MassachusettsHamiltonHistoryCh22

From MasonicGenealogy
Jump to: navigation, search

CHAPTER 22: GEORGE RANDALL

When the December Quarterly of 1851 came around there seems to have been some dissatisfaction with the method of nominating Grand Officers. When the hour for election arrived it was moved that one member from each Masonic District be appointed to serve as a nominating committee. This was voted, the Grand Lodge took a brief recess, the nominating committee was chosen, and in due time reported a full list of elective officers. On their nomination Rev. Bro. George M. Randall was elected, receiving 61 of the 73 votes cast. Eleven votes went to Lucius R. Paige and one to Ferdinand E. White. The method of committee nominations was continued for two more years.

Randall was born in Warren, R. I., November 23, 1810. He was a graduate from Brown University in 1835 and from the General Theological Seminary (Episcopalian) in New York in 1838. After a pastorate of six years in Fall River he became rector of the Church of the Messiah in Boston. In 1865 he was consecrated Bishop of Colorado. This was then a missionary field and covered, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. Here he devoted himself so unsparingly to his great task that he wore himself out and died October 28, 1873, at the comparatively early age of sixty-two. He was honored and loved for his great service to the church, his entire devotion to the cause of religion, and his saintly private character.

He took his degrees in Washington Lodge No. 3, of Warren, R. I., in 1845 and never gave up his connection with it. He affiliated with Columbian Lodge in 1857. He was Grand Chaplain in 1846 and 1847, District Deputy Grand Master for the First Masonic District in 1848, Deputy Grand Master in 1849, 1850, and 1851, and Grand Master in 1852, 1853, and 1854. After his removal to Colorado he was for several years Grand Orator of the Grand Lodge of Colorado.

His Masonic career shows the same indifference to technicalities on the part of the Grand Lodge as does Raymond's. He was never Master of a Lodge. It was only in the third year of his Deputy Grand Mastership that he affiliated with a Massachusetts Lodge. He remained a member of the Lodge in Warren throughout his life although neither Rhode Island nor Massachusetts permitted plural Membership.

Raymond appears to have been his Masonic patron. He affiliated with Raymond's Royal Arch Chapter. Raymond proposed him in De Molay Encampment. Raymond appointed him his Deputy Grand Master. He became a member of the Scottish Rite and Raymond made him an Active Member of his Supreme Council after the schism of 1860.

The pestilential Henry C. Atwood, of New York, had been busy again. At the December Quarterly of 1851, immediately after the election of officers, Grand Secretary Moore retired from the room and Randall offered the following resolutions which were discussed, unanimously adopted, and forwarded to the Grand Lodge of New York.

Whereas, this Grand Lodge has been informed that the moral character of its Secretary Rt. W. Chas. W. Moore, has been repeatedly and publicly aspersed by one Henry C. Atwood of the city of New York - therefore

Resolved, That this G. Lodge do hereby declare, in the most unqualified manner,- that in this community, where our Rt. W. Bro. Moore has passed his entire Masonic life, and where he has been repeatedly entrusted with the highest offices within the gift of his Brethren, the duties of which he has performed with honor to himself and with credit to the Institution. his moral character is unimpeached and unimpeachable.

Resolved. That during his connexion with this G. Lodge for about a quarter of a century, he has maintained an unsullied reputation.

Resolved. That the marks of distinguished consideration which have been bestowed upon our Brother by other Grand Lodges in these United States, and by Masonic bodies in Europe, have been richly merited by his labors as a Mason, and his uprightness as a man.

Resolved. That during the severest times in the Anti-Masonic warfare and during the subsequent political struggles, when he has been a candidate for civil offices, to the best of our knowledge, no opponent, anti-masonic or political, has ever, directly or indirectly accused him of any moral delinquency.

Resolved. That this Grand Lodge do hereby in vindication of its own honor as well as for the protection of one of its distinguished members call the attention of the M. W. G. Lodge of New York to the fact that one of its members has publicly preferred grave charges against the Secretary of this G. Lodge and request them to call upon the said Henry C. Atwood, to retract those charges.

At the December 27th Communication Randall, after the installation had been finished, introduced one Myron Lawrence, a State Senator, who, in behalf of Colonel Santiago Flores, Senior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of Peru who was present, presented to the Grand Lodge a jewel which had been worn by George Washington as the Presiding Master of an Army Lodge. He said that the jewel belonged to one Bystrzanowfski, Polish soldier in the American service. The Pole, being a Mason, became associated with Washington in an Army Lodge which conferred the Mark degree and over which Washington for a time presided. As the Pole was the only one who possessed a jewel suitable for the use of a presiding officer of such a Lodge he loaned it to Washington who later returned it to him with a complimentary letter. The Pole bequeathed it to his children through one of whom it came to Flores, a grandson of the original owner.

All this had an amusing sequel. When the Grand Lodge of Peru heard of the activities of Flores it sent official word to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts that Flores, though a Mason, was neither a colonel nor an officer of the Grand Lodge. He had assumed these titles as aids to the promotion of his private business. The jewel, which is not now in existence, as spurious as the donor. It was a good lesson to the Grand Lodge not to take peripatetic foreigners at their face value without verification.

One of the early acts in the new administration showed that there was yet something to be desired in the orderly functioning of the Craft under the Constitution of 1843. Rising Sun Lodge, of Nashua, N. H., filed a complaint against St. Paul Lodge, of Groton, charging that it had conferred the degrees on a resident of Nashua unlawfully. The committee to which the matter was referred reported that St. Paul Lodge had been served with a copy of the complaint and had admitted that the degrees had been conferred without consulting the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire and, moreover, all those, had been conferred at one meeting. The report found that St. Paul Lodge had violated the Grand Constitutions in two important particulars. Grand Lodge voted "That St. Paul Lodge, Groton, receive the censure of this Grand Lodge, through its Grand Master, with the assurance that a repetition of the offense alleged against them by Rising Sun Lodge at Nashua, N. H. will operate as a forfeiture of the Charter of their Lodge.

