THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
march 1918
volume 4 - number 3
FREEMASONS IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BY BRO. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER, 33d HON., DEPUTY FOR CHINA
BROTHER J.E. Morcombe in a series of scholarly papers once
declared (1) that after "a very serious course of historical reading extending
through several months and covering (the?) period of the last three centuries"
he was regretfully forced" to reject "as mainly mythical the alleged
participation of American Masonic Lodges, as such, in affairs of the
Revolution."
A statement like this, coming from such a diligent and
distinguished Masonic student, deserves consideration and analysis. If correct
it destroys many cherished beliefs; if incorrect it ought, in justice to the
craft, past and present, to be so declared.
My own investigations have led me to a somewhat different
conclusion. And while I am not prepared to say that the direct "participation of
American Lodges" in our struggle for nationality was extensive, still I cannot
but feel that their indirect assistance was great and their actual participation
at certain stages determining. I will, therefore, state the results of my survey
(2) of this field in language employed when it was first completed and, that my
readers may themselves be enabled to judge of the soundness of my conclusions, I
will, for each important statement, cite my authority.
At the outbreak of the Revolution Masonic lodges in America
were few and feeble. The oldest of them had existed less than half a century (3)
and the membership was exceedingly small (4). But what was lacking in members
was more than supplied in quality. The Freemasons of that period included the
flower of colonial citizenship and their very fewness was a source of strength.
In a small lodge all could know and trust each other; all felt the need of
absolute secrecy in deliberation--of solidarity in action. Hence it is not
strange that some of these colonial lodges became the centers of revolutionary
propaganda (5).
ST. ANDREW'S LODGE
Foremost among these was the Lodge of St. Andrew at Boston.
Founded in 1756 and chartered by the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1760, it began
its career independent of English influence and just in time to share in the
opening scenes of the war for independence. Joseph Warren was its Master, Paul
Revere one of its early initiates and secretaries and later its Master, and on
its rolls were the names of John Hancock, and James Otis and many others who are
now recognized as the leading characters of that eventful epoch. And almost
every important movement in the patriotic cause in Boston, preceding and
precipitating the Revolution, may be traced back directly or indirectly to St.
Andrew's Lodge.
The famous "Sons of Liberty," organized in 1765 to resist
the enforcement of the Stamp Act, were but an offshoot of this Lodge, and was
also the "North End Caucus" (6) to which was committed the execution of some of
the most daring plans of the patriots. Both of these organizations met at the
Green Dragon Tavern which was owned and occupied by St. Andrew's Lodge, and the
members of the latter were leaders in the former. It was at this tavern that the
historic Boston Tea Party was planned by Warren, Revere and other members of St.
Andrew's (7). The records of the lodge disclose that on the evening after the
tea-laden ships arrived in Boston Harbor there was an adjournment on account of
small attendance and the secretary adds the significant note that "consignees of
tea took the brethren's time." The minutes of December 16, 1773, the date of the
tea party, show that the lodge was again adjourned until the next evening (8).
Its members were among that band of enthusiasts who had boarded the ships and
were rapidly heaving the obnoxious tea into the waters of Boston Harbor.
In the stirling days which followed it was Paul Revere of
St. Andrew's Lodge who earned the title of "The Patriotic Mercury" or "The
Messenger of the Revolution." Thousands of miles he rode on horseback, spreading
the news of the destruction of the tea, bearing despatches to other colonies, to
New York and Philadelphia, to Provincial and Continental Congresses (9). And on
that memorable night before the battle of Lexington it was by order of the
Master of St. Andrew's, Joseph Warren, that Bro. Paul Revere set out upon his
famous ride to Concord to warn his countrymen of the foe's approach--a ride
which has been immortalized by the magic pen of Longfellow who tells us that
"Through all our history to the last In the hour of
darkness and peril and need The people will waken and listen to hear The
hurrying hoof-beats of that steed And the midnight message of Paul Revere."
And when at last the storm, which for years had been
gathering, burst in all its fury, it was St. Andrew's Lodge which furnished the
first great martyr to American liberty. Joseph Warren, Major General in the
Continental Army, fell at Bunker Hill; and thus the lodge which had almost
initiated the war gave up its Master in the battle which determined forever the
supremacy of the American arms in Massachusetts. No other organization, civic or
military, of its numbers, can be compared to St. Andrew's Lodge in the extent of
its contributions to the American cause. The title "Cradle of Liberty," which
has been applied to Faneuil Hall, rightfully belongs to the Green Dragon Tavern
where gathered that little band of Masons who precipitated the American
Revolution.
THE OTHER PATRIOTIC LODGES
But there were other lodges which rendered valuable
services in the war for independence. St. John's Provincial Grand Lodge at
Boston, the older rival of St. Andrew's, furnished, in the person of its Deputy
Grand Master Ridley, the engineer who planned the American fortifications at
Bunker Hill (10). St. George's Lodge at Schnectady, N. Y., where many
Revolutionary officers were made Masons, honored itself and the order by
appropriating lodge funds for the support of the families of its members who had
been taken prisoners (11).
The intimate connection between Masonry and the patriotic
movements is also shown by the growth of the order at this time. Master's Lodge
alone, at Albany, received eighty-three new members during the historic year
1776 (12).
MILITARY LODGES
But the most important service, after the Revolution was
fairly launched, was rendered by the lodges formed in the Continental Army.
There were ten of these (13), they were scattered among the camps from
Massachusetts to North Carolina, and their growth was fostered and encouraged by
the Commander-in-Chief. Washington himself attended their communications
frequently--now as a visitor, meeting soldier brethren on the level (14) and now
as Master sitting in the Oriental chair and bringing a candidate to Masonic
light (15). It was in one of these lodges--American Union at Morristown, N.
J.--that Lafayette is believed to have received his degrees (16). Lodge
meetings were sometimes held in officers' tents (17) and sometimes, as in the
case of the army encamped on the Hudson, in a permanent building specially
erected for that purpose (18). And so active were these military Masons that a
movement was started and several conventions held at Morristown with a view of
establishing an American General Grand Lodge and making Washington Grand Master
of the United States (19).
It is difficult to overestimate the strategic value of
these army lodges. In the first place they promoted fellowship and solidarity in
the ranks and sympathy between officers and men. In an army where the humblest
private might sit in lodge on a level with the Commander-in-Chief there arose a
spirit of self-sacrifice, mutual helpfulness and devotion--an esprit du
corps--which no hireling soldiery could have. Where the distinctions or rank
were lost in the ties of brotherhood, even the sufferings of that terrible
winter at Valley Forge might be made endurable.
Again, the prevalence of Masonry in the patriotic army
insured secrecy in the plans of campaign and fidelity in their execution.
Councils of war it is said, were frequently held in the lodge room where their
deliberations were under the double seal of Masonry and patriotism. Generals
could entrust their dispatches to couriers who were brother Masons and feel
certain that nothing would be divulged. Thus our eighteenth century brethren
formed the strong arm of the Continental service. It is claimed that nearly
every American general was a Mason (20); certainly the leading ones were. Even
the allies, Lafayette, the Frenchman, and Steuben (21) and Dekalb, the Germans,
were members of the order. John Paul Jones, the founder of our navy, is known to
have petitioned St. Bernard's Lodge at Kirkcudbright, Scotland, and probably was
a member of it (22). Had the Freemasons been withdrawn from the Continental
forces the Revolution must have been a dismal failure.
