A Journal for the Masonic Student

Published Monthly by the National Masonic Research Society


Vol. 8 No. 9 – September 1922



By the Editor

SOMEWHERE in the back of my mind there lives a little poem that a traveling-man recited to me more than twenty years ago. I am afraid I shall stray far from the original of the simple little lines; but as I recall them now they run something like this:

"A rose to the living is more
Ere the suffering spirit has fled,
A rose to the living is more
Than sumptuous wreaths to the dead."

It matters not that the rendering may be far off the track, for the sentiment is preserved, which in these connections is the principal thing, and it is this sentiment that has inspired me to write a little memorial to Brother George W. Baird who has so firmly established himself in THE BUILDER'S great family of readers by his series on Memorials to Great Men Who Were Masons. This now famous series began in the first volume of THE BUILDER with an article on Masonic Memorials, which appeared in the July issue. It was followed by a second on Benjamin Franklin; and so it all began.

Baird The more discerning readers have long ere this discovered the inner importance of this series of articles. Oftentimes the greatest career transmits nothing of itself to posterity save a gravestone; by that slender thread the living must keep hold of the noble dead. But what if some group of persons, for reasons of their own, begin to cut these threads? Confusion is introduced into history. It becomes necessary to preserve memorials in books which are more enduring than stones and brasses. There are mans in our land who would like to forget that many of our forefathers were square-and-compass men; they would like the world to forget it. Brother Baird has forestalled them. Gravestones in New England graveyards may crumble into indistinguishable dust; the memorials preserved in THE BUILDER will be consulted by historians generations hence. To Brother Baird the Masonic Fraternity is heavily indebted for the toil he has bestowed, and with no thought of reward, upon this task of preserving the memory of Masons.

George W. Baird (see portrait) was born in Washington, D.C. on April 22, 1843, which was a long while ago. John Tyler was president. It was the year in which Daniel O'Connell was arrested. It was one year after rubber first came into use. It was at the time when Dr. Long of Georgia first began to administer ether as an ansesthetic. For those who enjoy a bit of sly humor in their history it may be also said that it was one year before Ronge led his great defection from the Roman Catholic church and founded in Germany his new brand of it, the German Catholic Church. Those were stirring times, and he was a wise baby who chose such a year for his advent into this exciting world.


His father was Matthew Baird, a steamship engineer and machinist who, in 1829, fitted and installed the machine work on the first passenger locomotive that ever turned a wheel on this continent. His grandfather was also a Matthew Baird, born of Scotch parents — be it noted — in Ulster, which is one of the counties of Ireland. This grandfather helped to draw the plans for the Executive Mansion, otherwise known as the White House; and he modelled the first composite column of the Capitol; and also did the same for the City Hall at New York. It all goes to prove that once in a while genius may be inherited. On the mother's side the family came from Virginia where, for ten generations, they had taken part in the important political, military and religious activities of the Old Dominion.

After receiving his elementary education in public and private schools at Washington, D.C., Brother Baird was apprenticed to a printer, and later to a machinist. At nineteen he entered the Navy as an engineer. When the Civil War broke out he was ready to take a man's part. He served on the Mississippi, Calhoun, Kensington, and Pensacola, and was under fire more than twenty times but escaped with a whole skin, thus disproving Wordsworth who said the good die young. Having a genius for mechanical work he was detailed for duty under the famous engineer B.F. Irishwood in the Bureau of Steam Engineering. He accompanied Irishwood to California in 1869 and served at the Mare Island Yard. While on the Pacific he also served on board the Saranac and the Pensacola, visiting the while almost every port from Sitka to Talcahuna. For three years he worked on the designs of new vessels and left behind him many a now-familiar invention, as will be described later. He was serving on board the Vandalia when General Grant made his famous cruise to Cairo, where he lived in the Cal-al-noussa palace. If you wish to learn more about this notable trip read the excellent account by John Russell Young.

After his return to the United States Brother Baird was detailed to supervise the construction of the deep-sea exploring ship, the Albatross, and designed most of the special machinery on that vessel which made such a name for itself in marine science. The Albatross brought out of the depths of the ocean more genera and species of marine life during her first year than all previous deep-sea explorations combined. She was the first government vessel of any nation to utilize the incandescent lamp.

Among inventions and scientific achievements to his credit may be noted the following: the Baird distilling apparatus; the pneumatic tell-tale; the evaporator; and boiler-feeder. His experiments on the mechanical ventilation of ships began in 1864 and reports were published in the Journal of the Naval Institute; many of these devices were adopted. He was a member of the board that powered the gun shops at Washington. He has written much for magazines: see the Franklin Institute for the absorption of gases by water; Science, on electric lighting, etc. The French Academy gave him the credit for being the first to prove, by mathematics, the actual flight of the flying fish, Exocetus Robustus. He designed the first anchor engine used in the navy.

He was a charter member of the American Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, and of the Washington Society of Engineers. He is a member of the Biological Society; the Washington Academy of Sciences; and the National Geographic Society. He is Past President of the District of Columbia Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, and Past Vice President of the general Society of the same: a member of the St. Andrews Society, which is Scotch; the John Paul Jones Club; the Cosmos Club, etc.


Brother Baird was made a Mason in a French lodge at Lisbon, Portugal, in 1867; he affiliated with Naval Lodge No. 87 in California, and later with Hope, in Washington, D.C., of which he is a past master. He was made Grand Master in 1896; and in recent years has been Chairman of the Committee on Correspondence, his reports of which are full of information and unexpected turns, and are read with delight by all the members of the Round Table of Reporters. He is past High Priest of Washington Chapter; was knighted in Washington Commandery; is a member of all the Scottish Rite bodies; and was made a 33rd degree man in Albert Pike Consistory in 1893. He has been a member of the National Masonic Research Society from the beginning, and was formerly a member of the Correspondence Circle of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge of London, England. Needless to say, he has also traversed the sands, which journey he made in Almas Temple.

After the Spanish-American War, when steam had succeeded sails as a propulsive power, the "Line" of the Navy and the officers of the Engineer Corps were "amalgamated" and Brother Baird was transferred to the Line as a commander but much against his wishes. He served as commander and as captain, and when he retired was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral, in honor of the services he performed during the Civil War.

Brother Baird has the habit of illustrating his letters, of which he writes the most refreshing specimens, with original cartoons done in colored ink. Upon writing this little sketch to express to him the appreciation felt by the members of The National Masonic Research Society for his long continued services, I besought him to furnish me with a page of these cartoons illustrating himself; but he asked to be excused on the ground of advancing age, rheumatism, and a sick wife. To the sick wife we send our sympathies; for the rheumatism we extend our regrets; but as to the old age we all demur. Brother Baird, for all his 79 years, does not age, but, like his Masonic colleague, Chauncey Depew, refuses to capitulate to Father Time. Active as ever, eager in all good causes, he writes many little articles for the general press on Masonry and Patriotism, the two of which are fused together in his mind as they should be in every mind, and sows these about the country. May he keep at the good work for years to come! Age cannot wither or custom stale his infinite variety!

* * *

If you wish to get on, you must do so as you would get through a crowd to a gate all are equally anxious to reach. Hold your ground and push hard.

— Montague.

* * *


Bro. Thomas Ross, P.G.M., New Zealand



BEFORE centering on my subject I think it would be as well if I made it quite clear that whatever antiquity may be urged for our ceremonies and ritual, our signs, words and tokens, there can be no question that shortly after the formation of the three Grand Lodges in the early part of the eighteenth century our ritual, with all that is attached to it, was much as we have it today. When I therefore enter on the object of endeavouring to prove that much of that ritual has an Egyptian origin I want the brethren to know that it was not until the year 1820, or quite 100 years after the formation of the three Grand Lodges, before there was anything like an earnest attempt made to read the hieroglyphics or sacred Writings of Egypt, while it was quite another fifty years before the Book of the Dead was deciphered and given to the world by Lepsius Wilkinson, Naville, Petrie, Wallace Budge and other enthusiastic Egyptologists.

The reading of the hieroglyphics or sacred writings was for centuries before the Christian era confined to the priests of Egypt, and was called by themselves the writing of the priests, so that when Christianity became the dominant religion in Egypt the old worship became obsolete, the priests died out, and the knowledge and practice of the priestly writings went completely out of use, was neglected, forgotten, and for a period of 1500 years utterly unknown to the world.

Egyptology, or the science of studying the ancient language, history and religion from the hieroglyphics, is a thing of almost yesterday, and may be looked upon as one of the most romantic episodes in the domain of literature.

Most of you are conversant with the history of the finding of the Rosetta Stone by a French officer of artillery in 1798 in Rosetta, on the coast of Egypt. This stone is of black basalt, and is one of the most treasured relics in the Egyptian galleries in the British Museum, being the key that unlocks the mysteries of the Egyptian writings.

The Rosetta Stone is a monumental slab or tablet set up as a record of the benefactions of Ptolemy V, a king of Egypt about 195 B.C.; it contains fourteen lines of hieroglyphics, thirty-two lines of Demotic, and fifty-four of Greek, coming in that order from the top. The Greek text was easily read, a translation being published in 1801-2. Since it stated that the monument was a bilingual one (the writing of the priests and the writing of the books being the Egyptian identical with the writing of the Greeks) men of letters set themselves the task of trying to decipher the hieroglyphics.

In the years 1819 to 1822 Mr. Thomas Young, an Englishman, and M. Champollion, a Frenchman, stated that these characters, which were generally looked upon as picture-writing, were letters of an alphabetic or phonetic value. Certain characters, as may be seen in the hieroglyphic part of the stone, were written in cartouches or cartridge-shaped enclosures, and these cartouches recurred in the Greek text under the name of Ptolemy. Eventually such names as Ptolemy, Berenice and Cleopatra were spelt out, and thus a key was obtained, which enabled them to unlock the secret of reading the records of the priests of Egypt.

In the latter half of the last century Ernest Renan, the celebrated French writer, truly said: "Egypt remains a lighthouse in the profound darkness of antiquity." One would almost think the compilers of our ritual had these words in mind when we read in our lectures: "The usages and customs of Freemasonry, our signs and symbols, our rites and ceremonies, correspond in a great degree with the mysteries of ancient Egypt." An assertion such as this would naturally lead one to expect in working the several degrees some reference or some allusion to the religion and mysteries of Egypt as the origin of some part at any rate of our ritual.

On the contrary however, nearly the whole of our ceremonial is attributed to episodes in the life of some member of the Jewish race as narrated in the Holy Scriptures, while almost all our words and passwords are given as being derived from the same source. Not a single one of the signs, tokens or words are pointed out as corresponding with those used in the religion or mysteries of ancient Egypt. It will be my endeavour to show the brethren wherein much of our ceremonies correspond with the religion of Egypt, and that we can fairly claim the fundamentals of the Masonic ritual to have had an origin hoary with antiquity compared with the religion of Israel.


It would be as well before going further to glance briefly at the religion of Egypt, for each of the Egyptian mysteries, like those practised in Syria, Greece and Rome, was based on some circumstance in the life of their gods and goddesses.

The religion of ancient Egypt is to be found in a vast collection of religious texts, arranged in 190 chapters. They have been collected from the walls of tombs and temples, from papyrus rolls enclosed in mummy cases along with their occupants, and from writings upon the mummy cases and sarcophagi themselves. A very fine example of this is the picture shown in Fig. 1, being The Alabaster Sarcophagus of Seti I, who lived 1360 B C. This very fine coffin has upon it extracts from nearly all the texts, and, many of them being illustrated, the illustrations make the text doubly interesting. The part presented to us shows the divine bark of Ra, the Sun God, being conveyed through the fourth hour of the mysteries. The bottom of the sarcophagus shows a beautiful full-size painting of the Goddess of the Heavens (Fig. 2) surrounded with texts of the same religious litany.

The name Book of the Dead has been given to these writings, and as far back as Egyptian history and traditions can go the Book of the Dead appears to have been an integral part of the religions of Egypt. No mere man was the author of this remarkable collection. The texts were dictated by God Himself at the creation of the world, to Thoth, the Scribe of the Gods, who is shown as having the body of a man and the head of a bird, and is always depicted in the act of writing the decrees of the deities. We might style Thoth the Divine emanation of wisdom and learning, the inspiration of God to man, the first to fill the place ascribed by Plato to the Divine Logos and by St. John to "The Word." The picture in Fig. 3 represents Thoth in his different attributes, "Lord of Writing," "Great God," "Scribe of the Gods," and "establisher of millions of years."

Thousands of years before Moses wrote, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the Egyptian story of the creation had been given to Egypt as we have it here in Fig. 4, where the god Nu is rising out of the primeval water bearing on his outstretched arms the boat of the sun god Ra; this is being received by the goddess of the heavens Nut, who again stands on the head of Osiris, whose body encloses the region of the underworld. In the center of the picture we have the Sacred Scarabaeus, symbol of the Creator raising himself out of the primeval void, and separating the firmament above from the waters beneath.

The Book of the Dead contains (as we see here) a history of the creation, the attributes of God, the powers and functions of the attendant gods and goddesses, as well as the ceremonies required to enable a to live such a life on earth as shall prevent his soul from being cast into that pit of fire, where the doomed one must not only suffer eternal torment, but, as can be seen in Fig. 5, must undergo a species of penal servitude.

On the other hand, a man who lives a good life and acts up to the teachings of the inspired writings, will obtain from Osiris, the "Lord of Everlastingness," as his final reward, not only the crown of immortality, but a pleasant existence in the Elysian fields. There he will live in the company of the gods, there his crops will grow luxuriantly, his cattle be sleek and docile, and there he can have the company and fellowship of those whom he loved and knew on earth. We find this belief borne out in the prayer of Sepa, as shown in Fig. 6.

With the exception of a few tales, the records of the wars, expeditions of their rulers, detailed statements of the erection of their temples, tombs and monuments, and some hymns to the gods and goddesses, the chief and almost only literature of the Egyptians was the Book of the Dead. We can, therefore, realize how inseparably these chapters, with their formula of rubrics, litanies, ceremonies, passwords and signs must have entered into the minds and lives of the people.

To an outsider the people of Egypt almost deserved the sneer of Juvenal: "Who knows not what monsters mad Egypt can worship; whole towns worship a dog, nobody Diana"; or that of Plutarch: "The Egyptians, by adoring the animals and reverencing them as gods, have ruled their religious worship with many ridiculous rites. To this Origin, one of the Christian fathers, very pertinently replies, "Many, listening to accounts they do not understand, relative to the sacred doctrines of the Egyptian philosophers, fancy that they are acquainted with all the wisdom of Egypt, though they have never conversed with any of their priests, nor received any information from persons initiated into their mysteries."

Now, although every province, city, town, and even household had its god or trinity of gods, over and above all there reigned the Supreme Ruler of heaven and earth — the great First Cause, Creator and Preserver of all, the Great Architect of the Universe — Ra, the Sun God, called in Upper Egypt Amun Ra, "the hidden one." As proof of this, we have, in the Book of the Dead, among the many hymns to Ra, "Thou art the one God who didst come into being in the beginning of time." "Thou didst create the earth; thou didst fashion man; thou didst make the abyss of the sky; thou didst create the watery abyss; and thou didst give life to all that therein is." "O Thou One, Thou mighty One, of myriad forms and aspects." So when we contemplate the group of prominent deities in Fig. 7 we see Ra, the Great Architect in some of his myriad forms and aspects.

Ra, or Amun Ra, and the triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus were worshipped throughout the whole of Egypt from the earliest pre-dynastic times to the very end of its civilization under its native rulers, a period of anything from 7,000 to years. The worship of Isis and Horus and the ceremonial of Ra and Osiris have survived to the present day, though under different names; the former in a branch of the Christian Church, and the latter, as I hope to show, in our Masonic cult.

Having set forth this general claim for the close connection between our ancient moral system and that of Egypt, let me show briefly under separate headings how some of our more familiar symbols, traditions and ceremonies may be explained in the light of Egyptology.


The God Ra is written phonetically with the hieroglyphs R. and A., i.e., a mouth and an arm, followed by the two ideographs, a circle with a dot in the centre and a seated god. But on most occasions the name of Ra, the Sun God, is written with the ideograph of a point within a circle, as though the name was of "too essential a nature to be fully comprehended by human wisdom or clearly pronounced by the tongue of any individual."

This sign of a point within a circle was used by the kings of Egypt for thousands of years as their royal title to the throne, while they did not scruple to style themselves (as we see in Fig. 8), sons of Ra. The same sign is even today used by astronomers in writing of the sun as the centre of the heavenly bodies, and is referred to in our Masonic ritual.


The sun, being the visible emblem of the god Ra, had three names or aspects. In the morning he was Kheper Ra, or Ra Harmachis, the opener of the day. The Sphinx, the oldest monument in the world, was called Ra Harmachis, the rising sun. This huge figure, with the face and head of a man and the body of a lion, is 140 feet long and over 60 feet in height. As it sits there see (Fig. 9) facing "the east, to open and enliven the glorious day," it represents wisdom and strength. For thousands of years also it represented beauty, for in 1200 A. D. the learned Arab, Abd-el-Latif, described the face as being very beautiful and the mouth as graceful and lovely.

At midday, when the sun was at his meridian, he was Ra, the strong one: "When all beasts and cattle reposed in their pastures and the trees and green herbs put forth their leaves."

At even he was Atmu, or Temu, the closer of the day: "When thou settest in the western horizon the earth is in darkness and is like a being that is dead." This last quotation is strikingly shown in the illustration to chap. xviii. of the Book of the Dead. The Sun God, in shape of the Sacred Eagle with disc on head and folded wings, is about to set in the mountains of the west. Isis and Nepthys, sister goddesses, are adoring two lions, representing the sun of yesterday and the sun of tomorrow — a fine allegory of past, present and future.