On May 11, 1852, Grand Master Randall called a Special Communication of Grand Lodge to receive that very picturesque revolutionist Louis Kossuth. Kossuth (1802-1894) had made himself conspicuous for many years as a leader of the Hungarian opposition to Austrian rule. When the wave of unsuccessful insurrection swept over Europe in 1848 he became an international figure. Hungary, under his leadership, declared its independence and elected him Dictator. .His short lived government collapsed in 1848 and he fled to Turkey, where he was confined for a time. After his release an American ship was placed at his disposal by the authorities at Washington and he was taken to England, where he was well received as political exiles have always been by that country. After a very short stay there he came to the United States for a stay of a few months. He returned to England for eight years and then settled in Italy. The rest of his long life was spent in exile. He was received in the United States with wild enthusiasm as a prophet of democracy, although a study of his career would seem to show that he was a nationalist rather than a democrat.

Kossuth and several of his associates received the Masonic degrees in Cincinnatus Lodge No. 133 of Cincinnati, Ohio, in February, 1852. The reception was very largely attended and there was exchange of pleasant speeches, in which Kossuth expressed himself, as he frequently did elsewhere, as being greatly impressed with the principles of Freemasonry and as being a very great admirer of it.

The Masons of Louisville, Kentucky, had circularized the Grand Lodges to raise funds for a Temple project. They asked for a loan of $25,000 in blocks of $500., for five years at 6 per cent. At the June Quarterly a courteous reply was returned wishing the Brethren well, but saying that the Grand Lodge needed all its resources to lake care of the indebtedness on its own Temple. The Grand Lodge could not well do otherwise. There were certainly no funds available for a donation. The proposed loan was hardly a good investment proposition and there is grave doubt as to whether it would have been proper for Trustees to invest Grand Lodge funds in this way.

At the June Communication of 1851 a petition was received from Jacob Norton, a member of St. Andrew's Lodge, and five others, the nature of which will appear in the report made upon it later. The petition was referred to George M. Randall, Simon W. Robinson, George G. Smith, Thomas M. Vinson, and Lucius B. Paige. The Committee asked several extensions of time and finally submitted a report at the June Quarterly of 1852. The report, which was unanimously adopted, is so important that it deserves reproduction in full.

"The Com. to whom was referred the petition of Jacob Norton and others professing the Jewish religion, praying this G. Lodge to cause such changes in the Masonic usages and ritual as will conform the work of the Order, to what they regard as ancient usage, beg leave to present the following Report.

The com. invited Bro. Norton to meet them and express his views on the subject, which he did very fully, ably and candidly. After due and careful consideration your com. unanimously recommend, that the petitioners have leave to withdraw. The com. make this recommendation, for reasons which they will endeavor to state as briefly as a respectful consideration of the subject will admit of.

Your Com. would observe in the first place, that the petitioners desire that all reference to the fact or the doctrines of the Christian religion in the work, or in the lectures of Freemasonry, should be expunged. The petitioners say in their petition, that "Masonry was intended to unite men of every country, sect and opinion." This is not so. All reasoning therefore upon such premises is erroneous. This society was not designed to unite men of every opinion. For example, If a man believe that there is a God, and yet holds that He is not the object of divine worship, is not a being to whom prayers are to be addressed, that the bible is not his inspired word, that an oath is not binding, that there is no such thing as a moral obligation to lead a pure life, he is not a person whom Free Masons would unite with her institution. And why not? We answer that his opinions do not agree with her principles.

The basis of this Fraternity is indeed broad, very broad, but not so broad as to unite men of all opinions.

Freemasonry opens her doors to men of every country and of every sect in religion - To Jews and Gentiles, She does not close her portals against any man for his religion - In this she is tolerant in the highest degree. The Jews in this country are allowed to enter our Institution and enjoy all its privileges of whatever name or nature. No restrictions whatever are placed upon them; because of their religion, which has drawn upon them most terrible persecutions in almost every land but our own. In this Fraternity they are admitted to an equality with all others and no distinction whatever is allowed to their prejudice. However the Jew may be looked upon and treated in the world, in a Masonic Lodge he is looked upon and treated as a Brother.

In this sense our Institution is not exclusive, and embraces men of all opinions without invidious or prejudicial distinctions. When the Lodge has done this, she has done all that her professions require her to do. If we did not do thus, our Jewish Brethren would have good cause of complaint.

The petitioners do not pretend that they are oppressed in this respect, that they are not admitted freely and fully to an equal enjoyment of all the privileges and benefits of this Institution. But they wish to have the Ritual and usages of Freemasonry, as it exists in this State, and as it has existed here since its introduction into this country, so changed that its ceremonial shall be perfectly agreeable to their religious views.

It appears to your Com. that any alterations for such a reason, would be, to make Freemasonry do the very thing which the petitioners say it should not do, viz: make the society sectarian- For if a Jew have a right to require the work of the Lodge to square with his peculiar views so may a Romanist or a Protestant make the same demand. A Quaker may object to any obligation. The Deist may object to all prayers, the Swedenborgian to all references to the doctrines of the resurrection of the body, the Papist to the use of an English version of the Bible; the Mormon to the use of any Bible at all. The Socialist may object to the rule of obedience and the practice of preferment and to all distinctions whatever. When Free-masonry professed to receive into her pale men of every religious sect,excluding none on account of their religion, she does not mean to statify {stultify} herself by pretending that all her lectures and ceremonies are so constructed as to place {please} every individual by exactly according with every shade of his religious views. Such a pretension would be sheer folly,since no Institution can do this and no honest society would pretend to do it.

