system of Freemasonry was the

Renaissance , or " reconstruction of an ancient society , " viz ., of some form of old Pagan philosophy , that would not constitute it a " Revival" of Free masonry . 11 In short , Bro . Hughan has , as yet at all events , brought forward nothing which supports him in his use of the word " Revival , " but

the very opposite . I he only thing which I have yet seen which could support him in his views , is the Sloane MS . 3329 , foi . 142 , if it could be proved to be older than 1716 , which , however , I doubt . So far as I can judge from the perusal of a copy of it which Bro . Hughan very kindly

sent me , it is no older than about A . D . 1720 , whatever less . No doubt Bro . Findel , at page 118 of his " History of Freemasonry , " inclines to put it at the end ofthe seventeenth century ; and Bro . Hughan , at page 25 of his " Unpublished Records of the Craft , " while stating its age as

doubtful , places it between " 1640 to 1700 ;" yet the former has brought nothing forward , as yet , to support his idea properly , while the latter , at the very same place where he gives its age as " 1640 to 1700 , " also quotes good evidence which goes to prove it to be more modern ; for ,

while stating that Mr . E . A . Bond and Mr . R . Sims agree that it is " probably of the beginning of the eighteenth century , " he also adds , " We are also informed by a gentleman , whose name has been honourably associated with the British Museum for years , that , as Sir Hans Sloane only died in 1753 , the article on MS . 3329 , might

easily be of a date after 1717 . " Now , with the above statements before him , why Bro . Hughan should have confined its age as between " 1640 to 1700 , " I cannot understand . It would have heen better and fairer , in my opinion , to have said 164010 1720 , which latter date I consider was only fairly due to the statements of the gentle-