-
Articles/Ads
Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 1 Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 1 Article THE SPECIAL COMMUNICATION OF GRAND LODGE. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .
— : oi" MASONIC BLUNDERERS ONCE MORE . " To the Editor of the FBEEMASON ' CHRONICXE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I received a letter from an esteemed brother , who stilt adheres to tho belief thafc in the last century the Ancients as well as the Moderns in England had mutilated the third degree , and out of the fragments cut off was formed the R . A . degree . And also that the Moderns had changed their mode of recognition
in or near 1739 . My worthy correspondent is unwilling to enter into a paper warfare , bat he says , you may " utilize" ray remarks , or words to that effect . The word utilise , I presume , means that I may furnish further arguments or evidence upon the subject at issue , and this I shall proceed to do . 1 st . I admit the possibility of a few Masons having agreed in a
secret conclave to divide the M . M . degree , and to mould part thereof into a fourth degree ; and thus agreeing they formed a Lodge and initiated a hundred persons , and made them believe that their system vias Ancient , that it came down to them from the Holy of Holies of the first and second Temple , & c . ; while another body of Masons holding Lodges in the same town were mere Modems , pretenders , and what
not . I say all this is possible , providing the dupes had not been initiated in one of the other Lodges . By saying " it is possible , " I do not mean to be understood that I believe that the Ancients had altered or mutilated the third degree , this I cannot believe , bufc for the sake of argument I admit the possibility . 2 nd . The Moderns opened a Chapter in 1765 . In 1767 they adopted
a series of Bye-laws , and in 1769 they transformed their Chapter into a Grand Chapter , and afterwards granted several Warrants for new R . A . Chapters . I doubt very much whether the newly fledged Royal Archers in 1769 numbered more than fifty individuals . Now , in 1770 , the English Lodge list was revised , the dead Lodges were all thrown out , and Bro . Gould ' s " Pour Old Lodges , " p 65 ,
shows that , in 1769 , the English Grand Lodge had on its roll 392 live Lodges ; assuming now that they averaged twenty . five members per Lodge , then 2 , 744 Masons were under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England in 1769 , the year when the Modems formed their Grand Royal Arch Chapter . The said 392 Lodges were scattered over England , Wales , aud the English Colonies , I cannot , therefore , see
how those fifty London Royal Archers went to work in removing a landmark by cutting the third degree into two parts , and then depriving the 2 , 700 Masons , belonging to 392 Lodges ( scattered over the wide world ) , the privilege of performing the ceremony of the M . M . degree as it was performed from time immemorial , without producing a revolution , a commotion , or a disturbance of some kind . Be it
remembered thafc English Masons , however loyal they have been to the G . M . and to the aristocratic members of the Grand Lodge in the last century , yet , when the Grand Lodge , with the consent and approbation of the G . M . and the Deputy G . M ., decided to get a Charter for the English Masons or for the Grand Lodge of England from the English Parliament , about or near the time when the
Grand Chapter was formed , for some reason I never could learn , the membersof about forty Lodges protested against it , denounced the plan as a violation of ancient landmarks , and what not ! They petitioned Parliament not to grant the Charter , and Bro . Dillon , M . P ., and D . G . M . was compelled to withdraw the Incorporation Bill from Parliament after it . had already passed the first reading . How the very same
English Masons conld have been forced or cajoled by a few Royal Archers to give np the right of conferring in their Master Masons ' Lodges all the secrets they themselves received ; how they could have listened with equanimity to the request of the Royal Archers , to give np the right they had paid for of conferring certain important and valuable secrets , while those who wished to continno to assist in
that part of the ceremony they were deprived of witnessing in their Master Masons' Lodges were to pay three or more guineas to the Royal Archers for the privilege of hearing , in the Chapter , what properly belonged to the Master Masons' Lodge . Britishers were always tenacious of vested rights . Assuming that in 1739 certain changes were made in the English ritual ; in the first place ,
no vested rights were sacrificed ; they merely exchanged one thing for another ; and secondly , there is at least a motive given for tho alleged changes j bnt in the case of the Masters' degree , the mere Master Masons got nothing at all in exchange for what was taken from them ; nor can I conceive any motive on their part for yielding to the request of the members of the Chapter , without even a
remonstrance , and without any known sanction of the Grand Lodge of England . And , more strange still , that this alleged mutilation of the third degree should have remained unknown till Dr . Oliver revealed it in the middle of this centnry . Preston published the first edition of his " History of Masonry " in 1772 ; if such a change in the Master Masons' degree had been
made three years previously , he surely would have known it , but he did not mention the change in any of his successive editions . . Had Preston joined the Chapter his silence might have been imputed to his loyalty to R . A . Masonry , but Preston was not a R . A . Mason . Now , is it nofc strange that Bro . Preston should have felt indignant at in the
a supposed change mode of recognition before he was born , and censured the Grand Lodge of England for acquiescing in those " innovations" and " novelties , " and shonld remain perfectly quiet at a vastly greater fundamental change which is said to have taken place while he was preparing to write his " History of Freemasonry ?" It might , however , be argued that the English Constitution never
Correspondence.