What this Institution does profess to do is, to exclude no man from her pale because of his religion, to make no individual distinctions between men of different religious sentences. If she compel a Jew to offer up a prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or compelled a Christian to pray differently from the mode of his faith then there would be oppression If a Jew prays at all she leaves him to pray as he thinks most proper, and the liberty she allows to a Jew, she allows to a Christian. To permit a Jew, to pray as he pleases, and to compel the Christian to pray as the Jew does and only as the Jew does, would be wrong and oppressive. An Israelite believes that he should pray to the Most High alone. The Christian believes as sincerely that he should "offer up his prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and he cannot conscientiously pray in any other way."

The Jewish Brother says, "I cannot be compelled to pray in any other way which is contrary to my conscientious belief." Very well - in this Institution nobody requires him to do so.- But he is not satisfied with this degree of liberty, he demands that the Christian shall pray as he does, or else not pray at all. The Christian replies that it is as much against his conscience to neglect to pray in the name of Christ, as it is against the conscience of the Jew to pray in His name.

If the G. Lodge should pass an edict, requiring all prayers to be in the Jewish form, and no other, then it would be guilty of violating the assurance, which the candidate receives at his initiation. It would be making a distinction which would be oppressive. The true and just course is the one which the G. Lodge has ever pursued, and that is to leave this matter entirely without legislation. The Jew and the Christian of whatever creed, is allowed to offer prayer in the form which he deems to be most acceptable to the Most High. No one can be in this matter aggrieved who is neither required to pray in a particular form, nor required to pray at all unless he is disposed to do so, any absolute proscription of a form on the other hand, by the G. Lodge, would be an infraction of the principles of the order.

A compliance therefore on the part of this G. Lodge with the request of the petitioners, to instruct the Lodges under its jurisdiction, to permit only such prayers as will not conflict with any persons religious opinions "provided he has Faith in God, Hope in immortality, and Charity with all men," would be to make Freemasonry proscriptive and sectarian which is the very thing against which our Hebrew Brethren profess to petition.

Furthermore if this petition were to be granted and the changes made which are desired, where is this change to stop? Can we have only Jewish prayers and yet have a Christian Bible on our Altars? Will not consistency require that we should have no longer the great light of Masonry, as it has shone, ever since its benign ray struck upon this continent, but only one part of it, viz:- the old testament, and that in the Hebrew tongue.

Again - if this request be complied with, how can we refuse to receive and grant the petitions of others, who are neither Jews, nor Christians, who believe in God, but who do not believe in the immortality of the soul? must we not change our lectures and charges - Must we not fling away the sprig of Acacia? Can we keep that precious emblem of immortality when it becomes offensive to the religious notions of one, who believes in God, but does not believe in the immortality of the soul.

Where we ask is this thing to end - If we should commence the work of change that we might adapt our Order to the conflicting opinions of all who may enter its pale, it requires no great sagacity to see, that the result would be a complete annihilation of the Institution.

Thus far, we have considered simply the expediency of making some of the changes asked for by the petitioners, We come, now to the question, whether this G. Lodge has the power or the right to make these proposed alterations: On this point your Com. cannot hesitate for a single moment, to answer this question most decidedly in the negative.

We have received Freemasonry with its landmarks, with all its landmarks from England, Among these is the dedication to the holy Saints John. We have so received it and we have so imparted it. Our Jewish Brethren wish us to change this dedication and to make such other alterations "as are consistent with their religious belief."

This G. Lodge can do many things, but there are some things which it cannot do, and to remove an "ancient landmark" is one of the things it cannot do. If it should pass a vote changing the dedication it would not only transcend its legitimate authority, but it would do an act which the obligations of the subordinate Lodges would compel them to entirely discard.

What they as Lodges and as individuals have received they must impart, and that too, in the way in which they have received it and in no other way. Without further discussion we might rest the case here as clearly made out on the ground that the G. Lodge have no authority whatever to grant the request of the petitioners, and if they should do so, it would avail nothing since the obligations of the members of the subordinate Lodges would impel them to resist any such ordinance of the G. Lodge.

But for the satisfaction of our Jewish Brethren, whose petition is couched in the most respectful terms, we are willing to go a step behind this petition and briefly refer to the historical aspect of this question.

In reply to what we have already said, our Brethren might inquire, if we should deem it our duty to adhere to our practice, if it could be shown that we had not received the correct work and lectures? In answer we have only to say that we know no other Masonry than that which we have received. And we have no reason to believe that what we received was any other than the true. So far as the subjects of the petition before us, are particularly involved, we believe that the history of Masonry will clearly prove that our practice is strictly correct. The petitioners refer to the fact that since 1813, when G. Lodges of Ancient York and England coalesced under the title of "United Grand Lodge of England" the same practice which they petition for was adopted. With the present practice of the G, Lodge of England we have nothing to do, The question which mainly concerns us on this point is, what was the practice of those G. Lodges from which we received Masonry at the time that we received it.

In 1733, R.W. Henry Price of this City received from England the first Charter eyer received for any Lodge whatever on this continent. This Charter conferred G. Lodge powers.

In the year 1756 St. Andrew's Lodge received from Scotland a charter, which respited in the establishment of another G. Lodge, and so there were two rival G. Lodges. In the year 1792, they united and formed what is now our G. Lodge of Massachusetts. The facts take us at once to England before 1733 and to Scotland before 1756. The practice which obtained at their periods, in those G. Lodges was the practice, which we received, and which of course should constitute the "Landmarks" at this day. What were these landmarks touching the points referred to, by the petitioners.