Thus we see that Ra Harmachis, like our W.M. was placed in the east; Ra, like our J. W., represented the sun at its meridian; and Temu, like our S. W., is placed in the west to close the day, or, as the Egyptian ritual puts it: "I am Ra Harmachis in the morning, Ra in his noontide, Temu in the evening."


Next in importance to the worship of Ra, the Sun God, was the cult of Osiris and Isis and of Isis and Horus. The adoration of these gods and this goddess was not only the dominant religion in Egypt from the very earliest until the latest times, but during nearly a thousand years it had spread into Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, and throughout the whole of the Roman Empire. In many cases Osiris is identified with Ra, the Sun God, while Isis is most frequently shown wearing the disc of the moon or the crescent moon on her head.

In the texts Isis is the divine consort of Ra Osiris. She is the moon who rules the night as the sun rules the day; and every month at Now Moon she gathered the sun into her lap to be impregnated anew. "That I may behold the face of the sun and that I may behold the moon for ever and ever," was the great wish of the pious Egyptian (Book of the Dead, chap. xviii).

Osiris and Isis are often pictured as the two eyes of Ra, and in that capacity enter largely into the mysteries of Ra. Now, when we consider how much the sun and moon bulked in the worship of the Egyptians and surrounding nations, let us see what effect this would be likely to have on those two great pillars placed by King Solomon at the porchway or entrance to his temple at Jerusalem. Before the temple of the sun at Heliopolis (the On of Genesis), Osertsen the First (of the twelfth dynasty B. C. 2435) set up two obelisks. One of them remains there today, the only trace left of that gorgeous building where Joseph's father-in-law served as priest to the Sun God, where Moses, as the adopted son of Pharaoh, must have worshipped and conducted the mysteries of the temple; and where, two thousand years later, learned Grecians like Herodotus came to study. These two obelisks would undoubtedly represent the two most important objects in the worship of the heavenly bodies, the sun and the moon, Osiris Ra and Isis.

About 1000 years later, or, to be exact, B.C. 1566, Queen Hatasoo, of the eighteenth dynasty, set up two obelisks in front of the Temple of the Sun at Karnak. They are there today, the one standing, the other fallen down, a memorial to the worship of the two heavenly bodies. Fig. 10 gives us this obelisk as it stands to-day.

I have a work published in 1757, "Travels in Egypt, by Frederick Lewis Norden, Capt Danish Navy." Captain Norden visited Karnak on 11th December, 1737. In his book he has plates in the old copper engraving, and among them he has this view (Fig. 11), which I have copied from his book. Speaking of this plate, he says: "I drew magnificent antiquities in all the situations is was possible for me and as they offered themselves to my sight."

We can see by Captain Norden's drawing that obelisks were standing at the entrance to the temple less than two hundred years ago. So that the artist who made for us the drawing of Karnak restored (which we have here in Fig. 12), placed the obelisks in the position they originally stood when set up by Queen Hatasoo nearly 3600 years ago. The queen, in an inscription on the walls of her temple, describes them as "two great obelisks of granite of the south, and the summit of each is covered with copper and gold, the very best which can be obtained; they shall be seen from untold distances, and they shall flood the land with their rays of light. I have done these things because of the loving heart I possess towards my father, Amun Ra, the Sun God."

Some centuries later at Medinet Abu was placed a very fine pair of pillars at the porchway or entrance to the temple. We see by this that the obelisk has given place to a pillar with an ornamental capital. These pillars (Fig. 13) were set up by Rameses III about 1200 B.C., or quite 200 years before King Solomon built the Holy Temple at Jerusalem.

The pillar seems to have been largely used in the religious thinking of the Egyptians, either as an emblem of the Deity or a thank-offering from the worshippers. In many of the temples to-day there are beautiful lotus and papyrus pillars, while in numerous vignettes in the Book of the Dead we have Osiris seated in a shrine upheld by two graceful pillars. Now, when we see that not only in Egypt, but in the surrounding countries, the worship of the sun and the moon was not only the prevailing but the popular religion of the people, there is little to be wondered at that when the Israelites left Egypt they not only carried away with them a very strong bias in favour of this worship, but had that propensity considerably strengthened when they settled down among the sun and moon worshippers of Palestine. So rampant was this prejudice in favour of sun and moon worship, that we find Moses denouncing it in no unmeasured terms, and threatening death on the "man or woman that hath brought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the sun or the moon" (Deut. xvii. 2, 3). In spite of these warnings, however we find years afterwards "Josiah put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense to the sun and to the moon" (2 Kings xxiii. 5). Again we read, "At that time, saith the lord, they shall bring out the bones of the brings of Judah, and the bones of his Princes, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem out of their graves, and they shall spread them before the sun and the moon whom they have loved and whom they have worshipped" (Jer. viii. 1, 2).

Ezekiel saw "five and twenty men with their backs towards the temple of the Lord and their faces towards the east, and they worshipped the sun towards the east" (Ezek. viii. 16). The Jewish women told Jeremiah: "But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth to burn incense unto the Queen of Heaven (the moon or Isis) and to pour out drink unto her as we have done, we and our fathers and our kings and our princes in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem" (Jer. xlix. 17). One more quotation, this time from the sorely afflicted Man of Uz: "If I beheld the sun when it shines or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly enticed or my mouth hath kissed my hand" (Job xxxi. 26, 27).

When we thus see the influence that sun and moon worship had upon the children of the Exodus, and when we consider that though settled in Palestine they were surrounded by nations who paid homage to the sun and moon under the names of Osiris Ra and Isis, Baal and Astarte, Milcom and Ashtoreth, and Adonis and Cybele, and when we read that Solomon took to himself wives from Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edmon and Phoenicia we are quite prepared for the information given in I Kings xi. 5 that "Solomon went after Ashtoreth, the Goddess of the Zidonians (the moon), and after Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites (the sun)."

This brings us to still another consideration that, in view of these telling quotations from Scripture, are we not justified in assuming when Solomon put up those two great pillars at the porchway or entrance to the temple (as portrayed by R∴ W∴ Bro. Haweridge in Fig. 14) they had an esoteric meaning entirely different from that ascribed to them in holy writ and that only by adopting the view I shall now put before you as to the signification of those pillars can we bring in the meaning given to them in our ritual.

We are told that the pillar on the left denoted strength, while that on the right signified to establish. Let us suppose that these two pillars, no matter by what names they were called, had also a hidden meaning, what more appropriate conception for signifying strength could be selected than the Sun God. The sun was all powerful, all beneficent, daily observing all that transpired on earth, while the pillar on the right, if we put it down as representing the moon goddess, would answer as the Establisher. The phases of the moon marked out the weeks, each moon was a lunar month, and with unfailing regularity she indicated the Jewish festivals, marking them to stand firm forever, and when conjoined with the strength of the sun what better designation could be applied than stability?

If we consider the question carefully and reflect on all that the sun and the moon stood for to these people at this particular time, we can see that strength and stability would be a more apt interpretation for those bodies than could be deduced from the great-grandfather of David and the assistant high priest at the dedication of the temple. Reading certain passages of the Psalms helps to confirm us in this. "They shall fear Thee as long as the sun and moon endure throughout all generations." (Ps. lxxii. 5.) "It shall be established forever as the moon." (Ps.lxxxix. 37). "He appointed the moon for seasons, the sun knoweth his going down." (Ps. civ. 19).

Another shown (Fig. 15) is from an ancient Cyprian coin depicting the old temple of Aphrodite, at Paphos, built about 100 years before the temple at Jerusalem. In addition to the pillars at each side of the entrance to the temple, the sun and moon are also represented as adorning the top of the building. Let us bear in mind that Solomon's intimate friend and adviser was Hiram, King of Tyre, that his Chief Master Mason was Hiram Abif, that his principal architect was Adoniram, all Phoenicians; that this temple of Paphos, which was at the time the glory of the Mediterranean Coast and lay only a short distance from Tyre, would powerfully influence the minds of these in the immediate vicinity. Nor is it improbable that the architecture of this temple, with its pillars, would appeal to the Phoenician craftsmen and would largely guide them in suggesting to Solomon a similar style of sanctuary in the house he was about to build for the Lord God of Israel. There is yet another motive that may have influenced Solomon in dedicating these pillars to solar deities. Professor Sayee says that Hadad was the Supreme Baal or sun god of Babylonia and that his worship was widespread in Palestine and Syria, also that the abbreviated form of the name of Hadad was Dad, Dadu, and the biblical David. If therefore David was the Palestinian name for Baal, the sun god, what more likely than that Solomon would be ready to take this opportunity of perpetuating the memory of his illustrious father. Fig. 16 shows Hadad, the Syrian sun god, in the form of a pillar, with solar emblems, a solar crown and grasping a fiery sword symbolic of the thunderbolt.

The Encyclopedia Biblica, in treating of the two pillars, suggests that the names given are enigmatical and that they must have a religious significance. That not improbably the full name of the pillar on the left hand is Baal-zebul (dwelling of the sun), and in later times probably the name of the second pillar was literately mutilated because of the new and inauspicious associations which had gathered round it. Solomon, to have been consistent with the teachings of Moses, should have erected only one pillar as a symbol of that unity of the Divine Being, which was so integral a part of the worship of the Israelites.

In setting up two pillars he was conforming to the belief of every one of the surrounding nations, i.e., A duality in the divine, the sun and moon representing the active and passive principle in nature, the male and female element. Coming down to later times we find these two pillars prominent in Druidic enclosures used for the rites of sun worship, while the two steeples or towers at the front of our Christian cathedrals and churches look as if they were an unconscious survival of the votive obelisks or pillars erected to the sun or moon before the temples of Egypt.

* * *


Bro. Charles C. Hunt, Deputy Grand Secretary, Iowa

During the first two weeks of last May a trial was held in the Federal Court at Salt Lake City, Utah, that attracted the attention of Masons in many lands. Mathew McBlain Thomson, Thomas Perrot and Dominic Bergera were hauled into court as heads of the so-called American Masonic Federation, Inc., and indicted for fraudulent use of the mails. The hearings showed that these men were crooks and robbers who had seduced men into spurious lodges for no other purpose than to mulct them out of their money. They were convicted and each one fined $5,000.00 and sentenced to Fort Leavenworth for two years, Judge Martin J. Wade saying that he would have given them the limit of the law had it not been for Thomson's advanced age. In the article which follows, Brother C. C. Hunt, who was present throughout the trial as an expert witness, has given a synopsis of Thomson's claims so far as the Craft degrees are concerned: in a succeeding article he will deal with Thomson's Scottish Rite claims.

FOR ABOUT fifteen years there has been a clandestine Masonic organization at work in this country headed by one Mathew McBlain Thompson with headquarters at Salt Lake City, Utah. This man was born in Ayr, Scotland, in 1853 or 1854 and claims to have been made a Mason in 1874 or 1875, in Glasgow, Melrose Sts. John Lodge, a pendicle of the Ancient Lodge of St. John of Melrose, Scotland. One of his own papers says that he went "into Newton-on-Ayr St. James No. 125, on the registry of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and Patna Bonnie Doon No. 565 on the same registry. Of the latter, Brother Thomson was Right Worshipful Master for several years. He was also Grand First Principal of the Early Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of the Temple and Malta in Scotland; Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Grand Council of Rites, and later Grand Recorder of the same. Brother Thomson demitted from his Scottish membership in 1896, affiliating with King Solomon lodge No. 27, of the Locals [Thomson called regular Masonic lodges by this name] at Montpelier, Idaho, in 1898 (there being no Scottish Rite lodges there), in which he held office, and represented the lodge in the Grand Lodge of the State of Idaho for several terms. During the last term he served as Grand Orator."

On November 1, 1906, Thomson demitted from King Solomon Lodge. He organized the so-called Grand Lodge Inter-Montana, January 9, 1907.

In 1919 he claimed to have ten thousand members in this country and that his organization had been recognized in practically every country in the world. His Federation was organized on the basis of a stock promotion scheme, with paid organizers armed with plausible arguments which only those thoroughly posted in Masonic history and jurisprudence could refute. He claimed that with the exception of Louisiana the United States was unoccupied territory Masonically and that not a single one of the Grand Lodges in this country had a charter authorizing it to work; that each of the thirteen colonies organized a Grand Lodge of its own, without the lodges therein first obtaining consent of the Grand Lodge from which their charters had originally been issued; that the lodges in the colonies, by thus breaking away from the home Grand Lodges of Great Britain without first obtaining consent, became irregular and clandestine organizations, and that therefore, the field in this country was open to any regular organization that chose to occupy it; that later recognition by the Grand Lodges of Great Britain did not make these self-formed Grand Lodges legitimate. In support of this argument he quotes as follows:

"Page 302, Volume IV, Gould's History of Freemasonry:

"'In the year 1777 application for charters of erection and constitution having been made by a number of Masons to the Ancient Grand Lodge, of which the late Joseph Warren, Esq, had been G. M., as many of the officers of that Grand Lodge as could be assembled, met in form of a Grand Lodge, the Deputy Grand Master then in the chair. And after carefully attending to the constitutions and usages of Masons in all ages and the principles upon which that Grand Lodge existed, they were unanimously of opinion that they could not legally grant charters, because the late G.M., Dr. Joseph Warren, held his authority by virtue of a commission given to him only as Provincial Grand Master, and to be revoked at the pleasure of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Now the principal being dead, the commission was of consequence vacated. They then assumed the powers of a Grand Lodge.

"'From the foregoing, the principles then adopted by this Grand Lodge, upon which they have practised and from which they have never seen occasion to recede, may readily be collected."'

"Page 517, Volume IV, Gould's History of Freemasonry:

"'Since the beginning of the year 1850, seventeen Grand Lodges have been formed in the United States. In every case it has been assumed or expressly declared, that the proceeding was a matter OF INHERENT RIGHT, and in no case, so far as the printed record discloses, has the consent of the parent Grand Lodges been sought."'

"Page 332, Hughan and Stillson's History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders:

"'The Grand Lodge of Tennessee is the only Independent Grand Lodge in the United States that was organized by authority of a warrant; for the instrument issued by the Grand Lodge of North Carolina does not simply permit the lodges to withdraw their allegiance from it, but it prescribed conditions; in fact, it was almost identical in phraseology with the warrants of deputations issued by the Grand Lodges of England for Provincial Grand Lodges in the Colonies and Provinces."'


As an illustration of Thomson's method of describing the organization of the state Grand Lodges, note the following:

"Now, let us see where Pennsylvania got its authority."

"On the 24th day of September, 1786, the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania closed its labours forever and renounced whatever authority it may have previously had, whether regular or irregular, and by that act its members became clandestine or irregular Masons. On the following day September 25, 1786, they assembled and formed a self-constituted Grand Lodge, from and by no Masonic authority whatever. This is historically the origin of Pennsylvania Grand Lodge."

"An unbiased and full investigation into the methods in which these so-called Grand Lodges were formed will readily disclose to the reader just how irregularly they have been formed, and withal, they one and all prate considerably about regularity, and claim an other organizations of Craft Masonry to be irregular, when, as a matter of fact and of history, the shoe is on the other foot."

Gould's Concise History, p. 338, gives the following note which has been quoted by Thomson as his authority for claiming the regular Grand Lodges of the United States illegitimate:

"The death of Joseph Warren raised a constitutional question of much complexity. What was the status of the Grand Lodge after the death of the Grand Master? It was disposed of by the election of Joseph Webb to the position of 'Grand Master of Antient Masonrys in the State of Massachusetts. This, if we leave out of consideration the Lodge (and Grand Lodge) of Pennsylvania in 1731, was the first sovereign and independent Grand Lodge in America, and the second was the Grand Lodge of Virginia, which was established in the following year."

As a matter of fact, these quotations prove the very opposite of Thomson's contentions. They are given by Gould and his co-labourers as showing the growth of a principle of Masonic law that has now become established, namely, that a Grand Lodge cannot form another Grand Lodge; or in other words, that no Grand Lodge derives its authority from a charter granted by another Masonic Grand Body, but that such power or authority is derived from the lodges which compose the Grand Lodge itself.

Before entering upon the discussion of this question, we must remember that a very large part of the law of Masonry is similar to the common law of a country: in other words, it is unwritten law which is the result of customs and usages that have gradually grown up and become generally recognized as law. Masonic laws may be divided into three classes: first, written law; second, unwritten law; third, regulations; and they rank in the order named. The unwritten laws consist of time-honoured customs and usages of general recognition, adapted to the conditions and time in which they live, and not repugnant to the written laws. In general, the rules governing the legitimacy of lodges and Grand Lodges are determined by the unwritten laws of Masonry. When we study Masonic authorities we find two general theories as to legitimacy: first, that a lodge, to be legitimate, must be able to trace its descent through at least one of the Grand Lodges of Great Britain; second, that it may either trace its origin to Great Britain or to a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

The above remarks apply to the legitimacy of subordinate lodges. When one considers the legitimacy of Grand Lodges other principles are in effect. There are certain general requirements such as that the Grand Lodge must be, first, organized by legitimate lodges; second, organized in a governmental unit with a political government of its own; third, it must be supreme in its authority over its own members in matters Masonic, — that is, it must be subject to the laws of no other Masonic organization nor derive its powers from any other; fourth, it must be Masonic in its character. A lodge to be legitimate must have a charter from a legitimate Grand Lodge authorizing and empowering it to work. A Grand Lodge working under such a charter would not be legitimate, since it must derive its authority from the legitimate lodges of its territory and not from any other power, Masonic or otherwise. Charles T. Granger, P.G.M., and at one time a judge of the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a report to the Grand Lodge of Iowa in 1911, said:

"We may state, as an axiom of Symbolic Masonic law, that Symbolic Masonry, in its organizations and workings, is a law unto itself, in that it looks to no higher or foreign fraternal source for authority, sanction or guidance, but is the creative power within itself of all needful agencies, and to this end the subordinate lodge is the primal source of authority and the only source from which can spring a legitimate Grand Lodge, and hence the legitimacy of a Grand Lodge depends, in the first instance, on the legitimacy of the lodges that gave it birth, and, of course, in addition thereto, it must meet the limitations and requirements of the ancient landmarks of the order."


