Difference between revisions of "Central"

Revision as of 16:44, 11 May 2013

CENTRAL LODGE

Location: Dudley

Chartered By: John Soley

Charter Date: 03/14/1827 IV-81

Precedence Date: 03/12/1826

Current Status: unknown

REFERENCES IN GRAND LODGE PROCEEDINGS

• Petitions For Charter: 1826, 1827

OTHER

• 1827 (Constitution of lodge, IV-126)

ø Charter surrendered 06/11/1834

EVENTS

FEAST OF ST. JOHN, JUNE 1830

From Boston Masonic Mirror, New Series, Vol. 2, No. 2, July 10, 1830, Page 11:

From the Southbridge Register.

The anniversary of the nativity of St. John the Baptist, was celebrated at Dudley, on the 24th ult. under circumstances peculiarly interesting to the Fraternity. The exercises of the occasion were under the direction of the Central Lodge, aided by a great number of Masons present from the Lodges in the vicinity. There were also present a large concourse of spectators, apparently willing to testify their respect for an ancient and much abused Institution, which has for its object to make men more charitable, generous and humane. The exercises at the Meeting house were a prayer by the Rev. Mr. Goodwin, of the Episcopal Church, East Sutton, and an excellent address by the Rev. Mr. Colton, of Monson Academy. It is announced with great pleasure that it will be published.

After the exercises at the Meeting house, a large company of Gentlemen and Ladies consisting of about three hundred, sat down to a dinner served up in a beautiful bower by Wm. Winsor, Esq. Col. Alexander DeWitt presided at the table, and after the cloth had been removed, the following sentiments were announced.

• 1st. The day we celebrate - May it admonish us to cultivate peace and good will towards men - a maxim so forcibly taught and exemplified by him in honor of whom we commemorate this day.
• 2d. The Masonic Institution - Like a well Keyed Arch, it gathers strength and compactness, from the intensity of pressure which surrounds it.
• 3d. Freemasonry and Religion - Both well calculated to render all who live agreeably to the precepts they enjoin, better, happier and more useful to their fellow men.
• 4th. Freemasonry - By its aid, science survived the grand wreck of intellect during the dark ages. May its guardianship never be withdrawn.
• 5th. Our Country - May its altars never be polluted by a practical illustration of a leading Antimasonic principle - "pardon, and future affluence to State convicts, on condition that they commit perjury."
• 6th. Ancient Masonry - Though frequently assailed by the storms of envy and prejudice - like the Oak it increases strength with age.
• 7th. Freemasons - May they come forth from the present Antimasonic excitement, like the three who withstood the fiery furnace - without even a bad smell on their garments.
• 8th. Unity and Discord - May they never meet, until the latter becomes a proselyte to the former.
• 9th. The Memories of Washington and Warren - Foremost alike in repelling the foes of their Country, and in cultivating the Masonic arts of peace.
• 10th. Seceders - Ephraim is joined to his Idols, let him alone.
• 11th. Antimasonry - Like the car of juggernaut, it destroys its own votaries.
• 12th. Our Masonic Brethren throughout the world - Whilst they practice upon the principles of our order, they shall enjoy the highest meed which earth bestows on virtuous actions - "a self approving conscience.
• 13th. The Ladies who adorn and honor our festival - May Masons appreciate their worth and deserve their approbation.

A great number of volunteer sentiments were given on the occasion, evincing the good sense and good feelings of the company.

NOTES

Rev. Goodwin was probably Rev. Hersey Bradford Goodwin, who was made a co-pastor with Rev. Ezra Ripley at the Congregational Society in Concord, MA in February 1830; the following sermon and charge were presented at that time.

Rev. Mr. Colton of Monson Academy was Simeon Colton, one of the earliest instructors of that institution. He was raised in Thomas Lodge in 1819; he appears in the Centennial History on Page 1896-410 as follows:

Dr. Colton was a native of Longmeadow, a graduate of Yale in 1806, settled over the church in Palmer in 1811, dismissed in 1821, after which he was for some years the principal of Monson Academy, a teacher in North Carolina, and later president of Clinton College, Mississippi. The degree of D.D. was conferred upon him in 1846. He died at Ashborough, N.C., December, 1868. He was a man of much enterprise and of scholarly attainments. Dr. Colton often officiated as chaplain of the Lodge, and took much interest in the work.

