The Builder Magazine 

April 1918 - Volume IV - Number 4 


THOMAS J. SHRYOCK: AN APPRECIATION 

BY BRO. JOHN H. COWLES, 33d ACTIVE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Many times we have heard expressions of wonderment on the part of Masons living in 
other Grand Jurisdictions because of Brother Shryock's long term of service as Grand 
Master of Maryland. It was our privilege to be personally acquainted with him and to be 
numbered among those who loved him. To such there was no need to make inquiry 
regarding these years of service In every office to which he was elected in Masonry, he 
served with a superb capacity, but it was the spirit in which he served that caused him to 
be universally loved. As in life, so in death, many charities and benevolences will have 
cause to remember his generosity and broadmindedness. His most typical expression 
was that "the word 'can't' is not in my dictionary" - a phrase which easily sounds the 
keynote of his ability as an executive. His character, energy and kindly spirit mark him 
as the most unique, if not the most prominent Masonic character of this generation. 


EDITOR 


THOMAS JACOB SHRYOCK, Grand Master of Maryland, was serving his thirty- 
second year in that official position when called by the Grim Reaper, February third, 
1918, and the Masons of Maryland were so pleased and satisfied with his 
administration that the chances are he would have served many more years. 


This is the record for length of service as Grand Master of any Grand Body of Masons 
in the United States. His administration of Masonic affairs in Maryland has been 
wonderfully successful. Not long after he was first elected Grand Master, fire destroyed 
the Temple, but it was rebuilt, and a few years ago, fire again destroyed the Temple and 
it was again rebuilt. The new Temple is one of the most beautiful and complete 
Temples in the United States. In each case Grand Master Shryock was appointed 



chairman of a committee of one to rebuild the Temple destroyed by fire. The finances 
of the Grand Lodge have been especially well managed, deeply in debt at one time, 
with its credit almost gone, he and his brother William H. Shryock, financed the Grand 
Lodge, restored its credit and today the new Temple is almost paid for, and the per 
capita may be reduced. 


The Grand Lodge of Maryland has no Masonic Home, so the Grand Lodge contributes 
to many Protestant Hospitals and Homes, and engages in welfare work, and contributes 
liberally to charity. 


Grand Master Shryock endorsed the Liberty Bond issues strongly and the Masons of 
Baltimore alone invested nearly eight hundred thousand dollars in them. The Masons of 
Maryland have also given about fifteen thousand dollars to the George Washington 
Masonic National Memorial Association. 


The wonderful success, the splendid harmony and the good works of the Masons in 
Maryland are mostly due to his excellent leadership. He was genial, kindly courteous, 
affable, and approachable, for he was truly democratic. These virtues, added to his 
executive ability, have given the Masons of Maryland the most concrete and perhaps 
best government of any Grand Lodge. The Masons of Maryland at least were satisfied, 
and no doubt rightly so, for they preferred to keep one good Grand Master in the 
harness rather than to indulge in frequent changes. 


Grand Master Shryock was bom in Baltimore, February 27, 1851, of Prussian descent, 
and his great-grandfather was Lieutenant Colonel in the Sixth Battalion, Maryland Line, 
in the Revolutionary war. On the visit of Lafayette to Alexandria in 1824, General 
Shryock's mother, then a little girl and daughter of Thomas Shields, a Mason and 
member of Brooke Lodge No. 147 of Alexandria, Virginia, and Washington 
Encampment No. 1, Knights Templar, of Washington, D.C., was selected to recite a 
childish welcome to Bro. Lafayette, on the occasion of a Masonic parade in honor of a 
visit of the great Frenchman to Washington. Two Lodges formed the parade - 
Alexandria- Washington Lodge No. 22, of which Washington had been Master, and 
Brooke Lodge No. 147. 



The General, as he was familiarly called by his intimate friends, was active in other 
branches of Masonry. He was Treasurer General of the Supreme Council, 33d Ancient 
and Accepted Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A., Sovereign Grand Inspector 
General in Maryland, Grand Treasurer of the General Grand Chapter, R.A.M., of the 
United States, President of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial 
Association, Past Grand High Priest of the Grand Chapter of Maryland, Past Grand 
Master of the Grand Council, Past Grand Commander of the Grand Commandery, and 
was an honorary member of so many Masonic Bodies in this country and Europe that it 
would make this sketch too long to name them. 


In politics he was a Republican and had the distinction of being the only Republican 
who ever held the office of Treasurer of the State of Maryland. He was Brigadier 
General on the staff of Gov. Henry Lloyd, which gives him the title, General, that 
thousands of friends lovingly called him by. He served one term as Police 
Commissioner of Baltimore, and at the time of his death was a member of the Sewerage 
Commission of that city. He was president of the Lumber Company that bears his 
name, President of the Iron Mountain and Greenbrier Railroad, Director of the Second 
National Bank, Consolidated Gas and Electric Light & Power Company, Chesapeake 
and Potomac Telephone Company, Bell Telephone Company, and other coiporations. 
Was also Treasurer of Springfield State Hospital, and President Board of House of 
Reformation for Colored Boys. It takes a busy man to do things, hence his life was full 
of service. All who came in contact with him loved him, and it is impossible to describe 
the affection and veneration that all Masons in Maryland have had for him, or to 
measure in words the loss which they now feel. 




CAN WE BUILD A REAL UNIVERSAL MASONRY? 


BY BRO. JOSEPH W. NORWOOD, KENTUCKY 



SOME HOPEFUL WORLD MOVEMENTS TENDING TO MASONIC 
SOLIDARITY 


Some two years ago Brother Norwood established LIGHT as an international Masonic 
Newspaper. Under his able edit direction a staff of correspondents has been built up 
for the purpose of obtaining first-hand information concerning Masonic activities in 
all States and Countries. Through this channel Brother Norwood has come in touch 
with the various Masonic systems and Rites throughout the world, and has gathered 
from them something of their hopes and aspirations, their national characteristics and 
their efforts in their own Countries in behalf of the welfare of humanity. 


This article is a review of Masonic activities throughout the world at present, 
presenting a bird's-eye view of possibilities which should be of real value to our 
American Masonic leaders. We express no opinion as to the correctness of Brother 
Norwood's conclusions, but present them for reflection and as a basis for discussion. 


Editor 


SOME years after I had been made a Mason, a member of another Lodge introduced 
to me an Italian brother who desired to visit my Lodge. I examined his diploma, 
questioned him closely, received the grip and word and satisfied myself that he 
belonged to a regular Italian Lodge. 


But my own Grand Lodge had made it impossible for this Italian Mason to visit or 
communicate with us Masonically. Reflection convinced our Master, as it convinced 
me, that Freemasonry was greater than Grand Lodge violations of "the ancient 
principles," so we allowed this brother to visit us but did not advertise the fact. 


This incident led to an investigation as to why Kentucky Masons were forbidden to 
recognize Masons belonging to Lodges in Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, 



Holland, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Servia, Hungary, Mexico, Brazil, 
Argentine or any of a dozen or more other jurisdictions whose members had been 
taught to believe they were members of one universal family. 


Further investigation developed the fact that while American Masonic Grand Lodges 
generally recognize English-speaking Masonry of all countries, they recognize no 
other; that there are really three other great groups of Masonic jurisdictions, 
concerning which our American Masonry knows practically nothing and seems to 
care less. These are Latin-speaking, Teutonic, and Scandinavian Masonry. 


Therefore it appeared as though myself and others had been misled when, after 
initiation, we were told that we were then Master Masons, and as such entitled to visit 
Lodges all over the world and that Masonry which regards all men as brothers, was 
universal. 


