Document set 'Letter from Enoch Terry Carson to Jacob Norton, 1878 September 26'
(A2011__017__034)
Transcript style:other pages
1 / 4
2 / 4
3 / 4
4 / 4Cincinnati Sept 26th .878.
Dear Sir & Bro: --
I wrote you day before yesterday in
reply to your note of the 20th, and yesterday I sent
You a copy of the Article you wanted from the F∴ M∴
Magazine. I had treated you so badly in relation to
former communications asking for information,
that I set up 2. A.M. night before last to
copy this article for you. I want to say to you
in this connection, that while you and I do not agree
on many questions relating to Masonry, we do agree in
this, that both of us do think, and study on the
subject. The asses in masonry are largely in
the majority.
I never read Brennamans book History of the G∴ L∴ England until last Spring. I was surprised that one who has written so much on masonry, could make such Statements & Charges as he does. In it he lays the whole blame of the attempt to give a christian Character to the Symbolic degrees, to poor old Anderson and Dessaguliers, when just the reverse was the fact. Anderson is the one Cincinnati Sept 26<sup>th</sup> .878.
Dear Sir & Bro: --
<p-bgn>I wrote you day before yesterday in
reply to your note of the 20th, and yesterday I sent
You a copy of the Article you wanted from the F∴ M∴
Magazine. I had treated you so badly in relation to
former communications asking for information,
that I set up 2. A.M. night before last to
copy this article for you. I want to say to you
in this connection, that while you and I do not agree
on many questions relating to Masonry, we do agree in
this, that both of us do<und> think</und>, and <und>study</und> on the
subject. The asses in masonry are largely in
the majority.<p-end>
<p-bgn>I never read Brennamans<note>spelled Brenneman on page 3; see description field on Scottish Rite Masonic Museum & Library site, "In this letter, Carson attacks Leon Hyneman, whom he mistakenly calls Brenneman, and his book, Freemasonry in England from 1567 to 1813, including an analysis of Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, authorized by the Grand Lodge of England."</note> book History of the G∴ L∴ England
until last Spring. I was surprised that one who has
written so much on masonry, could make such
Statements & Charges as he does. In it he lays the
whole blame of the attempt to give a christian
Character to the Symbolic degrees, to poor old
Anderson and Dessaguliers, <note>James Anderson and John Theophilus Desaguliers</note>when <und>just the</und>
<und>reverse was the fact</und>. Anderson is the one
I never read Brennamans book History of the G∴ L∴ England until last Spring. I was surprised that one who has written so much on masonry, could make such Statements & Charges as he does. In it he lays the whole blame of the attempt to give a christian Character to the Symbolic degrees, to poor old Anderson and Dessaguliers, when just the reverse was the fact. Anderson is the one Cincinnati Sept 26<sup>th</sup> .878.
Dear Sir & Bro: --
<p-bgn>I wrote you day before yesterday in
reply to your note of the 20th, and yesterday I sent
You a copy of the Article you wanted from the F∴ M∴
Magazine. I had treated you so badly in relation to
former communications asking for information,
that I set up 2. A.M. night before last to
copy this article for you. I want to say to you
in this connection, that while you and I do not agree
on many questions relating to Masonry, we do agree in
this, that both of us do<und> think</und>, and <und>study</und> on the
subject. The asses in masonry are largely in
the majority.<p-end>
<p-bgn>I never read Brennamans<note>spelled Brenneman on page 3; see description field on Scottish Rite Masonic Museum & Library site, "In this letter, Carson attacks Leon Hyneman, whom he mistakenly calls Brenneman, and his book, Freemasonry in England from 1567 to 1813, including an analysis of Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 and 1738, authorized by the Grand Lodge of England."</note> book History of the G∴ L∴ England
until last Spring. I was surprised that one who has
written so much on masonry, could make such
Statements & Charges as he does. In it he lays the
whole blame of the attempt to give a christian
Character to the Symbolic degrees, to poor old
Anderson and Dessaguliers, <note>James Anderson and John Theophilus Desaguliers</note>when <und>just the</und>
<und>reverse was the fact</und>. Anderson is the one
to whom we are indebted for the present cosmopolitan
Character of the Symbolic degrees, in doing this
he was the great Masonic innovater of the
beginning of the 18th Century.