Alexander De Witt (1798-1879) was a textile manufacturer from Oxford who at this time had just been elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. He later served briefly in the U.S. Congress.

DR. COLTON'S ADDRESS

From Boston Masonic Mirror, New Series, Vol. 2, No. 12, September 18, 1830, Page 89; Vol. 2, No. 13, September 25, 1830:

From the Hampshire Sentinel.

You have heard of the Gordian knot. Historians inform us that Alexander, in a fit of vexation, because he could not discover the secret of untying it, raised his sword, and determined with a single blow, to end a difficulty, which he had not the sagacity to comprehend nor the magnanimity to let alone.

Much like this is the feeling that has of late prevailed, in relation to the Masonic Institution. While some affect to consider it too contemptible to deserve attention; while some decry it as dangerous, and while others have tortured their invention in trying to find out its secrets, not a few in a fit of vexation have resolved with one blow to end the inquiry by cutting the knot, which they have not the skill to untie.

Under this paroxysm of feeling, a war of extermination has been proclaimed. No truce is to be allowed: no quarter is to be given. Absolute, unqualified submission is the only condition of peace. Such are the feelings which have of late been excited in relation to the Masonic Institution, and which it has been the endeavor of individuals to urge forward into an irreconcilable hatred and an unrelenting persecution.

Called to address you under such circumstances, it is no easy matter to select from the variety of subjects that present themselves a topic to which, for a few moments, your attention may most properly be directed. The history of the Institution; the principles on which it was founded; the salutary influence it has had on society; and its ability to become more extensively useful; are themes, which have often, on such occasions, been discussed. - Passing these, therefore, some may expect that in opposition to the attack recently commenced against the Institution, I should undertake its defence. This might be done, and this defence would furnish a subject to which our attention might be profitably directed. I will not, however, spend the time allotted to me in undertaking to defend that which, for the sake of Masons, needs no defence, and to defend which, in the view of enemies, would be worse than useless.

There are other topics that press upon our attention. - Under the ostensible plea of opposing Masonry, an attack has been made upon rights and privileges that lie at the foundation of all good society. Masons, it is true, are the immediate object of the attack, but should the demand made upon them be admitted there is not a man in the community who would be secure in his right for a moment. Masons, therefore, are not the only persons concerned in the case now pending before the public. Others are alike concerned, and the question at issue is one in which the dearest interest of individuals and society are at stake.

Allow me, then, to ask your attention for a brief examination of some of the claims of this antimasonic opposition - and to some remarks on the utter incompatibility of these claims with the rights of individuals, and on the duty of Masons in view of the existing circumstances of their Institution.

The principle which, if I understand it, is assumed as the basis of the prevailing sentiment is that the Institution is dangerous to the community and hazardous to personal safety. And in accordance with this principle, no pains have been spared to create and strengthen the impression that Masons are unworthy of confidence and unfit for stations of public trust. Attempts have been made to exclude them from offices which they have long sustained, and in instances not a few attempts have been made to exclude them from Christian privileges, as member of churches. These measures have all been attempted, and the work of proscription has not only commenced but in many places has been carried to the greatest extent that public sentiment would allow. Nor has this proscription been confined to Masons. Individuals not Masons, who have dared to question the propriety of the course adopted, have been loaded with opprobrious names, with a view to bring them into public contempt.

A more particular detail of the assumed principles and of the practices of this antimasonic excitement is not necessary at this time, for the history of the excitement is too well known to need a recapitulation. Suffice it to observe in relation to some of them, that they are utterly incompatible with the rights of individuals and subversive of the fundamental principles of liberty.