In answering this question we are much indebted to the Rev. Oliver of England, whose work entitled A Mirror for the Johannite Masons, we have made liberal extracts.

Dr. Anderson writes, under date 1679 that many of the Fraternity's records of this and former reigns were burned in the next, and at the revolution, and many of them were too hastily burned in his own time for a fear of making discoveries, so that that there is no so ample an account as could be wished of the G. Lodge.

When in 1720, Dr. Anderson compiled a book on constitutions by order of the G. Lodge he adds "the freemasons had always a book in manuscript, called the book of Constitutions containing not only their charges and regulations, but the history of architecture, but they had no book of Constitutions in print, until his Grace the present Duke of Montague, when G. Master, ordered me to peruse the old manuscripts, and digest the constitutions with a just chronology.

Dr. Anderson together with others who were constituted his associates drew up a series of Lectures for the use of the Lodges. These were widely disseminated and constituted an authentic digest of the pure and legitimate doctrine of Masonry.

These lectures formed the basis of all succeeding ones; and says Dr. Oliver throughout the whole series the Sts. John are named as the patrons of the Order.

They accompanied all the warrants which were sent to foreign parts, and we accordingly find that at that early period in every country of Europe; where Masonry was planted under the authority of the G. Lodge of England, the Lodges were called by the name of St. John.

When Masonry was revived in the year 1717, and these lectures were authorized by the G. Lodge of England we have no reason to doubt that the landmarks were then pure and unchanged, as an illustration of what was then held touching the subject under consideration, we quote the following question, which occurs in their lectures.

  • Q, -"From whence came you."
  • A. "From the holy Lodge of St, John" - This is an unequivocal testimony of the first G. Lodge under the revived system, to the fact that Lodges were dedicated to St. John. In a formula used a little later than the middle of the last century which was called the "Old York Lecture." the two Sts. John, occupy a prominent situation, the following is an extract.
  • Q. "To whom were they (Lodges) dedicated under the Christian Dispensation,
  • A.- "From Solomon the patronage of Masonry passed to St. John the Baptist.
  • Q.- "Why were Lodges dedicated to St. John the Baptist.
  • A.- "Because he was the forerunner of our Saviour, and by preaching repentance and humiliation, drew the first parallel of the Gospel."
  • Q.- Had John the Baptist any equal"-
  • A.- "He had, St. John the Evangelist.
  • Q. "Why is he said to be equal to the Evangelist.
  • A. -"Because he finished by his learning, what the other began by his zeal, and thus drew a second line, parallel to the former, ever since the time, Freemasons Lodges in all Christian countries, have been dedicated to the one, or to the other, or both of these worthy and worshipful men.


Says, Dr. Oliver - In the original lectures compiled by Sayer, Payne and Desaguliers and Cowper, in the reviewers of Dunkerly and Martin Clare, twice repeated, and in the extended rituals of Hutchinson, Preston and others which were in use down to the reunion in 1813, and by some Lodges even to the present time - "the Sts. John occupy their place as the patrons of Masonry, no link in the chain of evidence is broken; for in no one ritual whether ancient or modern, which was in use during the whole century were they omitted.

It was the law of the English G. Lodge established in 1721, that the Lodges in and about Westminster should hold an annual communication on St, John the Baptist day, or else on St. John the Evangelist.

But that this was no new custom, no innovation upon ancient usage, is evident from an historical fact. It is stated that Queen Elizabeth sent an armed force to break up the Annual G.Lodge at York, which was always held on the day of St. John the Evangelist, when Sir Thomas Sackville, the G. Master induced the officers to be initiated, and their report td> the.Queen was so satisfactory that she gave them no further disturbance. Thus it appears that more than one hundred years before the revision of Masonry by the G. Lodge in 1717 the G. Lodge of York observed the festival of St. John the Evangelist.

This custom is said to have existed from time immemorial in proof of which Dr. Oliver refers to a copy of the old Gothic Constitutions, which was produced at a grand festival on St. Johns day in the year 1663 before Henry Jermyn, earl of St. Alban's, Grand Master. Thus much we have deemed it proper to say upon the historical point involved in the master under consideration, by which it appear plainly enough that all we know, and all we knew, of English Free-Masonry up to the present century recognizes the dedication of Lodges to God, and to the holy St. John as a part of the usages of the order, and the observance of the days set apart for the commemoration of these two persons as Masonic festivals.

But we said that we received a part of our Masonry from Scotland. It will be proper to advert for a moment to the decision of the G. Lodge of Scotland touching this subject. "It is evident says Dr. Oliver that the substitution of the St. Johns for Moses and Solomon, was an article of belief among the first Masons who introduced the Craft into this Island. The Kilwinning system which may be traced back to the 12th century is called "St. John's Masonry" and in the present laws of the G. Lodge of Scotland this principle is unreservedly maintained in the provision respecting "private Lodges, where all Lodges holding of the G. Lodge of Scotland, are strictly prohibited and discharged from holding any other meetings than those of three orders of Apprentice, Fellow-craft, and Master Mason, denominated St. John's Masonry.

We have shown that in our own G. Lodge those parts of the work and lectures which the petitioners desire to have expunged were received from England and Scotland and that these Gd. Lodges held to them at the time they transmitted the Institution to us, and they had been moreover held by their predecessors from time immemorial.

When Masonry was in the custody of the Jews there is no doubt that Lodges were dedicated to Solomon. But after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and dissolution of the Jewish policy, both civil and ecclesiastical Masonry naturally fell into the hands of the Christians. From that time to this, our tradition is, that they were dedicated to the Sts. John, and no historical facts, have been or can be, adduced to show that history in this respect is erroneous.