specifically limited Masonry to three degrees . Hence , for somo unknown reason , no one in the Grand Lodge took notice of the alleged change . But the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Scotland does limit Masonry to three degrees—at least it did so in 1852 . Now , suppose tho members of the Grand Lodgo of England in 1739 were all infected with a Royal Arch mania , so as to allow the alleged
change to be made , the Grand Lodge of Scotland could not have beeu influenced by a fourth degree mania ; and , consequently , in Scotland tbo secret or secrets which are now communicated in a R . A . Chapter in England ought to bo communicated in a Master Masons' Lodge in Scotland . Bnt is it so ? Well ! I believe it ia not . I believe that the Scotch Master Mason learns no more Royal Archism in a
Scotch Master Masons' Lodge than the English Master Mason learns in h ' is Master Masons' Lodge . If such is the case then , the Scotch Grand Lodge must also have mutilated the Masters' ceremony ; the same may be said with regard to the Irish Grand Lodge , and I venture to assert that if Bro . Charles E . Meyers , or any other pro . rainent brother , was to write to the Graud Secretaries of Scotland
and Ireland , as to when and why the Masters' degree was mutilated in their respective jurisdictions , the answers from both would be that this alleged mutilation waa new to them . The fact is , the third degree was neither mutilated in England , Ireland , nor Scotland , either by Ancients or by Moderns . Dr . Oliver states that Thomas Dunckerley introduced the Royal
Aroh among the Moderns . That , however , is not tme ; becanse Dunckerley did not join the Chapter until a year after it was estab . lished . The Rev . Doctor also states that Dunckerley took something out of the third degree , and made that something into the Chapter degree j which , of course , is also untrue . My correspondent , however , assures me that Brother Hughan is in possession of a Royal
Aroh Tracing Board of 1745 ; that something on thafc tracing board convinces him that the Chapter secrets were formerly given in the Master Masons' Lodge . I think , however , that I shall be able to solve thafc puzzle . " Now listen to the story of the pasfc , " as my friend Brother C . E . Meyers said . It is well known that between 1724 and 1745 the French Masons
not only added forty . two degrees to the original three which they received from England , but also altered materially the original three degrees . Now , a friend of mine who is a 33 ° in the said French Rite , called " Scotch Rite , " who visited the so-called Scotch Rite Lodges in France , Italy , Spain , Cuba , and the Lord knows where else , informed me that in the Master Masons' degree in the Scotch
Rite Lodges is conglomerated certain parts which are confined in England and in America to the Royal Aroh Chapter . If my inform , ant is correct , and I see no reason to doubt him , then Bro . Hughan ' s Tracing Board may furnish evidence that the Royal Arch degree was chopped off from tbe French Master Masons' degree . With regard to Dr . Oliver , it is possible he may have visited a Scotch Rite Lodge ,
or may be Bro . J . J . J . Gourgas , when he sent the rituals of the Scotch Rite degrees to London in 1844 ( I believe ) , may have sent a genuine Scotch Rite Ritual of the three first degrees , wherein he may have read the chapter parts in the M . M . ritual , and , being infatuated wifch fche Scotch Rite degrees , and imagining perhaps that it was of greater antiquity than the English Rite , he concluded thafc Dermott and Dunckerley had mutilated the English M . M . degree . And ,
of course , what Dr . Oliver said , no one questioned . With regard to the question of changing the mode of recognition , I would respectfully advise all whom it may concern : first , to ascertain whether the present mode of recognition in Scotland and Ireland is the same as it is in England . If so , to ascertain from the respeo . tive Grand Secretaries of the said jurisdictions whether they ever had a different mode of recognition ; and , if so , when and why did they change ifc ? Fraternally yours , JACOB NORTON . Boston , U . S ., 20 fch June 1883 .