A demand is made upon Masons that Masonry shall be renounced, at the expense of forfeiting the confidence and favor of all who are not members of the Institution. This is the spirit that is breathed forth in the numerous publication which have been enlisted on that side of the question; in the addresses and what are called lectures which have been delivered in various parts of the country; and particularly in the resolutions that have been passed in antimasonic conventions. That I have not articulated this demand in too strong terms may be determined by numerous facts to which I refer you. What less than this can we infer from votes that have been passed in antimasonic meetings and even in Ecclesiastical bodies, where the subject has been taken up, discussed, and consequent measures pursued? What less can we infer from the votes that have been passed in some churches, concerning the fellowship of members? What less than this can be inferred from the votes of some of our towns, in the selection of names for jurors? What less from the votes of many political meetings and other assemblies that have been called for the purpose of expressing the feelings of the members?

Again then I ask, what is the Mason required to yield? The same that every man may be called to yield, should he happen to be so unfortunate as to be obnoxious to a party - viz., the right of private opinion. And suppose the Mason should yield; what will be the result? He has consented to be controlled by others in his opinions. He has given a pledge that whenever a demand is made upon him, he will consent to submit to dictation. This would be the first and a rapid step toward establishing a tyrannical government. And I hesitate not to say that the moment an individual yields to such a demand he forges a chain for himself that he can never break.

This demand, therefore, involves the general interest of society as well as those of the Mason. Nay, should Masons consent to yield to the demand, every discerning man would object; for in that act he would see but too plainly a signal for a demand to be made upon himself. - This demand is therefore so incompatible with the principles of liberty that antimasons do themselves compel Masons to say they cannot comply; for they demand a surrender, not of what belongs to them as Masons merely, but a right enjoyed in common with other citizens; a right which they cannot surrender without surrendering all that is dear to them as men. Had the demand been limited within the bounds of sober conviction; had it proceeded no further than reason would justify; had it been based upon evidence of wrong - Masons might have yielded to the weight of argument. But to ask men to yield to such a demand as that which is now made is but to require them to make a yoke for their own necks, or submit to be trampled on at pleasure.

Rather than submit to such a demand as this, give me my dwelling in the lonely forest; let my covering be the broad canopy of Heaven, and my food the spontaneous productions of the earth.

But this incompatibility is not the only objection to the claims of antimasonry. They are unreasonable.

That individuals have a right to associate themselves together for the purposes of business, for mutual improvement or for social enjoyment, provided the principles of association involve nothing contrary to the public good, will not I suppose be called in question. Nor will anyone doubt whether such an association may not prescribe its own rules for the management of its concerns, and its own terms on which new members shall be received. So far then, the Masonic Institution stands on the same footing with every association. The object is mutual improvement, mutual and peculiar assistance in the duties and trials of life. But it is said the association is peculiar for it has some things, intended to be secret, and thus it becomes a dangerous Institution. That there are things connected with the Institution which are intended to be known only to the members I do not deny. These however have no connection with the principles of the Institution, which are open to the world, nor have they any possible connection with the public good so that they can either benefit or injure. The forms and ceremonies of initiation, and the tokens whereby the members know each other, are all that can be considered secret. And if to keep these secrets be a crime, where is there an association to which the same objection may not be urged? For where is there an association, formed for business of pleasure or improvement, that does not assume the right of prescribing the terms of initiation, and of directing the mode and manner of operations, and all this without publishing to the world more than it pleases?

But it is said the Masonic Institution requires a special obligation. And where is there an association that does not, either formally or by implication require the same? But it is said this obligation binds the members to the performance of duties inconsistent with the public good. This insinuation is flatly denied. Nor will any Mason, who understands himself, ever assert it. Seceding Masons, I know, the better justify themselves before the public in denouncing the Institution, have asserted this. I would charitably hope they can plead ignorance of the obligation in excuse for their assertion; for it is certainly without foundation. Let the obligation be what it may, every candidate for initiation is expressly informed previous to taking it upon himself, that it requires nothing of him inconsistent with his duty to his Country or to God. He has, therefore, no right to interpret the obligation as implying a liberty to violate the peace of society in any case whatever. And it is a gross slander to insinuate such a thing concerning the Institution.