OUR BRETHREN OF THE OPPOSING FORCES
But we must never forget that not all Freemasons of the
Revolution were enrolled in the patriotic ranks-- that they were numerous in the
opposing army as well. Peter Ross, the historian of the Grand Lodge of New York,
records as operating during the war in that state more than thirty British
military lodges (22a). And to the fact that Masons were actively engaged on both
sides is due some of the most gratifying incidents of the war. It has been said
that the fairest flowers are those that bloom over the wall of party; but how
much more must be said of those that bloom amid the strife of armies.
Early in the war an event occurred that proved the strength
of the Masonic tie. At the battle of the Cedars near Montreal, Col. John
McKinstry, a Freemason, was captured by a band of Indians, allies of the
British, whose chief was the celebrated Joseph Brand, also a Mason. In
accordance with savage custom the prisoner was bound to a stake, fagots were
piled around him, and the torch was about to be applied, when he gave to Chief
Brand the sign which Masons know the world around--the grand hailing sign of
distress. Indian though he was, the chief recognized the sign and ordered the
torture to cease, and he and his captive became fast friends for the rest of
their lives (23).
Again, in 1779, Joseph Burnam, a Mason who was held by the
British as a prisoner of war in New York City, escaped and sought shelter in the
Green Bay Tree Tavern, kept by another Mason named Hopkins. This tavern served
as a meeting place for St. John's Lodge, which was composed mostly of British
officers. The fugitive was secreted in the tavern garret which was just above
the lodge room, and while he was reclining at night on the planks which formed
the garret floor these gave way and precipitated the unfortunate guest into the
center of the lodge in the very midst of its deliberations. The landlord, who
was also the Tiler, was called upon for an explanation, and he, like a good
Mason, made a clean breast of the whole affair. Whereupon the members of the
lodge took up a contribution for the fugitive brother and, though his enemy in
war, assisted him to reach the American lines across the Hudson River (24).
Another instance of Masonic magnanimity occurred when the
brave Baron DeKalb, our German ally, was slain at the battle of Camden in 1780.
Although he had crossed the Atlantic to take part in a quarrel that was not his,
against the British, he was buried by them with both Masonic and military honors
(25).
But perhaps the most significant illustration of the effect
of Masonry on the war was the action taken by the Grand Lodge of Scotland. It is
well known that the war was unpopular in many parts of Great Britain; but some
of the subordinate Scottish Lodges, urged perhaps by government officials, had
offered bounties for recruits to the army. When the Grand Lodge met it condemned
this practice in unmistakable terms and in its instructions declared: "Masonry
is an order of peace and it looks on all mankind to be at peace or at war with
each other as subjects of contending countries." (26)
RECIPROCITY IN THE AMERICAN ARMY
These are illustrations which, thanks to Masonic teaching,
reveal the foe in a better light than some are wont to think of him. Let us
notice some expressions of the same spirit on the American side.
At the battle of Princeton, 1776, Captain William Leslie, a
Mason and son of the Earl of Leven, of the British Army, received a severe
wound. He was taken in charge by Dr. Benjamin Rush, the celebrated surgeon who
was then on Gen. Washington's staff, but was found to be "past all surgery." He
was also buried with Masonic and military honors and this fact was announced by
Col. Fitzgerald, Gen. Washington's aide, who entered the British Camp for that
purpose under a flag of truce. Later Dr. Rush erected a monument, which may
still be seen, at Brothel Leslie's grave "as a mark of esteem for his worth and
respect for his noble family (27)."
Lodge Unity was a military lodge in the 17th foot of the
British army. In 1779, while the regiment was engaged in a skirmish, the
constitution and jewels of the lodge were lost, but were returned to it by Col.
Parsons of the American Union Lodge in the opposing army, with a letter reciting
that:
"As Masons we are disarmed of that resentment which
stimulates to undistinguished desolation; and however our political sentiments
may impel us in the public dispute, we are still brethren, and (our professional
duty apart) ought to promote the happiness and advance the weal of each other."
(25)
An even more striking instance occurred when the Masonic
chest of the 46th British infantry was captured by the Americans. Upon hearing
of it, Gen. Washington ordered the chest and other articles of value returned to
the owners accompanied by a guard of honor (29). The London Freemason's
Magazine, commenting on the circumstances, from an English standpoint, says:
"The surprise, the feelings of both officers and men may be
imagined when they perceived the flag of truce that announced this elegant
compliment from their noble opponent but still more noble brother. The guard of
honor, their flutes playing a sacred march, the chest containing the
constitution and implements of the craft borne aloft like another Ark of the
Covenant, equally by Englishmen and Americans, who, lately engaged in the strife
of war, now marched through the enfiladed ranks of the gallant regiment, that,
with presented arms and colors, hailed the glorious act by cheers which the
sentiment rendered sacred as the hallelujahs of an angel's song."
Thus, above the storm and stress of armed strife. the
soothing spirit of Masonic fellowship brooded like a bird of calm. If Masons
precipitated and promoted the struggle they likewise mitigated its horrors and
made possible the disclosure of the noblest traits in both American and Briton.
It is the proudest heritage of Revolutionary Masons on both sides that the
fraternal tie was one which not even the shock of arms could sever, and that
amid the fiercest passions engendered by war they never quite forgot they were
brethren. The record of this forms the fairest, brightest page in the history of
the Revolution.
IN THE COUNCILS OF STATE
When we turn from scenes of carnage to the more peaceful
haunts of diplomat and statesman, during the Revolution, we find Freemasons
there active and influential. It is a notable fact that the earliest suggestion
of a Federal Union of the American colonies came from the first American Grand
Master, Daniel Coxe, who in 1730 received a deputation as Provincial Grand
Master, made this suggestion in a work published as early as 1716, (30) and may
therefore properly be called the first Federalist. It was this idea, adopted
later and advocated by another eminent Mason and Provincial Grand Master,
Benjamin Franklin, that grew into the union established by the constitution
framed two generations later. The Declaration of Independence, it has been
declared, (31) was the work of a Mason and many of the signers of that
instrument are believed to have been members of our order (32). Freemasons were
foremost in the Philadelphia Convention that framed the Federal Constitution and
thus completed the work of the war. Besides Washington, the President, and
Franklin, the Nestor, of that body, Hamilton, the genius of the Convention, was
a Mason (33).
AT THE COURTS OF EUROPE
But after all it may be that Masonry's most effective
service to the American cause was rendered not at home but abroad. We know that
the aid of France was a powerful, if not indispensable factor in the outcome of
the war and that the sympathy of other Continental powers was advantageous. But
why should these haughty monarchists of Europe look with favor upon the
struggling republic of the New World ? Why did they not turn the same deaf ear
as recently to the Boer envoys? There seems to have been some mysterious
influence which changed their once hostile attitude into one of friendship; and
recent investigations have led to the belief that this influence was the Masonic
order (34).
When Franklin, the Freemason, went to Paris to plead the
American cause at the court of St. Germain, he naturally sought out the members
of the fraternity. At the "Lodge of the Nine Muses," where he often attended, he
met the intellect and statesmanship of the gay French capital, and it is
believed that partly, at least, through these influences he was enabled to reach
the ear of Louis XVI, to secure for us the French fleet and army, and thus to
turn the tide of the war in favor of the American cause at its darkest hour. And
thus the record of Masonic service in the Revolution is complete. There was no
part of it in which Masons did not share and no important phase which would
probably have succeeded but for them.