And he showed considerable genius too in the way in which he did it. The Constitutions which he gives us he says were "Compiled" &c from old Constitutions, &c, "from beyond the Seas". Excuse me I write this from memory, at my place of business down town, I may not, probably am not, critically correct, but what I have quoted is substantially correct.
Every Constitution (Masonic) known to us from the earliest (the Holiwell[sic] ) in the 15th century down to and inclusive of the year 1722, (for that very year there was one printed in London) gave an unequivocal christian character to masonry, All of them beginning Substantially after this Style. "In the name of the Father the Son & the Holy Ghost three persons one God" &c, &c and one of the charges, in all of them was, "ye shall be true to Mother Church".
Anderson and Dessaguiliers broke over all this, and gave us our present broad "Masonic Creed beleif in God, in which Jew, Christian to whom we are indebted for the present cosmopolitan
Character of the Symbolic degrees, in doing this
he was the great Masonic innovater of the
beginning of the 18<sup>th</sup> Century.<p-end>
<p-bgn>And he showed considerable genius too in
the way in which he did it. The Constitutions
which he gives us he says were "Compiled" &c
from old Constitutions, &c, "<add>from</add> beyond the Seas".
Excuse me I write this from memory, at my place
of business down town, I may not, probably am
not, critically correct, but what I have quoted
is substantially correct.<p-end>
<p-bgn>Every Constitution (Masonic) known to us
from the earliest (the <sic>Holiwell</sic> <note>"Halliwell"</note>) in the 15th century
down to and inclusive of the year 1722, (for that
very year there was one printed in London) gave an
<und>unequivocal</und> christian character to masonry,
All of them beginning Substantially after this
Style. "In the name of the Father the Son & the Holy Ghost
three persons one God" &c, &c and one of the
charges, in all of them was, "ye shall be true to
Mother Church".<p-end>
<p-bgn>Anderson and Dessaguiliers broke over all
this, and gave us our present broad "Masonic
Creed beleif in God, in which Jew, Christian
And he showed considerable genius too in the way in which he did it. The Constitutions which he gives us he says were "Compiled" &c from old Constitutions, &c, "from beyond the Seas". Excuse me I write this from memory, at my place of business down town, I may not, probably am not, critically correct, but what I have quoted is substantially correct.
Every Constitution (Masonic) known to us from the earliest (the Holiwell[sic] ) in the 15th century down to and inclusive of the year 1722, (for that very year there was one printed in London) gave an unequivocal christian character to masonry, All of them beginning Substantially after this Style. "In the name of the Father the Son & the Holy Ghost three persons one God" &c, &c and one of the charges, in all of them was, "ye shall be true to Mother Church".
Anderson and Dessaguiliers broke over all this, and gave us our present broad "Masonic Creed beleif in God, in which Jew, Christian to whom we are indebted for the present cosmopolitan
Character of the Symbolic degrees, in doing this
he was the great Masonic innovater of the
beginning of the 18<sup>th</sup> Century.<p-end>
<p-bgn>And he showed considerable genius too in
the way in which he did it. The Constitutions
which he gives us he says were "Compiled" &c
from old Constitutions, &c, "<add>from</add> beyond the Seas".
Excuse me I write this from memory, at my place
of business down town, I may not, probably am
not, critically correct, but what I have quoted
is substantially correct.<p-end>
<p-bgn>Every Constitution (Masonic) known to us
from the earliest (the <sic>Holiwell</sic> <note>"Halliwell"</note>) in the 15th century
down to and inclusive of the year 1722, (for that
very year there was one printed in London) gave an
<und>unequivocal</und> christian character to masonry,
All of them beginning Substantially after this
Style. "In the name of the Father the Son & the Holy Ghost
three persons one God" &c, &c and one of the
charges, in all of them was, "ye shall be true to
Mother Church".<p-end>
<p-bgn>Anderson and Dessaguiliers broke over all
this, and gave us our present broad "Masonic
Creed beleif in God, in which Jew, Christian
Brahmin, Mahometan -- can & do agree.