We have no evidence that there have been any Lodges but Christian Lodges since the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews have not been in a situation to hold Lodges. They have had no country, no home, no nation, no government. They have been flying from one country to another, seeking to escape from the persecutions that every where pursued them. That they have maintained their existence as a race, dispersed as they have been over the earth, is a miracle, which proves, if nothing else aid that they are the ancient people of God, and that their condition for the last eighteen hundred years is a fulfillment of divine prophecy.

Freemasonry did for them what few, if any other societies were willing to do. They were virtually outlawed in many countries, and in scarcely a single christian nation were they admitted to the full enjoyments of the privileges of citizenship. Even in England at this very day they are debarred from holding a seat in Parliament.

In some of our own states, they are not eligible to hold any civil office, and yet no where on the face of the earth, do they enjoy so much of privilege or are they so well treated as in England and the United States, under such circumstances this Institution true to its principles as a cosmopolite society, opens its doors to them, and permits them to enter its pale, if they desire to do so, with the assurance if they do so that they shall be hailed and treated as Brethren, that there shall be one spot that they shall call home, where they may dwell in safety and peace, where they shall enjoy all its immunities and privileges, eligible to any office, entitled to all the benefits which the Fraternity have covenanted to extend to each other, this was a very great favor, and we have no doubt that our Israelitish Brethren have esteemed it as such.

To the best of our information it was not until about the middle of the last century that the Jews were admitted into Freemasonry, with the exception of their connexion (sic) with the spurious Lodges on the continent as Masonry was then understood and practiced. Up to about the year 1754 there was no authorized form of Masonic prayer in use in the Lodges in England. The Prayer book was then a text book of the Lodge. The Master was left to his own discretion in this particular although the general practice was to select an appropriate form from the Liturgy.

About this time the Jews were first admitted into the English Lodges, they very naturally objected then as they object now, to the use of the forms of the Christian worship. These objections being yielded to by some of the Masters led to irregularities in the devotional services of the Lodge room. But this did not meet the approbation of ti^e old and eminent members of the order who were desirous of transmitting to their successors the forms and lessons of Masonry as they had learned them.

In order to set this matter right by authority, Dr. Manningham, then Deputy G. Master in connexion with Dr. Anderson drew up the following prayer to be used at the initiation of Candidates, and laid it before the G. Lodge at London for its sanction by which it was immediately adopted. It was published in the Freemasons Pocket Companion for 1754. (See Freemason's Monthly Magazine for March 1852 from which the above account is taken.)

"Most Holy and Glorious Lord God, thou Architect of heaven and earth, who art the giver of all good gifts and graces; and hast promised where two or three are gathered together in thy name, thou wilt be in the midst of them, in thy name we assemble and meet together, most humbly beseeching thee to bless us in all our undertakings, to give us the Holy Spirit, and to enlighten our minds with wisdom and understanding, that we may know and serve thee aright, that all our doings may tend to thy glory and the salvation of our soul3. And we beseech thee O Lord God, to bless this our present undertaking and to grant that this our Brother may dedicate his life to thy service and be a true and faithful Brother among us, Endue him with divine wisdom, that he may with the secrets of Masonry be able to unfold the mysteries of godliness and Christianity. This we humbly beg in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, Amen."

This historical incident clearly proves two important facts, that previous to the year 1754 the English Lodges, had been accustomed to use prayers taken from a Christian Liturgy, and secondly that the admission of Jews into the Fraternity, caused a discussion of the propriety of such prayers, which resulted in a decision of the G. Lodge, by which a Christian form of worship was adopted.

It is very evident from what has been said, that all the Masonry which all the world has known anything about, since the destruction of Jerusalem up to about one hundred years ago, has been Christian Masonry, that is Freemasonry in the hands of Christians, conducted by them in a the manner which has recognized in some form or other, the fact and authority of the Christian religion. Yet it does not exclude persons who are not Christians. It requires belief in God as an indispensable qualification. Professing that, if there be no objection to the candidate as wanting in other qualifications he is admitted. In this sense we have received no other kind of Masonry and we can transmit no other. At the building of the Temple the society was mainly in the hands of the Jews, now it is mainly in Christian hands, but open for Jews as well as Gentiles. It is confined to no sect and to no nation. We trust that this G. Lodge will be the last to do anything to change the Ancient Landmarks of the Order; to circumscribe its influence, to restrict its usefulness, to render it national or sectarian, or to commence in any form or for any purpose the mischievous work of innovation upon its well established principles.

For these reasons and for others which might be named, the Committee recommend that the petitioners have leave to withdraw -.

For the Committee
Geo. M. Randall.

The report was probably drafted by Randall. While it reflects certain views regarding Freemasonry before the Christian era which were then generally held, but are now largely abandoned, it is able, convincing, and conclusive. Broad and tolerant in spirit, it states very definitely and conclusively the position of Massachusetts Freemasonry. As we have seen, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts had already placed itself on record as condemning discrimination against Jews as utterly unmasonic. This, of course applied, and could apply, only to constitutional discrimination. The Grand Lodge had, and has, no authority to control particular Lodges in their attitude regarding the admission of Jews to membership. The matter never again came before Grand Lodge. A few years ago a Jewish Lodge in this jurisdiction asked if the Master Mason diploma issued by Grand Lodge might be changed for Jewish' Master Masons. One of the allegorical figures thereon represented holds a cross. The Jewish Brethren would have liked to have the cross omitted. On being shown that it was impracticable to have a special diploma for any special class of members they appeared to be quite satisfied. This appears to have been one of the many manifestations of the race consciousness which was stirred to activity by the persecution of the Jews which became acute in many countries of Continental Europe about that time.