But we fail to grasp the full significance of this noble
record if we see in it only a source of pride and gratification. It is all this
but much more; for every page imposes duty, obligation, responsibility. If it be
true, as the record seems to teach, that American nationality was largely
brought about by Masons, and that to this end the best energies of the craft
were devoted in the trying times of the Revolution; if our predecessors gave
"their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" to start the republic on
its glorious career, surely we can best prove true to the traditions of American
Masonry by continuing the work which they began. Our advantages, if not our
opportunities, are greater than theirs. The feeble fraternity of that day has
become a powerful order now--from a few thousands it has grown to nearly two
millions, carefully selected from the ranks of American citizenship. Its
representatives are found in every official station (35) from Presidents (36)
down. What possibilities for good government and high political ideals do these
facts express; what a mighty leverage for civic progress and reform ! And this
is the highest lesson taught us as a craft by Freemasons of the American
Revolution: To place patriotism above partisanship, to preserve and extend the
free institutions of the republic, to maintain the honor and dignity of the
nation at home and abroad, and thus to realize the lofty ideals of our
eighteenth century brethren, bequeathing them as a priceless heritage to
generations yet unborn.
REFERENCES:
(1) Record of Intolerance, 21 Am. Tyler-Keystone 549. See a
reply in Vol. 22 of the same periodical, page 113.
(2) Undertaken while preparing an address as Grand Orator
before the Grand Lodge of Nebraska.
(3) The earliest American Lodge is claimed to have been St.
John's at Philadelphia, formed about 1730. See Gould, History of Freemasonry,
Vol. IV, p. 233, et seq.
(4) Bro. Ross, historian of the Grand Lodge, concludes (N.
Y. Grand Lodge Proc. 1900) that there were not more than 250 members of New York
Lodges during the Revolution.
(5) There seems every reason to admit what has been so
often claimed by our historians, that the Masonic Lodges scattered throughout
the country were as beacon lights of liberty, and that within our tiled doors
the Revolution was fostered and strengthened." -- Ross, Historian of Grand
Lodge, N. Y. Proceedings (1900), p. 315.
(6) Goss, Life of Paul Revere, (1891), pp. 117, 121-2.
(7) Centennial Memorial of the Lodge of St. Andrew, and the
Massachusetts Grand Lodge (1870).
(8) Goss, Life of Paul Revere, (1891), pp. 121-2; Gould,
History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, p. 347.
(9) Id. p. 118 et seq.
(10) Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, p. 220.
(11) Ross, Historian of Grand Lodge, N. Y. Proceedings
(1900) p. 313.
(12) Id. p. 315.
(13) Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, pp. 222, 227.
(14) Ross, Historian of Grand Lodge, N. Y. Proc. (1900) pp.
298, 305; Hayden, Washington and His Masonic Compeers; Capt. G. P. Brown in
American Tyler, Dec. 15, 1900; Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 869.
(15) Ross, Historian of Grand Lodge, N. Y. Proc. (1900) p.
308.
(16) Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, p. 224.
(17) Id.; Ross, Historian Grand Lodge, N. Y. Proc. (1900)
p. 308.
(18) Capt. G. P. Brown in American Tyler. Dec. 15, 1900,
says: "American Union Lodge was the banner lodge of the Continental Army. It had
a very large membership, including several of Washington's foremost generals. In
1782, while the patriot host was encamped on the banks of the Hudson the
attendance of that renowned lodge became so large that it was necessary to erect
a building for its regular meetings. At a stated assembly of the lodge the
question arose. General Washington was among the large number of visitors
present and spoke at some length on the erection of a suitable building for
Masonic purposes. And it was but a few days later when the noble-hearted
commander-in-chief and eminent Freemason ordered the erection of a wooden
structure. It was nearly sixty feet long and of the old style, one-story plan.
It formed a complete oblong square. It had but one door, which was on the west
end; its windows were fairly good size, square and over six feet from the
ground, thus to keep off the cowan and eavesdropper which were so plenty in the
Continental army at that time.* * * One of the many noted Masonic celebrations
held within those sacred walls was the festival of Saint John the Baptist, June
24, A. L. 5782."
(19) Gould, Vol. IV, pp. 224-5; Ross, pp. 304-5; Mackey,
Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 870.
(20) Gould, Vol. IV, p. 224. G. P. Brown, in the article
last above quoted, gives the following list of those who participated in the
celebrations there mentioned: "Generals Washington, Gist, Putnam, Hamilton,
Jackson, Armstrong, Parsons, Heath, Thompson, Patterson, Clinton, Dayton,
Greaton, Brooks, Huntington; Colonels Cilley, Gridley, Burbeck, Nixon, Bradford,
Clarke, Parke, Gray, Johnston, Sherman; Captains Marshall, Brown, Hait, Coit,
Redfield, Lacey, Chapman, Ten Eyck; Lieutenants Heart, Hosmor, Hobart, Buxton,
Russell, Barker, Sherman, Curtis, Heath, Bush, Spear, Cleveland, Palmer and a
host of petty officers and privates. General John Stark, the hero of Bennington,
was a Mason, initiated, according to Brown, in St. John's Lodge, No. 1,
Portsmouth, N. H.; according to Ross, in Master's Lodge, Albany, N. Y.
(21) Baron Steuben was a member of Trinity and an honorary
member of Holland Lodge, both of New York. See N. Y. Grand Lodge Proc. (1900),
p. 309.
(22) See American Tyler, Vol. 15, p. 478
(22a) See also Sachse, Old Masonic Lodges of Pennsylvania,
1730-1800, especially the chapter on Unity Lodge No. 18, A. Y. M., abstracted in
the New Age, XXIV, 539.
(23) Stone, Life of Brant, (1838), Vol. I, pp. 18-33; Vol.
II, p. 156; Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, p. 221; Ross, N.Y. Grand
Lodge Proc. (1900), 307.
(24) Ross, N. Y. Grand Lodge Proc. (1900), 302, giving an
extract from the printed history of St. John's Lodge; Mitchell, History of
Freemasonry (1817), p. 501.
(25) Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, p. 222.
(26) Lyon, History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, p. 83;
Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 868.
(27) Sachse, Old Masonic Lodges of Pennsylvania, abstracted
in New Age, XXIV, 539.
(28) Ross, 2, 98, 99. The letter is reprinted in the New
Age (XXIV, 639), from Sachse, Old Masonic Lodges of Pennsylvania. This Lodge
Unity appears to have received successive warrants from the Grand Lodges of
Ireland, Scotland and Pennsylvania.
(29) Ross, 299, 300.
(30) The work was entitled "A Description of the English
Province of Carolina." See Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, pp. 231-2;
Ross, N. Y. Grand Lodge Proc. (1900), pp. 295-6.
(31) Capt. G. P. Brown, of Boston, in a private letter,
furnished the information on which this statement is based
(32) P.G.M. Baird in THE BUILDER (II, 351), mentions
twenty-three. Cf. Gould, History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV, p. 220; N. Y. Grand
Lodge Proc. (1900) p. 81; John Carson Smith in American Tyler-Keystone, XXIII,
300.
(33) Ross, N. Y. Grand Lodge Proc. (1900), 305
(34) The late Gen. John Carson Smith, of Illinois, to whom
I am indebted for favors, conducted these investigations.
(35) In a recent enumeration of the Massachusetts and New
Hampshire Legislatures more than one-third of the members were found to be
Masons; in one branch the proportion was one-half. 15 Annals of American Academy
81.
(36) P.G.M. Baird in THE BUILDER (II, 351), presents a list
of seventeen Presidents who were Masons, and mentions another (Grant) who may
have taken the E. A. degree. This is more than two-thirds of the whole number.
