Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Old Documents Recently Dis Covered Compared With The Massachusets Records Of 1733.
OLD DOCUMENTS RECENTLY DIS COVERED COMPARED WITH THE MASSACHUSETS RECORDS OF 1733 .
By Bro . JACOB NORTON , of-Boston . The philosopher , John Locke , was deceived with a forged document , purporting to be a conversation between Henry VI . and a Mason . The forgery of the so-called " Cologne Charter , " is doubtless
familiar to many of our readers . The " History of Freemasonry" by the Eev . James Anderson ; " The Antiquities of Masonry , '' by the Eev . Dr . Oliver ; the forgery by the Rev . F . Daicho of the Frederick the Great Charter for the so-called Scoth Rite .
The number of knavish editors , Grand Masters , and high officials in this country , who to this day aver their belief in the above named humbugsthe ridiculous legends which form the basis of all the higher degrees , etc . When we take all these
Masonic deceptions into consideration , we may well pause at every step ; we may well question every historic assertion which is vouched for by our " great lights . "
About twelve months ago we were induced to question the geuuiness of Henry Price ' s commission . We inquired if the original commission of Henry Price was in existence , and were answered in the negative . We asked if any other document
survived the last century , and were answered " the original records of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts from 1733 are in existence . " We were
puzzled why Anderson in 1738 andEntick in 1756 mention the appointment of Tomlinson for America in 1738 , and why they were silent about Price in 1733 . Aud again , Bro . C . W . Moore , in his life of Price , gives Montacute as the Grand Master of
England for 1733 ; but we were satisfied that no such title as Montacute existed at the above period . Furthermore , the " first lodge , " now crlled " St . John ' s Lodge / which Price constituted in Boston in 1733 , Bro . 0 . W . Moore admits never had a
charter , until it received one from the present Grand Lodge in 1792 . Such conduct , it is needless to say , could never have taken place with the knowledge of the present Grand Lodge of England . These doubts wero embodied in an article designed
for the February number of the St . Louis Freemason , which was , however , returned to us by Bro . Goulep . In the month of February , 1868 , the letter of the Grand Secretary of England appeared in Bro . C . W . Moore ' s Magazine , asserting that Henry Price is mentioned in an almanac as
Old Documents Recently Dis Covered Compared With The Massachusets Records Of 1733.
having been Grand Master of America from 1733 to 17— . Though we were then perfectly satisfied that C . W . M . misprinted the English Secretary ' s letter , yet that letter brought us to halt in our speculations . Further inquiry we thought , was
necessary ; so we called on Bro . Thornton , Grand Secretary of Massachusetts , and asked permission to look at the original record of 1733 . The original record was not in his office , but a transcript was there ; and in that transcript , instead of finding
that Viscount Montacute gave Price the commission , we found it was Viscount Montague . This discovery , while it confirmed the unreliability of Bro . Moore's authorship , tended , however , to
remove one of the causes that led us to doubt the genuiness of Price ' s commission . That Bro . 0 . W . M . did really alter the dates of Bro . Hervey the Grand Secretary of England ' s letter , above alluded to , has been shown in a previous number
of the American Freemason . This substitutiou of Montacute for Montague is now referred to a committee , who will report on it at the next meeting of the Grand Lodge . The discussion , however , in the Masonic Monthly , as to whether it was
Montague or Montacute , served to bring forward some very interesting old documents , which have already brought to light historical facts hitherto unknown , and must serve still further to stimulate research .
About three weeks ago our esteemed old friend and brother , Dr . Winslow Lewis , P . G . M ., put into our hands two old documents , in which allusion is made to Viscount Montague . The first , which we shall call No . 1 , if genuine , is undoubtedly the
oldest Masonic document relating to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in existence . It purports to be the application to Henry Price , on the day he organised his Grand Lodge , to constitute the undersigned into the " First Lodge" ( now
St . John ' s Lodge ) . There were , however , two reasons for doubting its genuiness : first , though it is undoubted old , unfortunately some genuis had been tampering with it . Twice we found a 2 altered into a 3 , and the date given therein of
Price ' s commission was April 13 th , while in Moore ' s printed copy thereof , and in the transcript record of the Grand Lodge , ib is April 30 fch . But that is not all . In the printed copy the whole paragraph which alludes to Montague is omitted ;
while in the transcript we found that paragraph . The language in the printed copy is also mors modern , but of that we may speak hereafter .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Old Documents Recently Dis Covered Compared With The Massachusets Records Of 1733.