Isn't it a little rough, and dont we do great
injustice to the memory of these old men when
we thus slander their memories?
Whatever is good or bad in our present Cosmopolitan Masonic Creed, we are certainly indebted to Anderson & Dessaguliers for it, for so broad a platform was unknown in Masonry before their time. Let's remember the old English adage "Give the Devil his due".
I tell you when I read Brennemans fierce assaults upon those two old Masonic "inovaters" Charging them with falsefying & lying! to give a Christian Character to F. Masonry, My blood warmed up, and I "Swore worse that over Army in Flanders" (mentally of course)
It is pardonable in any one to Speak or write errors as original propositions, doing so in good faith, beleiving at the time they are stating facts, but the one who starts out to correct errors in historical statements is bound to be absolutely correct before he charges falsification error, &c upon one who has preceeded him. Decency & good taste, ought to govern & restrain every gentleman to the extent that he should not attempt to call in question the statements of another Brahmin, Mahometan -- can & do agree.
Isn't it a little rough, and dont we do great
injustice to the memory of these old men when
we thus slander their memories?<p-end>
<p-bgn>Whatever is <und>good</und> or <und>bad</und> in our present
Cosmopolitan Masonic Creed, we are certainly
indebted to Anderson & Dessaguliers for it,
for so broad a platform was unknown in
Masonry before their time. Let's remember
the old English adage "Give the Devil his due".<p-end>
<p-bgn>I tell you when I read Brennemans fierce assaults upon
those two old Masonic "inovaters" Charging them
with falsefying & lying! to give a Christian Character
to F. Masonry, My blood warmed up, and I "Swore
worse that over Army in Flanders" (mentally of course)<p-end>
<p-bgn>It is pardonable in any one to Speak or write
errors as original propositions, doing so in good
faith, beleiving at the time they are stating
facts, but the one who starts out to correct errors
in historical statements is bound to be absolutely
correct before he charges falsification error, &c
upon one who has preceeded him. Decency
& good taste, ought to govern & restrain every
gentleman to the extent that he should not
attempt to call in question the statements of another
Whatever is good or bad in our present Cosmopolitan Masonic Creed, we are certainly indebted to Anderson & Dessaguliers for it, for so broad a platform was unknown in Masonry before their time. Let's remember the old English adage "Give the Devil his due".
I tell you when I read Brennemans fierce assaults upon those two old Masonic "inovaters" Charging them with falsefying & lying! to give a Christian Character to F. Masonry, My blood warmed up, and I "Swore worse that over Army in Flanders" (mentally of course)
It is pardonable in any one to Speak or write errors as original propositions, doing so in good faith, beleiving at the time they are stating facts, but the one who starts out to correct errors in historical statements is bound to be absolutely correct before he charges falsification error, &c upon one who has preceeded him. Decency & good taste, ought to govern & restrain every gentleman to the extent that he should not attempt to call in question the statements of another Brahmin, Mahometan -- can & do agree.
Isn't it a little rough, and dont we do great
injustice to the memory of these old men when
we thus slander their memories?<p-end>
<p-bgn>Whatever is <und>good</und> or <und>bad</und> in our present
Cosmopolitan Masonic Creed, we are certainly
indebted to Anderson & Dessaguliers for it,
for so broad a platform was unknown in
Masonry before their time. Let's remember
the old English adage "Give the Devil his due".<p-end>
<p-bgn>I tell you when I read Brennemans fierce assaults upon
those two old Masonic "inovaters" Charging them
with falsefying & lying! to give a Christian Character
to F. Masonry, My blood warmed up, and I "Swore
worse that over Army in Flanders" (mentally of course)<p-end>
<p-bgn>It is pardonable in any one to Speak or write
errors as original propositions, doing so in good
faith, beleiving at the time they are stating
facts, but the one who starts out to correct errors
in historical statements is bound to be absolutely
correct before he charges falsification error, &c
upon one who has preceeded him. Decency
& good taste, ought to govern & restrain every
gentleman to the extent that he should not
attempt to call in question the statements of another
until he is absolutely "dead letter perfect"
that he is right. For he who starts out to
point out and correct the errors of another
and commits errors himself in his historical
statements, "writes himself down an ass", and
no gentleman. Brenneman makes a grand success
in this way, in his vituperative attacks on the memories
of old Anderson & Dessaguliers.