What then is there in the Masonic Institution that can form a just cause of alarm? Based on the purest principles of morality, designed as the means of promoting social intercourse; having nothing secret that can in the least degree affect the condition of any without, what is there in it that need excite the public odium? But it has said that it has been made a political engine. And suppose this were true: is the Institution to be condemned because it has been perverted? Why not then condemn the Church; why not condemn every literary association and every benevolent Institution?

Again, it is said that Masonry has been the means of impeding the course of justice, of condemning the innocent and clearing the guilty. I grant that this has been said, but I deny that it is with any just foundation, so far as the principles of Masonry or its obligations are concerned. - It is said, also, that Masonry sanctions the violations of private rights. This is downright falsehood, and no man would ever think of asserting it unless to support a bad cause, and the better to vindicate himself in defaming the character of the Institution. But it is still further said that Masonry encourages partiality in society, by binding its members to particular duties among themselves. I admit that the members are under peculiar obligation to each other, but not to the detriment of society, nor when their duty as good citizens require them to take an opposite course. And what association is there, where a similar feeling is not expected? Does not every member of a Mechanic, an Agricultural, or Literary Association cherish the same feeling? But Masonic charity, it is said, is a system of selfishness, being wholly confined to the members of the Association. This is not true. All men are to be the objects of his concern, but if a Masonic brother is to the be first object of attention, what is there in this inconsistent with reason or the practice of the best of men? Would any one expect a brother to leave a brother to perish that he might help a stranger? Where then is the crime that a Mason should first exercise his charity upon his suffering Brother?

But it is said that the Masonic Institution, operating in secret, is liable to be perverted. This objection is not without foundation. Bad men, obtaining the control of such an association, may sometimes make use of the secrecy as the means of carrying on their selfish schemes. Against this evil a remedy is provided in the union of virtuous men; for as all the transactions of a Lodge are open to each individual member, any improper proceeding is liable to be exposed if good men are found in the body sufficient to do it. In reply to this it is said that they would not dare to expose a fault. Such an assertion is too idle to be admitted by any one who knows anything of the Institution. No member is bound to keep as a secret an act done in a Lodge to the injury of the community. Nay, more, he is bound to proclaim every such act, and so far from having anything to fear there is not a Lodge in the land that would dare to censure him for his boldness. Is it reasonable then to decry an Institution as based and destructive against which no other objection can be urged? Is it reasonable to denounce an Institution which, if not possessing all the positive excellencies it might, is yet harmless in its character?

But beside this unreasonableness in opposing the Institution, there is a like unreasonableness, as well as much inconsistency in the manner of conducting the opposition. At one time we are told it is contemptible, and then all the arts of ridicule are mustered to make it appear odious. At another time it is clothed in all the array and terror of the Inquisition, and then men are called upon to watch its movements with a jealous eye. At one time we are told that its members are not worthy of confidence - at another, the same bold calumniator honestly confesses that the members with whom he is acquainted are as upright and honorable men as any that Society numbers. At one time we hear an individual denouncing Masonry in every stage and in every feature of the Institution - at another this same individual, pressed for proof of his assertion, confesses that the wickedness consists not in anything he has seen but in higher departments, to which he has not been admitted. Against individual members of the Association, a like unreasonableness and inconsistency has been manifested. Some are told that if they do not renounce, patronage in business shall be withdrawn from them. Some, who cannot be persuaded to renounce, are told that if they will abstain from all actual connection with Masons as such this shall be satisfactory as the means of securing a continuance of confidence. And when for the sake of peace the proposal has been met by a pledge, the whole transaction on the part of the persons demanding has proved like an Indian Treaty, the obligation of which the country feels no disposition to perform because the opposite contracting party has no power to compel the performance. The more peaceable, the more unoffending, the more defenceless the victim, the greater has been the violence shewn in attacking him. And to such an extent has this violence in some instances been carried that nothing has seemed capable of satisfying the cravings of the appetite for persecution. Detraction and slander are but common weapons that have been used, and there seems to be a determination that right or wrong the whole fabric shall be hurled to ruin. such is the manner in which this war upon Masonry has been conducted; - with a persecuting spirit, resolving to pursue its victim to death.

DISTRICTS

1827: District 6

LINKS

Massachusetts Lodges