OLD DOCUMENTS RECENTLY DIS COVERED COMPARED WITH THE MASSACHUSETS RECORDS OF 1733 .
By Bro . JACOB NORTON , of-Boston . The philosopher , John Locke , was deceived with a forged document , purporting to be a conversation between Henry VI . and a Mason . The forgery of the so-called " Cologne Charter , " is doubtless
familiar to many of our readers . The " History of Freemasonry" by the Eev . James Anderson ; " The Antiquities of Masonry , '' by the Eev . Dr . Oliver ; the forgery by the Rev . F . Daicho of the Frederick the Great Charter for the so-called Scoth Rite .
The number of knavish editors , Grand Masters , and high officials in this country , who to this day aver their belief in the above named humbugsthe ridiculous legends which form the basis of all the higher degrees , etc . When we take all these
Masonic deceptions into consideration , we may well pause at every step ; we may well question every historic assertion which is vouched for by our " great lights . "
About twelve months ago we were induced to question the geuuiness of Henry Price ' s commission . We inquired if the original commission of Henry Price was in existence , and were answered in the negative . We asked if any other document
survived the last century , and were answered " the original records of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts from 1733 are in existence . " We were
puzzled why Anderson in 1738 andEntick in 1756 mention the appointment of Tomlinson for America in 1738 , and why they were silent about Price in 1733 . Aud again , Bro . C . W . Moore , in his life of Price , gives Montacute as the Grand Master of
England for 1733 ; but we were satisfied that no such title as Montacute existed at the above period . Furthermore , the " first lodge , " now crlled " St . John ' s Lodge / which Price constituted in Boston in 1733 , Bro . 0 . W . Moore admits never had a
charter , until it received one from the present Grand Lodge in 1792 . Such conduct , it is needless to say , could never have taken place with the knowledge of the present Grand Lodge of England . These doubts wero embodied in an article designed
for the February number of the St . Louis Freemason , which was , however , returned to us by Bro . Goulep . In the month of February , 1868 , the letter of the Grand Secretary of England appeared in Bro . C . W . Moore ' s Magazine , asserting that Henry Price is mentioned in an almanac as
Old Documents Recently Dis Covered Compared With The Massachusets Records Of 1733.
having been Grand Master of America from 1733 to 17— . Though we were then perfectly satisfied that C . W . M . misprinted the English Secretary ' s letter , yet that letter brought us to halt in our speculations . Further inquiry we thought , was
necessary ; so we called on Bro . Thornton , Grand Secretary of Massachusetts , and asked permission to look at the original record of 1733 . The original record was not in his office , but a transcript was there ; and in that transcript , instead of finding
that Viscount Montacute gave Price the commission , we found it was Viscount Montague . This discovery , while it confirmed the unreliability of Bro . Moore's authorship , tended , however , to
remove one of the causes that led us to doubt the genuiness of Price ' s commission . That Bro . 0 . W . M . did really alter the dates of Bro . Hervey the Grand Secretary of England ' s letter , above alluded to , has been shown in a previous number
of the American Freemason . This substitutiou of Montacute for Montague is now referred to a committee , who will report on it at the next meeting of the Grand Lodge . The discussion , however , in the Masonic Monthly , as to whether it was
Montague or Montacute , served to bring forward some very interesting old documents , which have already brought to light historical facts hitherto unknown , and must serve still further to stimulate research .
About three weeks ago our esteemed old friend and brother , Dr . Winslow Lewis , P . G . M ., put into our hands two old documents , in which allusion is made to Viscount Montague . The first , which we shall call No . 1 , if genuine , is undoubtedly the
oldest Masonic document relating to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in existence . It purports to be the application to Henry Price , on the day he organised his Grand Lodge , to constitute the undersigned into the " First Lodge" ( now
St . John ' s Lodge ) . There were , however , two reasons for doubting its genuiness : first , though it is undoubted old , unfortunately some genuis had been tampering with it . Twice we found a 2 altered into a 3 , and the date given therein of
Price ' s commission was April 13 th , while in Moore ' s printed copy thereof , and in the transcript record of the Grand Lodge , ib is April 30 fch . But that is not all . In the printed copy the whole paragraph which alludes to Montague is omitted ;
while in the transcript we found that paragraph . The language in the printed copy is also mors modern , but of that we may speak hereafter .