----o----
GOING UP IN MASONRY
BY BRO. DENMAN S. WAGSTAFF, CALIFORNIA
When "Mother" seems so very old and gray, when she can not
exactly keep up with your "growing" disposition and the exuberance of animal
spirit now so fair an average of your condition, you really turn your back upon
her! You seem to prefer faster company! You have about forsaken the place whence
you came and in a haze of expectation joined what to a student of Masonry would
resemble an "aristocracy of ignorance." You have come to the "parting of the
ways" between what the "nickle-plated" world designates "higher and lower"
Masonry ! It seems an awful task now to contemplate the retention of the
necessary knowledge to enable you to pass the Tyler at some "strange" Lodge.
With Charity it may be said that it is hard, for you never knew much about it
and should not be upbraided for something you are not altogether to blame for.
It is this lack of knowing which is the cause of complaint and the fact that
drives you to something easier--something that does not require knowledge to
maintain a standing in, as long as the dues are paid. Yet individuals are not
altogether to blame. The habit of "hurry" we acquire in business and social life
urges us on. Many of us go into business almost as soon as we are able to read a
market report. Other "frills" in the educational line are deemed unnecessary. We
get to do "business" with everything. Our souls are risked ofttimes before we
really know where we could find another, were such a thing suddenly lost to an
opponent on the mart of trade. If we could but pause when we find ourselves
going too fast! If we could but stoop to commune with an innermost self at such
a moment! There are many of us who have not continued such practice through
life. We have forgotten so much as "Blue Lodge practice" has by degrees faded
farther and farther from the limit of memory.
The Masonry of many men is all encompassed by the somewhat
obscure significance of a "prominently" cherished "watch-charm," constantly
carried as an aid to a less precious memory. I do not, by this means of public
censuring, even expect to lure men into the practice of the science of
faithfulness in daily life or avowed purpose, neither do I expect them to
altogether forsake "Mammon." I can hardly stem the tide which seems to force men
to a love of display--of even Masonry. I can not force them to attend their
Lodges long enough to give them an understanding of all the symbolism of the
ancient Craft. If these lagging souls could but feel the "pull" of the cabletow
about them, as it binds each willing heart with a living touch, to the real
practise of Faith, Hope and sweet Charity! I do not, in a day, expect to lead
men from their world-idols. To cure them of the indolence that goes with
borrowed thought and trailing action.
Yet I have hope, for there are other days dawning and still
other men, who believe in the "Blue Lodge" as a grand preparatory school, where
Masonry can be studied, both to her advantage and with every recurring benefit
to the student. Aye, the School of Applied Science where successful methods may
be grafted into one's system by simple contact with honest practitioners, who if
they fail today, will be ever patient in the trying, until Faith brings victory.
This practice, in the fundaments of Masonry, will give
renewed strength and an increase of intelligence, and will assist materially in
the unfolding of the beauties of so-called higher degrees, both of Masonry and
daily life, (and they should be one,) until new lanes of travel are opened
toward the Light, impelling the splendid glorification of the visible body and
soul of a fraternity which to date has given everything to her children,
expecting only that which she gets in the "siftings" as the Mill grinds and
grinds!
----o----
INTERNATIONALISM AND FREEMASONRY
BY BRO. P. E. KELLETT, GRAND MASTER, MANITOBA
PART II.
LET us now briefly consider the great point of cleavage
between Anglo-Saxon Masonry and the Masonry of the Grand Orient of France. This
cleavage is based largely on the suspicion, if not on the definite charge that
French Masonry is atheistic in its practices or in its tendencies.
The Grand Orient of France was organized in Paris in 1736.
Its constitution was of the model of Anderson's original Constitution 1723. The
Grand Orient was recognized as legitimate Masonry by the Grand Lodge of England,
and in fact by all legitimate Masons throughout the world. At that time in all
Masonic Constitutions there was an absolute absence of dogma concerning in which
all men agree; that is to be good men and true, men of God and religion, and
Masons were bound only to that religion in which all men agree; that is to be
good men and true, men of honor and honesty. The aim of the fraternity was
purely humanitarian, its principles broad enough for men of every diverse
opinion. The desire was simply to unite them, whatever their private religious
beliefs, in uplift work for themselves and for humanity.
Changes came first in England. About the middle of the
eighteenth century, the so-called Landmarks regarding a declaration of belief in
the G. A. of the U. and the placing of the Bible on the Altar, were adopted.
Following this, for the greater part of a century the French Constitution
adhered strictly to the original plan of the fraternity and did not contain that
formula which has since, in some places, come to be regarded as essential.
During this time neither the Grand Lodge of England nor any other recognized
Grand Lodge took any exception to this notable omission. French Masons were
considered neither "Godless" nor "Atheistic." As time went on, the French
Constitution was changed to conform to that of the Grand Lodge of England. One
writer has said this was co-incident with a closer political approach of the two
nations, England and France. The constitution of the Grand Orient of France
followed the English copy until shortly after the Franco Prussian war, when they
reverted back to what it had been originally. Co-incident with this change,
history records political estrangement between France and England which
continued until recent years. When France reverted back to her original
constitution, the Grand Lodge of England immediately afterwards severed
relations with France, and generally speaking, Masonry of English speaking
countries followed suit, claiming that the change made by the Grand Orient of
France was Atheistic in tendency.
Can French Masonry be said to be atheistical ? Atheism is
the doctrine that there is no God. It is no longer considered reasonable for
anyone to dogmatically assert that there is no God, and it is a question if such
a being as an atheist exists today.
There is no unbelief.
Whoever plants a seed beneath the sod,
And waits to see it push away the clod,
He trusts in God.
Whoever says, when clouds are in the sky,
"Be patient, heart; light breaketh by-and-by,"
Trusts the Most High
Whoever sees, 'neath winter's fields of snow,
The silent harvest of the future grow,
God's power must know.
Whoever lies down on his couch to sleep,
Content to lock each sense in slumber deep,
Knows God will keep.
Whoever says, "Tomorrow," "The Unknown,"
"The Future," trusts the Power alone
He dares disown.
The heart that looks on when the eyelids close,
And dares to live when life has only woes,
God's comfort knows
There is no unbelief;
And day by day, and night unconsciously,
The heart lives by that faith the lips deny--
God knoweth why!
To be atheistic, French Masonry would need to have made the
dogmatic assertion, "There is no God." This it has never done. It neither
affirms nor denies anything relative to God. To suppose that French Masons deny
the existence of God is to totally misunderstand them. They are as much averse
to a dogmatic assertion of that kind as to one of the opposite kind. They are
simply against a dogmatic assertion of any kind, as Masons, believing that
Masonry is antidogmatic. Many, and possibly all, of their members would
doubtless declare a belief in God at the proper time; but not as Masons in a
Masonic Lodge.
The French Masons found their attitude on the first edition
of the Constitution, which obliges Masons only to that religion in which all men
agree; that is, to be good and true, or men of honour and honesty.
Let us briefly examine what ground there is for their
stand, and see whether or not we are justified in condemning it. For this
purpose I want to direct your attention to:
ANDERSON'S CONSTITUTION, 1723
Concerning God and Religion.
A Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the Moral Law, and
if he rightly understands the Art he will never be a stupid atheist, nor an
irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient times Masons were charged in every
country to be of the religion of that country, or nation, whatever it was, yet
it is now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which
all men agree, leaving their peculiar opinions to themselves; that is to be good
men and true men of Honour and Honesty by whatever Denominations or Persuasions
they may be distinguished; whereby Masonry becomes the centre of union and the
means of conciliating true friendship among persons that must have remained at a
perpetual distance.