Therefore, the most general theory is that to be legitimate descent must be traced in some form from the Grand Lodge of Great Britain. Here I am speaking of the Craft degrees only. Some Grand Lodges will, in addition to this, recognize a lodge that has been organized by a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in territory not occupied by a regular Grand Lodge, but they will not recognize a Grand Lodge formed by such a Supreme Council. If the lodges formed by a Supreme Council in unoccupied territory declare their independence and organize themselves into a Grand Lodge for that territory, some legitimate Grand jurisdictions will recognize them. Others will not, unless the lodges themselves can trace their origin from Great Britain.

Lodges were formed in the first place by charter from one or more of the three Grand Lodges of Great Britain. After this country became independent of Great Britain, the lodges in each colony organized a Grand Lodge for themselves. This method of procedure has been recognized as legitimate by the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland, and this is shown by the fact that in every case a Grand Lodge thus formed has been recognized as legitimate by the lodges of the mother country.

The authority to form a Grand Lodge was inherent in the nature of the institution under the principle in the Old Charges that "Every Mason should be true to the government of the country in which he lives." From this charge it became recognized that each country should have a Grand Lodge of its own which would be supreme over its own members. Otherwise, Masons in different countries owing Masonic allegiance to a foreign power might find themselves in a position where their obligations to their Grand Lodge and to their country would be antagonistic to each other. This principle was recognized in this country before the formation of the Federal government, and even after its formation the principle was adhered to; and it was recognized that the several lodges of each state had a right to form themselves into an independent Grand Lodge. All attempts to form a general Masonic government for the United States failed. Hence, we have no General Grand Lodge. All legitimate Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France as well as the colonies of Great Britain and states of the United States, have been self-constituted, and no question of legitimacy has ever been raised, except by Thomson, because of that fact.


In reference to the formation of Grand Lodges in the United States, no better illustration can be given of the recognition of the right of the lodges in a country to form an independent Grand Lodge than in the case of the formation of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1786, and its prompt recognition by the Grand Lodge of England. The proceedings of this occasion are set out very fully in the "Memorial Volume" issued by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1912. In page 57 of this volume we find the declaration of independence which was passed unanimously on Monday, September 25, 1786. It is as follows:

"Resolved that this Grand Lodge is and ought to be a Grand Lodge Independent of Great Britain or any other authority whatever, and that they are not under any ties to any other Grand Lodge, except those of Brotherly Love and Affection, which they will always be happy to cultivate and preserve with all Lodges throughout the Globe."

On the same day, at a Grand Convention of thirteen different lodges

"it was unanimously resolved that the Lodges; under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania lately held under the authority of the Grand Lodge of England will and now do form themselves into a Grand Lodge to be called the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania and Masonic Jurisdiction thereunto belonging to be held in Philadelphia and that the late Grand Officers continue to be the Grand Officers of Pennsylvania invested with all the Powers, Jurisdictions, prominence and authority thereunto belonging 'till the usual time for the next election, and that the Grand Lodge and the particular Lodges govern themselves by the Rules and Regulations heretofore established 'till other Rules and Regulations shall be adopted."

A letter was then written to the Grand lodge of England announcing the action taken and the reasons therefor. The reply of the Grand Lodge of England was as follows:

"... We reflect with pleasure that the Grand Lodge of England has given birth to a Grand Lodge in the western world, whose strict adherence to the ancient and immutable landmarks of our order reflects honour on its original founders. Here we must beg leave to state that we conceive that in constituting your Grand Lodge we necessarily communicated to it the same independent sovereign Masonic authority within your jurisdiction which we ourselves possessed within ours, amenable to no superior jurisdiction under Heaven, and subject only to the immutable landmarks of the craft. All Grand Lodges in Masonry being necessarily Free, Independent and Equipollent within their respective jurisdictions, which consequently excludes the idea of subjection to a foreign authority of the establishment of an Imperium in Imperio."

It should be noted that in declaring their independence from the Grand Lodges of Great Britain, the prevailing motive was loyalty to the government of the land in which they lived. Inasmuch as loyalty to the state is one of the cardinal principles of Freemasonry, this action has met with universal Masonic approval.

As a matter of fact all that the statement of Gould with reference to Massachusetts (quoted above) was intended to mean is that a Grand Lodge could not legitimately be formed from a Provincial Grand Lodge. The death of the Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts left that Grand Lodge with no executive officer until another could be appointed by the home Grand Lodge, but this difficulty was solved by the formation of an independent Grand Lodge and the election of Joseph Webb to the position of "Grand Master of Antient Masonry." Gould nowhere states, either directly or indirectly that this election or the action of the lodges of Massachusetts and other states in thus forming a Grand Lodge was illegal. In fact, he expressly states:

"Within seven years after the close of the War of the Revolution, the system of Grand Lodges with Territorial Jurisdiction was firmly established. It became an accepted doctrine that the Lodges in an independent State had a right to organize a Grand Lodge; that a Lodge so created possessed exclusive jurisdiction within the State; and that it might constitute Lodges in another State in which no Grand Lodge existed and maintain them until a Grand Lodge should be established in such State." (Gould's Concise History, p. 339.)

In this Gould recognized the principle that the authority to form a Grand Lodge rests in the lodges themselves and does not come from some outside power.


Thomson claimed for himself and his so-called American Masonic Federation that the theory of territorial exclusiveness is unmasonic and peculiar to America, in this he was wrong: it is also generally recognized in Great Britain, Canada and Australia. The basis of this theory is the same as the principle that accords to political governments the right of having exclusive jurisdiction over their own territory. Its existence is established by the fact that our right to exclusive jurisdiction is generally recognized by the Masonic world, and the fact that when a recognized Grand Lodge is established in any of the British Colonies, no other Grand Lodge will issue a charter for a new lodge in that territory.

In the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England relative to the formation of the Grand Lodge of Canada the fact of recognition by the Grand Lodge of England was expressed in the statement of the Grand Master of England that he would issue no more charters for new lodges in the territory covered by the Grand Lodge of Canada.

Thomson also claimed that American Grand Lodges are clandestine because of the alleged fact that they are not universal, and refuse to recognize Masonry in other countries, because of religion, race, or some other assumed reason which is contrary to the principles of universality. When at his trial he was asked to define Universal Masonry, as used by him to distinguish himself from other Masons, he replied:

"Masonry that knows no creed save the one belief in the all Father who as we express it, is the Great Architect of the Universe, the Creator, and leaving to every man his own opinion after that; that takes no stock in what country a man may be born, what language he may speak, or his politics and things like that, or anything except that he be a good man and a true one."

We think no one will object to Thomson's definition of universality, but we must remember that it is an ideal to be striven for rather than a goal that has been attained. There is nothing in the law of Masonry that bars a man from being made a Mason because of race, polities or religion, providing that he is a "good man and a true one" who will exemplify in his life the teachings of Masonry; but if a man's religion, polities or race causes him to act contrary to the principles of universal brotherhood he is not a "good man and true" and should not be admitted to a fraternity with whose principles he is not in accord. In such a case it is his character which bars him and not the beliefs he may hold or the race to which he belongs.

We must also remember that so long as man is fallible there will be men who will permit personal prejudices to influence their decisions when they cast their ballots, but this is no more an argument against Masonry and its teachings than are the sins of Christians an argument against the teachings of Christ.


As for his own organization, Thomson alleged, with reference to the Craft, or Symbolic Degrees, as follows:

"Mother Kilwinning, being one of the thirty-three lodges forming the Grand Lodge of Scotland, still retained her ancient rights to charter craft and high degree lodges.

"Mother Kilwinning, becoming dissatisfied with the Grand Lodge of Scotland, withdrew therefrom and continued in accordance with her ancient custom to charter lodges until the 14th day of October, 1807, when she surrendered all her ancient privileges and took her present position under the Grand Lodge of Scotland as Mother Kilwinning No. 0

"Chevalier Michael Andrew Ramsay, who was initiated in Ayr-Kilwinning St. John's Lodge (a pendicle or daughter lodge of Mother Kilwinning), with other political refugees, reintroduced Scotch Masonry into France about the years 1736-1737.

"In the year 1743, the Farl of Kilmarnock, who was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and also of Mother Kilwinning, by virtue of the authority in him vested, chartered three Mother Lodges in France, one of which was the Grand Mother Lodge of St. John at Marseilles, France.

"In the year 1794, the Mother Lodge at Marseilles, France, granted a charter to Polar Star Lodge in New Orleans, Louisiana, and at a later period other Scotch lodges were formed and chartered."

Polar Star Lodge here mentioned was, according to Thomson, later merged with the Supreme Council of Louisiana, referred to below:

"On the 19th day of June, 1813, the Scotch Rite in New Orleans, Louisiana, applied for and received a charter for a Grand Consistory from the Supreme Council located at New York, which was established by authority of the Supreme Council of France, which also derived its origin through Chevalier Michael Andrew Ramsay, commencing in Scotland.

"On the 27th day of October, 1839 (the New York Supreme Council having become dormant), the Marquis O. de San Angelo, by virtue of the authority in him vested, established and chartered a Supreme Council in New Orleans, Louisiana, which became heir to all the rights and dignities of the New York Supreme Council, and, in fact, was inaugurated into life as the Supreme Council for the Western Hemisphere, and the charter was fully recognized and de San Angelo's acts were ratified.

"On September 14, 1906, Joseph N. Cheri Supreme Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Western Hemisphere, located at New Orleans, Louisiana, granted a Charter of authority to M. McB. Thomson (himself being a member of the Supreme Council and also Grand Representative of the Grand Council of Rites of Scotland) to form Craft or Symbolic Grand and subordinate lodges of Masons, and by virtue of that charter and also as a representative of the Supreme Council of Louisiana, he (Thomson) granted a charter to the Grand Lodge of Inter-Montana.

"Thus on the 9th day of January, 1907, the Grand Lodge 'Inter-Montana' received its Masonic Charter.

"On the 30th day of March, 1907, the Grand Lodge of Illinois, A.F. and A. M., Incorporated, applied for and was admitted to membership in the A. A. S. Rite by taking the oath de fideli, and again on April 5, 1907, five lodges in Boston, Massachusetts, applied for admission and were accepted and afterwards they obtained a Grand Lodge charter from the American Masonic Federation of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

"On the 31st day of August, 1907, the Supreme Lodge in the American Masonic Federation was formed and received its Charter from the Grand Lodge Inter-Montana.

"On the 21st day of September, 1907, the American Masonic Federation was incorporated. The incorporation papers are on file in the State of Idaho. This is our Chain of Title."

Thomson frequently refers to this Chain of Title as showing that, to quote himself, "the American Masonic Federation traces its descent back to the oldest Masonic Lodge in the known world, Mother Kilwinning of Scotland, coming to Louisiana by way of France, coming by truly lawful and Masonic charters. Can any other rite of Masonry show as clear a title?"

Other claims were put forth with reference to the so-called higher degrees, but in this paper I shall confine my attention to the three Symbolic degrees of Masonry.


With reference to the above statements, let us see how many are true and how many false, or at least, not proven. Mother Kilwinning Lodge has a strong claim to being considered the oldest lodge in the world. She first united in forming the Grand Lodge of Scotland and later withdrew, until 1807, when she re-united with that Grand Body and surrendered all rights she might have had to charter other lodges, but she never had or claimed to have a right to charter lodges to confer any but the Craft degrees of Masonry, and she never granted to her daughter lodges the power to charter other lodges. In fact, Mother Kilwinning Lodge was the only lodge in Scotland that ever had the chartering power, and she never transferred this power to any other lodge. She never chartered a lodge in France, and, therefore, could not have chartered Sts. John's Lodge, of Marseilles.

Chevalier Ramsay, so far as known, never introduced Masonry anywhere. He is principally known to Masonry because of an oration he delivered before the Grand Lodge of France in 1847, in which he traced the origin of Masonry to the Crusaders. This theory of Ramsay's, though supported by no proof, was readily accepted at that time, and was probably responsible for the fact that many high degrees to which the name "Scottish" was given suddenly sprang up in France about this time. Ramsay himself did not invent these degrees, nor did they come from Scotland, but the fact that he was a Scotchman probably had something to do with the name given to them. Ramsay was not a member of Mother Kilwinning Lodge, nor is it known when or where he received the Masonic degrees.

Waite, in his "Secret Tradition in Freemasonry" vol. 1, p. 117, says that the Mother Lodge of Marseilles was established in 1750, "though there is little means of ascertaining the circumstances under which it was initiated." Clavel says it was established in 1751 by a travelling Scotchman. Be that as it may, it soon ceased to exist, and it did not charter Polar Star Lodge, in New Orleans.

Perfect Sincerity Lodge, of Marseilles, France, was organized in 1767 by the Grand Lodge of France. It is now, and has been since 1806, a subordinate of the Grand Orient of France. It was this lodge, and not Sts. John Lodge of Marseilles, which in 1796 (not 1794) chartered Polar Star Lodge of New Orleans, an action which was later reported by that lodge to the Grand Orient of France and approved by that Grand Body.

However, the brethren who organized Polar Star Lodge first petitioned the Grand Orient of France for a charter (this was in 1794), but on account of the troublous times incident to the French Revolution, the officers of the Grand Orient were so scattered that it could not then be acted upon. Therefore, the brethren applied to Perfect Sincerity Lodge, at Marseilles, and received a charter in 1798. In 1804 the Grand Orient of France acted upon the first petition, granted a charter, and the lodge was constituted under the charter from that Grand Body as Polar Star Lodge No. 4263. (See History of Freemasonry in Louisiana, by James B. Scott, pp. 14 and 15.)


Shortly before the organization of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, on account of some question having been raised as to their regularity, Polar Star Lodge applied to and received a charter from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, and was by that Grand Lodge constituted as Polar Star Lodge No. 129, and as such it joined with the other lodges in organizing the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Prior to the reception of the charter from Pennsylvania, this lodge had worked the French Rite. After receiving the charter from Pennsylvania it worked according to the York Rite only, until November 20, 1820, when Polar Star Lodge began working three rites, but keeping each distinct. As Polar Star Lodge No. 5 under the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, it worked the York Rite; as No. 4263 under the Grand Orient of France, the French Rite; and later it received a charter from the Grand Orient of France as Polar Star Lodge No. 7474, authorizing it to work according to the Scottish Rite. (See History of Freemasonry in Louisiana, Scott, pp. 5, 11, 13, 28 and 29.)

In 1836 the Grand Orient of France demanded of Polar Star Lodge the surrender of its charter from that body, and the lodge petitioned the Grand Lodge of Louisiana to cumulate the French and Scottish Rites. This request was not granted at that time. It then surrendered its York Rite and French Rite charters and worked according to the Scottish Rite, as Polar Star Lodge No. 1 under the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Later, (August 15, 1840) the Grand Lodge of Louisiana permitted it to work according to either the French, Scottish, or York Rite by endorsing on the Scottish Rite charter permission so to work the other two rites. (See Scott's History, P. 49.) This lodge divided in 1857, part of its members voting to withdraw from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and affiliate with Foulhouze's clandestine Supreme Council, and the others voting to remain under the Grand Lodge. Foulhouze's clandestine lodge then laid claim to the property and records of Polar Star Lodge but was overruled in favour of the regular lodge by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in 1861. (16 La. Ann. Rep. 53.) The records of Polar Star Lodge, when brought into court, proved fatal to the claims of the Foulhouze lodge. Thus, it will be seen that Thomson could derive no title through Polar Star Lodge.

The Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite in Louisiana laid no claim to control over the Craft degrees until 1850, when the Grand Lodge of Louisiana abolished its symbolic chambers. These chambers were a device adopted in 1833 by means of which there were three chambers or committees in that Grand Lodge, each having jurisdiction over one of the three rites; but charters in each case were granted by Grand Lodge and not by a symbolic chamber. The reason for abolishing these symbolic chambers in 1850 was to avoid the confusion incident to having three kinds of charters, but the Grand Lodge of Louisiana did then, and still does now, permit its lodges to work according to the rite they prefer.

It was not until 1850 that letters purporting to establish a so-called concordat between the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Grand Consistory in 1833 were brought to light. As a matter of fact, no such concordat was ever adopted by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, and the so-called concordat was later proved to be a fraud. (See Scott's History, pp. 47 and 48.) Thus no title to the Craft degrees could be derived from this Supreme Council even had it been a regular Masonic body. These degrees in Louisiana were controlled by the Grand Lodge and by that body only.

That the Grand Lodge of Louisiana had always claimed jurisdiction over the Craft degrees is shown in Scott's History, pp. 23 and 24, taken from the records of that Grand Lodge. That the Scottish Rite bodies recognized the right of Grand Lodges to control the Craft degrees is shown in Folger's History, appendix, p. 125. The Supreme Council of Louisiana, however, after Foulhouze and his adherents had withdrawn therefrom, made overtures to and was united with the Southern Supreme Council of Charleston, South Carolina (Scott's History, p. 87). Two years later or thereabouts, Foulhouze and two of his adherents formed a new Supreme Council which they claimed was a continuation of the one which had united with the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction. For this unmasonic act Foulhouze was expelled from Masonry by the Grand Orient of France, of which he was a member (Scott's History, p. 87). His Supreme Council soon became dormant, but in the early part of 1867 an attempt was made to revive it. Foulhouze had abdicated, and was succeeded by Eugene Chassaignac, who created several clandestine lodges, and by opening their doors to all comers, regardless of previous condition, obtained recognition by the Grand Orient of France (see Scott's History, p. 87). This caused the white members to drift away, and that body is now composed almost entirely of creoles and colored men. Thus it will be seen that each link in Thomson's so-called "Chain of Title" is defective. Each contains some element of truth, but the truth is so expressed that to one who does not know, it seems to lend color to the false statements with which the true are mingled. Also, the truths which are stated are but partial, and should be supplemented by other facts which Thomson did not state.