It took me some time to realize that Masonry, or rather the Spirit of Masonry, and the 
Masonic Organization were two entirely different things. The former is the only thing 
"universal" about the "world brotherhood." 


So when, two years or more ago, I determined to devote my entire time and energy to 
the establishment of a medium through which American and English speaking 
Masonry could keep constantly in touch with the activities of the rest of the Masonic 
world, regardless of the question of recognition or ritual, this question of why German 
Masonry, for instance, was "regular" and recognized in New York and quite the 
reverse in Kentucky, was naturally uppermost in my mind. 


THE BEGINNING OF DISINTEGRATION 


Through correspondence and actual investigation, I learned a great many things about 
that "why." Here are some of them: 



Before the days of railroad, telegraph and cable, it was true that a Freemason in an 
American Lodge could congratulate himself on affiliation with an organization that 
recognized a brother Mason the world over. This happy condition obtained practically 
everywhere until after our Civil War. 


The first rift in the lute was the severance of relations between American and English 
Masonry on the one part and French Masonry on the other. American Masonry 
severed relations with France over a question of ritual and jurisdiction. France had 
recognized a spurious Cemeau body in Louisiana* which had invaded the jurisdiction 
of the Grand Lodge of that state. Years after France discovered her mistake and 
withdrew the recognition. However the harm had been done. 


In the meanwhile English Masonry was horrified by the action of the French Orient in 
reverting to the original English Charge, which paid no attention to any religion save 
that in which all good men are agreed, and in removing the Christian and all other 
Bibles from the Masonic altar so there might be no contention among members as to 
creed. 


The English Masons cut off relations with France as a godless and atheistic body. 
America had already severed connections and felt justified in continuing the status 
quo because of this "terrible" act. Gradually most of the world did likewise and France 
was thereupon stigmatized the world over as "atheistic" despite its denial and the fact 
that time and again it explained why a Protestant Grand Master and Christian minister 
did this thing, and that the Lodges upheld him. 


HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN TO THE INITIATE? 


It has taken just forty years of time, and this war, to bring us to realize how far 
disintegration has gone. The craft as a whole is just beginning to understand through 
an awakened press— through being brought face to face with actual conditions as they 



exist today, that the Spirit of Suspicion, of Intolerance, of Provincialism, has been 
substituted for the Spirit of Brotherly Love and Relief. 


Here are some examples of facts and conditions that no amount of sophistry or 
theology on the part of the orthodox can satisfactorily explain to the newly made 
Mason who was led to the door of our "Men's House" by a favorable opinion of our 
institution gathered from the record of past glories and achievements. Practically 
every Masonic jurisdiction in the world is recognized by one or more American Grand 
Lodges —but not by all. 


* At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana held February 4, 5 
and 6, 1918, fraternal relations were resumed with the Grand Orient of France. 


American Grand Lodges have no means of taking uniform action concerning 
anything vital to the life and spirit of the craft. There is neither uniformity of work, 
ritual nor action. What is "good Masonry" in one state is so under suspicion in another 
that without a catalog of regular Lodges, mere oral examination no longer suffices to 
determine a brother's status as a Man and Mason. 


Some states authorize cipher rituals, while others condemn them as violations of the 
"ancient landmarks." There are innumerable lists of "landmarks," scarcely two of 
them alike, and legislation is based upon these supposed lists. 


The doors have been thrown wide open to the invasion of various clandestine bodies 
calling themselves Masonic, which absorb material from other countries which we fail 
to "recognize." Yet we complain of the invasion of our jurisdiction by these foreign 
Grand Lodges when they establish their own regular language Lodges among us to 
meet this very clandestinism, and thereby widen the breach. 



Our foreign correspondence committees have largely been composed of brethren who 
seemingly have a contempt for any language they cannot read, and who have in some 
cases actually spent their official lives discovering reasons why we should not 
recognize foreign Masonry rather than reasons why we should. 


In only too many cases of record, such committees depend upon like committees in 
other states for their information concerning this suspicious foreign Masonry. And 
while the blind are leading the blind, they hearken to the alleged tales of Masonry in 
politics and atheistic practices from the very persons and organizations whose life 
work is to destroy Freemasonry and all its fruits. Naturally information from such 
sources cannot be relied upon— but we have been relying upon it without either 
examining our own shortcomings or taking the trouble to give our brethren a hearing. 


INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS FOR SOLIDARITY IN EUROPE 


But there is another side to this picture that is distinctly encouraging. 


Some years ago, Past Grand Master Ed. Quartier La-Tente, of Switzerland, 
established his International Masonic Bureau for Masonic Affairs at Neuchatel. This 
Bureau began the laborious task of gathering and disseminating first-hand information 
concerning Freemasonry of all countries, rites and jurisdictions. It gained the 
adherence of Latin and Teutonic Masonry and the respectful interest of British, and 
some American, Grand Lodges before the war temporarily suspended its activities. 


Later, during the war, its work was approved by the Grand Lodge of Switzerland and 
was resumed under the direction of Bro. La-Tente and a committee of officers. It is 
now, besides gathering data, conducting a Bureau for the exchange of Masonic and 
other prisoners of war, for finding lost Masons and relieving various other distresses. 



But German Masonry, under the iron heel of autocracy had to sever relations with the 
Bureau as well as with the Masons of enemy countries and the entente cordiale 
between French and German, and English and German Masonry which it was 
bringing about just before the war has been disrupted for the time. Nevertheless this 
International Bureau stands today with hands outstretched to all bodies, urging 
solidarity of world Masonry. 


For a number of years International Masonic Congresses have been held by European 
continental Masonry in Switzerland, Holland and France, and these have done much 
to bring about something of unity of thought and action. The latest of these 
Congresses met last June in Paris, with French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Servian, 
Belgian and some other scattering bodies represented, and drew up a Peace Program 
strikingly similar to that later advocated by President Wilson and the Allied 
governments in this war. This program represented only the Masonic opinion of that 
Congress, but was officially communicated to all governments as a suggestion— a 
pattern. 


The French Grand Orient, Dr. Magelhaes Lima, recently Grand Master of Portugal, 
and the late Dr. Miguel Morayta, Grand Master of Spain, were strong advocates of a 
Latin-Masonic Union in Europe and their work has borne fruit within the past two 
years in bringing about a virtual solidarity of Latin Masonry on the continent. One of 
the splendid accomplishments of this propaganda has been the settlement of 
differences between the rival Masonic Grand Bodies of Italy, and their recent union 
(last November) under Grand Master Ernesto Nathan. The actual organization of a 
Latin Union, however, has not yet been accomplished but is anticipated as the first 
step toward a greater sympathy and solidarity with other racial Masonic groups after 
the war. 


EFFORTS OF LATIN AMERICA 


A similar series of International Masonic Congresses has been held in South America 
for the Latin Masons of the central and southern portions of this continent, generally 
in Brazil or Argentina. And a like project for a Latin-Masonic Union of American 



Masons is under way and will be discussed at the next Congress to be held in Buenos 
Aires, May 25, this year. 


Few of the American Grand Lodges recognize any of these American Latin bodies 
save Costa Rica, Cuba and Porto Rico, all in the West Indies. Peru is recognized by a 
few jurisdictions because about twenty years ago there was some agitation there over 
removing the Bible from the altar, which the Grand Lodge refused to do, thereby 
winning the recognition of a few American Grand Lodges as a "reward." 


Louisiana has made somewhat of a specialty in first-hand investigation and because of 
her Latin sympathies and understanding of Latin Masonry, has gone further than any 
other American Grand Lodge in recognition of Masonry in Central and South 
America. 