Dont think I am advocating the introduction of anything like sectarianism into our present symbolic system of Masonry, far from it, I merely mean to refer to historical facts. It has always been my opinion that the "York Masons" were opposed to and fought the new G. Lodge in London because of the inovation ?[?] of doing away with the "Father Son & Holy Ghost," and allegiance to church,[?]
However my dear Bro∴[?] I have written more than I intended to, and I beg to assure you that whether you and I agree or not as to what I have said, I have not said it to provoke a controversy or argument, which I wont go into. I shall always be glad to accommodate you when I can with any information from my libary! saying nothing of myself. Truly & Fraternally Yours M. Jacob Norton. E.T. Carson.until he is absolutely "dead letter perfect"
that he is right. For he who starts out to
point out and correct the errors of another
and commits errors himself in his historical
statements, "writes himself down an ass", and
no gentleman. Brenneman makes a grand success
in this way, in his vituperative attacks on the memories
of old Anderson & Dessaguliers.<p-end>
<p-bgn>Dont think I am advocating the introduction of anything
like sectarianism into our present symbolic system
of Masonry, far from it, I merely mean to refer to
historical facts. It has always been my opinion that
the "York Masons" were opposed to and fought the
new G. Lodge in London because of the inovation
<add><unclear>?</unclear></add> of doing away with the "Father Son & Holy Ghost,"
and allegiance to <unclear>church,</unclear><p-end>
<p-bgn>However my dear <unclear>Bro∴</unclear> I have written more than
I intended to, and I beg to assure you that whether
you and I agree or not as to what I have said, I have
not said<add> it</add> to provoke a controversy or argument, which
I wont go into. I shall always be glad to accommodate
you when I can with any information from my libary!
saying nothing of myself.
Truly & Fraternally Yours
M. Jacob Norton. E.T. Carson.
Dont think I am advocating the introduction of anything like sectarianism into our present symbolic system of Masonry, far from it, I merely mean to refer to historical facts. It has always been my opinion that the "York Masons" were opposed to and fought the new G. Lodge in London because of the inovation ?[?] of doing away with the "Father Son & Holy Ghost," and allegiance to church,[?]
However my dear Bro∴[?] I have written more than I intended to, and I beg to assure you that whether you and I agree or not as to what I have said, I have not said it to provoke a controversy or argument, which I wont go into. I shall always be glad to accommodate you when I can with any information from my libary! saying nothing of myself. Truly & Fraternally Yours M. Jacob Norton. E.T. Carson.until he is absolutely "dead letter perfect"
that he is right. For he who starts out to
point out and correct the errors of another
and commits errors himself in his historical
statements, "writes himself down an ass", and
no gentleman. Brenneman makes a grand success
in this way, in his vituperative attacks on the memories
of old Anderson & Dessaguliers.<p-end>
<p-bgn>Dont think I am advocating the introduction of anything
like sectarianism into our present symbolic system
of Masonry, far from it, I merely mean to refer to
historical facts. It has always been my opinion that
the "York Masons" were opposed to and fought the
new G. Lodge in London because of the inovation
<add><unclear>?</unclear></add> of doing away with the "Father Son & Holy Ghost,"
and allegiance to <unclear>church,</unclear><p-end>
<p-bgn>However my dear <unclear>Bro∴</unclear> I have written more than
I intended to, and I beg to assure you that whether
you and I agree or not as to what I have said, I have
not said<add> it</add> to provoke a controversy or argument, which
I wont go into. I shall always be glad to accommodate
you when I can with any information from my libary!
saying nothing of myself.
Truly & Fraternally Yours
M. Jacob Norton. E.T. Carson.