At the March Quarterly of 1853 a long report was presented on certain difficulties which had occurred in the Grand Lodge of California. Communications had been received from both parties to the dispute and had been referred to a committee consisting of George C. Smith, Lucius R. Paige, Simon W. Robinson, Edward A. Raymond, and John R. Bradford. The Grand Master of California, Benjamin L. Hyam, had been severely censured by his Grand Lodge for making Masons at sight and pocketing the fees. In some cases the Masons so made were rejected applicants. There were further allegations that the Grand Master, being present in a Lodge, but not having assumed the East, had refused to obey the Master and an unseemly exchange of words had followed. The censure had been emphasized by the expression of a wish that the Grand Master, who was then temporarily absent from the state might not return, but might leave the Deputy Grand Master to carry on for the remainder of his term.

The Grand Master's rejoinder was to the effect that making a Mason at sight was a prerogative of his office and that his position as Grand Master set him above all Masonic law. There appears to have been some haziness of thought as to exactly what is meant by making a Mason at sight, a haziness not at all surprising in view of the fact that the Grand Lodge of California load only been formed in 1850. It is also perfectly clear that both sides had lost their tempers.

On recommendation of the committee the Grand Lodge passed the following resolution:

In G. Lodge March 9, 1855.

Resolved. That the G. Lodge of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has seen with deep regret, the difficulties which have sprung up of late, between the G. Lodge together with many Brethren of California and the M. W. G. Master, B.D. Hyam. And in all fraternal love and respect, we earnestly entreat the contending parties to review, dispassionately their difficulties, and considering their mutual pledges to each other, and their joint interest in the prosperity and happiness of the Craft, that they take immediate measures, to reconcile as soon as may be all differences and misunderstandings in the true Masonic spirit on mutual forbearance, conciliation and Brotherly love.

This same advice appears to have been followed, as the next meeting of Grand Lodge found Hyam in his chair and the Proceedings of California indicate that the incident was considered closed.

The dispute in no way concerned Massachusetts and our Grand Lodge could not properly take sides in it. The report is, however, of considerable importance because some 2000 words of it are devoted to a discussion of the power of a Grand Master to make Masons at sight. While admitting that there were differences of opinion on the subject, the committee concluded that the Grand Master does not possess that power. At present, and for many years, the best Masonic jurists in Massachusetts agree that though there are no recorded instances of one of our Grand Masters having exercised that power since the eighteenth century the power does exist. In some other Grand Jurisdictions it is exercised. The present writer has seen it done in Pennsylvania. Perhaps the best known case is the making at sight of President William Howard Taft by the Grand Master of Ohio.

At the Communication of December 27, 1853, Grand Master Randall reported that on August 17 he had granted a Dispensation for a Lodge in Valparaiso, Chile. When the petition for a Charter came before the Grand Lodge on December 13, 1854, an interesting situation came to light. The Committee on the petition made the report which follows:

"Boston Dec. 13th, 1854.

The Committee on the application of Edwd. W, Sartori and others, for a Lodge to be called Bethesda Lodge in Valparaiso, Chili, have attended to the duty assigned them, and ask leave to report.

That in consequence of the somewhat peculiar circumstances of this case, it becomes necessary to make a short statement thereof that the Grand Lodge may fully understand it in all its bearings.

In July or Aug, of 1852, a number of brethren in Valparaiso, some of whom received the degrees in this vicinity and are well known here, transmitted a petition to the Grand Lodge of California praying for a Dispensation to constitute a Lodge under the name of "Pacific Lodge." They waited till May 1853, when receiving no answer to their petition, they lost all hope of any, and accordingly petitioned this Grand Lodge for a Charter under the name of Bethesda Lodge. The petition was duly received, and the M. W. Grand Master, finding that some of the applicants were well known to be men of standing and character, issued a Dispensation dated Aug. 27th, 1853, to Edw. W. Sartori and others for a Lodge as prayed for under the name of Bethesda Lodge. In June of that year the steamer Quito was wrecked on her passage from San Francisco to Valparaiso, and in July the brethren there received their Dispensation, found floating near the beach where the Quito was wrecked, giving them authority from the Grand Lodge of California to constitute Pacific Lodge, which was accordingly done on the 26th of July a few days after receiving the Dispensation.

They worked under that authority till Dec. of that year, when on making up their accounts, they found it impossible to proceed any longer under that authority, as they were getting deeper and deeper in debt every day. They then decided to give up their Dispensation from California and wrote the M. W. Grand Master of that Grand Lodge informing him thereof, returning the Dispensation and sending sufficient money to pay all dues.

The Dispensation from this Grand Lodge for Bethesda Lodge was received Dec. 14th, 1853, when the Brethren held a meeting and voted to accept the same unanimously. Their first meeting for work was held Jan. 18th, 1854, and their meetings have been held regularly ever since. They have transmitted funds, for the payment of dues to this Grand Lodge, and also for the Charter, should one be granted them, they have, in short, fulfilled every duty to us, and are now in apparently good and regular standing.

The unfortunate complication of affairs arising from their double application to the Grand Lodge of California and to us, is the only feature of the case, requiring examination; and its aspects appear to your Committee as follows:- They made application to the Grand Lodge of California for a Lodge under the name of "Pacific Lodge" waiting some months in vain for an answer - for an answer, they then made application to us for a Lodge under the name of Bethesda Lodge. The Dispensation from California having been accidently delayed, arrived before ours, and they organized under it, but found they could not sustain their Lodge, and returned it, paying all dues, and then reorganized with a different name under ours.

The only question is, had they a right under the circumstances to return this Dispensation to dissolve their Lodge, and then to organize under a different authority, and with another name?