Massachusetts within the last two years has recognized the Grand Lodge of Panama 
after investigation by a special committee and because of an amiable disposition to 
agree upon jurisdiction in the Panama Canal Zone. 


But the largest and most energetic Masonic jurisdictions remain a closed door to 
American Masonry, largely through indifference and ignorance. 


THE 40,000 MASONS OF BRAZIL 


Brazil, for example, the most powerful of South American bodies, is doing Masonic 
work of which no American Grand Lodge would be ashamed and which indeed none 
of them have equaled. Yet it is "unrecognized." 


Brazil not only supports its Masonic widows and oiphans in much the same fashion as 
do the Grand Lodges of the United States, but in the midst of hostile environments- 



conducts night and day schools for young and old regardless of creed or politics; 
devotes large sums to its own and other charities and relief work; makes its Masonic 
Temples homes and places of refuge for the distressed, and carries into the savage 
wilds of that immense country the spirit of progress and civilization as no other 
human force can do or has done. 


It was the direct interposition of Brazilian Masonry, through its actual Grand Master, 
Dr. Nilro Pecahna, now Minister of foreign affairs, that nipped in the bud the efforts 
of Imperial Germany to swing Brazil, and with her all South and Central America, 
into line against the United States when it declared war on Germany. 


Dr. Pecahna and his Masonic brothers have done more to educate our Latin- American 
neighbors in an understanding of that American brotherhood which the United States 
wishes to evolve through the Pan American Congress, than any other association of 
thinkers on this hemisphere. And from Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela and 
other South and Central American Countries, Freemasons are constantly writing to 
LIGHT advocating closer union and the cementing of, not only fraternal, but social 
and commercial, relations. 


Of this Latin Masonry, Cuba is best known to America as it is generally recognized 
because of our close contact with its people during the Spanish- American war. 


Grand Master Curbelo of Cuba is a most ardent advocate of the Latin-Masonic Union 
and in his enthusiasm a year ago addressed all the North American Grand Lodges 
suggesting that there be a Federation of the Masonry of both North and South 
America, to be expressed through a friendly Congress. No attention was paid his 
fraternal suggestion save by the Grand Lodge of Michigan which flatly refused to 
consider it! 


AMERICANIZING THE PHILIPPINES 



In the Philippines American Masonry established itself immediately after the Spanish- 
American War and later erected a Grand Lodge, wholly American in character and 
utterly unable to fraternize with the native Filipino and Spanish Masons under the 
jurisdiction of the Spanish Grand Orient. 


The serious positions of Masons in those islands where but recently the church and 
State were united, and Freemasons were shot to death for the crime of being 
Freemasons, made some action imperative. And within the past year the American 
Grand Lodge has solved this problem by taking into its bosom twenty eight of these 
Spanish Lodges and chartering others, so that in a single day the Philippines were 
unified. One of the recent additions to regular Philippine Masonry is Brother Emilio 
Aguinaldo, former leader of his people against Spanish rule and then against the 
misunderstood Americans. 


Under wise and skillful leaders our brethren of the Philippines have planted Masonry 
in the very Temple of Heaven in Peking, China; in Japan and other places in the 
Orient, carrying with them the true spirit of Liberty through love and co-operation and 
stilling the turbulent unrest of ignorance through education. 


THE MASONIC OSTRICH OF MEXICO 


In Mexico, the sad spectacle of a split in the Valle de Mexico during the revolution 
has brought the York Grand Lodge, purely American in character, into almost general 
recognition in place of the original Grand Lodge. It is greatly to be regretted that the 
American brethren, in their efforts to prove their regularity, have constantly denied the 
existence of any other Masonry in Mexico save their own, for despite their denials 
some ten Mexican native Grand Lodges continue to flourish, including the Valle de 
Mexico. These are mostly in fraternal relation and co-operation with Central and 
South American Masonry who have found it difficult to understand why their 
American brothers withdrew sympathy from them in time of need. 



So here again is an opportunity for readjustment and understanding that may afford 
the York Grand Lodge organization the chance to accomplish what the Philippine 
Grand Lodge did, when passions and prejudices have been overcome. For by the 
returns furnished LIGHT from these native Mexican Lodges their membership is two 
to three times that of the York Grand Lodge. 


FOUR RACIAL GROUPS 


1. Taking a bird's-eye view of Freemasonry outside the pale of present American 
recognition we find Teutonic Masonry (Germany and Austria-Hungary) voluntarily 
cut off from English-speaking and Latin Masonry. But they still maintain relations 
with Scandinavian Masonry (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) in which two Kings are 
Grand Masters and the most learned men of the country are leaders as well as 
students. 


These three neutral countries are the great peace center of Europe so far as Germany 
is concerned, and here are centered the hopes of the German people for peace. It was 
the king of Sweden, Grand Master of Masons, who surrendered half his kingdom 
rather than "see brother slay brother" and from the Nobel Prize Awards to the 
encouragement of all peace propaganda, the Spirit of Freemasonry is nowhere more 
powerful than in Scandinavia, recognized by all the world save some American 
jurisdictions. 


2. Latin Masonry in Europe and Latin Masonry in America have common ideals and 
aims and are now virtually consolidated. The European Masonic Congresses are 
frequently attended by American Masons of Latin jurisdictions. 


3. English-speaking Masonry is generally recognized by America and in turn 
recognizes many jurisdictions not generally recognized by America, such as Egypt. 



This being so, could not a Master's touch bring them all together for united effort in 
rebuilding the world after this war? 


I believe that it can— and that it will! 


America can supply that Master touch. Will she do it? 


AMERICA MUST BRING MASONIC WORLD TOGETHER 


There are the elements of a great renaissance for world Freemasonry in America 
today. 


The "get together" movement has not only unified Italian Masonry but that of 
Argentine within recent months. 


We have our Grand Masters' Conventions, Grand Secretaries' Guild, and various state 
Past Grand Masters', Masonic Veterans', Masters' and Wardens' Associations which 
have brought about a general desire in the rank and file of the craft for united action. 


But we have no general advisory body such as England's United Grand Lodge which 
guides the destinies of as many (or more) "Provincial and District Grand Lodges" as 
we have State Grand Lodges. Or the Grosser Logenbund of Germany with its eight 
independent Grand Lodges and Rites working in absolute harmony. Or the national 
Grand Orients and Councils of Latin countries which unify the work and studies of 
otherwise conflicting Rites. 



Yet we have the International Masonic Relief Board of the United States and Canada, 
including Cuba and Costa Rica to which all but one or two of our Grand Lodges 
adhere. 


We have the Masonic War Relief Association which all our American Grand Lodges 
are now supporting and which extends its aid to our Brother Masons of other countries 
regardless of questions of recognition and Grand Lodge legislation. 


We have our National Masonic Research Society whose researches and labors are 
now encouraged and applauded by all jurisdictions. 


We have our George Washington Masonic National Memorial Association whose 
worthy purpose of preserving to posterity the true record of how and by whom the 
American ideal of Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood was given expression in the 
building of this Republic as a great Temple of Humanity, has received almost 
universal approbation. 


Are these four great National activities of American Masonry not the forerunners of 
still greater works of co-operation and unity? Are they not expressions of the craft 
desire for united and virile action? May they not become the foundation of some such 
plan for united action, for Grand Lodge co-operation in all the branches of Masonic 
endeavor, as crystallized in Bro. George L. Schoonover's proposal for a National 
Council for Masonic Defense ? 


SOME SIGNS OF THE TIMES Those to whom such ideas do not appeal would do 
well to reflect upon "the signs of the times" showing the temper and desire of the craft 
at large, outside books of ancient history and beyond the meaningless beauties of 
oratory concerning patriotism and democracy and brotherhood so convincingly 
expressed by after dinner speakers and Grand Masters at cornerstone layings. 



