THE BUILDER JULY 1925


THE CARMICK MS.

BY BRO. A.L. KRESS, Associate Editor, Pennsylvania

ON page 343, of The Builder, November, 1924, Bro. Haywood discussed
the Carmick MS. in connection with the records of early
Pennsylvania Masonry. His conclusion was "If this MS. be accepted
as genuine it proves that a lodge, or lodges, must have been active
in Pennsylvania three years and more before Franklin's item in his
Gazette." Bro. M.M. Johnson referred to the MS. on page 369 of The
Builder, December, 1924. Prompted by Bro. Haywood's statement that
the case for the Carmick MS. needs a thorough overhauling, my own
opinion of it is embodied in the following impartial analysis.
---A. L. K.

THE Carmick MS. was found about the year 1907 (we judge) in the
possession of Bro. Persifor Fraser Smith of Pittsburgh, Pa. It was
reprinted by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, edited by Bro. Julius
Sachse, in 1908. The original is now in the Grand Lodge Library at
Philadelphia. The work was published under the title The
Constitutions of St. John's Lodge. Bro. Sachse wrote a brief
foreword saying in part:

"The finding of a MS. copy of the Constitutions of St. John's Lodge
bearing the date of 1727, however, seems to give a positive proof
of the antiquity of the old Philadelphia Lodge...

"This venerable document . . . is dated 1727, and is signed by Bro.
Thomas Carmick, a connection of the Frazer family [the italics are
mine, A. L. K.], whose name also appears upon one of its pages. Of
Bro. Carmick, the scribe of the old Constitutions, we have thus far
been unable to obtain any documentary information.

"The Carmick MS. unquestionably is not alone the oldest Masonic MS.
in America, but it was also probably the first to be used by the
scattered brethren in Philadelphia, who at that early date
assembled, and erected St. John's Lodge in Philadelphia, the first
Masonic Lodge on the Western continent."

The last page of the MS. was reproduced in THE BUILDER, page 344,
November, 1924. It shows the signature of Thomas Carmick and the
date 1727. Page 20 of the MS. carries these words: "Persr. Frazer's
Book 5756." Sachse tells us Persifor Frazer was born Aug. 10, 1735,
and died April 24, 1792. He belonged to a lodge of Masons at
Philadelphia. He would then have been twenty-one years of age when
the MS. came into his possession. This Persifor Frazer was an
ancestor of Persifor Frazer Smith, among whose possessions the MS.
was found at Pittsburgh about 1907.

So much for the MS. itself and Sachse's claims. Now what are the
actual facts which we may justifiably accept, after examining the
MS. itself? In the absence of any external evidence, we must depend
entirely on the document itself.

NO REASON TO DOUBT GENUINENESS

First, there is no reason to doubt that the MS. is a genuine copy
of the "Old Charges"; that it was transcribed either from memory or
from another copy by one Thomas Carmick, apparently in the year
1727; that it came into the possession of Persifor Frazer in 1756.

Second, there is no direct evidence whatsoever, that this document
was used by a lodge in Philadelphia in 1727, nor even that the MS.
was in America at that date. This claim advanced by Sachse rests
wholly upon his assertion which I italicized above that Thomas
Carmick was "a connection of the Frazer family." Sachse was unable
then and no one since has produced any documentary evidence as to
Thomas Carmick. Before any impartial observer can accept the
statement that this MS. was used in Philadelphia in 1727, one must
know at least something about Carmick. Where was he born? Where and
when did, he die? Was he in 1727-1730, or at any other time even,
in America ? What was the nature of his "connection" with the
Frazer family? Nearly thirty years elapsed between 1727 and 1756
when the document came into Persifor Frazer's hands.

The only basis the document itself affords, for the assumption that
it may have been used by a lodge in Philadelphia circa 1727-1730,
consists in the heading carried on each page, "The Constitutions of
St. John's Lodge." There was such a lodge in Philadelphia in 1731
calling itself a "St. John's Lodge." One might therefore infer as
Sachse did, that Carmick actually transcribed this MS. for the use
of this particular lodge at Philadelphia. We are not warranted in
accepting such an opinion in the complete absence of any evidence
as to Carmick himself, since all lodges then termed themselves "St.
John's Lodges."

The headings on the various pages of the MS. vary. There are
several headed "The [or ye] Constitutions of the Holy Lodge of St.
John." At that time, "St. John's Lodge" was a generic term applied
with no specific or distinctive designation in mind. There was a
St. John's Lodge at Boston. A lodge at Portsmouth, N. H., in 1735,
styled itself the "Holy and exquisite lodge of St. John." The idea
has been preserved till this day in our ritual, in reply to the
question "From whence came you?" Therefore, the use of this term in
itself is not sufficient to prove a connection between the MS. and
the early lodge at Philadelphia.

The conclusions then I should draw are:

1. The MS. is genuine but its genuineness has nothing to do with
the existence of a lodge at Philadelphia in 1727.

2. It is possible that it could have been used by such a lodge at
that time but in the absence of further evidence, we cannot accept
the statement as fact.

3. Should evidence ever be produced that Thomas Carmick was in
America and Philadelphia between the years 1727-1730, then it would
be reasonably safe to conclude that he did prepare it for and it
was used by a lodge at Philadelphia at that time.

We know the lodge at Portsmouth, N. H., claimed to possess a MS.
copy of the "Old Constitutions" or charges since they so stated in
their petition to Henry Price at Boston, for a charter in 1735.
This copy, by the way, I would suggest Bro. Vibert, Baxter, Poole
and Rosedale ought to list in their tables of "Missing MSS." As the
case for the Carmick MS. now stands, it would be no less plausible
to claim it as the missing "Portsmouth MS." as that it was used in
Philadelphia in 1727.

It is only fair to add that, though residing in Pennsylvania, I am
not a member of this Jurisdiction. I am sure we should all be glad
to see evidence produced which would sustain the opinion that this
curious and valuable old Masonic document does date back to
Philadelphia and 1727.
