THE BUILDER JULY 1925

Daniel Coxe and St. John's Lodge, Philadelphia

By BRO. DAVID MCGREGOR, New Jersey

In order to understand the full force of Bro. McGregor's arguments
in this paper the reader should turn back to a series of articles
on the same theme previously published: "The Story of Freemasonry
in New Jersey," by Bro. Ernest A. Reed, November, 1923, page 329;
"Concerning 'The story of Freemasonry in New Jersey,' by Bro.
Melvin M. Johnson, April, 1924, page 109; "Daniel Coxe's Relations
to American Freemasonry," Bro. David McGregor, November, 1924. page
328; "Daniel Coxe and the 'Henry Bell Letter,' " by Bro. Melvin M.
Johnson; and the present series of Study Club articles, the first
of which was printed last September.

FURTHER investigation as to the whereabouts of Col. Daniel Coxe
during the year 1730 shows that he returned to New Jersey from
London earlier than the date of his warrant as Provincial Grand
Master of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (June 5, 1730),
and that instead of bringing it with him as suggested in our
previous article, it must have been sent out to him later.

From the minutes of the West Jersey Board of Proprietors, to be
found in their office in Burlington, N. J., we learn that he had
been President of that Board for many years and continued to be
re-elected annually until his death in 1739. On Aug. 6, 1729, he
was "appointed and ordered" to meet the Jersey Agent in London and
protest against the proposed new division line between West and
East Jersey, as it would cause "great damage to the Proprietors and
under purchasers of land in West Jersey." He was present at the
next meeting of the Board on Nov. 4, 1729, part of the record of
which is in his own handwriting. His next appearance at the Board
meetings was on April 9, 1730, and he continued to preside at its
meetings until Dec. 12 of that year, thus widening the period of
his presence in New Jersey in 1730 to over eight months instead of
four as previously estimated, and making it still more feasible for
him not only to personally issue the warrant for si. John's Lodge,
No. 1, of Philadelphia, but also to be present at its institution,
if it took place early in December, 1730, as we are inclined to
believe it did.

He must have sailed for England soon after the meeting of Dec. 12
so as to permit of his being present at a meeting of the Grand
Lodge of London on Jan. 29, 1731, where and when his health was
drunk as "Provincial Grand Master of North America," his ability to
announce the institution of the first regularly constituted lodge
of Freemasons in America doubtless giving zest to the occasion.

In pursuance of this study let us consider briefly what can be
found in the oldest existing record pertaining to St. John's Lodge,
the original account book known as Liber B, in support of the
proposition that that lodge was in 1731 a regular and duly
constituted one, receiving its warrant from R. W. Bro. Daniel Coxe
of New Jersey.

From the entries on page 184 of Liber B, we learn from the Stock
Account of the lodge that on June 24, 1731, it had thirteen
resident members, the fourteenth, William Button, having gone to
"New Foundland" in May, while one of the thirteen, Mark Joyce, had
just become a member before June 1, as we learn from the charges
made against the members under the head of "omitions" at sixpence
per lodge day, twelve of them being charged for five days; William
Button, for four days "before you sailed to New Foundland"; and
Mark Joyce, one day. In addition to this, Joyce is charged 9s-2d
"the remainder of his 3 pounds at entrance"; for a like reason
Benjamin Franklin and Henry Pratt are charged 2-0-1, which seems to
indicate that the difference between the entrance fee of 3 pounds,
and the amount charged against them as a remainder, was in each
case expended by them for the entertainment and "clothing" of the
lodge members on the night of their initiation, as was the regular
custom at that time. These charges of "omitions" were evidently the
result of an agreement among the members on or before June 24,
1731, to assess each member sixpence per month, the charges to be
retroactive beginning Feb. 1 of that year and applicable in each
individual case according to the period of membership. These
charges were continued against each member after June 24, not as
"omitions", however, but as quota to stock; and in addition a fine
of one shilling was imposed after that date upon each member every
time he absented himself from lodge meeting. From this we may
naturally infer that the lodge had been suffering from lack of
attendance, and that it had resorted to the fine as a means of
improving it, these fines, together with the monthly dues, to go to
the establishment of a fund for carrying on the work of the lodge,
but not including the feature of entertainment, which was paid for
by the members participating, and averaged in all about 2 pounds
per night for the years 1736-7.

THERE WERE THIRTEEN MEMBERS

From this account we learn that the membership on Feb. 1, 1731, was
thirteen, two of whom, Franklin and Pratt, had just been admitted,
or a total of eleven prior to that event; a number more in harmony
with the thought of a newly organized lodge than one of long
standing, as some would have us believe.