The Special Communication Of Grand Lodge.
THE SPECIAL COMMUNICATION OF GRAND LODGE .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I dare say a few words from one who was an actor in the , to my mind , farcical proceedings of the Special Grand Lodge , on Friday last , may prove acceptable to your readers . I wish to point out the " how not to do it" manner in whioh matters of vital interest and importance to the Craft have been mismanaged
by the Executive . It was my intention to have recorded an emphatic protesb against both the manner and time at whioh the Special G . Lodge had been convened , but the graoiousand honourable message from the M . W . Grand Master proved the truth of words in my last letter to you , namely , that His Royal Highness was entirely ignorant of the course taken by his advisers in attempting to alter
the Table of Precedence . I was convinced the Prince of Wales conld never be guilty of casting such an . uncalled-for slur and slight npon those honourable men whom it had been his good pleasure to place in a position following the Grand Wardens , Nos . 11 and 12 in order of precedence , and then to lower them below the Grand and Past Grand Directors of Ceremonies , or to Nos . 25 and 26 on the list . I call the
proceedings a farce advisedly . The papers containing fche recommendation were dated 31 st May , yet the Board of General Purposes , at the Quarterly Committee of 6 fch June , utterly ignored the just claims of Grand Lodge , and refused to intimate in the slightest degree their intentions , either of what they had done in the matter or of calling a Special G . Lodge . The natural consequence followed ;
there was a very spare attendance , at no time were there 200 members present to discuss this all . important question . Tho Executive certainly kept within the letter of the law , and sent the summonses to tbe Worshipful Masters of the various Lodges within the allotted ten days ; bufc when do they send them ? In the first instance , when the majority of London Lodgers are in recess ;
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .
— : oi" MASONIC BLUNDERERS ONCE MORE . " To the Editor of the FBEEMASON ' CHRONICXE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I received a letter from an esteemed brother , who stilt adheres to tho belief thafc in the last century the Ancients as well as the Moderns in England had mutilated the third degree , and out of the fragments cut off was formed the R . A . degree . And also that the Moderns had changed their mode of recognition
in or near 1739 . My worthy correspondent is unwilling to enter into a paper warfare , bat he says , you may " utilize" ray remarks , or words to that effect . The word utilise , I presume , means that I may furnish further arguments or evidence upon the subject at issue , and this I shall proceed to do . 1 st . I admit the possibility of a few Masons having agreed in a
secret conclave to divide the M . M . degree , and to mould part thereof into a fourth degree ; and thus agreeing they formed a Lodge and initiated a hundred persons , and made them believe that their system vias Ancient , that it came down to them from the Holy of Holies of the first and second Temple , & c . ; while another body of Masons holding Lodges in the same town were mere Modems , pretenders , and what
not . I say all this is possible , providing the dupes had not been initiated in one of the other Lodges . By saying " it is possible , " I do not mean to be understood that I believe that the Ancients had altered or mutilated the third degree , this I cannot believe , bufc for the sake of argument I admit the possibility . 2 nd . The Moderns opened a Chapter in 1765 . In 1767 they adopted
a series of Bye-laws , and in 1769 they transformed their Chapter into a Grand Chapter , and afterwards granted several Warrants for new R . A . Chapters . I doubt very much whether the newly fledged Royal Archers in 1769 numbered more than fifty individuals . Now , in 1770 , the English Lodge list was revised , the dead Lodges were all thrown out , and Bro . Gould ' s " Pour Old Lodges , " p 65 ,