OUR OWN CONSTITUTION Concerning God and Religion.
A Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the Moral Law, and
if he rightly understands the Art he will never be a stupid atheist, nor an
irreligious Libertine. He, of all men, should best understand that God seeth not
as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh to the
heart! A Mason is therefore particularly bound never to act against the dictates
of his conscience. Let a man's religion or mode of worship be what it may, he is
not excluded from the Order, provided he believe in the Architect of Heaven and
Earth, and practice the sacred duties of Morality. Masons unite with the
virtuous of every persuasion, in the firm and pleasing bond of fraternal love;
they are taught to view the errors of mankind with compassion, and to strive by
the purity of their own conduct to demonstrate the superior excellence of the
faith they may profess. Thus Masonry is the centre of union between good men and
true, and the happy means of conciliating friendship amongst those who must
otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance.
CONSTITUTION OF GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE
Freemasonry, an essentially philanthropical and progressive
institution, has for its object the pursuit of truth, the study of morality, and
the practice of solidarity; its efforts are directed to the material and moral
improvement and the intellectual and social advancement of humanity. It has for
its principles, mutual tolerance, respect for others and for one's self, and
absolute liberty of conscience. Considering metaphysical conceptions as
belonging exclusively to the individual judgment of its members, it refuses to
accept any dogmatic affirmation. Its motto is: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
As to whether the Grand Orient of France has departed
farther from the spirit and the letter of Anderson's original Constitution than
we have is not open to much controversy. The change they made in 1877 rather
reverted back to it than went farther away from it. To show the real
misunderstanding that has occurred with regard to their position let me quote
from the minutes of their General Conventions when the change was made. We can
then understand what the real meaning of their action was.
At the French Masonic Convention of 1876, on the proposal
of a Lodge in the department of the Rhone, a Committee was appointed to consider
the question of suppressing the second paragraph of the first article of the
Constitution, concerning God and Religion. The Committee recommended that the
proposition be postponed, and in recommending this the reporter of the
Committee, Bro. Maricault, made the following statement:
"Your Commission has recognized that bad faith alone could
interpret the suppression demanded as a denial of the existence of God and the
immortality of-the soul; human solidarity and freedom of conscience, which would
be henceforth the exclusive basis of Freemasonry, imply quite as strongly belief
in God and in an immortal soul as they do materialism, positivism, or any other
philosophic doctrine."
Postponement met with opposition. Bro. Andre Roussell, in
advocating immediate action, among other statements made the following:
"I am anxious to recognize with my brother, the reporter of
the Commission, that Freemasonry is neither deistic, atheistic, or even
positivist. In so far as it is an institution affirming and practicing human
solidarity, it is a stranger to every religious dogma and to every religious
Order. Its only principle is an absolute respect for freedom of conscience. In
matters of faith it confirms nothing and it denies nothing. It respects in an
equal degree all sincere convictions and beliefs. Thus the doors of our temples
open to admit Catholics as well as Protestants, to admit the atheist as well as
the deist, provided they are conscientious and honourable. After the debate in
which we are at present taking part, no intelligent and honourable man will be
able to seriously state that the Grand Orient of France has acted from a desire
to banish from its Lodges belief in God and in the immortality of the soul, but,
on the contrary, that in the name of absolute freedom of conscience it proclaims
solemnly its respect for the convictions, teachings, and beliefs of our
ancestors. We refrain, moreover, as much from denying as from affirming any
dogma, in order that we may remain faithful to our principles and practice of
human solidarity."
Bro. Minot, in speaking on the same subject, said: "The
Constitution of 1865 had realized a transitory progress. The work must be
completed and purified by suppressing dogma and by rendering Masonry once again
universal, by the proclamation of the principle of absolute freedom of
conscience. Let no one be mistaken in this. It is not our aim to serve the
interest of any philosophic conception in particular by our action in laying
aside all distinction between doctrines. We have in view only one thing: Freedom
for each and respect for all."
The recommendation of the Committee prevailed, and action
was postponed. In 1877, after a year's study by the Lodges, the change was
adopted by an almost unanimous vote. The reporter of the Committee at the time
said: "Who is not aware, at this moment, that in advocating this suppression no
one among us understands himself as making a profession of atheism and
materialism. In regard to this matter every misunderstanding must disappear from
our minds, and, if in any Lodge there should remain any doubt in reference to
this point, let them know that the Commission declares without reservation that
by acceding to the wish of Lodge No. 9 it sets before it no other object than
the proclamation of absolute liberty of conscience."
When the proposition of the Committee had been adopted by
the General Assembly, the President proposed, as an amendment, the insertion of
these words: "Masonry excludes no one on account of his beliefs." Many regarded
this as superfluous, but the President was insistent, in order that it might be
clearly established in the eyes of all that Masonry is a neutral territory, in
which all beliefs are admitted and treated with equal respect. The suggestion
was adopted.
It may be interesting to note that the original proposer
that the Grand Orient of France should suppress the formula of the G. A. of the
U. was a clergyman of the Protestant Church, and he stated, in justification, as
follows:
"In suppressing the formula respecting the G. A. of the U.
we did not mean to replace it by a materialistic formula. None among us in
proposing this suppression, thought of professing atheism or materialism, and we
declare formally and emphatically that we had no other end in view than to
proclaim absolute liberty of conscience."
I have given the words and opinions of those responsible
for the change in the Constitution so that there may be no room for
misunderstandings. The Grand Orient of France, in making the change, has done no
more than was done by the Government of Great Britain when she admitted members
to seats in the House of Commons by allowing them to make an affirmation only
when their convictions would not allow them to take a religious oath. The same
custom prevails in our Courts of Justice.
Their position will bear a little further examination to
make clear its consistency. The story, as depicted by our Ritual, tells of a
great loss and a life-long search for this something, which was lost. Masonry
ends at the point when something else is substituted to temporarily make good
that loss, and at the point where Masonry ends we are expected to begin the
search.
Various explanations have been given as to what this is
that was lost, and which all Catholic and Protestant, Jew and Gentile, Christian
and Pagan, are seeking for. The simplest and clearest explanation of this that
was lost is that it was "the way back to God."
"The way back to God." That is the door then to which
Masonry leads. Cannot any of us go as far as that door with any, be he Agnostic,
Deist, Buddhist, or any other, so long as he conforms to Anderson's original
specifications, and is a good man and true, a man of honour and honesty? At the
door, of course, we would separate, each to follow on his own way. But happily
we can come back to the Lodge again and again for mutual encouragement, and for
strength for a fresh start on our several paths, all of which are alike dark and
obscure.
It is not the function of Masonry to solve the riddle of
life but to propound it and stimulate and encourage each of her initiates to
search for his own solution. It takes each man so far, and there leaves him to
find the answer for himself. By the very fact that Masonry itself gives no
answer, it demonstrates clearly that the answer is not the same to every man.
All this would seem to lead to freedom from dogma of all kind and justify France
and Belgium in the stand they take.
I do not wish to be understood to say that it is wrong for
a Mason in Lodge to declare belief in God. But I would like to be able to accept
as brethren any good men and true, men of honour and honesty, who are earnest
searchers after the same truth as we are, even though they do not insist in
Lodge on a declaration of belief in God. French Masons appear to be worthy men,
doing a wonderful work for the cause of progress and enlightenment.