These brethren have so long been accustomed to tell us what Freemasons 
accomplished in the Revolution, what they did in humanity's battles for freedom and 
education, how they stand like the rock of Gibraltar for the spirit of Americanism, for 
the public schools, for religious toleration and for this, that or the other thing of the 
past, that they have perhaps not realized how sincerely their hearers believe it all to be 
true and demand the same action of Freemasonry today as they are told it took in the 
past. 


Such glorious speeches as fill the days of every Grand Lodge communication, every 
Masonic banquet or cornerstone laying, may be delivered by their owners in part 
payment for the honors bestowed upon them. But they either mean much or nothing. 


If Freemasonry really champions universal brotherhood, it is the duty of all 
Freemasons to work unceasingly for that ideal and all that it implies. 


The Great War has brought us at last face to face with a singular phenomenon in 
American Masonry. 


No set of men on this earth have so gladly and so willingly rushed to lay down their 
fortunes and their lives if need be, that the whole world may henceforth be free— rid of 
autocratic rule and the divine right of individuals to say what the rest of mankind shall 
say, do and think. 


In the columns of Masonic news for the past year, since America has been in this war, 
we find such little human touches as the first American killed in action abroad, a 
Freemason; a Grand Master of Scottish Rite Masonry giving up his law practice and 
with his brother going to Paris with the Y.M.C.A. workers only to have his heart so 
wrung by the tragedies left on that land in the bloody path of military autocracy that 
he and his brother felt they must get into the trenches where they are now fighting the 
battle of humanity as simple privates; a Grand Orator raising a company of soldiers 
among his brethren and offering them to his government for the great sacrifice. 



I have heard the burning words of brother Masons in khaki, both officers and privates, 
when they were bidding good-bye to all they held dear, in the full expectation of 
laying down their lives for their brothers across the seas; have read the solemn, 
earnest exhortations of French, English and American Masons serving their country at 
home and at the front. I know the exalted spirit of these men of the rank and file. They 
are laying down their lives and giving their all for brotherhood. Have they not a right 
to demand of us and of our Grand Lodges that we make their dreams come true in fact 
as well as in theory ? 


What a travesty on Freemasonry that we lay down our lives for Masonic ideals and 
yet haggle over petty questions of jurisdiction and recognition and regularity— matters 
of opinion separating brothers who have sworn a brotherhood that disregards opinion 
and rests upon love and knowledge alone ! 


We can be brothers in arms and die for each other. But we cannot be Masons and live 
for each other. Separated in life, united in death. 


RECOGNIZING FRANCE AGAIN 


How the real Spirit of Freemasonry swept aside as chaff all passion and, prejudice of 
the past, all puerile legislation and red tape of criticism, and brought only Masonic 
love to the front in this great world crisis, will forever go down in deathless story of 
Freemasonry in New York, California, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Rhode Island, 
Louisiana, and probably other states to follow, when posterity writes the history of 
these times and how those states made it possible for their soldier Masons to meet 
their French, Belgian and Servian brothers upon the Masonic level as well as in the 
trench. No matter if dogmatic religion once more climbs into the saddle after the war, 
the story of the present can never die. 



When Texas recognized France, fully 75 per cent, of the delegates to that Grand 
Lodge had sons or grandsons in the Army or Navy of the United States. The great 
ideal of brotherhood came home to them as it did to their forefathers who placed the 
five points of fellowship star on the Texan flag and laid down their lives for the 
freedom of the present generation. Those men pledged every dollar and every drop of 
their blood in this war for human liberty and their worthy successors have done 
precisely the same thing in a resolution that will go ringing down the ages with those 
other great Masonic documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Social 
Compact. 


When Kentucky recognized France she was decidedly not carried away in a whirlwind 
of emotion and sentiment. She appointed an official committee to gather first-hand 
data concerning all the Freemasonry in the world so that she might calmly and 
deliberately investigate for herself and find cause, if any exists, why the entire 
Masonic world cannot recognize itself, ft will possibly take two years to complete 
these statistics and so arrange them that they may be intelligently compared and 
analyzed. In the meanwhile Kentucky Masons occupy the most enviable position in 
the American brotherhood, for they are free to fraternize with their brothers in every 
country in the world. 


Massachusetts, Manitoba, Louisiana, Florida and other states are seriously debating 
similar investigations. The spirit of Fraternity will no longer be denied nor will it 
longer hearken to the dry, dead voices of rumor and the gossip of its enemies. 


WHY NOT A MASONIC CONGRESS IN AMERICA? 


Brethren, America stands on the threshold of a New Age for this old world and 
American Freemasonry looks through the portals and finds the hands and voices and 
eyes of the new generation to be turned toward us, imploring our love, our sympathy, 
our leadership. Shall we be recreant to our trust? 



A single Masonic Congress of American Masonry will mobilize a mighty army nearly 
2,000,000 strong in the United States which can make the revival of Freemasonry of 
two hundred years ago seem like an infant's effort in comparison. We are rightfully 
leaders of the constructive forces that must be utilized to rebuild the ravages of war. 


Were the 1,851,972 American Freemasons to unite upon any one plan of action the 
944,639 other Masons in the world would gladly join with us. As shattered Europe 
looks to America today for its salvation, so do our brother Masons look for us to lead 
the way to the work on the new Temple. 


We are the greatest Fraternal nation in the world. Here are the statistics of world 
Masonry January 1 of this year: 


Australia and New Zealand 69,353 Africa 2,450 

Central America 18,893 Canada 1 14,402 Europe 

(including colonial) 693,869 South America 55,672 


Total outside U.S 944,639 


Almost a million more Masons in this country than in all the rest of the world! And 
yet we have only a little more than 4,000 Lodges the advantage, for in foreign 
countries where Masonry has to struggle for its very existence against forces from 
which we are happily free, it is quality rather than quantity for which they strive. 
Therein lies safety. 


Because of the recognition by some of the wisest of our national statesmen that 
America was built upon Brotherhood and is indeed the greatest fraternal nation in the 
world, our fraternal forces are even now being utilized quietly and effectively to weld 
our peoples into presenting a united front in this war that has astounded and mystified 



our enemies who imagined a free republic would crumble to bits in a conflict of 
creeds, politics and races at such a test as this. 


HOW OUR FRATERNAL FORCES ARE BEING MOBILIZED BY UNCLE SAM 


Food Commissioner Herbert Hoover was the first to avail himself of this powerful 
constructive agency by calling together a congress of all the national heads of our 
many fraternal organizations. There were no national heads or representatives of 
united American Masonry. Some Grand Masters of states attended and many 
individual Masons. 


But there were national heads of the two Scottish Rite jurisdictions, of Knights 
Templar, of Royal Arch Masons and Cryptic Masonry. And there were national heads 
of every other organization from the Woodmen and Foresters to the Knights of 
Columbus. 


A great Mason was chosen chairman of that Fraternal Congress, Bro. George Fleming 
Moore, the Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite of the Southern Jurisdiction, whose 
power extends throughout the Pacific and into China and Japan. 


The same Congress has since been called upon by other departments of our 
government, notably the Secretary of the Treasury in connection with the Liberty 
Bond campaigns and the Secretary of War in the settlement of questions arising from 
the first limitations set by him upon War Recreation work in army cantonments. 


PLAN FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION 



Considering the foregoing may I briefly outline how easily American Freemasonry 
may today meet the expectations of the craft and of the world by assuming its rightful 
leadership in the work of reconstruction? 


