[136] This letter was the property of Horace W. Smith, Philadelphia. John Moore was the father of William Moore, whose daughter became the wife of Provost Smith, who was a Mason in 1775, and afterward Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, and whose son was Grand Master of Masons in Pennsylvania in 1796 and 1797 (History of Freemasonry, by Hughan and Stillson).
[137] Ibid, chapter on "Early American Masonic History."
[138] Benjamin Franklin as a Free Mason, by J.F. Sachse. Oddly enough, there is no mention of Masonry by Franklin in his Autobiography, or in any of his letters, with but two exceptions, so far as known; which is the more remarkable when we look at his Masonic career in France during the later years of his life, where he was actively and intimately associated with the order, even advancing to the higher degrees. Never for a day did he abate by one jot his interest in the order, or his love for it.
[139] This injunction was made doubly strong in the edition of the Book of Constitutions, in 1738. For example: "no quarrels about nations, families, religion or politics must by any means or under any color or pretense whatever be brought within the door of the Lodge.... Masons being of all nations upon the square, level and plumb; and like our predecessors in all ages, we are resolved against political disputes," etc.
[140] Masons have sometimes been absurdly called "Protestant Jesuits," but the two orders are exactly opposite in spirit, principle, purpose, and method. All that they have in common is that they are both secret societies, which makes it plain that the opposition of the Latin church to Masonry is not on the ground of its being a secret order, else why sanction the Jesuits, to name no other? The difference has been stated in this way: "Opposite poles these two societies are, for each possesses precisely those qualities which the other lacks. The Jesuits are strongly centralized, the Freemasons only confederated. Jesuits are controlled by one man's will, Freemasons are under majority rule. Jesuits bottom morality in expediency, Freemasons in regard for the well-being of mankind. Jesuits recognize only one creed, Freemasons hold in respect all honest convictions. Jesuits seek to break down individual independence, Freemasons to build it up" (Mysteria, by Otto Henne Am Rhyn).
[141] For a detailed account of the Duke of Wharton and the true history of the Gormogons, see an essay by R.F. Gould, in his "Masonic Celebrities" series (A. Q. C., viii, 144), and more recently, The Life and Writings of Philip, Duke of Wharton, by Lewis Melville.
[142] Findel has a nobly eloquent passage on this point, and it tells the everlasting truth (History of Masonry, p. 378). His whole history, indeed, is exceedingly worth reading, the more so because it was one of the first books of the right kind, and it stimulated research.
[143] A paper entitled "An Unrecorded Grand Lodge," by Sadler (A. Q. C., vol. xviii, 69-90), tells practically all that is known of this movement, which merged with the Grand Lodge of London in 1776.
[144] Nor was that all. In 1735 it was resolved in the Grand Lodge "that in the future all Grand Officers (except Grand Master) shall be selected out of that body"—meaning the past Grand Stewards. This act was amazing. Already the Craft had let go its power to elect the Wardens, and now the choice of the Grand Master was narrowed to the ranks of an oligarchy in its worst form—a queer outcome of Masonic equality. Three months later the Grand Stewards presented a memorial asking that they "might form themselves into a special lodge," with special jewels, etc. Naturally this bred discontent and apprehension, and justly so.
[145] Often we speak of "the York Rite," as though it were the oldest and truest form of Masonry, but, while it serves to distinguish one branch of Masonry from another, it is not accurate; for, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a York Rite. The name is more a tribute of reverence than a description of fact.