The initiation of Franklin and Pratt on Feb. 1 implies the
existence of a constituted lodge before that date in order that
their application for membership could be received and acted upon
in due form. Franklin was not legally eligible for membership until
after his twenty-fifth birthday, which occurred on Jan. 6, 1731;
and judging from his publication of an alleged expose of Masonry in
the issue of Dec. 8, 1730, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, it must
have been some time between those two dates when he made
application for membership.

The fact that he had on three previous occasions during the year
1730 published items of news pertaining to the Masons shows that he
knew that some of his subscribers were interested in such items;
and although not a Mason himself his business acumen led him to
cater to their tastes, as well as to the amusement of those not in
sympathy with the Order.

Dependent entirely upon the public prints and on hearsay for what
he published, we are not required to accept what he said about
Masonry as official. Especially does this apply to the oft quoted
statement in the Dec. 8 issue, that "there are several Lodges of
Free Masons in the Province of Pennsylvania," in which he refers no
doubt to the occasional meetings of the brethren, which we have
every reason to believe occurred not only in Pennsylvania but in
other Provinces on this Continent.

WHY DID FRANKLIN DELAY?

It is rather interesting to note that an average of eleven weeks
elapsed between the publication of the items of Masonic news in the
London papers and their re-publication on July 9, Aug. 13, and Aug.
20, 1730; whereas seventeen weeks elapsed in the case of the
extensive article in the Dec. 8 issue. We are led to inquire, Why
did he delay the publication of that expose and why did he print it
when he did? May it be that his sense nf fairness and editorial
propriety prevented him from hastily publishing something, the
truthfulness of which was questionable, knowing that the men
associated with the organization were of excellent character and
high social standing, as shown by the items he had already
published, and which he might never have published, had not some
local event created a special interest in the Fraternity, arousing
the curiosity of many of his readers and causing them to be much
amused, or exercised, with conjectures concerning them? Nothing had
appeared in the public prints for four months that could have
aroused such interest, hence the cause must have been local. What
was more likely to have later amused, or interested, the people of
Philadelphia than the institution of a regular Masonic lodge in
their midst?

In addition to publishing something that "might not be
unacceptable" to his subscribers, Franklin's object was apparently
to get at the truth in regard to the many conjectures concerning
the Masons, which was no doubt promptly explained to him to his
entire satisfaction, as he shortly afterwards made application for
membership and proved to be one of the lodge's strongest pillars.

These considerations, along with the proven presence of Coxe in
America at that time, seem to point to the month of November, 1730,
as the date of the institution of St. John's Lodge; and short of an
unquestionably accepted actual record to that effect, we feel that
there is no just reason why this should not be looked upon as the
approximate date of its institution as a regular and duly
constituted Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons.

FURTHER CHANGES ARE NOTED


Turning again to Liber B there is evidence of still further changes
in the regulation and management of the lodge on or before June 24,
1731. Under that date we find William Allen referred to as Grand
Master; William Pringle, Deputy Master; William Button, late
Master; and Thomas Hart, late Warden; the two late offices
pertaining to a subordinate lodge and the two active offices to a
Grand Lodge, indicating a transition from a subordinate to a Grand
Lodge; or shall we say the super-imposing of Grand Lodge officers
on the body of a subordinate lodge?

This dual character of St. John's Lodge is very apparent from the
fact that all the brethren elected to Grand Lodge offices for years
to come were members of the subordinate Lodge of St. John, while
there are no records of any subordinate officers being elected
during that period; and conclusive evidence of it is to be found in
the issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette of June 16, 1737, in the form
of a public declaration disowning any connection with, and deeply
deploring a dastardly fake initiation performed on a simple fellow
in Philadelphia which resulted in his death, and with which the
enemies of Freemasonry were endeavoring to discredit the
Fraternity, as in the Morgan affair of about a century later; the
declaration being signed "In behalf of all the members of St.
John's Lodge at Philadelphia," by Thomas Hopkinson, Grand Master;
William Plumsted, Deputy Grand Master; Joseph Shippen and Henry
Pratt, Grand Wardens; while no mention is made of subordinate lodge
officers. 

For a subordinate lodge thus to assume to itself, or have
super-imposed upon it, the title and functions of a Grand Lodge may
appear irregular and unconstitutional, but the Philadelphia
brethren had at least one precedent in the Grand Lodge of Munster,
Ireland, the records of which began Dec. 27, 1726, and in reference
to which Gould says: "With the proceedings of a private Lodge those
of the Grand Lodge of Munster are intermixed, but it seemed on the
whole highly probable that the only distinction was in name, and
that the membership was one and the same." So it was with St.
John's Lodge.