* * *


"Education must be 'sold,' to use an advertising expression, just as automobiles, clothes, movies and the endless list of necessities and luxuries are 'sold.' That is to say, before a community or an individual will spend time, effort and money on education the community or individual must be convinced that education is worth having and must want to possess it.

"Such a comparison is fully justified by the facts. A public school system is a form of public service co-operation. The owners of the schools are the tax-payers; the directors are the members of the board of education, elected by the people. The profits from the business of public education are represented in the learning power of the tens of thousands whose knowledge, training and preparation for the work and duties of life are supplied by the public schools.

" 'Use must be made of what the schools have to offer, however, if the community and individuals are to get any good out of them. A public school system, the educatonal machinery and facilities of which are not being utilized by the people, is like a telephone company without subscribers or a department store without customers.

" 'If publicity or advertising is good business for a corporation privately owned, the profits of which go to a few, why shouldn't it be good business for a corporation publicly owned, the profits of which go to all the people of the city? Specifically, why shouldn't the public school system of a city utilize publicity to bring about the largest possible use of the system's educational facilities? . . .

"'Unfortunately, everybody in America doesn't believe in education....

" 'As only a small part of the people of the city have time to visit the schools, the majority of parents, if they are to keep in touch with the activities and policies of the system, must get this information in other ways. Children carry home to their parents much information, to be sure, but too often this is given as the child-mind and not as the adult-mind sees the situation. It is the daily newspapers, after all, that are depended upon for information of what is going on — for school news as well as other news. The newspapers, it might be said, visit the schools for the parents and tell them what is happening there. Therefore, every newspaper reporter, it is the conviction of the division of publications, should have every opportunity to see what the schools are doing. This conviction is shared by the board of education and the superintendents of schools."

— Clyde R. Miller, director of the Department of Publicity, Cleveland Board of Education.

M.S.A. Bulletin No. 8.

* * *


Bro. Geo. W. Baird. P.G.M., District of Columbia


GENERAL MUHLENBERG, friend of Thomas Jefferson and of James Monroe, came of a great family, five of whom are known to history, and two of whom are listed among the great religious leaders of America. General Muhlenberg's father, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, was a German, born in 1711, who, after his university career at Gottingen and Halle, and pastoral experiences at Franckesche Stiftung, came to this land in 1742 in response to the call from a group of Lutherans at Philadelphia. Dr. Muhlenberg accepted charge of three Lutheran congregations and almost immediately stepped into the lead of Lutheranism in this nation. It is he, more than any other man, that may rightly be called the founder of Lutheranism as an organized body in the United States, and it was he who, in 1748, organized the first Lutheran synod. He died at Trappe, formerly known as New Providence, a village in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

It was at this town that John Peter Gabriel, his oldest son, was born in 1746. After an education in Germany he entered the Lutheran ministry in New Jersey and later, 1772, in Virginia. In 1775, while at Woodstock, Virginia, he raised the 8th Virginia (German) regiment. He was made a Colonel by General Washington, to whom, so it is said, he bore a close personal resemblance. Colonel Muhlenberg assisted in the relief of Charleston, took part in the battle of Sullivan's Island, and was with Washington at Brandywine, Monmouth, Stony Point and Yorktown. He was promoted first to Brigadier and then to Major General for meritorious conduct. "He was a member of the Virginia convention of 1776, was vice-president of the supreme-executive council in Pennsylvania in 1787-1788, and was a representative in Congress in 1789-1791, in 1793-1795, and in 1799-1801. In 1801 he was elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate, but immediately resigned to become supervisor of revenue for the district of Pennsylvania." He died in 1807.

The beautiful memorial to General Muhlenberg which stands in Philadelphia was erected by the state of Pennsylvania. On the pedestal of the statue, which bears a striking resemblance to a figure of Washington, is a record of some of the battles in which he was engaged. Washington was not more an idol to the people of Virginia than was Muhlenberg to the sturdy folk of Pennsylvania. Like Washington he was a man without a vice: he was one of those Christian soldiers whose faith in God was so well founded that he never feared danger, and he believed that God's providence protected him through every danger.

In our school days we all learned by rote a thrilling poem about a minister in the early days of the Revolution who, after an impassioned plea to his parishioners to rebel against Great Britain, suddenly threw aside his clerical robes, stepped forth in the uniform of a Virginia colonel, and recruited almost three hundred men on the spot. That man was General Muhlenberg. He used as a text the Scriptural phrase "there is time for all things" and added, with a voice like a trumpet, "there is a time to fight and that time has come now!" upon which he had drummers stationed at the church door, and a full recruiting outfit unlimbered. This spectacular but sincere deed sent a thrill through the community which was felt in every part of Pennsylvania, and made a hero of the martial preacher. Once in active service he more than fulfilled the expectations of his admirers by his skill and bravery as a fighter, and by his sagacity as a commanding officer.

The engagement in which General Muhlenberg most distinguished himself perhaps was the battle of Stony Point in the Hudson Highlands. The attack on this position, the reader will recall, was led by General Anthony Wayne, one of the boldest soldiers of the war. When this enterprise was first planned Washington inquired of him, "Can you do it?" "I'll storm hell, if you'll only plan it, General," replied Wayne. Storming hell, it proved to be, and Wayne himself was struck in the head by a musket ball, and believed himself mortally wounded. "March on!" he shouted to his men. "Carry me into the fort, for I will die at the head of my column." But he did not die.

At two o'clock in the morning he sent to Washington this message: "The fort and garrison with General Johnson are ours. Our officers and men behaved like men determined to be free." During this spectacular engagement General Muhlenberg was in charge of the rear defenses, and proved himself quite as resourceful and daring as Wayne himself.

Of such stuff were the Masons of Revolutionary days. General Muhlenberg was a member of Lodge No. 3, of Philadelphia. He was quite as earnest in lodge work as in church activities, and though one of the most amiable of men he earnestly and vigorously combatted every fad, fancy, fiction and peck-sniffery that invaded the Craft.

* * *


The following paper is one of a series of articles on "Philosophical Masonry," or "The Teachings of Masonry," by Brother Haywood, to be used for reading and discussion in lodges and study clubs — From the questions following each section of the paper the study club leader should select such as he may desire to use in bringing out particular points for discussion. To go into a lengthy discussion on each individual question presented might possibly consume more time than the lodge or study club may be able to devote to the study club meeting.

In conducting the study club meetings the leader should endeavor to hold the discussions closely to the tenet of the paper and not permit the members to speak too long at one time or to stray onto another subject. Whenever it becomes evident that the discussion is turning from the original subject the leader should request the members to make notes of the particular points or phases of the matter they may wish to discuss or inquire into and bring them up after the last section of the paper is disposed of.

The meetings should be closed with a "Question Box" period, when such questions as may have come up during the meeting and laid over until this time should be entered into and discussed. Should any questions arise that cannot be answered by the study club leader or some other brother present, these questions may be submitted to us and we will endeavor to answer them for you in time for your next meeting.

Supplemental references on the subjects treated in this paper will be found at the end of the article.


Bro. H. L. Haywood, Iowa



THE EARLY operative builders of the Middle Ages were churchmen, if we may trust the many histories of architecture which deal with the subject. This was especially true after the Gothic, or pointed arch, superseded the old Romanesque style with its round arch and its gloomy interiors, for the advent of the Gothic coincided with a revival of interest in church architecture. This revival reached such proportions of zeal and devotion that bishops themselves studied to become architects (that word was not in use then, but the function was) and raised such great sums of money for the purpose that many little towns erected cathedral structures that would now be pointed to with pride by our great rich modern cities. Needless to say, these builders, the bishop directors and overseers along with the men who did the toil, were true and loyal sons of the Roman Catholic Church as it then existed.

After a while, and through the inevitable operation of architectural evolution — there is no need to narrate the story of all the changes in this connection — the superintendency and direction of building operations (I am still referring to church and cathedral and similar structures) passed gradually into the hands of laymen. Of these great lay architects, especially those who worked in France where Gothic reached its utmost pinnacle of glory, we have many memorials and remains; in a large number of cases we have rather complete biographical sketches and even portraits. From all these records we know that the builders of this particular period were also loyal sons of the Mother Church.

It was so in England as well as in France, for we find in the Old Charges that the mason, when he came to unite with the Fraternity, was required to swear to be faithful and true to the Holy Church as well as to the King. But after the Reformation had established itself in England — which was quite a while after the death of Henry VIII — these operative masons, along with the rank and file of men in all other walks of life, became Protestants, — that is, they became members of the Church of England.

When does the story of Operative Masons begin? Give the dates of the "Middle Ages." What was the outstanding feature, or characteristic, of Romanesque architecture? Of Gothic? Who were the first architects of Gothic? What, do you suppose, led the bishops to take such an interest in building? To what church did masons then belong? Did they all have to belong to that church? If so, why? Why did laymen come to take the place of bishops as architects, or masters of the work? Where, do you suppose, may one find the records of these oldtime master builders? Where did Gothic architecture reach its highest development? What religion was enjoined by the Old Charges? What is meant by "Old Charges"? What was the Reformation? When did it occur? What did Luther have to do with it? Henry VIII? What was the difference between a Protestant church, as we now know it, and the "Church of England"? What effect did Protestantism have on the religion of masons?


In many histories of Freemasonry the account of the religious beginnings of the Craft stops off short at this place, but that is an error, a very misleading error, and one that should be carefully avoided by the Masonic student. Freemasonry as it became organized in 1717, and as we now know it, owed much, very much, to the operative builders of the Middle Ages, but it also owed, much, perhaps quite as much, to other sources, which had nothing whatever to do with operative building. I refer to occult societies and associations, and to scattered sources out of which many streams of influence gradually made their way into the main currents of Speculative Freemasonry.

In the time of Pope Innocent III (approximately in the year 1200) there began the great Albigensian Crusades. The purpose of this immense military advance into southern France was to stamp out flourishing communities of men and women who had come to believe in a Christianity very different from that represented by the pope. These men have been described as "Protestants before the Reformation." In a strict sense they were not Protestant, and their ideas were very far away from those made familiar to us by our own great Protestant denominations, but these men cherished independence of mind, purity of conduct, and demanded for themselves liberty of worship. They were the "heretics." I am myself convinced — though there is not here room to furnish the data on which my conviction rests — that these "heretics" set loose in Europe a powerful stream of influence, some of which finally found its way into Freemasonry. (See "New Light on the Renaissance," by Harold Bayley, among scores of other books.)

All our historians, at least nearly all of them, agree that Freemasonry owes very much to certain occult societies or groups that flourished — often in secret — during the late Middle Ages, and even into the after-Reformation times. Chief among these were the Rosicrucians and the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar had been in the East; they had come into contact with Jewish, Greek, and Arabic lore, and they had imbibed strange new ideas from far-away types of Christianity. The authorities of the Roman Catholic Church attacked these knightly orders on the ground that they had become heretics — "Gnostics" was the exact word used. Those who have most carefully examined the evidence (some Henry Charles Lea's great works on the period) are inclined to believe that the charges were more or less well grounded. The Knights Templar had become infected with heresy.

As for the Rosicrucians, not much is known about them and it is doubtful if much ever will be known about them, but it is certain that during the seventeenth century there were many powerful and original thinkers in Europe, especially in Germany, the Low Countries, and in England, who called themselves "Rosicrucians" and who made wide use of a (now) strange system of symbols and esoteric means of communication. It is believed by some that Francis Bacon was a Rosicrucian. I said that not much is known with certainty about them; of this one thing, however, we can be certain: they were Protestants, when they were not altogether outside the bounds of Christianity.

About the Kabbalists more is known. The literature called the Kabbala came into existence in Spain during the thirteenth century, or thereabouts, and won its way among the Jews who had grown weary of the sterile rationalism of Maimonides and his school. The Kabbalistical literature was dramatically brought to the attention of the intellectual circles of Europe by Reuchlin when, in or about 1500, he caught it up as a means of preventing a terrible slaughter of Jews by the papists. The Kabbala is a work of Jewish mysticism. From it there came into Freemasonry, so there is good reason to believe, the Legend of the Lost Word, the Tradition of Solomon's Temple, the Tradition of the Substitute Word, the Great Pillars, etc.

Can you name three Masonic histories? Which one is supposed to be the best? What is meant by "occult"? Can you tell anything about Pope Innocent III? What is meant by the word "heretic"? Can you tell anything about the Albigensian Crusades? Do you believe that Freemasonry connects in any way with the Knights Templar? Are the Masonic Knights Templar identical with the Order spoken of above? Why was the Order suppressed? Who was the last Grand Master of the Knights? Have you ever heard of Jacques de Molay? What can you tell about the Rosicrucians? Where were the Rosicrucians strongest? Describe the Kabbalists? Where did Kabbalism originate? When did Reuchlin live? What did he do? What does Freemasonry owe to Kabbalism? Was the Kabbala Jewish or Christian? If Freemasonry descended from the Kabbalists, and the other sources named above, as well as from Operative Masons of the Middle Ages, what, would you say, was the first religion of Freemasonry?


It should be further noted that during the century immediately preceding the famous Revival (1717) many men came into the Fraternity who where — to a certain extent — what would now be called Free Thinkers. This is not to say that they were atheists or anti-religious; it means that they chose to think for themselves, and were not able to accept many things officially taught by the churches. Quite a number of the founders and early champions of the Royal Society (this fact is overlooked so often) were active Freemasons, and so were many other learned men in different quarters who, in that period of rationalism, did not adhere to any religion at all, albeit, like Voltaire and the Deists, they believed in a Supreme Being. It is certain that many of these men found their way into the Fraternity at a period before the Revival and I have no doubt that they had something to do at the time with the complete releasing of Freemasonry from adhesion to any one religion whatsoever. The great paragraph "Concerning God and Religion" which Anderson (or whoever it was) incorporated in the first Grand Lodge Constitutions, is a frank statement to the effect that whereas in ancient times Freemasons had been obliged to be of the religion of the country in which they lived, that now no religious demands would be made of them save that they were not to be stupid atheists or irreligious libertines. The adoption of the paragraph marks an epoch in the evolution of religion in the English-speaking world. It was a great magna charta of spiritual liberty proclaimed at a time when religious bigotry was more bigoted than ever, and when men were suffering all manner of persecution for daring to disagree with the official dogmas of the churches. The Masonic student should make the most careful study of this period of Masonic history because it was at this time that the constitutions and landmarks were adopted (many of them, anyhow) that are still in force, and it is to that period that Grand Lodges almost always turn when seeking for precedents whereon to establish new laws or regulations or interpretations. Unless one clearly grasps the principles built into Speculative Freemasonry at that time, he will ever remain hopelessly in the dark about the underlying principles of Freemasonry as it now exists.

What is meant by a Free Thinker? Is he anti-religious? Who are some typical Free Thinkers now? What was the Royal Society? When and by whom was it founded? Who were the Deists? What did they believe? What was the substance of the famous paragraph "Concerning God and Religion"? Who wrote the Constitutions? Who was Anderson? In what sense was that aforementioned paragraph a great religious magna charta? Why do Grand Lodges seek precedents in the period of the Revival? When and what was this Revival?


As time went on it came to pass that Freemasonry began to grow at a great rate, and it was inevitable, owing to the serious and religious character of the ritual, that many of the men drawn to it should be churchmen, or otherwise devout. A trend toward Christianization of the Order set in. In 1760 the Holy Bible was made a Great Light. In 1813, at the time of the famous Union of the two Grand Lodges, the Antient and the Modern, Freemasonry was specifically declared to be consecrated to the glory of God. After this the tide toward Christianization set in with new power until it at last culminated in the work of Dr. George Oliver, whose name should be held in everlasting remembrance among Masons. To Oliver the whole Masonic system was essentially biblical and wholly Christian. He was so fruitful in influence, his books were so many, and his followers so numberless, that for decades men entirely lost sight of the original principles of Speculative Masonry — that Masonry, I mean, that is usually referred back for its origin to 1717. Indeed, that impulse has not yet by any means spent itself; many brethren, misled by the predominantly Scriptural cast of the Work, and misunderstanding a few scattered references here and there, assume that in some sense Freemasonry is specifically a Christian institution, and forget, the while, the presence of a great number of Jews in the Order, not to mention many who adhere to no one religion whatsoever. So late as 1887 Brother H.J. Whymper published a book since become standard, "The Religion of Freemasonry," in which he boldly upheld the thesis that Freemasonry is a specifically Christian institution. The work was introduced by W.J. Hughan, and edited by G. W. Speth.

It is probable that Brother Whymper (I join with all in honouring a name so illustrious in our annals) forgot the great and epoch-making Proclamation issued by H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex, M.W. Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, published from Kensington Palace, July 2, 1842, which Proclamation plainly declared that Freemasonry is not the property of any one religion, and that those subjects of the Crown in India who were otherwise eligible and who could make a sincere profession of faith in one living God, be they Hindus or Mohammedans, might petition for membership in Freemasonry. That Proclamation established a precedent of vast influence, so that today the Fraternity flourishes in the Far East to an undreamed of extent, and it is quite impossible, in view of the fact of Masonic universality, to claim for any one religion, as against all others, the adhesion of this Order.