Let there be an immediate conference of all State Grand Masters, called upon their 
own authority and volition, to consider uniform recommendations to their Grand 
Lodges for the erection of a National Masonic Council of Defense or any other 
advisory body or Congress they may see fit to approve without disturbing the sacred 
independence of their Grand bodies. 


Bro. Schoonover has already drawn a design upon the trestleboard* worthy of deep 
consideration, and indeed it has been considered by the recent Grand Masters' 
convention in Washington during December. But that body has no power to act nor 
would it have power to take any other action now save to agree among themselves as 
to what they would suggest to their Grand Lodges. 


Then let them call Emergent Communications of their Grand Lodges and place before 
them the facts and recommendations. There would be no need to await the Annual 
Communications. There is need for action now and at once! 


If the Grand Lodges should decide upon immediate action, representatives could at 
once be elected to the National Advisory Council, or whatever the Congress might be 
called should they or a considerable portion of them approve. Three Masons make a 
Lodge we are told, and surely even three Grand Lodges could establish this Council of 
Co-operation. 


Should the Grand Lodges prefer to spend additional time in inquiry they could send 
representatives to a National Congress to meet as soon as all the Grand Lodges had 
been given a chance to consider the matter, with power to act. These could then thresh 
out the details of the National Council. 



Or the Grand Lodges that immediately approved could erect the National Council and 
the others could talk about it in a Congress until they were satisfied to enter the 
Federation. 


Once the National Council was ready for business, the four great National bodies first 
mentioned, the National Masonic Research Society, the George Washington Masonic 
National Memorial Association, the War Relief Association and the Masonic Relief 
Association, could be called into co-operation either as integral parts of the Council or 
as friendly helpers. In time the world would know that when the National Council 
spoke it reflected the united voice of American Freemasonry without in any manner 
binding any Grand Lodge to assent longer than that Grand Lodge voluntarily gave its 
support to the Council. 


In this manner the national activities of American Masonry would be harmonious and 
consistent. The Grand Lodges would be relieved of a financial burden by the 
consolidation of these activities under one head. And best of all it would pave the way 
for a universal adjustment of all International Masonic relations, by consulting with 
similar Congresses, Federations and Councils of other countries and racial groups. 


Then indeed would dawn the day prophesied by Tolstoi, Hugo, Tennyson and others 
when there will be a "parliament of man and the federation of the world." 




FREEMASONRY IN FRANCE 


BY BRO. GEORGE W. BAIRD, P. G. M., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



There are two "Obediences" in France, and three in Germany. They are as separate 
and distinct as is the Grand Lodge of the ' District of Columbia and the Negro Grand 
Lodge of the District of Columbia, but it is not easy to make all of our people 
understand this. 


The Grand Orient (1) is the older of the French bodies: The Grand Lodge of France 
separated from the Scottish Rite in 1 804 but its Lodges still meet in the same building 
with the A.A.S.R. and the personnel in the Rites is almost identical. We have always 
been on terms of intimacy with the A.A.S.R. in France and in all South American 
countries, and with them the Scottish Rite is often mentioned as "Universal Masonry," 
though the writer knows of no friction between the Scottish Rite and Symbolic 
Masonry in any part of the world. Symbolic Lodges have separated from the A.A.S.R. 
in order to conform to the English and American system for the puipose of securing 
fraternal intercourse. 


Formerly (and properly) a Mason who could prove himself, was a welcome visitor in 
any Lodge in any part of the world, unless the jurisdiction from whence he came had 
been interdicted and any change from this plan is modem and is an innovation. 


The writer was made a Mason in a Lodge in Portugal, in 1 867, in the French Rite, and 
in the French language. The obligation was taken on a Holy Bible of the King James 
edition, the Bible which was translated out of the original tongues. This Bible is used 
by Protestants, Jews and Mohammedans, and being from the original tongues it is 
reasonable to believe it has less errors and less changes than the Douay edition which 
is translated out of the Latin vulgate. The personnel of the Lodge that gave us light 
was made up of nominal Roman Catholics, about 70 per cent; Jews about 20 per cent 
and Protestants about 10 per cent. When asked what our religion was, we replied "The 
Constitution of the United States and the Ten Commandments" which seemed to 
satisfy the Lodge. They were liberal, tolerant men. 


The Lodge books recorded no living man's name, as in all other priest-ridden 
countries each man was required to take a sobriquet, or a nom-de-guerre as they said, 
for the reason that it was a penal offense to be a member of the Masonic Fraternity in 
Portugal and when the priests finally did discover the Lodge and caused its 



destruction, there was not the name of a living man on any record. The members went 
to and from that Lodge singly or in pairs, each lighting himself up the long flights of 
stairs with his wax taper (a rolino). 


It is not generally known that the Mohammedans believe in and read our Bible. 
Mohammed himself believed in Jesus Christ and all his followers do. One of the most 
bigoted sects of Islam is the "followers of Jesus," and its see is on the north coast of 
Africa. The Musselman believes more in the Koran than in the Bible and it has the 
advantage or recommendation of containing no words which would shock the mind of 
a child. The Koran is in the Arabic, and there has never been a translation except an 
English edition, but neither Arabs, nor Turks nor Egyptians ever read that edition; if 
they cannot read Arabic they are dependent on others to read for them. 


In English Lodges a Mohammedan is obligated on the Koran and a Christian on the 
Holy Bible. The puipose of the obligation is to bind the postulant and for this reason 
he is obligated on what he believes to be most binding. This is recognized generally, 
but where we know only one book of sacred literature we are too apt to believe there 
should be no other. We are taught that the Holy Bible is the divine revelation of the 
mind and will of God to man but others differ with us in that, but if we can impose an 
obligation that will bind any and all, our principal puipose will have been 
accomplished. 


Freemasonry has been defined as "a system of morals, veiled in allegory and 
illustrated by symbols." It has never been claimed to be a religion, though the priests 
call it a "sect." In the Entered Apprentice degree we are taught that Masonry unites 
men of every country, sect and opinion and conciliates true friendship among those 
who might have remained at a perpetual distance. This, the French believe, is the 
acme of tolerance and they take it literally. We claim no "apostolic succession" nor do 
we essay to administer extreme unction, give absolution nor offer any assurance of 
admission to the Holy of Holies above, but we do strive to make better men of our 
members. 


We have no idea of the slings and arrows hurled constantly at Masons, in priest-ridden 
countries until we have been there. The long years of peace and harmony we have 



enjoyed have spoiled us and unfitted us for sympathy with our stricken brethren 
abroad. Lodges in Italy and France have been raided. The Lodge was interrupted by 
police at Voltaire's funeral. The writer was once detained at Mentone, on the border 
between Italy and Monaco, and witnessed the seizure of a Bible which an English- 
speaking woman was carrying into Italy. The guard acting under orders, would not 
permit it to be carried into the country, but held the Bible for her until she should pass 
out of Italy. 


There have come to us from abroad many appeals for a more intimate fratemalism. 
An invitation to an International Masonic Congress was sent to more than two 
hundred "Masonic Powers" about 1901, including the Grand Lodge, Grand Chapter, 
etc., of the District of Columbia, and the writer moved in Grand Lodge that a delegate 
be sent but there was not even a second to the motion, so lightly did they regard it. 


"Masonic Powers" with European Masons means all Masonic organizations, as Grand 
Lodges, Grand Chapters, Grand Commanderies, Consistories, etc., and these 
invitations went to all the addresses the Swiss Masonic Bureau could obtain. It was 
stated it was a congress, not a conclave; so that the doors were not tiled nor were the 
esoteric sections to be discussed as the writer understood it and as it turned out to be. 
The proceedings of that Congress were printed, and to my surprise (and maybe 
amusement) I found the following report of what took place at the banquet. 