Another so-called grievance against the Grand Orient of
France is that they have taken the Bible off the altar. Many of us have imagined
that because the Bible is one of the Great Lights according to our Ritual and
usage that its place has been in Masonic Lodges from time immemorial. To most
the presence of the Bible on the altar is in some way a landmark. Surprising it
may be, but the Bible was not even mentioned in Masonic Rituals until 1724, and
it was in 1760 that Preston moved that it be made one of the Great Lights of
Masonry. One might properly question whether Anglo-Saxon Masonry did not violate
a landmark when she introduced religious dogmatism into Masonry in the middle of
the Eighteenth Century.
As Masons, we have before us the great object of the
fraternal brotherhood of man. This will carry with it peace and prosperity. Is
not the attainment of this worth the abolition of narrow intolerance ? Let us
maintain, if we wish, our own principles concerning God and religion, but
forever banish all dogmatism as to what others shall do in this connection, so
long as they are earnestly working to attain the great principles of Masonry.
Does not the situation demand the serious thought of every Master Mason?
Should not Tolerance and Fraternity prevail ? France is
holding out the brotherly hand to us, saying: "Let by-gones be by-gones, and let
us look solely to the future." Should we as Masons hold at more than arm's
length an institution which consistently devotes itself to those lofty aims and
pursuits which we preach better than we practice?
Even as the Arts, Sciences, and other phases of human
activity have benefited by international discussion and concord, so also can
Masonry benefit. If Masonry is to sustain in the future its splendid record, and
attain the object she seeks, is not world-wide international co-operation
necessary? How else can we attain a Universal Brotherhood?
With the present world crisis the time has come when
Freemasonry should stand forth, free from all entrammelling influences, in its
grand simplicity. Our Lodges should be centres of thought, influence and effort,
holding no task alien that will advance the cause of righteousness on earth. To
this end we could learn much by confraternity with such an organization as the
Grand Orient of France. Is "Brotherly Love" to be nothing more than a label
which we carry but which does not properly belong to the goods at all ?
----o----
THE FAITH THAT IS IN THEM -- A FRATERNAL FORUM
Wildey E. Atchison, Iowa.
EDITED BY BRO. GEORGE E. FRAZER
PRESIDENT, THE BOARD OF STEWARDS
CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.
Geo. W. Baird, District of Columbia.
H. L. Haywood, Iowa.
Joseph Barnett, California.
John W. Barry, Iowa.
Joe L. Carson, Virginia.
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia.
Henry R. Evans, District of Columbia.
H. D. Funk, Minnesota.
F. B. Gault, Washington.
Joseph C. Greenfield, Georgia.
T. W. Hugo, Minnesota.
M. M. Johnson, Massachusetts.
John G. Keplinger, Illinois.
Harold A. Kingsbury, Connecticut.
Dr. Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri.
Julius H. McCollum, Connecticut.
Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.
Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky.
Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin.
John Pickard, Missouri.
C. M. Schenck, Colorado.
Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois.
Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin.
Oliver D. Street, Alabama.
H. W. Ticknor, Maryland.
Denman S. Wagstaff, California.
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.
(Contributions to this Monthly Department of Personal
Opinion are invited from each writer who has contributed one or more articles to
THE BUILDER. Subjects for discussion are selected as being alive in the
administration of Masonry today. Discussions of politics, religious creeds or
personal prejudices are avoided, the purpose of the Department being to afford a
vehicle for comparing the personal opinions of leading Masonic students. The
contributing editors assume responsibility only for what each writes over his
own signature. Comment from our Members on the subjects discussed here will be
welcomed in the Question Box and Correspondence Column.)
QUESTION NO. 9-- Is it advisable for the Master of each
Lodge to refer applications for initiation and membership to one standing
committee on membership appointed annually? If so, shall this Committee be
composed of past officers? If not, what other methods may a Lodge adopt in
maintaining uniform standards of membership qualifications?
Standing Committee Works Well.
As to the advisability of a Master referring applications
to a standing committee appointed annually (based upon long usage in my own
Lodge, Excelsior No. 369)--emphatically yes. Too much care can not be exercised
in looking into the antecedents of those knocking at the Portals of Masonry if
we are to maintain the same high standard of membership which has made our
Institution unique among all others for Quality of Membership. A Committee
honored with this considerable responsibility extending over a twelve month
period must naturally feel the same sort of responsibility as the line officers
of a Lodge and acquire added and valuable experience "each time out" upon a
"character-quest." We have had such satisfactory results with our own Standing
Committee in Excelsior that for some years now they have been annually
reappointed and have yet to give us any cause for complaint. It is frequently
their custom to ask "more time" for investigation and when one finally does pass
the doors of Excelsior Lodge No. 369, it is evidence that such a one comes with
a clean slate. Blackballing is an infrequent occurrence in our Lodge as the
Committee generally recommends the prompt withdrawal of a petition which it can
not report "full and favorable." Not one of our present Committee is a Past
Officer but each of the three is a long time and faithful attendant upon Lodge,
endeavoring to live up to the traditions born of fifty-two years of existence.
With considerable pride I can point to the membership of Excelsior as justifying
in every minute particular the extreme advisability of having a Committee of
this kind. We have never found it necessary to advertise our meetings in the
daily press inasmuch as the interest and enthusiasm of our own members is
sufficient to assure us a representative attendance at our meetings and such
visitors as enter our portals from time to time of their own free will and
accord generally indicate their approval of our old-fashioned ways and adherence
to the ancient landmarks by coming again. Much of the credit for which is due to
an experienced and careful Investigating Committee. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.
* * * Method of a San Francisco Master. I may only answer
from a "California" standpoint, and as follows:
"It is not only inadvisable, but without the law, both
written and unwritten, to appoint a committee of three, who shall jointly hold
office for a year; and as such pass upon all applications that may be made to
the Lodge for membership within that time."
Personally I believe this to be GOOD LAW and have this to
say in its defense. In all notes on Masonic procedure of the past in America,
where Masonry is or was Masonry, we have evidence that, unless the Lodge were so
small as to preclude the possibility of appointing a new Committee each month
and a separate one on each Candidate, the practice has been to do so. This is
California law. May I not ask why it should not be so ? I may be here permitted
to answer as follows:
One of the principal Landmarks--indeed one of the corner
stones used in upbuilding our structure is and always has been--secrecy. We aim
to avoid letting it be known "who shall judge of our qualifications, as men fit
to be Masons." We aim to protect our membership from the "venom" of a man found
unworthy! Hence we keep the identity of our committee-men on petitions secret!
We aim to appoint Committees that are unknown, even to the members of the Lodge,
so that unbiased, free and impartial judgment, pro or con, may be rendered by
such Committee. If a Lodge member has detrimental evidence, he can consult the
Master, who is and should be the only "standing committeeman." Thirty days
should be ample to disclose most "hidden" characteristics, where a committee has
but the one object to work on; and if not long enough another thirty or even
sixty days for further investigation may be allowed.
More than one investigation in a month rather dulls the
interest any man may have in such duty, and in consequence, such a disposition
naturally reflects on the results the Lodge relies on so implicitly. Any
"standing committee" would soon become "public property"--as from mouth to ear,
the most inconsequential matters are rehearsed, even "on the square."
To gain a uniform standard for membership and to ascertain
the qualifications of a candidate, the committee should not be afraid or too
politic to ask questions. As the Master of Fairmount Lodge No. 435 of San
Francisco, I made use of a printed list of questions. In addition we have always
been in the habit of notifying sister lodges. These forms are of course
supplementary to a standard committee-man's notice. Now if you are not too
"awfully polite" about getting the "ORIGINAL INFORMATION" your standard of
qualification may be easily fixed and forever maintained. Denman S. Wagstaff,
California.