When was the Holy Bible made a great Light? Why is it called The Volume of the Sacred Law? Are there other Volumes of the Sacred Law? What book is so used by Jews? By Mohammedans? By Hindus? When was the lodge formally declared consecrated to God? Why do Masons speak of Him as T.S.G.A.O.T.U.? What was the "Antient" Grand Lodge? The "Modern"? What is the Grand Lodge of England now called? What position did Dr. Oliver take? Do you agree with him? What book did Whymper publish? When? What was his position? When did H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex publish his Proclamation? And where? What was the significance of it? What does that proclamation mean for us? Does the Grand Lodge of England recognize lodges that accept men other than Christian?


The Bible is the sacred book of Christians; the ritual of Freemasonry is steeped in the Bible: therefore Freemasonry must be considered a Christian institution; this is the logic, expressed or implied, by which men have been led to hold that the Craft adheres to that one religion as against all others. These brethren should be made to understand the facts in the case. It is true that the Holy Bible was the ultimate source of much in the ritual but one needs only try to test the ritual by biblical references to find that after all the ritual is not built on the text of the Bible, for the great major incidents in the ritual — and this applies to all the grades — are not found in the Book at all. To cite but one example; the tragedy of Hiram Abiff which is so central to all the mysteries of Masonry, is not met with in any of the sacred books. The explanation of this lies ready to hand. Traditions and legends, suggested long ago by incidents in the Bible, were taken up here and there by different groups and worked over into new shapes and to new purposes. A luxuriant undergrowth of legend and myth sprang up about the feet of the old Bible stories, of which fact the rich old tales of Arthur and his Table and of the Search for the Grail, woven by Tennyson into the deeply -coloured and mystical poems of The Idylls of the King, may serve as a familiar example. Medieval religion, art, and architecture, as everybody knows, are all steeped in these old traditions, many of which had undergone an evolution that led them to become completely cut away from their original sources in the Sacred Writings.

The biblical traditions in Freemasonry did not come into it directly from the Bible, but from these other and secondary sources, and in long round-about paths, so that, by the time they had come to be incorporated into the ritual, they had undergone many profound transformations, so that it is no longer possible to call them biblical, save as such traditions as the above mentioned Holy Grail may also be called biblical. The Legend of the Lost Word, of the Substitute Word, of the great Temple of which Hiram Abiff was Grand Master, etc., etc., all had, no doubt, their first inspiration in the biblical narratives, but they have since travelled so far away from their sources that they may be thought of, like the old myths of the Greeks, as belonging to the whole world, and to men of all religions.

But while it is true that Freemasonry cannot be claimed by any one religion — no intelligent Freemason will make such a claim, however devout he may be in his own faith — it has a religious foundation that is all its own. Believing that there is under all the creeds one universal religion, which may be described as a belief in one God as the Father of all, in the immortality of the soul, and in the brotherhood of man, it demands of all its initiates adhesion to these root truths. What other things they may choose to believe, and how they may interpret or elaborate these fundamentals, is left wholly to their own private judgment. It is as if the Fraternity said to its children, "Here is the great substructure, the mother rock under your feet, on which you must each one build your own house of religion; what manner of temples you build, and in what style, and where, and how high, that I shall leave to you individually; but on the substructure of belief in God, in brotherhood, and in immortality, you must build, else you do not belong to me.

Give examples of biblical references in the Work. Recite portions of it that are drawn directly from the Bible. Have you ever sought for the origin of the Hiram Abiff tragedy in the Old Testament? What did you find? Does our account of Solomon's Temple agree with the account in the Book of Kings? How have you explained this to yourself? What do you think of the explanations as given above? Have you ever read Tennyson's Idylls of the King? Who was Tennyson? When did he live? Can you give the story of the Holy Graal (sometimes spelled "Grail"? Retell in your own words the account of how traditions, originally from the Bible, reached us by circuitous paths, and after they had become worked over and changed. What is the religion of Freemasonry? There will be men of several different religions in a Study Club; it would be interesting to have them tell you how they have found their own beliefs not to conflict with Freemasonry and its teachings.



Vol I. — The Two Paths, p. 37; The Spirit of Easter, p. 92; A Twentieth Century Masonic Philosophy, p. 106; Prayer in Masonry, p. 186; The Bible in Masonry, p. 254; The Spiritual Side of Masonry, p. 256; Masonic Meditation, p. 298.

Vol. II. — The Religion of Robert Burns, p. 3; Masonry and Religion, p. 50; Some Deeper Aspects of Masonic Symbolism, 107, 144, 175; Sectarianism and Freemasonry, p. 109; St. Johns Day, p. 185; The Church and the Craft, p. 191; Toleration, p. 265; Non-Christian Candidates, p. 302; The Church and Freemasonry, p. 318.

Vol. III. — The Fellowship of Masonry, p. 41; Religion and Philosophy, p. 234; Masonry's Great Book, p. 347.

Vol. IV. — Prayer, Feb. C.C.B., p. 7; The Divine Geometry, p. 159; Symbolism of the Master Mason Degree, p. 291.

Vol. V. — The Catholic Treatise on Masonry, pp. 180, 210, 247, 272.

Vol. VI. — The Letter G, Feb. C.C.B., p. 3; The Lost Wod, May C.C.B., p. 3; Sacred Symbol, p. 288.

Vol. VII. — The Religious Teachings of Freemasonry, p. 82; Emblematic Freemasonry, Building Guilds and Hermetic Schools, p. 160; T.G.A.O.T.U., p. 169; Toleration and Free Thinking, p.196; Masonic Prayers, p. 206; Material for Masonic Sermons, p. 271.

Vol. VIII. — Religious Beliefs, p. 62; The Roman Catholic Articles, p. 94; Masonic Toleration, p. 137; Toleration and Freemasonry, p. 150; The Holy Sts. John, pp. 170, 202; Religion and the Grand Orient of France, P. 189; Hughan's Introduction to "The Religion of Freemasonry," p. 282.

Mackey's Encyclopedia (Revised Edition):

Antient, p. 55; Bacon, Francis, p. 89; Bible, p. 104; Builder, p. 123; Christianization of Freemasonry, p. 148; Church, Freemasons of the, p. 150; Consecration, p. 175; Craft, p. 184; Craftsman, p. 184; Creed, A Mason's, p. 184; Deism, p. 204; Gnostics, P. 300; God, p. 301; Gothic Architecture, p. 304; Hiram Abiff, p. 329; Hughan, William James, p. 338; Kabbala, p. 375; Knights Templar, p. 404; Knights Templar, Masonic, p. 410; Lost Word, p. 453; Modern, p. 488; Oath, p. 521; Oath, Corporal, p. 524; Oath of the Guild, p. 524; Oath, Tyler's, p. 524; Objections to Freemasonry, p. 525; Obligation, p. 525; Old Charges or Old Manuscripts, p. 527; Oliver, George, p. 527; Religion of Masonry, p. 617; Resurrection, p. 621; Revival, p. 622; Roman Colleges of Artificers, p 630; Rosicrucianism, p 639; Scriptures, Belief in the, p. 672; Scriptures, Reading of the, p. 672; Stone Masons of the Middle Ages, p. 718; Substitute Word, p. 734; Travelling Freemason, p. 792.

* * *


"The Bulletin Course of Masonic Study," of which the foregoing paper by Brother Haywood is a part, was begun in THE BUILDER early in 1917. Previous to the beginning of the present series on "Philosophical Masonry," or "The Teachings of Masonry," as we have titled it, were published some forty-three papers covering in detail "Ceremonial Masonry" and "Symbolical Masonry" under the following several divisions: "The Work of a Lodge," "The Lodge and the Candidate," "First Steps," "Second Steps," and "Third Steps." A complete set of these papers are obtainable in the bound volumes of THE BUILDER for 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920, and the monthly numbers for January, February, March and April, 1921.

Following is an outline of the subjects covered by the current series of study club papers by Brother Haywood:


General Introduction. — A. Reasons for a course explaining what the "teachings of Masonry" mean. — B. How one can arrive at his own Philosophy of Masonry. — Conclusion. The Philosophy of Masonry is not a study of philosophy in general, but such a study of Masonry as a philosopher gives to any great intellectual problem.

  1. The Masonic Conception of Human Nature.
  2. The Idea of Truth in Freemasonry.
  3. The Masonic Conception of Education.
  4. Symbolism.
  5. Secrecy.
  6. Masonic Ethics.
  7. Democracy.
  8. Equality.
  9. Liberty.
  10. Masonry and Industry.
  11. The Brotherhood of Man.
  12. The Fatherhood of God.
  13. Endless Life.
  14. Brotherly Aid.
  15. Schools of Masonic Philosophy.

This systematic course of Masonic study has been taken up and carried out in monthly and semi-monthly meetings of lodges and study clubs all over the United States and Canada, and in several instances in lodges overseas.

The course of study has for its foundation two sources of Masonic information, THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia.


Study clubs may be organized separate from the lodge, or as a part of the work of the lodge. In the latter case the lodge should select a committee, preferably of three "live" members who shall have charge of the study club meetings. The study club meetings should be held at least once a month (excepting during July and August, when the study club papers are discontinued in THE BUILDER), either at a special communication of the lodge called for the purpose, or at a regular communication at which no business (except the lodge routine) should be transacted — all possible time to be devoted to study club purposes.

After the lodge has been opened and all routine business disposed of, the Master should turn the lodge over to the chairman of the study club committee. The committee should be fully prepared in advance on the subject to be discussed at the meeting. All members to whom references for supplemental papers have been assigned should be prepared with their material, and should also have a comprehensive grasp of Brother Haywood's paper by a previous reading and study of it.


  1. Reading of any supplemental papers on the subject for the evening which may have been prepared by brethren assigned such duties by the chairman of the study club committee.
  2. Reading of the first section of Brother Haywood's paper.
  3. Discussion of this section, using the questions following this section to bring out points for discussion.
  4. The subsequent sections of the paper should then be taken up and disposed of in the same manner.
  5. Question Box. Invite questions on any subject in Masonry, from any and all brethren present. Let the brethren understand that these meetings are for their particular benefit and enlightenment and get them into the habit of asking all the questions they may be able to think of. If at the time these questions are propounded no one can answer them, send them in to us and we will endeavor to supply answers to them in time for your next study club meeting.


The foregoing information should enable study club committees to conduct their meetings without difficulty. However, if we can be of assistance to such committees, or any individual member of lodges and study clubs at any time such brethren are invited to feel free to communicate with us.

* * *


"The measure of success of a school or of a school system is the extent to which it brings about the true life success of the pupils. There is, therefore, no matter of greater importance to the public than the success of the schools.

"It has been found by careful investigation that it has been impressed on those who visit many schools that schools are least successful in the upper grades. This is especially shown by the large number who drop out of these grades and by the relatively large proportion who must repeat them before passing on. The failure of schools in the adolescent or uppergrade period has recently been stressed by Edison in his criticism of present educational methods. Since the pupils in the upper grades are in the most critical period of life, it follows that schools are least successful for the very years when success is of the greatest concern.

"One of the principal reasons for this condition is not far to seek. As children pass from the lower to the upper grades they need more and more ability to help themselves in their school work. The one most important source of self help in this connection is the ability and opportunity to use books and libraries, including magazines and newspapers. Children will not learn how to use books and libraries effectively without a definite and carefully graded course of lessons on the subject, any more than they would learn arithmetic without such a course in arithmetic.

"Since schools do not yet offer a course in the use of books and libraries, we need not be surprised that there is so much failure in the upper grades and high school. Since the use of books and libraries is of vital concern for life purposes, we have here a matter of fundamental importance to true success in education. We need to prepare pupils for the wise use of leisure as well as for the active duties of life.

"The school library cause presents to normal schools a duty and an opportunity which are exceeded in importance by none other of their functions. In their model schools they should give a definite, properly graded and comprehensive course in the use of books and libraries. They should exemplify in the model schools a well devised plan for pleasure reading which will produce a lasting taste for good reading. They should provide a course, required of all prospective teachers, in which this vital feature of education is given adequate attention, including observation and practice teaching in the model school."

— O.S. Rice, in address to Normal School Librarians, American Library Association, Chicago.

M.S.A. Bulletin No. 8.

* * *


Bro. Gerald Nancarrow, Indiana

Great Brother whom death has translated
From this known to that mystical shore;
Great Soul you have won your awaited —
The realm only victors explore.

Great Brother, the life that you mastered
Gained you life on that Glorified Plane
Where the Truths that you tested and fostered
Now ring as your labor's refrain.

And there you shall raise a new building
On a firmer foundation than earth;
Assist in adorning and gilding
The sphere you attained by your worth

The Master of all life's servers, —
He who passed on your efforts below
Who filled you with patriot fervors, —
Will keep your bright beacons aglow.

Full lettered in Heavenly glory
That all mortals who follow may read,
Is written your immortal story —
Great Brother, in heart and in deed.

* * *


One of the most famous pronouncements on the subject — a delicate one, and susceptible of many misunderstandings — about which I have endeavoured to write in this month's Study Club was that contributed by Brother William James Hughan as an Introduction to a book written by his friend and colleague, Brother Henry Josiah Whymper, and entitled "The Religion of Freemasonry." In that now famous volume Brother Whymper undertook to prove that Freemasonry should confine its membership entirely to the adherents of one religion. In taking friendly issue with this thesis Brother Hughan gave expression to his own view of the subject in a statement of the case which I am fain to reproduce here, not only because it brings the weight of his great authority to the support of my own position but because it is in itself of such intrinsic value, as deserves a much wider reading than is ever accorded to the Introduction to a book. I may add to this the further fact that Brother Whymper's book was edited by Brother George William Speth, the brilliant and beloved first secretary of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge of Research, whose attainments in Masonic scholarship gave him a place not far behind that of Hughan himself. In a "Note by the Editor" Brother Speth frankly expresses himself concerning Brother Whymper's thesis as not being "in complete accord with him." It is good for us to study carefully the opinions of all our leaders in Masonic thought on this subject because, though it is probable that ninety per cent of competent Masonic opinion is in agreement with Hughan's position rather than with Whymper's, the subject is still so acrimoniously debated in some quarters that it behoves a sober-minded student to see to it that his own opinions are of light rather than heat. The whole subject is one about which we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable. Brother Hughan's Introduction follows. — H.L.H.

IN AGREEING to write a short introduction to Brother Whymper's work, I had no idea the latter was to be of such an extensive character. As it is, however, nothing appears to be needed to ensure its careful perusal, for the volume tells its own tale in unmistakable language, and requires no sponsor. This is fortunate, as it is rather awkward for my part to be done when not quite in full sympathy with the author on the general question.

It is quite clear that my friend has every confidence in the stand he has taken and fears no opposition, so that my task is certainly the easier under such happy circumstances, and the more so, when it is noted how thoroughly Brother Whymper has treated this confessedly difficult subject. His industry and perseverance have been enbounded, and no researches or enquiries appear to have been spared to make the work thoroughly comprehensive and authentic. The result is an invaluable repertory of facts, which constitute an excellent and trustworthy foundation on which to build our theories and opinions, whether favourable or otherwise to the views prepounded by the enthusiastic and distinguished author, besides furnishing us with the matured observations and convictions of a zealous Masonic student.

One of the chief objects of the work is to illustrate "the circumstance that the original principles of Freemasonry were based on Christian Catholicity," as evidenced by the premier "Constitutions" of 1723, and more distinctly by the 2nd edition of 1738; several portions of which, submitted for that purpose, are given in parallel columns, with some later variations, to 1884. To my mind, however, they all tend in the direction of cosmopolitanism and religious universality, save the copy of 1722 (which is scarcely suitable for comparison with the Modern Speculative Regulations), that of 1723 particularly, being indicative of the altered conditions of the Society of that period.

That English Freemasonry was Christian prior to the organization of the premier Grand Lodge cannot be doubted by those who are familiar with the "Old Charges" used by the Craft during the preceding centuries. In this respect, as in several others, I entirely concur with Brother Whymper, and am, moreover, bound to admit that no record exists of any express agreement to change the Fraternity from an exclusively Christian to a religious or theistic organization.


But if the original Christian basis of the Society should be continued, because never expressly altered by the "Revivalists," it appears to me that logically such a condition could not be observed by favouring the platform of Catholicity, inasmuch as Freemasonry until the era of Grand Lodge was distinctly Trinitarian, and hence Unitarians were but little more suitable as members under the old system than Jews or men of other faiths. Precisely when other candidates than Jews were admitted into the Brotherhood with professed Christians it is not easy to determine, but as respects our Israelitish members, we shall not be far wrong if we date their first welcome into the Fraternity as far back as one hundred and fifty years, or even more.

The R∴ W∴ Brother McIntyre, Q.C., P.G.W. (as Grand Registrar), declared in Grand Lodge (5th Dec., 1877) that "up to 1813, the two Grand Lodges of England were Christian Grand Lodges. In 1813 we became a Universal Grand Lodge, and Jews were admitted amongst us." I am not aware of any facts to corroborate such an assertion, the simple truth being that they are all in the opposite direction, the less exclusive Constitution having been in force before the "Union."

The lamented Lord Tenterden, K.C.B. (Prov. G.W. Essex), declared at the same Communication that "when Freemasonry was introduced into Germany last century, it was constituted on the Christian system of St. John.... The Three Globes Lodge was constituted in 1740 as a Christian lodge." According to Brother Gould, P.G.D. (and there is no better guide), this lodge was started by the sole authority of Frederick the Great, so that we are not much concerned with what was done under those circumstances; but in reference to the introduction of Freemasonry into that country we may be assured that, so far as England was concerned, there was no departure from the ordinary usage of that period, and that no Warrants of Constitution were granted of a different character to those authorized for other countries by the premier Grand Lodge.