"Dr. Watts, (Washington)— W. President and Brethren: I have the honor of presenting 
to this distinguished body of Freemasons in Congress assembled, greeting from the 
Most Worshipful Grand Master and Brethren of the Grand Lodge of the District of 
Columbia, United States of America. 


"I have to say that the Grand Master is full of sympathy with the object of the 
Congress as outlined in the several explanatory circulars received from Monsieur 
Paul-Emile Bonjour, the Grand Secretary. 



"Permit me further to say that we are of the opinion that any movement in keeping 
with the sublime principles of the Order and that does not in the least degree conflict 
with the ancient landmarks, has our approval and fraternal co-operation. 


"Thanking the projectors for their kind invitation to participate in the deliberations of 
this present Congress, I beg leave also personally to express my appreciation for the 
courteous attention I have received during the time I have been in the city. 


"On behalf of my Grand Lodge we wish the Congress success and desire that 
beneficial results may follow its labor— which shall prove a blessing to all — 
especially the brethren." 


Had I not written very soon after this an essay on Negro Masonry for the International 
Bulletin (2) the delegates who heard that very creditable address would have supposed 
that the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia had sent that negro delegate. 


The speech of Dr. Watts was in English but the others were in French. The writer 
made a full report on the above, which was printed in the 1902 report of the Grand 
Lodge of the District of Columbia and may be found on page 339 et seq. 


And now we come to the Grand Lodge of France! Why should we not at once accord 
it recognition? It may be asked what French Masons have done to merit this. Their 
Masonry was received from England and the writer believes the French are now 
working more in accord with the first constitution of the Grand Fodge of England 
(Anderson's) than are many American Fodges, which should be sufficient. 


Owing to the espionage of the "Holy Fathers" the French history of Masonry has been 
greatly abridged and often suppressed, so that we have not the volumes to draw on 
that we would wish but there are enough for this purpose. 



During the War for American Independence, called "The Revolution," there existed in 
Paris a Lodge "Les Neuf Soeurs" of which the American Commissioner, Benjamin 
Franklin, John Paul Jones, the peerless Naval Captain, Houdon, the unmatched 
sculptor, Voltaire, the fearless, the great Helvidius and many other eminent men were 
members. At that time there were atrocious oppressions of the people not only by the 
rich and influential, but by the priests. 


In the Lodge Neuf Soeurs there was Elie Dumont, a young lawyer, with a score of 
followers who took up the people's cause against oppression. For a verification we 
beg leave to invite reference to Les Memoires Secretes, Vol. XXI, and to Ed. 
Tachereau, Vol. XXI, and Besuchet Precis Historique, Vol. II. 


One example is that of Jean Calas, a Hugenot who had been sentenced to punishment 
"on the wheel" by the tribunal of Toulouse, and he was thus executed. His offense was 
that he had assaulted his son who had been perverted to Romanism. His widow and 
his children were despoiled of their property and belongings by confiscation and they 
finally took refuge in Geneva and were sheltered by Voltaire. Their cause was 
espoused by Voltaire who advocated it by printed memorials, which he widely 
distributed. Elie Dumont defended the Calas family in the French Courts without fee 
or reward and after three years of labor, succeeded in having the judgment arrested 
and the widow's property returned to her. 


In the same tribunal in 1746, a man and his wife named Siren, were condemned to 
death for an assault on their son who had been perverted to Romanism and who had 
forbidden the son from continuing his acquaintance with the men who had proselyted 
him. The rest of the family took refuge in Geneva and their case was appealed by Elie 
Dumont, who, after five years succeeded in having the judgment reversed, so far as 
the confiscation went, and the family of Siren was permitted to return to France and 
take possession of their property. We could multiply these examples indefinitely if it 
were needed, but it is not. 



That Masonic Lodge became the target for Romish persecution and accusation. It was 
charged with atheism. Masonry was branded as a society of atheists in general but 
Voltaire was the central figure of their atrocious attack. Dumont and his followers 
persisted in the defense of the inherent rights of the people and lighted a fire of 
indignation, which kindled in the people a consciousness of their inherent rights and 
was closely interwoven in the French Revolution which followed and which history 
has so vividly recorded. Voltaire was obliged to leave Paris to escape assassination. 
He took up his home in Femey, near Geneva in Switzerland, where he was held in 
high esteem. Napoleon I, who was a Mason, had held the Pope of Rome a prisoner 
and this added to the anger of the priests who believed and still believe that the Pope 
is the "Father of Princes, the ruler of the Christian world and the Vicar of Jesus 
Christ" and that there can be no proper government without his sanction. 


If a man goes on the street and cries "mad dog, mad dog," he will jeopardize the life 
of every dog in sight, though there may be no mad dog at all. And if a mob, believing 
a priest carries the keys of Heaven and Hell in his girdle, hears his cries and 
accusations, they will give respectful and obedient attention to his utterances without 
further consideration. This is practically the condition which existed in Paris when the 
priests began to denounce Freemasonry in general, and Voltaire in particular. As they 
made Voltaire the central figure of attack it may be proper to examine his case. Take 
the twenty-four volumes of Voltaire which have been printed in English and there 
cannot be found in them a word to justify the accusation that he was atheistic. He was 
without doubt, a Deist. In the little town of Femey a chapel was built by Voltaire for 
his neighbors to worship in. A marble tablet over the door has engraved on it these 
words: 


DEO EREXIT VOLTAIRE. MDCCLVIII 


which is, "Erected to God, by Voltaire, 1758." When asked why he dedicated his 
chapel to God he replied: "In London they erected their Temple to Saint Paul, in Paris 
to Saint Genevieve, but I erect mine to God." 


When dying he said "I die worshipping God, loving my friends, not hating my 
enemies, but despising superstition." (Vide Appleton's New American Cyclopedia.) 



His accusers were the priests and the same frocked fraternity is still accusing 
Masonry. 


The Anti-Masonic Congress which was convened at Trent in 1896, was attended by 
more than 200 Bishops of the Romish Church and many times that number of priests 
and zealous laymen. That Congress was 


"Called together with the concurrence and favor of Pope Leo XIII who in a special 
brief, bestowed his benediction and approval on its aims and puiposes. Twenty-two 
influential Cardinals, over two hundred Bishops, the most important clerical 
associations, the whole of the clerical press, sent their adhesions to this Tridentine 
Council. Over five hundred ecclesiastics from the highest to the lowest were present 
and all European States, England, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, 
Portugal, Italy, the United States of America, the South American Republics were 
more or less numerously and influentially represented." 


"General and particular aim: To wage war on Masonry as an institution; on Masons as 
individuals; in all countries and places where the order exists; to wage war on 
Masonry as a body by collecting supposed documents and facts; assertions of perjured 
Masons as evidence and thus bring to light, or rather coin, by means of the press or 
special publications all the misdeeds of the fatal institution; all the demoralizing 
influences it exercises; through obscene or sacrilegious rites, corruption and occult 
conspiracies on man and civilization; to wage war on individual Masons by opposing 
them in every phase of their existence, in their individual homes, in their industries, in 
their commerce, in their professional avocations, in all their endeavors to participate 
in public life, local or general, etc." 


A French reporter, Mr. Leo Taxil, had been employed to ferret out and report on the 
vagaries of Masonry, and in his report he gave them an account of a smithery in a 
cave under the Rock of Gibraltar where iron tools were fashioned for use in devil 
worship. 



The speeches of the "Holy Fathers" on that occasion were drastic, atrocious and 
anything but Christian-like. This Congress was as late as 1896, and must still be fresh 
in the memories of Masonic students. And from it, we draw the lesson that the 
purpose of those people has not changed with time. So it is but fair to ask shall we 
accept the testimony of these prejudiced, fanatical sorcerers against the French 
Freemasons ? 