* * *
Appoint Strangers. As to the advisability of the Master of
each Lodge referring applications for initiation and membership to one standing
committee on membership, annually, I would advise that it would not be fair to
impose so much work on any one committee: nor could we expect a single committee
to give so much time and labor, gratuitously.
The purpose of a committee on petitions is to verify
whether or not the postulant is worthy. It has become a custom to name, on such
committees, the friends or neighbors of the petitioners, in the interest of
convenience, time and labor. While this has its advantages, it has, also, its
disadvantages. A man's friends are right sure to report favorable.
A friend is one who sees your good qualities in preference
to your bad ones. The petitioner is apt to resent rejection by "getting even"
with the man he suspects of blackballing him. The neighbor or friend who served
on the committee and visited that petitioner, thus may become an innocent mark.
A glance at the Grievance and Appeals Reports which are to
be found in so many Grand Lodge publications, is quite enough to convince even
the shortest haired brother that we are taking in too many. The purpose of the
Lodge and of the Order is to select quality in preference to quantity; and, with
this in view, we would give it as our advice to put all strangers on such
committees, i. e. strangers to the petitioner, and we also think the committee
should be required to search the character of the petitioner from his cradle to
the date of his petition. This may take time and may require labor, but it is
worth the while.
We have heard very good brethren, when defending their
favorable report, say that they were unable to find anything against the
petitioner. With this the writer has always disagreed, and has urged that we
should find the petitioner to be good, upright, respected, worthy, held in high
esteem, in fact an acquisition. One who would bring something to the Lodge in
lieu of deriving character from it.
We should not forget that a Masonic obligation is mutual;
it pledges the entire fraternity to the initiate, as well as pledging him to the
Fraternity. The Lodge, per se, is secondary, in this matter; the Lodge is
responsible to the Grand Lodge for its mistakes. Geo. W. Baird, Washington, D.
C.
* * *
Emphatic "No." Regarding the Committees of Investigation on
the application of candidates for membership--First, should it be an annually
appointed standing committee ? Emphatically NO; any such move tends to remove
from the body and personnel of a Lodge the very important attitude of personal
responsibility, to me one of the most dangerous states of mind into which any
association can fall; it is hard enough now with so many Lodges having become
mere work shops to find any incentive for the innocent bystander to attend. The
whole matter of candidates is so closely a family matter that I would make it a
first consideration, and then if there was any time left I would confer a
degree. Every member should be made to feel his interest in the Lodge by every
means possible, and it is not so important that you have had a scientific
combing out of the character of a candidate as it is to have your members think
they are doing something for the Lodge; if your Master can't handle the
situation hurry it up so he will get into the glorious army of Past Masters and
get somebody in his place with brains and executive ability in his head and
Masonry in his heart.
Second--If a standing committee should it be composed of
Past Masters? Also by the same token, an emphatic NO; beyond all things NO. If
there is anything else in the machinery of a Lodge which causes trouble more
often than anything else it is the Past Master, or past officers; by their
assumed wisdom and standing they tend to attract to themselves that power of
ipse dixit, and instead of the Mason being a member of a Lodge he soon gets to
be an echo and then a very faint one. The main thing is to magnify the member,
the past officers have had their chance.
Third--What should be done to maintain a standard of
membership? It is a question if we want any uniform standard other than the
Constitutions demand. By that I mean any hard and fast drawn detailed
specifications, unnatural and unapplicable. Masonry is a progressive institution
and candidates as well as members must keep up with the general development.
I am a Masonic Progressive in every sense of the word where
my good sense points out, but in this case of committees on applications I do
not believe there is or can be any better method than the old way. Any variation
tends to lack of interest in the second most important feature of our work, the
getting of proper candidates. The first most important feature is to keep him
when you get him and make something out of the raw material God has entrusted to
your skill and human interest. The third important feature is to confer the
degrees by which you teach him his Duty to that God and the neighbor and
anything which interferes with these orders of importance in my opinion is wrong
and tends to disintegration and decay. T. W. Hugo, Minnesota. * * * Lodges in
Small Towns.
My experience in Lodges of 250 or less, situated in towns
of less than 20,000 population, is to the effect that it is better to handle
these matters by the appointment of a special committee of three members on each
application. Whether in larger Lodges and in more populous centers it would be
better to adopt the plan proposed is a matter which from my experience I would
not be able to judge. Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin.
* * *
Give Duties to All Members.
I would not advocate reference of applications for
initiation for membership by the Master to a standing committee on membership
for the reason that it places too much power in the hands of a few men. This
does not impugn the motives of the few men, but I have noticed that where the
same committees are constantly appointed by the Master the rest of the members
seem inclined to let them do all the work. The best results for a live Lodge in
my own experience as Master have been obtained by setting every member to some
kind of work. If the committee is composed of officers entirely, this creates
the impression that the rank and file do not amount to much in the consideration
of the Master, so I would say that wherever possible different committees for
every petition should be appointed so as to put the entire membership to work.
They will be better acquainted with the persons who apply and there seems to be
some spirit of brotherhood in this. J. W. Norwood, Kentucky.
* * *
No Universal Method Feasible. It is customary in this
section to appoint a special committee of investigation on every petition
presented. So much so is this the case that when the question was presented for
my consideration I looked up the law expecting to find it so laid down. Strict
search of the subordinate and Grand Lodge by-laws, however, revealed the fact
that they were to be referred to a committee of investigation, no provision
being made as to whether it be a standing committee or special.
It would seem as though no general or universal rule could
be made governing this. Local conditions would influence this largely. In the
large city Lodges where a large number of applications are received, no one
committee of three men could investigate and do it thoroughly on every petition
presented. On the other hand, when a limited number of petitions are presented a
standing committee of men well known to be thorough, conscientious and
fair-minded might be of advantage. Should such a committee be raised I do not
think it should arbitrarily be made up of Past Masters, but rather of men who
are known to possess the proper qualifications as partially listed above and to
which might be added spare time and willingness.
Considering the subject from all points, however, I think
the work will be more thoroughly done by carefully selected special committees
than by a standing committee, there being danger of the standing committee
growing stale and doing the work in a perfunctory manner. Julius H. McCollum,
Connecticut.
Use Brains--Not Blanks.
If a Lodge is a small one, it might be practicable and
perhaps would be desirable to have all applications for the degrees passed upon
by a single committee. In case of a large Lodge it seems to me that such a
course would not be practicable as the committee would be so over-burdened with
work that its investigations would lack thoroughness.
If such a committee exists it should be appointed by the
Worshipful Master and great care should be taken in its selection. I see no
reason why it should be limited to past officers although the presumption would
be that past officers would afford the best material for such committee.
The real safeguard of a Lodge consists in care with which
the Committees on applications are appointed. Only too often this appointment is
merely perfunctory and weak committees are appointed.
This and many other matters upon which the wellbeing of the
fraternity depends can be safeguarded only by care and diligence of officers and
members. My personal conviction is that there is at present a regrettable
tendency to attempt to provide for these matters by machinery. I do not believe
that blanks can take tile place of brains or that machinery can take the place
of the personal care and attention which must be given to our affairs if they
are to be carefully conducted. Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.
* * * Experience of a Colorado Past Master. Some out of
the ordinary conditions exist in the Colorado Lodge which I served as Master.
The membership of this Lodge is divided into practically three classes,
approximately one-half being composed of railroad men--officials, enginemen,
trainmen, yardmen and shopmen, three-eighths of business and professional men
living in the city, and one-eighth of farmers and stock-growers living in the
country.