It must be conceded that even now Freemasonry is "simply and purely Christian" under some Grand Lodges, but so long as such organizations are willing to admit visitors from England and other countries, where the Craft is established on broader lines, it is not for us to object to their narrower system. The late Earl of Zetland, as Grand Master, obtained all necessary concessions from such Grand Lodges during the fifth decade of this century by securing the recognition of all regular brethren as visitors, without regard to their religious faith and creed. More than this we cannot fairly require; though it leaves much to be desired.

It was distinctly announced by authority of the M∴ W∴ Grand Master in 1865 that there was nothing to prevent anyone "who believes in the Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God, and who in private life practices the sacred duties of morality, from being initiated into the secrets and mysteries of our Order." This decision was officially communicated, because the then District Grand Master of Bengal objected to Hindoos being proposed as candidates for initiation, notwithstanding one of that number had offered to make a declaration that "he was not a Pantheist or Polytheest, and did not identify the Creator with any of his creatures, but believed in T.G.A.O.T.U."

Lord Zetland but followed in the steps of his illustrious predecessor, H.R.H. the Duke. of Sussex, M∴ W∴ Grand Master, who aided in the arrangements for the initiation of a Mohammedan in 1836, and was in full sympathy with those who desired to extend rather than curtail the foundation on which Freemasonry rests.

It is clear, however that such authoritative decisions presuppose that candidates cherish or have adopted some particular form of religious faith, and are not simply Deists, because the obligation to secrecy and fidelity is to be taken on those "Sacred Writings" which to them are binding on their consciences.


Still, with all the predilections for a comprehensive and cosmopolitan basis, nothing can obliterate the evidences of the Christian origin of our Fraternity, and hence, whilst prepared to the fullest extent possible to accept worthy neophytes without respect to their creed, colour, or clime, one cannot but feel that those brethren who are neither professed Christens, nor Jews, will meet with numerous references in our ceremonies founded on the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which will not favour their own notions of theology.

The Bible should always be "the Great Light of the Craft," and never be closed in open lodge, whatever volumes else may be at times essential for the purposes of reception. I have never heard of any objections to such a rule, and trust that none will ever be urged, for unless other religionists are prepared to practice as well as expect toleration by thus maintaining the actual and obligatory foundations of the Society, the continuity and identity of the Institution cannot be permanently and uniformly preserved.

Brother Whymper evidently favours separate Jewish, Parsee, Hindoo, and Mahommedan lodges, but would such a plan really meet his objections to the present regime? He emphatically states that "It is impossible for any man, no matter what his former religion may have been, to become a Fellow Craft Mason in English Masonry and refuse to accept both the Old and the New Testaments." How, then, would those distinctive combinations provide for such a contingency? If we cannot do with these religionists in our lodges, I do not see how we can do without them — i.e., in separate lodges. We meet on the Level or not at all, and therefore, if we cannot as votaries of various faiths become members together in lodge, and thus illustrate the "Brotherhood of Man," better far to refrain from all attempts at universality, and revert to an exclusively Christian Constitution, as in the olden time.

I am anxious to look at the question in all its aspects, and do not mention difficulties because of any fondness for them, but simply to suggest that if a return to the old system is to be recommended, and primarily because it prevailed prior to the inauguration of Grand Lodges, it is well we should understand what is involved in such a course.

At all events, it seems to me that we are at the present time observing the old rule of 1723, in promoting the "Religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves," as well as respecting some of the usages and customs of our Grand Lodge. Besides which, by thus extending the scope of our Ancient and Honourable Society, we are adding immensely to its beneficial influence and practical usefulness, especially abroad.

Holding this view, and bearing in mind the esteemed brethren who hold and advocate otherwise, I am prepared to accept the opinion and advice of the revered Brother, the Rev. A.F.A. Woodford, M.A., P.G. Chap., who maintained that "the Christian School and the Universal School can coexist in Freemasonry. Though their views are necessarily antagonistic, yet they need not be made the subject of contention; they can be held in peace and consideration, and all fraternal goodwill. Indeed, we think, upon the whole, that Freemasonry has, curiously enough, a two-fold teaching in this respect."

According to Brother Whymper's convictions, the spread of the Craft in India amongst Parsees, Hindoos, and Mahommedans calls for serious consideration, and increasingly so when brethren of each of those faiths become sufficiently numerous to support lodges composed mainly of members of their own persuasion.

Should difficulties arise in consequence, we may yet have to try the ingenious suggestion of chartering lodges for each particular faith, subject to the rights of mutual visitation; but I confess to the feeling that, should ever such be deemed requisite, an element of religious distinction and classification will be of necessity introduced, which will considerably modify or weaken the unsectarian character of the Institution.

Clearly, then, this important subject deserves — fact, demands — our earnest attention and careful consideration, and our hearty thanks are due to Brother Whymper for having so fraternally introduced the matter to our notice in the following pages.

* * *



IF THERE is anything dear to the mind of a Freemason it is the ideal of a great world-wide Fraternity, a deep-based, all inclusive Order of lofty purposes and unselfish aims, that might house under its one roof picked men from all the peoples of the world. Freemasonry itself, in its ritual, its landmarks, and its laws, holds this mighty ideal evermore before itself and its children, and inspires them to strive to bring it some day to fulfillment.

But alas, those same children, many of them, find themselves in an impasse, so far as the universality of the Masonic Order is concerned. For if there is anything certain about the laws of Freemasonry it is that one Grand Lodge cannot extend formal recognition to another Grand Lodge the Masonry of which it deems to have departed from the landmarks. And if there is anything certain about Grand Lodges as they now exist, it is that there are several which cannot therefore recognize each other, because in their technical definitions of Freemasonry they are widely sundered.

On the other hand, and to the contrary, it is also a certainty that members of two Grand Lodges that cannot recognize each other may be at the same time members of the great Brotherhood as a whole, and in a large sense fellow Masons, in that they believe in the same noble beliefs, and work for the same high ends. And if the universality of Freemasonry is ever to be anything more than a tantalizing phantom of the brain, the members of all Grand Lodges must somehow find a way to get together.

Here is the impasse in which a Mason finds himself. He desires a world-wide Fraternity, with all the bodies of Freemasonry acting together. But he knows it to be impossible for his own Grand Lodge to extend formal recognition to certain other Grand Lodges. It is a painful dilemma!

Is there a way out of that dilemma?

There is, and it consists in fashioning in ourselves a new understanding of what is implied in recognition. To refuse recognition to a Grand Body asking for it may mean to read that body out of the Order, but it doesn't often mean that. Usually it means that one Grand Lodge refuses to place its stamp of approval upon some one action taken by another Grand Lodge, as when certain states withdrew recognition from the Grand Lodge of Washington on account of Negro Masonry. But the refusal on the part of those Grand Lodges to recognize Washington did not imply that all Washington Masons had ceased to be Masons! Far from it!

Recognition belongs to the technical side of Masonry, and that is a most important side; but after all there are other and equally important sides.

A Grand Lodge might very well take the position that in a case where, for technical reasons, it is unable to extend formal recognition to another Grand Lodge, it nevertheless knows that other Grand Lodge to be a par of the great family of Masonry, and stands willing to cooperate with it in whatever way remains possible. In this wise the landmarks would be duly preserved as each Grand Body understands those landmarks, and a due regard would be had for all technical matters, but at the same time the larger unity of the Fraternity would be preserved. Cooperation is often possible where recognition is impossible.

This principle, so it would appear, might very well be put into practice by American Grand Lodges now in their dealings with Grand Lodges in Europe. European Freemasonry has had much to contend with that has never seriously troubled us. Freemasonry in America came into existence already formed, like Athena from the temple of Zeus; but in Europe it came to birth after many throes and passions, and on the original soil many of those passions and divisions have naturally a long while persisted. But more important still is the fact that in Europe Freemasonry has been at grips with an enemy which has sought to divide it and to keep it divided in order to control it; whereas in this more favored land that enemy has been far less powerful. Owing to these two causes of the divisions that inevitably have existed from within, and the divisions that were caused by enemies from without, European Masonic organizations are, as compared with the rigidly defined Grand Lodges of this land, in a state of chaos. It is almost impossible to apply to them the straight test of the landmarks which are (comparatively) so easy to apply to our own Grand Lodges.

But at the same time Europeans are Masons after all, and are recognized as such by us whenever we speak of them unofficially, even at the very time that our Grand Lodges (it may be) do not recognize them as such officially. And these brothers of ours across the sea, who are children of the same great mother as ourselves, were never so badly in need of our help and sympathetic encouragement as now, when the world in which they exist is a wrecked world, and when their enemies are enjoying such an opportunity as never before, and when they are confronted by obstacles almost insuperable, and must carry burdens almost impossible to bear.

Grant that we cannot recognize many of them! grant that it is as much for their good as for ours that Freemasonry be kept pure! Cannot we at the same time hail them as brethren of the Mystic Tie, who, by virtue of having assumed that Tie, are members of our Fraternity, and deserving of all the relief, aid and succor that we can give them? Cannot we learn to co-operate with them, even when we cannot recognize them?

* * *



"A New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" by A.E. Waite. Published in two volumes by William Rider, Cathedral House, Paternoster Row, London, England, 1921; price $15.00.

IT WILL conduce to a clearer understanding of this work of 977 pages if I give the title in all its completeness:

"A New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (Ars Magna Latomorum), And of Cognate Instituted Mysteries: Their Rites, Literature, and History."

The two volumes are well made; bound in blue cloth; lettered and decorated in gold; and the print and paper are alike excellent.

The key to a proper understanding of this work is to be found in the fact that the author begins and ends with a well-defined thesis of his own, about which he is careful to see that we have no misunderstandings. The preface to every book deserves reading; in the present case it is absolutely necessary that it be read, unless one is to blunder about through the dark for endless pages. After a brief description of the plan and scope of the undertaking Brother Waite goes on to write, on page six, this most significant paragraph:

"One thing remains to be said, for — although it lies within the region of personal explanation — it is a matter of justice alike to readers and myself — to readers, that they may be under no misapprehension as to the motives by which I am actuated in my several contributions to Masonic subjects; to myself, that I may bear witness at need to the knowledge that has reached me from various cardinal quarters of intellectual life and experience. I have undertaken this work, a very large part of which has involved anxious research, with its concomitants of reference and cross-reference, the sifting of authorities and the search after some kind of mean between counterviews, not because I am drawn naturally into archeological paths but because they offer an opportunity to put forward what I am very certain is the true view of Freemasonry. Were it [Freemasonry] merely — as so many believe — an ethical and benevolent society, the only issue concerning it would be whether it fulfills that role in the living present: origin and past history could be matters of no moment, or at least none which — from my point of view — would warrant such a book as this. BUT MASONRY IN MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, IS PART OF A DIVINE QUEST; IT COMMUNICATES KNOWLEDGE OF THAT QUEST AND ITS TERM IN SYMBOLISM; WHILE THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE THAT SYMBOLISM INTO THEIR HEART — THEIR INMOST HEART — OR IN OTHER WORDS TO TRANSLATE IT INTO LIFE, MAY FIND THAT IT BECOMES AN OPEN GATE INTO A REAL WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE, WHERE THE DIVINE QUEST ENDS IN DIVINE ATTAINMENT."

There can be no possibility of misunderstanding about these words, especially about those that I have capitalized; Brother Waite believes that the heart of Freemasonry is a system or way of life, which if a man follow, will lead him to a first-hand knowledge of God. It is — behind all its veils — a life of religion. Nay, more! he makes it plain, here and there throughout the two volumes, that for him it is a path toward the Christian religion, as "Catholic Mystics" have understood that faith. He developed the same idea several years ago in his "Studies in Mysticism" wherein, on page 346, we may read to this end.

"Though I have described Masonry as the mirror of instituted initiation, it has been with no idea of transcendence, to which it is indeed without a title. It is the most proximate and available of the illustrations, and its reflection is fairly complete, as of great things by little. In its development it has never succeeded in completing the house which it set out to build, and it is only as something very far away that it recalls — in part by antithesis — that which is the mystery of all in exaltation, the nearest indeed of all, but the least comprehended. I suppose it is unnecessary to say that I speak of the one Master who was neither Hiram nor another; those who enter into the comprehension of this mystery and, in fine, of all that which is veiled by the symbolic resurrection of the first Easter morning, will have no need of Masonry or the other instituted systems...." (Hodder and Stoughton, 1906).

Brother Waite is a Christian in the manner in which any Mystic can be a Christian; and he believes that the Soul of Masonry is just that in it which, in its own manner, leads a man into the path of the Christian Mystic, or does in him and for him that which Christian Mysticism does. This is the thesis of the New Encyclopaedia.

It is a most difficult thesis to understand and to follow, especially if a reader has not already made himself somewhat at home with mysticism in general and Christian mysticism in particular; and the language in which it is expressed will confuse a man altogether unless he has mastered its patois. I recommend that before the uninitiated reader undertakes these two volumes he first try a course in reading Waite. He can begin with the articles that have appeared in THE BUILDER, especially those that have been published in pamphlet form and are now in our Monthly Book List. Thereafter he can undertake "Studies in Mysticism," the latter chapters of which present in connected form that which is the main contention sustained through the various articles of the Encyclopaedia. Next might come "The Hidden Church of the Holy Graal," and after that the two thick volumes of "The Secret Tradition in Freemasonry." At the last one should read and re-read "The Way of Divine Union," which is the author's greatest work, and his original contribution to the rapidly growing literature on Mysticism. Having become thus accoutered with Brother Waite's ideas and with some understanding of his vocabulary — which is of an extremely symbolical character — one may approach the Encyclopaedia prepared to read and to understand it and its thesis. Who is equal to these things? not many: and this fact is the principal handicap under which the Encyclopaedia will have to make its way. It is an encyclopaedia for the few, which is almost a contradiction in terms.

When one, thus equipped, reads through the interesting pages of these two volumes, he will discover the Encyclopaedia to be a controversial treatise designed to uphold a thesis by means of a series of articles arranged alphabetically. To my own way of thinking the thesis is not proved, and in the nature of things cannot be, but that is neither here nor there; the thesis is the key to the compilations and the articles, and it must be kept firmly in hand lest one misconstrue the work altogether.

Brother Waite believes that Freemasonry, save in its more external and less important sense, did not originate with medieval building guilds. Under the influence of Christianity in the West there became established a Secret Tradition, which consisted of a knowledge of the Way of Union with God held in custody by certain groups who transmitted to others from time to time and from generation to generation their living secrets. This was the "Church behind the Church," the power of the spirit that gave life to all churchly forms and ordinances, and preserved alive in a hostile world the clue of Christian living, and Christian knowledge of things Divine and Ineffable. At one place in its development this Tradition gathered into itself that form of Mysticism which had first developed among the Spanish Jews, known as Kabbalism. Some group or groups, or perhaps outstanding personalities, caught up the Masonic operative lodges and transformed them into vehicles whereby the Secret Tradition might be preserved and propagated.

"I know that the Secret Tradition in Israel has its vital side, that it came into the hands of Christian scholars, who adopted it to their Christian Purpose; and I believe that round about the year 1725 it was from the records of this scholarship that some one, other or several of Masonic literati drew material for ritual developments. They have been even in touch with one or two, who knew more than they on the traditional subject.... If ever we can take the Craft Legend behind the year 1717, it is my hope that we can reach a fuller light on Secret Doctrine in Masonry and its connection with that of Israel reviewed in the Light of Christ." (Vol. II, page 487.)

In dealing with the Third Degree he remarks (Vol. I, page 383): "As it stands before us and is worked now among us, after many processes of editing, it bears the seals of Christianity." On page 33 of the same volume he writes on a cognate theme, and to the same effect: "The Catholic scheme of Masonry in its root-understanding and in its upward growth from that root, as this will unfold in the Brotherhood with the help of those forces which are now at work in the world, is one at the root with the Church behind the Church, and will yet — as I hold — enter into one consciousness therewith." In other words, Masonry is essentially a system of Christian Mysticism, as understood in the sense of a Secret Tradition, and it consequently must be understood as having been created by such mystics in the beginning, who, for reasons of their own, concealed their identity; or else, having left records, these were lost, and remain so.

This thesis serves as a criterion whereby the author evaluated subjects and persons, and it explains why many things have been omitted, or quickly passed over, while others, less familiar to the Masonic student, are dwelt on at great length. One is surprised to find no articles on Gould, Speth, Crawley, Sadler, et al., whereas pages and pages are devoted to St. Martin and to Martinism, a subject not at all within the province of important Masonic research, as that term is usually understood. The explanation is simple; St. Martin has a high value from the point of view of the development of the thesis; the other literati — those usually considered among the masters — are deemed of little value. In Volume I (on page 279 ff.) there is an article on "First and Third Degrees"; when one inquires the reason for the very singular omission of the Fellow Craft rite the answer is forthcoming, and stands square with the all-dominating thesis: "I have headed this note with a reference to the First and Third Degrees, because the Second is after all nothing and leads of itself nowhere, neither to the Mysteries of Nature and Science nor yet to the Master Grade, as by any natural path or in virtue of any evidential development."

Many subjects are omitted on which one naturally expects light in a Masonic Encyclopedia. The apron is lacking altogether: it is not even mentioned in the Index: neither will one find anything about the square or the compasses. On Anti-Masonry — one of the themes of major importance to an American reader — there is nothing, except here and there a brief reference to such matters as the Leo Taxil fiasco. There is no article on the Ashlars. If one is looking for light on the interesting history of Cerneau or Cerneauism he must seek elsewhere. On Albert Pike there is a page: on Krause there is a paragraph: on Albert G. Mackey there is nothing. In a work of comprehensive reference the many omissions of which the few named are typical would be a distinct loss, and hard to explain: in the present work one may suppose that they have no value to the central purpose. The same explanation, perhaps, accounts for the editorial character of the articles, and the abeyance of facts where one most confidently expects them.