The Grand Orient of France by giving countenance to a spurious body of Scottish Rite 
Masons in Louisiana, in 1858, caused English-speaking Masons, generally to suspend 
relations with that Orient, one after another until such time as the Orient should 
revoke its sanction of that spurious body. (Vide Report of Grand Lodge of D. C. for 
1870, pages 6 and 7.) It was not an interdiction, but a tentative suspension of relations 
which the Orient was at liberty to automatically heal by the revocation of its sanction 
of that spurious A.A.S.R. body of New Orleans. 


That spurious body has long since gone out of existence but the Grand Orient has 
never made any overtures to the Grand Lodge of District of Columbia nor any other 
American Grand Lodge so far as the writer has been able to discover. 


But in 1878, the Report of the Grand Lodge of District of Columbia (p. 20) says: 


"The action of the Grand Orient of France in expunging from its constitution the 
necessity for a firm belief in Deity and the immortality of the soul was called up as 
unfinished business and on motion, it was ordered that the resolutions accompanying 
the report be considered separately. 


"Resolved, That the action of the Grand Orient of France in ignoring the foundation 
principles of Masonry— that of a firm belief in God and in the immortality of the soul- 
meets with unqualified disapproval of this Grand Lodge." 



This is the last entry we can find in our reports of the Grand Orient. 


Now (as the priests say) "let us consider this beautiful mystery." It is certainly not an 
interdiction. There is no intimation of clandestinism, nor of irregularity nor threat of 
permanent breaking off of relations. 


We Protestants disapprove of their failure to exact a firm belief in the existence of 
God and of the immortality of the soul, more I think because we are Christians than 
for any other reason. We believe even more we teach the "resurrection of the body 
through faith in the merits of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah," though the Jews among 
us cannot agree with that, but it is there, and it cannot be found in the Anderson 
Constitutions, under which the Grand Lodge of France is working today. We are 
perhaps unconsciously, gradually blending our Christian faith with Freemasonry, 
while we believe or teach that the latter unites men of every Nation, sect and opinion 
and concilates friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a 
perpetual distance. 


The writer happens to know that there is a Lodge in Swansea, Wales, under the 
obedience of the Grand Orient of France which has the Bible on its altar on which it 
obligates. The Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Orient assured us that they dedicate 
their Lodges to the Great Architect of the Universe, and that they permit the sacred 
writings to be kept on the altar of any and every Lodge that wants it. And this they 
regard as becoming tolerance. 


The Grand Lodge of France, however, has never offended us in any way. It has not 
been even charged of having committed the infractions which have strained our 
relations with the Grand Orient. 


The Grand Lodge of France is a separate, distinct and sovereign body recognized as 
such by the Supreme Grand Council from which it was separated. It is in fraternal 
amity with many sovereign Grand Lodges and has never, until now, asked formal 
recognition of any American Grand Lodge. At the beginning of this European war the 



Grand Lodge of France started a line of auto-ambulances, opened soup-houses and 
lunch rooms, and equipped a hospital for the use of wounded soldiers and for the aid 
of the indigent and needy of all nations without regard to "race, creed, or previous 
condition of servitude." 


We are now sending about 30,000 soldiers a month to Europe, most of whom go to 
France; among these are many Masons. They naturally want to visit and as our 
relations are strained with the Orient we should make it possible for them to visit the 
Lodges of the Grand Lodge of France. 


Personally we have advised our soldier-Masons of the District of Columbia that they 
are at liberty to visit the Lodges of the Grand Lodge of France, but as relations are 
strained with the Grand Orient we have advised that its Lodges be not, at present, 
visited. 


(1) Orient means East. 

(2) Printed in three languages. 


— o — 


A DEFENSE OF THE STORY OF OLD GLORY 


BY BRO. JOHN W. BARRY, GRAND MASTER, IOWA 


Editor Builder: Your favor enclosing a letter from a California subscriber received. 
His letter calls attention to the Flag number (October) of the Geographic Magazine, 
wherein it contradicts sharply in some particulars my story of "Old Glory" so 



handsomely published in THE BUILDER a short time ago. He wants to know which 
is right. 


His question is proper, for the obligation of THE BUILDER to its subscribers in such 
matters is unquestioned and as the author of the Story of "Old Glory," it is squarely up 
to me to answer. Not to answer would be untrue to the puipose of an organization 
calling itself a "research society." JOHN W. BARRY, Grand Master. 


The Flag number of the Geographic Magazine is so praiseworthy in many particulars 
that an adverse criticism is made only in self-defense and in vindication of the 
established facts of history and will be limited to the principal discrepancies. 


"UNION FLAG" RAISED JAN. 1, 1776-NOT ON JAN. 2 


The Geographic Magazine (page 289) says, "Washington raised the Grand Union Flag 
Jan. 2,1776, the day the Continental Army began its official existence," whereas THE 
BUILDER says the date was Jan. 1, 1776. Which is right? The final authority is the 
"Orderly Book" of George Washington in his own hand-writing. It reads as follows: 


"Head Quarters January 1, 1776. Parole— The Congress. Countersign— America. 


This day, giving commencement to the new Army, which in every point of view is 
entirely Continental" (1) etc., etc. This proves conclusively that THE BUILDER is 
right and the Geographic wrong. 


THE FLAG OF LOYAL INDIA 



On Jan. 4, 1776, Washington in writing to Joseph Reed, his secretary, then at 
Philadelphia, among other things says: "We gave great joy to them (the Red Coats, I 
mean) without knowing it or intending it, for on that day, the day which gave being to 
our new Army, but before the proclamation had come to hand we had hoisted the 
Union Flag in compliment to the United Colonies. But behold, it was received in 
Boston as token of the deep impression the speech had made on us. And as a signal of 
submission. So we learn by a person out of Boston last night. By this time I presume 
they think it strange that we have not made formal surrender of our lines (2)." 


There is no clue in Washington's statement giving the remotest idea as to what this 
"Union Flag" really was. Commenting on this, Benson J. Lossing, an eminent 
American Historian, says (3): 


"Why the hoisting of the Union Flag in compliment to the colonies should have been 
received by the British as 'signal of submission,' was a question historians could not 
answer until 1855, when the writer of this work discovered among the papers of 
General Philip Schuyler a drawing of the Royal Savage with the Union Flag at its 
mast-head." 


This drawing in colors of the flag on the Royal Savage, together with the 
contemporaneous writing of Gen. Schuyler and others, showed definitely that the 
"Union Flag" raised by Washington was the flag of the English East India Company 
shown by the Geographic Magazine as No. 364. 


It was the flag of loyal India— a flag which had been well known for 69 years. So the 
"red coats" took it as "a token of submission" when Washington hoisted an English 
flag so long and well known to them. 


NO SUCH THING AS COLONIAL STANDARD 



THE BUILDER carries the idea that this "Union Flag" was promptly abandoned 
because it was an English flag. The Geographic says (page 288): "This was the flag 
(364) which afterward figured so extensively in the literature of the day as the 
Congress Colors, from the fact that it first floated over the Navy controlled by 
Congress. Also known as the Grand Union Flag and the First Navy Ensign, it was the 
Colonial standard from that day until it was superseded by the Stars and Stripes, in 


1777." 


Which is right? 


The Geographic Magazine does not quote its authority except to say, "How long the 
Grand Union Flag was in use has never been definitely established; but official 
records of the navy fail to show that any other ensign was used until after the Star 
Spangled Banner's adoption by Congress," (page 295). 