THE SITUATION IS DESCRIBED

Let us consider the situation of affairs immediately preceding the
month of June, 1731. The subordinate lodge, with about a dozen
members, was in a rather precarious predicament, having lost its
Worshipful Master, and only one Warden left. The Grand Lodge was
evidently in a similar situation. Grand Master Coxe was unable
through enforced absences to devote much of his time to the office,
leaving the actual work in the hands of his Deputy, as did the
Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England, the office of Grand
Master being then largely an honorary one. Who was more likely to
have been Coxe's choice for Deputy Grand Master than the brother
whose name appears in Liber B as the succeeding Grand Master, viz,
William Allen, a young man of proven ability and energy, a lawyer
by profession, who had studied law in London while Coxe, also a
lawyer, was a resident there; and both being identified with
Philadelphia, one by birth and upbringing, the other by business
relations and marriage, and who were doubtless well acquainted with
each other before the deputation was granted.

The Deputy Grand Master had no organization to preside over or
support him, while the subordinate lodge was without its proper
officers. In such a predicament it was but natural that an attempt
be made to save the situation by combining, which they evidently
did, and in doing so they anticipated the rights granted them by
Coxe's deputation to select their own Grand Master and Wardens,
this right not actually going into effect until a year later.

Allen showed his appreciation of the dignified honor thus bestowed
upon him by consistently absenting himself from the regular
meetings of the lodge, with one exception, until the time came
around for his reelection, leaving the management of the affairs of
the lodge to Deputy Master Pringle, who attended the meetings
regularly.

It is interesting to note that in thus making the best of it, they
abstained from giving any publicity to their doings, not a word
appearing in the public print in regard to it. Not so a year hence
when with the authority of the Grand Lodge of England's deputation
to Coxe back of them they elected Allen and Pringle to the same
Grand offices. The event was published in Franklin's Gazette, but
not as a re-election. They felt, no doubt, that however they may
have been forced to overstep their authority the year previous,
they were now acting in a perfectly legitimate and constitutional
manner, as Daniel Coxe's deputation had expired.

A peculiar and unusual authority was granted them by this
deputation to Coxe in that they were permitted to elect their own
Provincial Grand Master without requiring them to submit their
action for the approval of the Grand Master of England and secure
a deputation direct from him, as in most all other cases of
Provincial Grand Masterships. In thus granting them an independent
self-perpetuating right, the Grand officers elected were without
any documentary evidence to prove their authority as derived from
the Grand Lodge of England, Coxe's deputation being the only thing
they could refer to, which he no doubt refused to surrender as it
was his own personal property.

IT WAS TO THIS THAT FRANKLIN REFERRED

Doubtless this is the situation which Franklin referred to in his
letter to Henry Price, Provincial Grand Master of New England, on
Oct. 23, 1734, wherein he said that Masonry in Pennsylvania "seems
to want the sanction of some authority derived from home, to give
the proceedings and determinations of our Lodge their due weight";
and of which so much has been made in the endeavor to prove that
the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania was not a regular lodge at that
time.

Franklin had been regularly elected Provincial Grand Master of
Pennsylvania on St. John's Day June 24, of that year, and it
appears that his authority had been challenged by some false and
rebel brethren who were about to set up a distinct lodge in
Philadelphia in opposition to the old and true brethren there; and
he was unable to produce any documentary evidence to prove that his
authority was derived directly or indirectly from the parent Grand
Lodge; therefore in order "to promote and strengthen the interest
of Masonry in the Province," he promptly took advantage of what
appeared to him to be a fortuitous circumstance, viz., the reported
appointment of Henry Price as Grand Master of All America, and
applied to him, not for admission to the regular body of Masonry,
as has been suggested, but that if Price could by properly attested
documentary evidence prove himself to be the regularly appointed
Grand Master of all America, that he should promptly confirm them
by a deputation or charter in the privileges they then enjoyed of
holding annually their Grand Lodge, choosing their Grand Master,
Wardens and other officers, who might manage all affairs relating
to the brethren there, with full power and authority according to
customs and usages of Masons. This was not the language of one
seeking to "humble himself" before the regularly constituted
Masonic authority, as required of all irregular Masons or body of
Masons before being admitted as regular brethren; but of one that
knew himself to be a true and regular Mason, requesting that they
be "countenanced and distinguished by some special authority as
herein desired", in order to protect the good name of the
Fraternity against the actions of false and rebel brethren.