I have hinted above that Brother Waite is often hard to read. He himself has made a similar complaint in his "Studies in Mysticism," where, on page 337, one may find this sentence: "The gift of speaking or writing in unknown tongues used to be regarded as exceptional, but it seems rather common with the specialist, and he has a luckless habit of lapsing into it unawares." Alas and alack! the prophecy has come back to plague the prophet! The style of writing in The New Encyclopedia should be imitated by nobody, not even by Brother Waite himself. It is an involved cryptic manner with scores of obsolete words trailing after it: it stumbles into elliptical constructions; and it lends itself very easily to sarcasm.

If a reader has a love for American Masonry and an admiration for the great names of its history he will often wince while reading these two volumes. "The unholy rubbish which is met with from time to time in Masonic periodicals — those of America especially — is only a degree less stultifying than the Anti-Masonic gutter-press of the Continent until it was swamped by the War. I do not wish to be invidious, but the illiterate vaporings and ravings of writers like J.D. Buck — who has the plaudits of the Southern Jurisdiction per saeculas et aionas — is one case in point." Those sentences — they occur on page 37, of volume I, — are a little rougher than the paragraphs in which we (American Masons) are otherwise dealt with, but they may represent in a large way the general tone adopted by the author toward us and our heroes. We admit our shortcomings — Dr. Buck, perhaps, used to be one of them, though his is a rapidly fading name — but this is too summary a manner of disposing of them!

I may be permitted to state in this connection, and without interruption to a review that holds such matters as a part of its business, that we American Masonic students have a deeply-rooted reverence for the great men of English Masonic scholarship living and dead: but I submit — and this is informally addressed to those now living, among whom are personal friends who will read the words in the spirit in which they are written — that little, very little indeed, is known across the waters about the Masonic institutions on this side, or ever has been known.

Of all the Masonic institutions here flourishing the least understood among these trans-marine friends is, I believe, the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Why do they so often shy away from it as if it were something dangerous? I believe that Brother Waite himself would appraise it in an altogether different manner were he to live in the Rite for a year or two as we know it over here. The rituals revised by Albert Pike are one thing on paper: they are another thing in breathing and acting men, and flashing about the ears and eyes of a candidate; and he who has thus known them will experience a start of painful surprise to read on page 278, of volume II, these words: "No man had a greater opportunity and no one a freer hand when he (Pike) undertook to revise the rituals of the Scottish Rite, and he scored only failure. It would be hard and unnecessary to say that he never improved the originals: the case against him is that he reconstructed and did not change.... [He] lacked the spirit and the fire, the informing fire and the shaping spirit: the result is therefore that he has bequeathed us Pike's revision."

The New Encyclopedia, as I said in the beginning, is a controversial work to be read from first to last like any other treatise: there are references back and forth to weave the separate articles together, and there are hints and directions here and there to indicate that the author has expected the volumes to be thus read. But there are also a number of features of great value for reference purposes that reflect only credit on the author, whose immense erudition is everywhere in evidence. There are sixteen full page plates, and thirty illustrations in the text, all of fresh interest, an uncommon quality in Masonic illustrations, and all of these are carefully explained by the author, after the fashion employed in his "Secret Tradition in Freemasonry." There is a Technology of Rites and Grades, very useful to the novice; a very complete Masonic chronology; and an Index that borrows much value from the fact that the articles are neither titled nor arranged in a familiar manner.

This is a magnum opus to have been performed by one man, and reflects great credit on a name already illustrious, whatever may be chalked against it by way of shortcomings, and however groundless may prove the thesis that binds it all together: the core of the book is sound, and its spirit is salutary. Brother Waite has no more reverence for the fables of Freemasonry than for any other fables, and shouldn't have: he is militantly impatient with the mummeries of the Masonic pedantry that moves a mountain to prove the date of a manuscript, but stands helpless to breathe one breath of life into men, and he should be. Masonry is that which goes on in a man's soul under the influence of Masonic rites and practices: if the man have not a soul, or if nothing go on therein, all the rest is a mere fritinancy, signifying absolutely nothing, save self-deception and fraud.

H. L. Haywood.

* * *


We are constantly receiving inquiries from readers as to to where they may obtain publications on Freemasonry and kindred subjects not offered in our Monthly Book List. Most of the books thus sought are out of print, but it may happen that other readers, owning copies, may be willing to dispose of the same. Therefore this column is set aside each month for such a service. And it is also hoped — and expected — that readers possessing very old or rare Masonic works will communicate the fact to TUE BUILDER in behalf of general information.

Post office addresses are here given in order that those buying and selling may communicate directly with each other. Brethren are asked to cancel notices as soon as their wants are supplied.

In no case does TUE BUILDER assume any responsibility whatsoever for publications thus bought, sold, exchanged or borrowed.


By Bro. D. D. Berolzheimer, I Madison Ave., New York, N Y! "Realities of Masonry." Blake, 1879; "Records of the Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons," Condor, 1894; "Masonic Bibliography," Carson, 1873; "Origin of Freemasonry," Paine, 1811.

By Bro. G. Alfred Lawrenees 142 West 86th St., New York, N. Y.: Proceedings of the Scottish Rite Body founded by Joseph Cerneau in New York City in 1808, of which De Witt Clinton was the first Grand Commander, and which body became united, in 1867, with the Supreme Council of the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, A. & A. S. R. Also Proceedings of the Supreme Council founded in New York by De La Motta, in 1813, by authority of the Southern Supreme Council, of which he was Grand Treasurer-General, these Proceedings from 1813 to 1860.

By Bro. Frank R. Johnson. 306 East 10th St., Kansas City, Mo.: "The Year Book," published by the Masonic Constellations, containing the History of the Grand Council, R. & S. M., of Missouri.

By Brother Silas H. Shepherd, Hartland, Wisconsin: "Catalogue of the Masonic Library of Samuel Lawrence"; "Second Edition of Preston's Illustrations of Masonry"; "The Source of Measures," by J. Ralston Skinner 1875, or second edition 1894; "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum," volumes I to XI, inclusive; "Masonic Facts and Fictions," by Henry Sadler; "The Kabbalah Unveiled," by S. L. MacGregor Mathers.

By Bro. Ernest E. Ford, 305 South Wilson Avenue, Alhambra, California: "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum," volumes 3, 6 and 7, with St. John's Cards, also St. John's Cards for volumes 4 and 5; "Masonic Review," early volumes; "Voice of Masonry," early volumes; Transactions Supreme Council Southern Jurisdiction for the years 1882 and 1886; Original Proceedings of The General Grand Encampment Knights Templar for the years 1826 and 1836.

By Bro. George A. Lanzarotti, Casilla 126, Rancagua, Chile: All kinds of Masonic literature in Spanish. Write first quoting prices.

By Brother L. Rask, 14 Alvey St., Schenectady, N. Y.: "Remarks upon Alchemy and the Alchemists," by E. A. Hitchcock, Janesville, N. Y., about 1865; "The Secret Societies of all Ages and Countries," by C. W. Heckethorn; "Lost Language of Symbolism," by Harold Bayley, published by Lippincott; "Sacred Hermeneutics," by Davidson, Edinburgh, 1843; "Solar System of the Ancients Discovered," by J. Wilson, published by Longmans Co., London, 1856; "The Alphabet," by Isaac Taylor, Kegan, Paul, Trench & Co., 1883, or the edition of 1899 published by Scribners, New York; "Anacalypsis," by Godfrey Higgins, 1836, published by Longmans, Green & Co., London; "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum," any volume or volumes.

By Bro. J. H. Tatsch, Union Bank & Trust Co., Los Angeles, Calif.: Fascilus 2, "Caementaria Hibernica," by Chetwode Crawley; Volumes 1, 2, 5 and 8, Quatuor Coronati Antigrapha; "Some Memorials of Globe Lodge No. 23," Eenry Sadler; "Constitutions of the Freemasons," Hughan, 1869; "Numerical and Medallic Register of Lodges," Hughan, 1878; "History of the Apollo Lodge and the R. A., York," Hughan, 1894; any items on Anti-Masonry, especially tracts, handbills, posters, old newspapers, almanacs, etc., relating to Morgan incident, 1826-1840, and recurrence of same from 1870 to 1885.


By Bro. J. H. Tatsch, Union Bank & Trust Co., Los Angeles, Calif.: "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum," volumes 6 to 26, in parts as issued, with St. John Cards; "Masonic Reprints and Revelations," Sadler; "The Natural History of Staffordshire," Dr. Robert Plot, 1686, folio; "The History of Freemasonry," Robert Freke Gould, Yorston edition, 4 volumes; "History of Freemasonry in Europe," Emmanuel Rebold, 1867; "Bibliographie der Freimaurerischen Literatur," August Wolfstieg, 1911-13, two volumes and register, paper, as issued; "History of Freemasonry," Mackey, 7 volumes; "History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders," Hughan and Stillson; fascimile engraving Picard's "Les Franemassons," 1735, fine copy.

By Brother A. A. Burnand, 690 South Bronson Ave., Los Angeles, California: Various Masonic publications including such as a complete set of "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum"; "History of Freemasonry in Scotland," by D. Murray Lyon, (original edition); Thomas Dunckerley, Laurence Dermott, etc.

By Brother Frank R. Johnson, 306 East 10th St., Kansas City, Mo.. "History of Freemasonry," Mitchell, 2 volumes, sheep; "History of Freemasonry," Robert Freke Gould, 4 volumes, cloth, in good condition; "History of Freemasonry," Albert G. Mackey, 7 volumes, linen cloth, new; Addison's "Knights Templar," Macoy, 1 volume, cloth; "Museum of Antiquity," Yaggy, 1 volume, morocco; "History and Cyclopedia of Freemasonry," Macoy and Oliver, new, full morocco. Also miscellaneous books.

* * *


" 'There are other reasons why men shy at any suggestions that tend to influence them to become teachers.

" 'One reason for the laek of response in this matter is due to the popular conception of the teacher's job. Business men, particularly, seem to think that any fairly well educated man can teach. Many of these gentlemen go back to earlier years and remember that they earned money for college expenses by teaching. They were fortunate to get away with it. If those whom they taught learned much they were fortunate too. Of course some of these men were fairly good teachers.

"'But the mere fact that the opinion does prevail — that anyone can teach — belittles the profession. What real live man wants to tackle as a life job something that anyone can do? We are, unfortunately, inclined to accept such general opinions as representative. Men must be made to realize that teaching is a man size business. Popular opinion expressed broadcast is the only way to bring this about....

" 'A business man would resent having a public school teacher come into his office to tell him how to run his business. Teaching is a skilled profession. A teacher also resents incompetent suggestions from those who advise and comment merely as their opinion dictates. Men are needed as teachers who know their job and who know it well enough to protest against interference from those who have not taught. Men won't come back until they know they can be let alone to work out their own plans and ideas. They do not care to be obliged to follow the dictates of boys and girls and their parents....

" 'Teaching must be generally regarded as a high-class and honorable profession if men are to be attracted by it....

" 'Boys and girls of high school age and beyond, need contact with real men. This can be obtained only as public opinion desires. Public opinion can accomplish that which often, before its accomplishment, seems impossible. Public opinion can bring men back into the teaching profession.' "

— A Massachusetts Educator

M.S.A. Bulletin No. 8.

* * *


Dreams are they — but they are God's dreams,
Shall we decry them and scorn them?
That men shall love another,
That white shall call black man brother,
That greed shall pass from the market place,
That lust shall yield to love for the race
That man shall meet with God face to face —
Dreams are they all;
But shall we despise them — God's dreams?

Dreams are they — to become man's dreams;
Can we say nay as they claim us?
That men shall cease from their hating
That war shall soon be abating,
That the glory of kings and lords shall pale,
That pride of dominion and power shall fail,
That love of humanity shall prevail —
Dreams are they all;
But shall we despise them — God's dreams?

— Thomas Curttis Clark.

* * *


THE BUILDER is an open forum for free and fraternal discussion. Each of its contributors writes under his own name, and is responsible for his own opinions. Believing that a unity of spirit is better than a uniformity of opinion, the Research Society, as such, does not champion any one school of Masonic thought as over against another, but offers to all alike a medium for fellowship and instruction, leaving each to stand or fall by its own merits.

The Question Box and Correspondence Column are open to all members of the Society at all times. Questions of any nature on Masonic subjects are earnestly invited from our members, particularly those connected with lodges or study clubs which are following our "Bulletin Course of Masonic Study." When requested, questions will be answered promptly by mail before publication in this department.


I had an old uncle from Scotland who told me that he could remember that in Scotch taverns they sold a drink called "freemason's-drink." Perhaps somebody can inform me through your columns about this curious old beverage.

M.K.T., New Jersey.

Alas, such matters now belong to a vanishing time and all ye editors have been canvassed in vain for any information about what must have been a very appetizing — and apparently hypnotizing — concoction. To judge from one of our dictionaries, the proper name for your uncle's drink was "freemason's-cup": what it was like you can judge yourself from the prescription as given in the aforesaid dictionary. "A drink made of ale, especially Scotch ale, and sherry in equal parts, with the addition of some brandy, sugar and nutmeg."

* * *


I am inclosing a clipping from the "Cincinnati Enquirer" which gives a description of an organization of London crooks in which you will note the following sentence: "The secret of their appearance is the freemasonry which exists among the regular crooks of London." The question has arisen, are these crooks Masons or does the writer of the article wish to impress the reader of the mysterious manner in which a crook secures aid? F.A.T., Indiana.

In the "Literary Digest" for April 1,1922, page 36, you will find an article on "The Papacy's Program" in which occurs this sentence: "Pius XI belongs to the freemasonry of scholars and that is always a band of union." Is the present Pope a regular Mason? if so, in what lodge?

A.B., Kansas.

In both of the above quotations, the word "freemasonry" is used in a sense that has no reference whatsoever to our fraternity. The Century Dictionary gives as one of its definitions of the word, "secret or tacit brotherhood"; and in illustration of this use of the word gives the following quotation from a book by A. Rhodes: "There is a freemasonry extending through all branches of society in the quick comprehension of significant words." In connection with this, one is reminded of the famous couplet from Alexanders Pope's Dunciad," IV, 671:

"Some, deep freemasons, join the silent race,
Worthy to fill Pythagoras's place."

Pius XI is not a Mason.

* * *


Where do you find authority for giving the name "Adah" to Jephthah's Daughter?

T.E.McM., Arkansas.

Kenaston's "History of the Order of the Eastern Star," published by The Torch Press, 1917, has this to say on page 47: "The portion of the Bible upon which the theory of the first degree is founded points to Judges XI: 29-40. The impressive history of that excellent woman instructs us in obedience, the virtue of which is particularly cultivated in this degree, it being the degree of obedience or Jephthah's Daughter — called for want of any special name, Adah." So far as we are able to learn this is a true account of the matter. The name "Adah" was arbitrarily chosen for Jephthah's daughter, and has no special significance at all.

* * *


I am very much interested in Masonic symbolism and would appreciate receiving from learned brethren and through your columns some instructions regarding the meaning of Cable Tow, the Seafaring Man, The Embargo, Burial in Rubbish of Temple, Burial on Mt. Moriah, and of the reason for the dimensions of a certain grave. Answers to the above will be of interest to young Masonic students of which I am one.

B.B.J., Florida.

Will such readers as have thought about these matters come forth with their ideas? THE BUILDER has published a number of articles about the Cable Tow, as follows: Vol 1, Cor. Dept., page 276, Q. B. Dept., pages 215, 278; Vol. 2, Library Dept., page 155; Vol. 3, page 341, April CCB., page 6, December CCB., pages 4 and 5; Vol. 4, pages 238, 354, June CCB., page 4, Cor. Dept., page 310, Q. B. Dept., page 62.

* * *


Is it possible to secure a copy of The Dionysian Artificers by Da Costa? I see so many references to the work that I am curious to read it.

F.P., Washington.

The book itself is rare and next to impossible to buy. Fortunately for the Craft the book has been republished in monthly sections by The Montana Mason, of which Brother R. J. Lemert is editor. The series began with the issue of last November. Address The Montana Mason. Box 1572. Great Falls. Montana.

* * *


Will you please give me a list of modern books in English on the Ancient Mysteries? I should like such titles as one may easily find in any fairly complete public library.

R.H.S., Louisiana.

The list here given is not at all complete but it is representative and reliable. Any volume not in your public library can be obtained for you by your librarian from the Congressional Library at Washington, D. C.

Saint Paul and the Mystery-Religions, H.A.A. Kennedy; Kings and Gods, Moret; Mysteries, Moret; Paul and His Interpreters, A. Schweitzer; Religious Development Between the Old and New Testaments, R. H. Charles; The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, T. R. Glover; Religious Experience of the Roman People, W. W. Fowler; Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, Sir Samuel Dill; The Mysteries of Mithraism, Franz Cumont; Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, E. Jane Harrison; Oriental Religions, Franz Cumont; The Mysteries, Pagan and Christian, Cheetham; Cults of the Greek States, Farnell, vols. III and V; The Great Mother of the Gods, Showerman; Adonis, Attis, Osiris, J. G. Frazer; Isis and Osiris, Plutarch; The Burden of Isis, Dennis; The Realms of Egyptian Dead, Wiedemann; Light from the Ancient East, Deissmann; Thrice Greatest Hermes, Mead; Introduction to the Study of Religion, Jevons; Psyche, Rohde; The Gods of Greece, Dyer; Myth, Ritual and Religion, Andrew Lang; The Mystery Religions and the New Testament, Henry C. Sheldon; Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans, Cumont; The Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, F. Legge; The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Harnack; Studies in Mysticism, A. E. Waite; Christian Mysticism, Inge; Mithraism, Adams; Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, Thomas Taylor; Eleusinian Mysteries and Rites, Dudley Wright; Morals and Dogma, Albert Pike.