shows that , in 1769 , the English Grand Lodge had on its roll 392 live Lodges ; assuming now that they averaged twenty . five members per Lodge , then 2 , 744 Masons were under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England in 1769 , the year when the Modems formed their Grand Royal Arch Chapter . The said 392 Lodges were scattered over England , Wales , aud the English Colonies , I cannot , therefore , see
how those fifty London Royal Archers went to work in removing a landmark by cutting the third degree into two parts , and then depriving the 2 , 700 Masons , belonging to 392 Lodges ( scattered over the wide world ) , the privilege of performing the ceremony of the M . M . degree as it was performed from time immemorial , without producing a revolution , a commotion , or a disturbance of some kind . Be it
remembered thafc English Masons , however loyal they have been to the G . M . and to the aristocratic members of the Grand Lodge in the last century , yet , when the Grand Lodge , with the consent and approbation of the G . M . and the Deputy G . M ., decided to get a Charter for the English Masons or for the Grand Lodge of England from the English Parliament , about or near the time when the
Grand Chapter was formed , for some reason I never could learn , the membersof about forty Lodges protested against it , denounced the plan as a violation of ancient landmarks , and what not ! They petitioned Parliament not to grant the Charter , and Bro . Dillon , M . P ., and D . G . M . was compelled to withdraw the Incorporation Bill from Parliament after it . had already passed the first reading . How the very same
English Masons conld have been forced or cajoled by a few Royal Archers to give np the right of conferring in their Master Masons ' Lodges all the secrets they themselves received ; how they could have listened with equanimity to the request of the Royal Archers , to give np the right they had paid for of conferring certain important and valuable secrets , while those who wished to continno to assist in
that part of the ceremony they were deprived of witnessing in their Master Masons' Lodges were to pay three or more guineas to the Royal Archers for the privilege of hearing , in the Chapter , what properly belonged to the Master Masons' Lodge . Britishers were always tenacious of vested rights . Assuming that in 1739 certain changes were made in the English ritual ; in the first place ,
no vested rights were sacrificed ; they merely exchanged one thing for another ; and secondly , there is at least a motive given for tho alleged changes j bnt in the case of the Masters' degree , the mere Master Masons got nothing at all in exchange for what was taken from them ; nor can I conceive any motive on their part for yielding to the request of the members of the Chapter , without even a
remonstrance , and without any known sanction of the Grand Lodge of England . And , more strange still , that this alleged mutilation of the third degree should have remained unknown till Dr . Oliver revealed it in the middle of this centnry . Preston published the first edition of his " History of Masonry " in 1772 ; if such a change in the Master Masons' degree had been
made three years previously , he surely would have known it , but he did not mention the change in any of his successive editions . . Had Preston joined the Chapter his silence might have been imputed to his loyalty to R . A . Masonry , but Preston was not a R . A . Mason . Now , is it nofc strange that Bro . Preston should have felt indignant at in the
a supposed change mode of recognition before he was born , and censured the Grand Lodge of England for acquiescing in those " innovations" and " novelties , " and shonld remain perfectly quiet at a vastly greater fundamental change which is said to have taken place while he was preparing to write his " History of Freemasonry ?" It might , however , be argued that the English Constitution never
Correspondence.