It is the usual custom in this Lodge to appoint on the
petition of an engineman a committee of his fellowworkers--for instance a
fireman, or engineer, or both, and a conductor or brakeman, or a similar
combination; on the petition of a shopman, two fellow-shopmen and usually a
townsman not connected with the railroad. The townsman, a business man, would
investigate the petitioner's standing among the business men of the city--making
inquiries as to whether or not he was prompt in meeting his bills, etc., an
important item in railroad towns having a large floating population. On the
petition of an official of the railroad would be appointed railroad men of
various occupations--possibly a train-dispatcher, a shopman and a conductor,
fireman, engineer or brakeman.
The jurisdiction of this Lodge extends forty-one miles in a
southwesterly direction, and embraces a large farming and cattle-raising
country. Many farmers and cattle-men in this territory have joined the Lodge. On
a petition of one of these would be appointed three of his neighbors.
Railroad men who are out on their runs nearly half of the
time could not efficiently investigate a petitioner living on a ranch forty
miles from town, nor would a committee composed of these ranchmen be expected to
successfully investigate a trainman or engineman.
A fireman, conductor and brakeman composing a committee on
an engineer's petition would have the opportunity to investigate the
petitioner's actions and conduct at the distant railroad terminal where nearly
half his time is spent in lay-overs. Also his fellowworkers on a shopman's
petition could make a more thorough and satisfactory investigation than could a
committee of business men or farmers.
In communities where the above conditions obtain it is
obvious that one standing investigating committee would not be as efficient as
the class committees mentioned, even if such a standing committee could be found
who would be willing and able to act as such. Out of the entire membership of
the Lodge, which numbers some 250, I doubt if there could be selected three
members who would have the time to act on such a committee. Wildey E. Atchison,
Iowa.
* * *
No Committees in Virginia.
Virginia allows no Committee on petitions for initiation or
applications for membership. Our reason for this is our unwillingness to trust
their perfunctory reports and our consciousness that the members would trust too
much to those reports. Is not this all too true, where the system prevails? We
require the avouchers to satisfy the Lodge, from personal knowledge of the
fitness of the candidate, and some of the officers and members are sure to make
some investigations "on their own."
The above answers your whole block of questions and my long
Masonic experience convinces me that no other plan would work so well. Jos. W.
Eggleston, Virginia.
* * *
Experience in Ireland.
On the question before the Fraternal Forum this month a
Lodge to which I belonged in Ireland had the following fixed regulation:
All names proposed for membership were passed on by a
Committee of four, the W. M., Secretary, and two members appointed by the
popular voice of the Lodge. The W. M. conveyed to the proposer and seconder the
finding of the Committee. If the "Tongue of Good Report" had not been heard in
favor of the candidate the name was usually withdrawn.
If they insisted on going to ballot, the W. M. read the
Report of the Committee before "circulating the Ballot," and the Lodge usually
"governed itself accordingly."
I never knew the Lodge to make a mistake and the membership
was of the best Masonic material. J. L. Carson, Virginia.
* * *
Avoid Clannishness.
Theoretically, the idea is a good one, a standing committee
of high grade men working together will, no doubt, maintain a high physical,
mental and moral standard in candidates reported on favorably.
But the great objection to this plan is that it may lead to
clannishness. It also takes away the feeling of responsibility all members
should feel in the fitness of candidates seeking admission.
This responsibility is felt more by the membership if
separate committees are appointed by the Master to look up each aspirant for
Masonic initiation.
I would suggest, however, that each Lodge prepare a code
for the guidance of its investigating committees. I would also require that each
member of each investigating committee personally see each candidate and assure
himself of his fitness. Then the three investigators and Master should confer on
each aspirant--not simply make and receive a brief report as is so commonly done
now just before the ballot is taken. John G. Keplinger, Illinois.
----o----
DO IT NOW
Do not keep the alabaster boxes of your love and tenderness
sealed up until your friends are dead, but fill their lives with sweetness.
Speak approving and cheering words while their ears can hear them and while
their hearts can be thrilled by them. The kind things you will say after they
are gone, say before they go. The flowers you mean to send for their coffins,
bestow them now, and so brighten and sweeten their homes before they leave them.
If my friends have alabaster boxes laid away full of
fragrant perfumes of sympathy and affection, which they intend to break over my
dead body, I would rather they would bring them now in many weary and troubled
hours and open them that I may be refreshed and cheered while I need them and
can enjoy them. I would rather have a plain coffin without flowers and a funeral
without an eulogy than a life without the sweetness of love and sympathy. Let us
learn to anoint our friends beforehand for their burial.
Post-mortem kindness cannot cheer the burdened spirit.
Flowers on the casket spread no fragrance backward over the weary way over which
the loved ones have traveled. --John Lloyd Thomas, 33d.
----o----
THE STORY OF THE SCOTTISH RITE
BY BRO. C. C. ADAMS, ENGLAND
The warrant for the existence of the Ancient and Accepted
Scottish Rite of Masonry is found in a number of documents which are now in the
possession of the Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United
States of America, and it is from these that it is possible to gather up the
threads which go to form the history of one of the greatest organisations of
Masonry.
The beginning of the Scottish Rite is from a Templar
source, so we cannot do better than go back to the period after the Crusades,
when the defenders of the Cross were returning from their wars in the Holy Land.
Although primarily driven forward by religious motives, and eager to save the
land of Palestine from the hands of the Saracen, there is no doubt that many of
these cavaliers were also out to capture what worldly property they could from
the hated Turk, with the result that as soon as the wars were finished they
found themselves rich and settled down to a life of ease on the plains of
central and southern Europe. The wealth and power of the Order soon aroused the
avarice and envy of both the Church and the State with the result that a number
of persecutions were deliberately organised with the object of overthrowing the
Order and forfeiting its possessions. Many charges, the chief of which was
idolatry, were trumped up against the Knights with the object of bringing them
to trial. The culmination of these persecutions occurred in Paris in the year
1314, when Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master of the Order, was publicly burned
to death. This caused a general dispersion of the Order and there is a great
deal of doubt as to what followed. There are a number of versions which might
almost be called legends of the subsequent history, the majority of which are
probably fictitious, but it is an undoubted fact that after this time the
Templars flourished and remained free from persecution in Scotland where they
are said to have united with the Freemasons. This was the beginning of all High
Grade and Scottish Masonry.
A number of Scottish Templars entered Robert Bruce's army
and after the battle of Bannockburn were formed into the Royal Order of Scotland
which consisted and still does consist of two degrees, the Order of Heredom and
the Knighthood of the Rosy Cross.
All High Grade Masonry claims the Order of the Temple as
its origin and this was the basis of a system founded at Lyons in France in the
year 1743. Six degrees were recognised of which the first three or Craft degrees
were not worked; the remaining degrees were the fourth degree or the Knight of
the Eagle, the forerunner of our present eighteenth degree of Sovereign Prince
Rose Croix, the fifth degree entitled Illustrious Knight or Templar, and the
sixth and last degree of Sublime Illustrious Knight. From this the titles of
Illustrious and Sublime used so freely in the Scottish Rite of today evidently
originated. The system which I have just quoted also shows the connection
between the Masonic grades of Rose Croix and Knight Templar, a connection which
is obvious from many of the symbols.
In 1747, Charles Edward Stuart, the Pretender, while in
exile in France is said to have instituted a Chapter of Rose Croix Masons at
Arras to which he communicated the Scottish Masonry which he had brought from
his own country.
| 