* * *


Why was not the sound of a hammer, ax, or anything of iron heard during the building of King Solomon's Temple?

H.D.A., Michigan.

The text on which your query is based is found in I Kings 6:7. "And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready at the quarry and there was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building." The usual explanation is taken to be the statement in the early part of the verse to the effect that the Temple was built of stones "made ready at the quarry." The Hebrew itself reads instead of quarry, "when it was brought away"; that is, at the place where the workmen were assembled, and consequently could apply to woodwork as well as to stone. Like every other statement concerning the building of the Temple this has been fertile in producing legends and myths, some of them of singular and great suggestiveness. Examples of such may be found on page 44 of Brother Dudley Wright's "Masonic Legends and Traditions," a book that may be heartily recommended to the student.

"The stones for the Temple were hewn in the quarry, and there carved, marked, and numbered. The timber was felled and prepared in the forests of Lebanon, and conveyed by floats from Tyre to Joppa. The metals were fused and cast in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredatha. The whole was then conveyed to Jerusalem; and when put together on Mount Moriah each part fitted with such perfect exactness as to make it appear like a work of the Supreme, rather than an exertion of human skill.

"One tradition says that the stones had been prepared with such perfect accuracy that when fitted together the joints could not be discovered:—

If on the outside I do cast my eye,
The stones are joined so artificially,
That if the mason had not chequered fine
Tyre's alabaster with hard serpentine,
An hundred marbles no less fair than firm,
The whole, a whole quar one might rightly term.

"There is a Jewish tradition that the stones were not so framed and polished by human art and industry, but by a worm called Samir, which God created for the purpose. They also state that the stones came to the Temple of their own accord, and were put together by angels. The word Samir (known in Masonic lore as the insect Sharmah) signifies a very hard stone that can be cut and polished to great perfection.

"It is asserted by the Rabbins that King Solomon received a secret from Asmodeus, an evil spirit, mentioned in the Book of Tobit, who had usurped his throne and afterwards became his prisoner. By the utilization of this he was enabled to finish the Temple without the use of axe, hammer, or metal tool; for the stone schamir, which had been presented to him by a demon, possessed the property of cutting any other substance as a diamond cuts glass."

* * *


Has Freemasonry ever had a foothold in Russia? If so, will it be possible for you to give me a little history of it? I am often wondering if Masonry will not grow there after the present unsettled conditions have passed away. My brother went to Russia as a Y worker and remained there in business. He thinks the country has a wonderful future.

D.R.C., Indiana.

Freemasonry existed in Russia early in the eighteenth century, Christopher Wren, according to a groundless tradition, having been one of its founders when he initiated Peter the Great into the Craft. It was in 1777, however, that Russian Masonry made its first great advance, for it was in that year that the Great Duke of Sudermania, who had accompanied Gustavus III, his brother, on a mission to Petrograd, lent his powerful influence to the movement. The English Grand Lodge chartered lodges in Russia early in the same century, only a few years after the Revival. In 1721 a Provincial Grand Lodge of Russia was founded, under the English Constitutions, and Captain John Phillips was made Provincial Grand Master. In 1776 the National Grand Lodge of Russia was formed, and in 1779 a rival grand body, propagating Swedish Masonry, also made its advent. When the anti-secret-society law was passed in 1782 Freemasonry was exempted, but in 1797 this same law was revised, and Paul I closed up all Masonic lodges. However, after the accession of Alexander in 1801 legal rigors were relaxed and many lodges resumed operations. But in 1822 the Czar issued a ukase forbidding all lodges to open at any time or anywhere. According to recent advices the ban has not get been removed, but such a step appears likely.

* * *



I am translating a truly remarkable letter that is due to the researches of our good friend, Oswald Wirth, editor of "Symbolisme" of Paris. I do not doubt that the mention of the word "church" to a Frenchman has necessarily a more Roman Catholic implication than it has to us and in that attitude I suggest it be read. The letter is unearthed from La Legitimité, No. 11, page 216, of November 1907, but the original is dated January 16, 1816, and was addressed by the Mayor of Marseilles, the Marquis de Montgraud, to Mr. John, the keeper of a restaurant on Vacon street, and in English runs about as follows:

"I am informed, Sir, that you have obtained some black tapestries or hangings which formed a part of the ornaments or equipment of the Scottish Lodge of this city.

"I shall be obliged to you for the loan to the city of these hangings that they may serve for the decoration of the Church of St. Martin, the twentieth of this month, the day fixed for the ceremony of the funeral service in commemoration of the death of Louis XVI.

"If, as I hope, you agree to my request, I beg of you to entrust these objects to Mr. Dufey, bearer of the present communication.

"Accept, Sir, my thanks in advance for your compliance."

One cannot, as a Scottish Rite Freemason, but be interested in this appropriation of the symbolical draperies of a Lodge of Perfection for use in a Roman Catholic Church during a Service of Sorrow. What a curious mixture from our present point of view is there of the apt and the inept of this certainly very peculiar instance!

Robt. I. Clegg, Illinois.

* * *


I think it would only be in justice to our brothers in Ireland for you through THE BUILDER to give some publicity to conditions as they exist over there at the present time, and also the cause of the trouble. A large number of the Masons in America do not know how conditions are in Ireland, neither do they know the real cause back of it all, and I think they should know.

George A. Anderson, Pennsylvania.

The above was accompanied by a letter from a personal friend of Brother Anderson now residing in Belfast. Except for the omission of two or three personal items it is here painted in full:

The condition of things over here has not improved very much of late, except that there are not so many shootings in our own city. The last new order issued which renders anyone liable to arrest who is not staying in his own home has done a great deal of good. All the shootings in Belfast are carried out by "gunmen" from the South and West. The difficulty was that the authorities would not put their hands on these men. When a raid was made on a house that was suspected and strangers found there, these strangers posed as friends or relatives up from the country on a visit. Now they can be arrested for identification. Genuine visitors can always avoid trouble by notifying the police beforehand. The result has been that most of the gunmen have left for fear of arrest.

But they have only changed their locality and still carry on in the South where Protestants are being murdered every day in one place or another. The Masonic Halls are being raided, and in many cases destroyed. The Grand Lodge premises in Dublin are at present in the occupation of the I. R. A. There was a curious result of that the other day. We were starting a new preceptory in Belfast in connection with our lodge and had applied for a warrant. Before the warrant could be issued the premises in Dublin had been seized, and all the forms were kept there. The Masonic authorities had to get a copy of the latest warrant issued, and from this they made a fresh copy all in the writing of the Grand officer. This warrant was used last Saturday and is in the possession of our Registrar.

The Masonic authorities here, for some reason or other, do not want to appeal to Freemasons outside or to make "political capital" of the seizure, but I think that it would be well if the Freemasons of America were freely told of the campaign that is going on against the Order in Ireland. Perhaps you could help a little in this in a quiet way among your own associates. There was one man, whom I know personally, who had a narrow escape in the recent murders in County Cork. He is a Methodist clergyman, and was in one of the houses that were visited. He escaped from bed in his night shirt and got away into the fields. It was the middle of April and the weather was very cold at the time. Three or four others were shot dead the same night. His brother is a member of my lodge, is Registrar of my chapter, and first Preceptor of the new preceptory. He is a past Provincial Senior Grand Warden of the Province of Antrim. That is the Masonic province of course, which is practically the same as the ordinary County of Antrim.

Yours sincerely,

W. J. Allen.

Brother Anderson enclosed a clipping from a Belfast paper of May 18th. It contains the description of a deplorable condition:

Recently one of the South of Ireland gun clubs issued a statement boasting that they were going to compel all Freemasons and Unionists in the "Free State" to supply food, clothing, and housing accommodation to Roman Catholic unemployed. Their fellow ruffians had for a long time been burning down Masonic and Orange Halls and persecuting Freemasons, along with other Protestants.

The continuance of these outrages, which there is no evidence to show the Free State forces now responsible for law and order ever tried to stop, has caused the Earl of Donoughmore, Most Worshipful Grand Master of Irish Freemasonry, to issue an order suspending all meetings of Masonic lodges in Southern Ireland.

Extensive cattle drives have taken place on lands held by Protestants in parts of Counties Kildare and Mayo, and threatening notices have been posted.

Heathfield, a large property in Ballyeastle, County Mayo, has been seized by a number of the Southern unemployable. The owner is a Protestant lady. She was given forty-eight hours to clear out.

Other gunmen have seized business premises and land at Belmullet, also in County Mayo. The owner in this case is a Protestant, too.

* * *

Irish brethren and members of the National Masonic Research Society have sent to THE BUILDER many newspaper clippings and letters similar to the above. Owing to limitations of space it is impossible to publish many of these communications, but our thanks go to these thoughtful brothers nevertheless. Meanwhile, there are other angles of the story, one of the most authentic of which is the following, and which explains itself. It was published in the LONDON FREEMASON, June 3rd, 1922.

To the Editor of The Freemason:

Dear Sir and Brother — I am glad to be able to inform you that Freemasons' Hall, Dublin, was yesterday handed back to me by the section of the Irish Republican Army, which has been in occupation since 24th April. I am also glad to say that the damage done has been very much less than we anticipated. The structural damage is very slight, and our lodge and chapter rooms, with their contents, have been respected. For instance, the magnificent Grand Lodge Room, with its splendid furniture and historic portraits, seems practically intact. Of course you will understand that it will be some time before the whole extent of the damage can be ascertained.

It is only right that I should say that during the whole period of the negotiations leading up to the evacuation I was treated with the greatest courtesy and sympathy by the Provisional Government, especially by Mr. Michael Collins, who was always ready to see me and do all in his power to help. I believe that if the existing Government were only firmly established, Irish Freemasons have nothing to fear in the future. The outrages have, in my opinion, been entirely the work of those criminal bodies which always spring into existence when a disturbed state of affairs exists in any country.

I do not believe there is any general hostility to the Order in Southern Ireland, nor do I believe that any feeling of the sort is encouraged by the Roman Catholic Church, which fully appreciates the difference between Irish Freemasonry and that carried on by the so-called Continental Grand Lodges, which reject our first and principal great Landmark, and consequently are not recognized by us. I must also say that the officers who were charged with the duty of handling over to me, treated me and my staff most courteously. Yours fraternally,

Claude Lane,
Deputy Grand Master of Ireland.

Grand Lodge of Freemasons of Ireland,
Dublin, 30th May, 1922.

* * *


There is a statement on page 187 of the June BUILDER which is not quite correct: "3. There is as much difference between the Church of England and the Greek Church as between the latter and the Roman Church." I have seen an Episcopal minister assist in the service of the Russian Church and the Russian priest assist in the Episcopal service. When the last Bishop of New York was consecrated the Russian Patriarch and several other clergy formed in the procession in their official robes. Such an interchange between the Roman and the Anglican churches would be inconceivable.

I am enclosing a letter from the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire on this subject.

Oscar C. Taylor, New Hampshire.

The letter referred to in the above is from Edward M. Parker, Concord, New Hampshire, Bishop of New Hampshire. It is in full as follows:

My dear Mr. Taylor:

It is not true to say that we are in full communion with the Orthodox Churches, for as yet nothing official has developed to make the statement entirely correct, but between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches there is the most cordial feeling of sympathy and fellowship, and there have been many acts of courtesy and recognition on both sides, and the move towards unity is growing on both sides. In many places in this country, where there are Orthodox Christians with none of their own clergy at hand, the people have been told by their Church authorities to look to the Episcopal Church for such ministrations as they need and cannot obtain from their own clergy. We have an occasional wedding or funeral, or even baptism performed by one of our clergy for some of the Greek or Russian Christians. The matter of full intercommunion, that is, freely receiving Orthodox Christians at our altars or the reception of the Blessed Sacrament by Anglicans at an Orthodox altar is a different matter. Until both Churches have made official proclamation of some sort, this cannot come. The recently elected Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletius, left this country to assume his high position full of the thought that it might be within his new power to promote full union between Anglican and Orthodox.

The Church of Rome has set herself like adamant against any thought of unity with the Eastern Churches and it unless they would accept in their fullness the papal claims. This the East will not do and we cannot do.

Faithfully yours,

Edward M. Parker, Bishop of New Hampshire.

The statement made in paragraph numbered three on page 187 of THE BUILDER of last June is based on the very best authorities, and was carefully considered. By "difference" was meant unlikeness, not that the two communions are in a feud.

* * *


In the June issue, page 186, you speak of John S. Wise, author of "Recollections of Thirteen Presidents," to the effect that "unless you are off the track," he was one time governor of Virginia. It was Henry A. Wise, the father of the author, who was governor of Virginia, to which office he was elected in 1855 on an "anti-Know Nothing" platform. If you will turn to page 56 of the above work you will find an account of the bitter juvenile warfare that waged in Richmond between John and the young Whig and Know Nothing hopefuls during his father's term as governor. Governor Wise was, like his son, a writer of some ability and published in 1872 a volume of reminiscences under the title "Seven Decades of the Union." This volume also is of some Masonic interest in that it gives some interesting side lights on the life and character of Brother Andrew Jackson, although Masonry is not mentioned. I wonder if Brother Baird can tell us if either of the Wises was a Mason?

B. W. Bryant, California.

Brother Baird, it is your turn. To the above items of information may be added the facts that it was during Governor Wise's term in office that John Brown made his raid, and that the Governors refused to reprieve the old enthusiast, though a vast deal of pressure was brought to bear upon him. Governor Wise was opposed to secession but nevertheless voted in favor of making Virginia a part of the Confederacy. He was made a brigadier-general in the Confederate army and was in more or less active service throughout the Civil War.

* * *


I was very much interested in the cuts of a Masonic Medallion found in Ireland, described by Brother Carson in the April number of THE BUILDER.

The reverse side of the medallion has the symbols of the Rose Croix and Royal Arch. As both these orders did not form part of organized Freemasonry till along about 1747, how can the medallion possibly be of the sixteenth century?

If the figures on the obverse are really 1516, with which I do not agree, they are either a date or the number of a lodge. I have shown that they cannot possibly be the date the medallion was carved. If they are a lodge number they must represent lodge 1516 of the English Constitution. But lodge 1516 of England was warranted in 1874 and removed from the roster in 1878, so bang goes the sixteenth century theory.

If you will examine the print in your issue thru a magnifying glass you will come to the conclusion that the figure 1 before the contended figure 6 is not carved but is a scratch. Remove this 1516 idea for a moment and examine it again having in mind that the two columns are represented and I think you will come nearer the truth and agree that what is intended are the letters B and J carved in a fancy style, the name of which I do not know. We know what those letters mean.

The figure above the sun and moon is doubtless intended for the all-seeing eye.

The X shaped figure at the immediate left of the sun is very possibly a rough attempt at a representation of two skirrets which are the working tools of a Master Mason in English working.

The object at the foot of the steps is undoubtedly intended to represent a coffin with a sprig of acacia at the head which is to be found on all tracing boards of the English working.

Why five steps? Those who know the English working recognize this as pertaining to the second degree. Maybe it is evidence that at that time the lodge to which the Masonic sculptor of the medallion belonged worked but two degrees, or more likely there is no particular significance to the five steps.

Turning to the reverse side we have in the triangle all the symbols of the Rose Croix. The winged figure is a rude attempt at a pelican. At the apex of the triangle we have an attempt at portraying a rose. Then there is the ladder, spear-head and chalice, all significant in English Rose Croix work which, unlike that of the A. & A. S. R., is decidedly orthodox Christianity. The "H" at the right hand corner I take to stand for Heredom. What the "I" stands for I cannot guess.

Below the triangle we have the letter "Z" within a square which we can guess stands for Zerubbabel. At the left is a defective attempt at the triple tau. To the right the "W" is possibly not a W at all but two triangles. The arch is the old one of the early days of the Royal Arch and is more like the arches of Enoch than the Royal Arch of Solomon.

Chevalier Ramsey is credited with introducing the Royal Arch degree, which many dispute, obtaining the idea from France where he became acquainted with the degree which is now the thirteenth of the A. & A. S. R. This depiction may be taken by some as evidence in that direction.

As to the letters round the triangle I guess these to be the name and title of the owner written in Latin. It matters little anyway.

It is stated the medallion is made of petrified oak. I would hazard a guess without seeing it that it is made of black bog oak, which is very hard, almost like ebony. It has probably lost much of its color through being buried.

From other facts, too lengthy to go into here I would put the age of the medallion as having been made around 1820.

(Brother Murray later sent a postscript to the above, which is given herewith.)

It may be that the figures are 156, representing a lodge number. Lodge 156 in the English Constitution is holden at Plymouth and was warranted in 1778. It has a Royal Arch Chapter attached to it. If this is the lodge, my guess as to the date the medallion was made would not be far out.

As to Lodge No. 156 in the Irish Constitution my records show it was stricken off the list a good many years ago, while such a number appears in recent list of lodges as being held at Belfast. Maybe a new lodge has been given a vacant number some time.

Ernest E. Murray, Montana.

* * *


I have been advised to write you by the Grand Secretary of Montana, and by Brother Bell, Secretary of Lodge No. 29, Billings, Montana. I am trying to locate my father, Patrick Collins. He was made a Mason in Fall River, Kansas, in 1886. Soon afterwards he demitted to Oklahoma. If any brother knows of his whereabouts please notify me. Matt Collins, 607 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana.

* * *

Ability is of little account without opportunity.

— Napoleon I.