specifically limited Masonry to three degrees . Hence , for somo unknown reason , no one in the Grand Lodge took notice of the alleged change . But the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Scotland does limit Masonry to three degrees—at least it did so in 1852 . Now , suppose tho members of the Grand Lodgo of England in 1739 were all infected with a Royal Arch mania , so as to allow the alleged
change to be made , the Grand Lodge of Scotland could not have beeu influenced by a fourth degree mania ; and , consequently , in Scotland tbo secret or secrets which are now communicated in a R . A . Chapter in England ought to bo communicated in a Master Masons' Lodge in Scotland . Bnt is it so ? Well ! I believe it ia not . I believe that the Scotch Master Mason learns no more Royal Archism in a
Scotch Master Masons' Lodge than the English Master Mason learns in h ' is Master Masons' Lodge . If such is the case then , the Scotch Grand Lodge must also have mutilated the Masters' ceremony ; the same may be said with regard to the Irish Grand Lodge , and I venture to assert that if Bro . Charles E . Meyers , or any other pro . rainent brother , was to write to the Graud Secretaries of Scotland
and Ireland , as to when and why the Masters' degree was mutilated in their respective jurisdictions , the answers from both would be that this alleged mutilation waa new to them . The fact is , the third degree was neither mutilated in England , Ireland , nor Scotland , either by Ancients or by Moderns . Dr . Oliver states that Thomas Dunckerley introduced the Royal
Aroh among the Moderns . That , however , is not tme ; becanse Dunckerley did not join the Chapter until a year after it was estab . lished . The Rev . Doctor also states that Dunckerley took something out of the third degree , and made that something into the Chapter degree j which , of course , is also untrue . My correspondent , however , assures me that Brother Hughan is in possession of a Royal
Aroh Tracing Board of 1745 ; that something on thafc tracing board convinces him that the Chapter secrets were formerly given in the Master Masons' Lodge . I think , however , that I shall be able to solve thafc puzzle . " Now listen to the story of the pasfc , " as my friend Brother C . E . Meyers said . It is well known that between 1724 and 1745 the French Masons
not only added forty . two degrees to the original three which they received from England , but also altered materially the original three degrees . Now , a friend of mine who is a 33 ° in the said French Rite , called " Scotch Rite , " who visited the so-called Scotch Rite Lodges in France , Italy , Spain , Cuba , and the Lord knows where else , informed me that in the Master Masons' degree in the Scotch
Rite Lodges is conglomerated certain parts which are confined in England and in America to the Royal Aroh Chapter . If my inform , ant is correct , and I see no reason to doubt him , then Bro . Hughan ' s Tracing Board may furnish evidence that the Royal Arch degree was chopped off from tbe French Master Masons' degree . With regard to Dr . Oliver , it is possible he may have visited a Scotch Rite Lodge ,
or may be Bro . J . J . J . Gourgas , when he sent the rituals of the Scotch Rite degrees to London in 1844 ( I believe ) , may have sent a genuine Scotch Rite Ritual of the three first degrees , wherein he may have read the chapter parts in the M . M . ritual , and , being infatuated wifch fche Scotch Rite degrees , and imagining perhaps that it was of greater antiquity than the English Rite , he concluded thafc Dermott and Dunckerley had mutilated the English M . M . degree . And ,
of course , what Dr . Oliver said , no one questioned . With regard to the question of changing the mode of recognition , I would respectfully advise all whom it may concern : first , to ascertain whether the present mode of recognition in Scotland and Ireland is the same as it is in England . If so , to ascertain from the respeo . tive Grand Secretaries of the said jurisdictions whether they ever had a different mode of recognition ; and , if so , when and why did they change ifc ? Fraternally yours , JACOB NORTON . Boston , U . S ., 20 fch June 1883 .
The Special Communication Of Grand Lodge.
THE SPECIAL COMMUNICATION OF GRAND LODGE .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I dare say a few words from one who was an actor in the , to my mind , farcical proceedings of the Special Grand Lodge , on Friday last , may prove acceptable to your readers . I wish to point out the " how not to do it" manner in whioh matters of vital interest and importance to the Craft have been mismanaged
by the Executive . It was my intention to have recorded an emphatic protesb against both the manner and time at whioh the Special G . Lodge had been convened , but the graoiousand honourable message from the M . W . Grand Master proved the truth of words in my last letter to you , namely , that His Royal Highness was entirely ignorant of the course taken by his advisers in attempting to alter
the Table of Precedence . I was convinced the Prince of Wales conld never be guilty of casting such an . uncalled-for slur and slight npon those honourable men whom it had been his good pleasure to place in a position following the Grand Wardens , Nos . 11 and 12 in order of precedence , and then to lower them below the Grand and Past Grand Directors of Ceremonies , or to Nos . 25 and 26 on the list . I call the
proceedings a farce advisedly . The papers containing fche recommendation were dated 31 st May , yet the Board of General Purposes , at the Quarterly Committee of 6 fch June , utterly ignored the just claims of Grand Lodge , and refused to intimate in the slightest degree their intentions , either of what they had done in the matter or of calling a Special G . Lodge . The natural consequence followed ;
there was a very spare attendance , at no time were there 200 members present to discuss this all . important question . Tho Executive certainly kept within the letter of the law , and sent the summonses to tbe Worshipful Masters of the various Lodges within the allotted ten days ; bufc when do they send them ? In the first instance , when the majority of London Lodgers are in recess ;