Your Committee after consulting competent Masonic authority have concluded that they had that right; since their being no Grand Lodge in Chili, they necessarily worked under foreign authority and we see no reason to doubt that it was competent for them, finding it impossible to succeed under the Regulations of one foreign authority, viz:- the Grand Lodge of California, and having decided to relinquish their organization under the same - then to accept and work under a Dispensation from another foreign authority viz:- The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, first paying all dues and regularly returning their Dispensation to the G. Lodge of Cal. as it appears they have done.

Under these circumstances, your Committee recommend that a Charter be issued as prayed for by Bethesda Lodge in Valparaiso. All of which is respectfully submitted.

  • G. G. Smith,
  • E. A. Raymond,
  • C. W. Moore.

Com.

The Charter was granted, and Bethesda is the oldest of our now existing overseas Lodges.

An interesting case of Masonic discipline came up at the June quarterly of 1854. The report which follows was accepted by Grand Lodge. It is important as showing the fundamental principles to be followed in dealing with certain cases which not infrequently arise.

In Grand Lodge, June 14th, 1854.

The Committee, to whom was referred a communication from Mt. Carmel Lodge, announcing the suspension of Bro. Isaac Brown, submit the following Report.

At the time and place appointed for the hearing of the parties, Mt. Carmel Lodge appeared by its W. Master and S. Warden, and Bro. Brown in person. At this hearing nothing was elicited, which appeared essential to the case, beyond what it contained in the official communication. Two facts, however, were presented, which, from their general interest, seem to demand notice.

  1. It appeared that no copy of the charge against him was served on
Bro. Brown, until the time appointed for the trial. On the other hand,
it appeared that, when this omission was named, the W» Master, proposed
to stay proceedings until the constitutional notice could be given; but that Bro. Brown waved all objections, and consented to proceed at once to trial: Unquestionably, the notice should have been given, and Bro. Brown had a right to refuse the trial for fourteen days; but, having waived his his objection, and consented to proceed, he is bound by his own act, and cannot now go back and allege informality.
  2. It was alleged by Bro. Brown, that he had never been officially
informed of his suspension, but learned the fact by common rumor. The . W. Master, was confident that he directed the Secretary to transmit an official notice; and that, if it was not so transmitted, the omission was accidental. He suggested, however, that although such notice was proper, as a matter of courtesy, it was not required, by the Constitution.


Your Committee are of opinion, that, if the Constitution do not, in so many words, require such notice to be given, it clearly implies the duty by providing for an appeal to the Grand Lodge from the judgment of a subordinate Lodge. An appeal cannot be framed according to the Rule, prescribed by the Constitution, unless the appellant know, precisely, what his grievance is; nor can he obtain that knowledge, in an authentic form, except by an attested copy of the record. if such copy be not furnished, it is easy to conceive that grievous wrong might be the result. With the foregoing exceptions,- and these do not affect the decision of the present case,- the proceedings of Mt. Carmel Lodge appear to have been regular and according to the prescribed forms of trial. The Charge, signed by three members of the Lodge, was in these words:-"We charge Bro. Isaac Brown, a Master Mason, and member of this Lodge with having induced Bro. Edward Carroll, also a Master Mason, to endorse a note, to the amount of fifty dollars, on the third day of March, 1849; that this favor was obtained by the influence of his Masonic connections to our order and this Lodge; and furthermore that he pledged his honor as a further inducement; and that he has wrongfully and willfully made no payment of the same up to this date."

By the testimony introduced at the trial, as recorded and transmitted to the Grand Lodge, and by previous correspondence between the parties; which the official communication represents as a part of the case, the charge that Bro. Brown, became indebted to Bro. Carroll at the time and to the amount alleged and that he has never cancelled the debt, is fully sustained. By the same testimony and correspondence, it appears that Bro. Brown, has uniformly admitted his indebtedness, and professed his intention and desire to pay the debt principal and interest; but that he has uniformly declared that he could not make present payment, on account of pecuniary inability:- which inability occasioned, as he said by misfortunes and disappointments - generally, and by certain specified losses and by sickness in his family in particular.

It appears, moreover, that having commenced the practice of law, since the debt was contracted, and subsequently made, still other engagements, Bro. Brown has often expressed confident hopes of receiving more ample means, and from time to time has made promises, that, from his expected receipts, he would discharge the debt;- which promises have not been fulfilled. Upon this state of facts, as exhibited by the testimony, the Lodge, by a majority of seven against three votes, pronounced a verdict of guilty; and, by the same majority, voted "That Bro. Isaac Brown be suspended." This sentence, according to the Constitutions not only, suspends Bro. Brown's connection with Mt. Carmel Lodge, but also "excludes him from all his Masonic privileges, and prohibits all Masonic intercourse between him and his Brethren, during the time of bis suspension." It remains for the Grand Lodge to determine whether this sentence shall be confirmed or annulled. To arrive at a just decision - two important facts are to be considered, to wit;- the precise offense charged and, whether the charge is sustained by the testimony, as certified to the Grand Lodge.

  1. The offense charged. It surely cannot be charged as unmasonic
 conduct, that Bro. Brown obtained the endorsement of his note by a friend:
 for this is a common business transaction, which no rule or principle of
masonry forbids. Nor can the mere fact that he failed to pay the note at maturity, and has not since paid it, be regarded as unmasonic and deserving of suspension. Many good men and masons have been subjected to the mortification of being unable to pay their just debts, and still have gone down to the grave, honored by the fraternity. One of the earliest lessons, we are taught in Masonry is that honest poverty is no crime; and we are impressively admonished that a man may be in a poor and penniless condition, and yet instead of deserving blame, may be justly entitled to out friendship and assistance, as a distressed worthy brother. Something more than a mere failure to pay just and honest debts is necessary to constitute an offense against the laws of Masonry. There must be a willful witholding of just dues, or at least a culpable negligence, on the part of the debtor. The strength of the charge against Bro. Brown, therefore, is embraced in the qualifying words "of the allegation that" he has wrongfully and willfully made no payment."
  2. The question remains, whether the charge is sustained by the
 testimony. It was distinctly proved that Bro. Brown often confessed the
debt, and declared his intention and desire to pay it as soon as he should
grasp the good fortune which he seems always to have fancied to be just
within his reach: but he uniformly professed his utter inability at present.,
to do so. His general reputation for veracity m^y be presumed to be good ,
from the fact that his brethren, to whom he was best known, had, within

the last two or three years, successively elected him Warden and Master of Mt. Carmel Lodge. His declaration should therefore be taken as worthy of belief and entitled to full credit, unless reasonable doubt is excited by facts which are inconsistent with its truth. But no such facts appear in the testimony. There is no evidence that any attempt was made, to prove that, at any time within these five years, he had the means to pay even so small a sum as fifty dollars, besides supplying the necessary wants of his family. Testimony was introduced, that he frequently said that he expected to receive money,- once in particular from a certain Roach estate; but no proof appears that his expectations were realized, except his own declarations in open Lodge which is thus recorded:- "There being no other testimony, Bro. Brown rose to reply; during which he admitted the note to be his, and also the justness of the debt: and also that he had received $20.00 for the Roach business, but was compelled to spend it for necessaries for his family." Whatever his receipts may have been, and from whatever source; this is the only sum of money, which the testimony proves him to have received for the spade of five years. Indeed it does not appear by the recorded testimony, nor was it alleged at the hearing of the parties, that he was generally supposed by the members of the Lodge or by the community at large to be able to pay his debts.

Upon a full consideration of the whole subject, your Committee are unanimously of opinion that the charge, so far as it alleges criminal or unmasonic conduct, was not sustained by the testimony, and that the verdict in the case was erroneous. The adoption of the following Order is therefore recommended:-

Ordered, That the suspension of Bro. Isaac Brown by Mount Carmel Lodge be annulled; and that he be and hereby is restored to the benefits and privileges of Masonry.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

  • Lucius R. Paige.
  • John B. Hammatt.
  • Geo. G. Smith.

Com.

At the September Quarterly of 1854 an appeal for aid was received from King Solomon's Lodge of Waldoboro, Maine, many of whose members had been ruined by a disastrous fire which had wiped out the town. Grand Lodge voted to send a hundred dollars.

At the same Communication a petition was presented from a group of Germans who desired to have a German language Lodge. Owing to the unusual nature of the case Grand Master Randall did not use his constitutional powers regarding Dispensations, but referred the matter to a strong committee consisting of Edward A. Raymond, Simon W. Robinson, John R. Bradford, George E. Smith, C. Gayton Pickman, William Knapp and Winslow Lewis, Jr.

Some eighteenth century experiments with foreign language Lodges had been discouraging. Since that time there had been no foreign language Lodges and no Lodges recruited from any particular class or group of persons. The majority of the committee feared to take the unusual-step of chartering such a Lodge and reported adversely. Lewis and Knapp, however presented a minority report. A motion to accept the minority report brought about a lengthly discussion, but the motion finally prevailed by the close vote of 27 to 24. The report which follows was undoubtedly drawn by Lewis.

"Minority Report - Adopted."

That Masonry is cosmopolitan. She acknowledges for her votaries no particular tongue, nation or sect. She opens her portals for all, if they be but worthy and well qualified. She asks not for any special dialect. She but teaches and requires that universal language which is used whenever' its influence is diffused.

There are no laws of naturalization in Masonry; its demand only - Is he "good and true."

The undersigned are not aware that there is any regulation or law of any Grand Lodge in any part of the world which requires the applicants for a Charter to state in what language they propose to converse or administer the rituals of the Institution.

It is understood that in Boston and in its vicinity there are 28,000 Germans. As a nation, the Germans are distinguished for their industry and honesty: and from this stock we have ever had quiet and good citizens.

Now among these are many masons of character who are attached to the Institution and are desirous of enjoying its happy, moral and social influences. This they cannot do in our Lodges, and are therefore cut off from those advantages and pleasures with which others are so highly favored.

They ask to be previously well tried; for a dispensation only; promising to observe all the inculcations, laws and regulations and ceremonies enjoined by the Grand Lodge, - in short to submit implicitly to this body.

They ask it now, when there is a necessity for new Lodges, when our numbers are overflowing, and when there is scarcely an evening unoccupied.

They come with their application in due form, with the approbation of the Dist. Dep. Grand Master and the approval of one of our own Lodges:-

They ask for that which has always been granted elsewhere by the Grand Lodge of England, where the degrees are conferred in the Hebrew, German and French languages, and the same is true of the continental Gd. Lodges.

If their petition is rejected here they have it in their power to solicit and would undoubtedly be empowered by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg to establish a Lodge or Lodges in this city. There would then arise a St state of things to be deplored. Masons and institutions under no control but that of a foreign body and a rupture of that harmony which now distinguishes our favored association.

  • Winslow Lewis.
  • Wm. Knapp.

This action granting a Dispensation to Germania Lodge, settled the policy of Grand Lodge with regard to class Lodges.

Curiously enough the Lodge made a bad start which seemed likely to justify the apprehension of the doubters. Within the first year a serious dispute arose between the Master and the members. Charges and counter charges were filed and the Grand Master was obliged to suspend the Master. Owing doubtless to the wise and fraternal counsels of Lewis, who had become Grand Master, the matter was amicably settled and Germania Lodge has ever since held an honorable place among her sister Lodges.

At the Annual Communication of 1854 Lewis reported for the Committee on Library that a beginning had been made in earnest. Valuable books and manuscripts had been acquired, both American and foreign, and 225 items had been accessioned.


Main Page