Simply from the fact that the "official records of the navy" fail to show that any other 
ensign was in use, the Geographic Magazine discards all other evidence and states that 
no other flag was in use. To offset the testimony of Trumbull and of Peale, both eye 
witnesses, with reputations for fidelity to fact, positive evidence of a decided character 
should be introduced. There is many a fact of history which does not appear on the 
official records. 


Avery says (4): "After the Declaration of Independence the British Union was 
removed from the colors of the new nation." This from a recognized authority sustains 
the statement of THE BUILDER. It is very much to be regretted that the Geographic 
Magazine gives practically no references but so far as I can find, there is no authority 
of any kind to sustain the claim "that the Grand Union Flag was the Colonial Standard 
from that day until it was superseded by the Stars and Stripes in 1777." Indeed a 
British flag as the "Colonial Standard" after the Declaration of Independence would 
be repugnant to every sense of propriety. At a time when the people were destroying 
the statue and pictures of the king— in fact bent on the destruction of everything 
suggesting British rule, it would certainly be a manifest absurdity to have used a well 
known British flag as the standard of the new nation for a year and a half. 



The historic fact seems to be that there was no such flag as "a Colonial Standard"— that 
a variety of flags came into use following the Declaration of Independence, including 
the stars and stripes. So that on June 14, 1777, when Congress adopted the stars and 
stripes, that emblem was actually before Congress and so well known that there was 
no discussion and the newspapers made no reference to the event. Indeed it was not 
published until Sept. 2, 1777, when Dunlap's Pennsylvania Packet, a weekly 
newspaper, published the flag resolution and then without comment. On this point 
THE BUILDER is sustained by a great mass of evidence. 


The Geographic Magazine goes on thus: 


"Whatever their origin, there is no persuasive evidence in the official records of the 
time which would lead to the conclusion that the Stars and Stripes were in use before 
the resolution of June 14, 1777. It is true, however, that the paintings of Trumbull and 
Peale do point to its earlier use. But, as to the flags appearing in their paintings, it 
should be recalled that an anachronism could be readily excused in the case of 
Trumbull, because he had left the colonies while Washington was before Boston and 
was abroad for seven years. Peale's picture of Washington crossing the Delaware, with 
respect to colors carried, is believed to be a case of 'artist's license.' " 


This statement contains many errors. There are many authorities on John Trumbull for 
he was a most active patriot in many ways. But probably the most generally available 
is the Britannica (5). It shows that John Trumbull took military training as part of his 
college course, joined the forces at Boston as adjutant of the 1st Connecticut; became 
one of Washington's aids. In 1776 became Gates' adjutant general and resigned from 
the service in FEBRUARY, 1777. But in 1778 he joined Sullivan as a volunteer in the 
Rock Island campaign and did not go to Europe until 1780 or 1781 ; that later 
Congress employed him for $32,000 to paint the four pictures now in the rotunda of 
the capitol at Washington. The resolution provided that he should paint the events he 
had witnessed. So Trumbull, having been an active participant, is a competent 
witness. His reputation as a painter was everywhere recognized and rests on his 
FIDELITY to historic FACTS. Speaking of his painting, "Washington at Princeton," 
Trumbull says (6): "Every minute article of dress, down to the buttons and spurs, were 
carefully painted from the different objects." Princeton was fought Jan. 3, 1777, six 



months before Congress adopted the stars and stripes so there was no more reason for 
showing Old Glory there than there was for showing it in his painting of the battle of 
Bunker Hill except the one all-important fact to Trumbull, namely, that Old Glory was 
NOT at Bunker Hill and WAS at Princeton Jan. 3, 1777. 


Trumbull's reputation for fidelity to fact, his own statement that his painting is true to 
fact, and the further fact that he was an eye witness and competent to testify, 
repudiates the supposition that he has permitted an anachronism in his painting. 


ERROR IN ASSIGNING LEUTZE'S PICTURE TO PEALE 


As to Charles Wilson Peale, the Geographic Magazine falls into another serious error. 
"Washington Crossing the Delaware" was not painted by Peale but by Emanuel 
Leutze who was not born until 1816 and therefore not a competent witness to events 
before his time. However, his picture is true to historic fact in that it does show the 
stars and stripes. 


The Peale picture is a very different work and was bought by Congress because of its 
HISTORIC accuracy. It is a full length portrait of Washington at Trenton. It now 
hangs at the head of the Grand Staircase of the Senate wing of the Capitol at 
Washington, D.C. At Washington's feet are captured flags and other trophies while to 
the right Old Glory waves in triumph. It was painted in 1779 by Charles Wilson Peale 
who commanded a company at the battle of Trenton and he was therefore a competent 
witness. 


Some years ago, his son Titian R. Peale wrote a letter quoted by both Preble and 
Canby. Among other things he said: "The trophies at Washington's feet I know he 
painted from the flags then captured, which were left with him for that puipose. He 
was always very particular in matters of historic record in his pictures; the service 
sword in that is an instance and probably caused its acceptance by Congress." 



He tells us that his father commanded a company at the battles of Germantown, 
Trenton, Princeton and Monmouth and then says: "I am sure represented the flag then 
in use— not a regimental flag but one to mark the new republic." Is there anything here 
that sounds like "artist's license"? 


If this indeed be "anachronism" for Trumbull and "artist's license" for Peale, isn't it 
strange that each unknown to the other should record in living colors the stars and 
stripes in use at Trenton and Princeton in 1776-7? The Geographic Magazine to say 
the least is a little inconsistent to mention "the carving on Selden's powder horn" as 
authority (See page 292) and reject Trumbull and Peale. 


THE MAKER OF THE FIRST STARS AND STRIPES While the Geographic 
Magazine makes no suggestion as to who did make the first "Old Glory," yet it denies 
that honor to the only one that ever claimed it, but admits that in 1777 she was 
engaged in the making of flags. "The well known story of Betsy Ross, so called maker 
of the Stars and Stripes, is one of the picturesque legends which has grown up around 
the origin of the flag, but it is one to which few unsentimental historians subscribe. 
There was, however, a Mrs. Ross, who was a flag-maker by trade, living in 
Philadelphia at the time of the flag's adoption." (See page 297.) 


Yes, Mrs. Elizabeth Ross, popularly known as Betsy Ross, made flags from 1776 to 
1827. 


BETSY'S STORY IN BRIEF 


Washington, accompanied by Robert Morris and George Ross, uncle of her late 
husband, called on her "shortly before the Declaration of Independence." Washington 
showed her the design of a flag he wanted made. She took the job and the flag was so 
satisfactory that Robert Morris, chairman of the "secret committee" on the conduct of 
the war, and George Ross, signer of the Declaration of Independence and uncle of her 
late husband, ordered her to make all the flags she could and that they would pay for 
the bunting themselves. Betsy continued the making of flags thus begun until 1827, 



assisted much of the time by her four daughters and other members of the family. In 
1827 the oldest daughter, Clarissa Sidney, took over the business and continued it 
until 1857. Numerous participants have made affidavits duly attested establishing the 
Betsy Ross story. These affidavits, complete and convincing, are published in "The 
Evolution of The American Flag (7)." These affidavits, together with other 
corroborating evidence, place the Betsy Ross incident on an assured historic 
foundation. 


FRANCIS HOPKINSON CFAIMS TO DESIGN NOT MAKE 


The Geographic Magazine offers no disproof of the Betsy Ross story except to refer to 
Francis Hopkinson as "a more authentic designer of the flag" and quotes in full a bill 
he filed for such service and for devices for the currency, etc. True, but Hopkinson 
nowhere claims to have MADE the flag— only helped design it, and it was in 1776 he 
was in Congress. He was familiar with heraldry and it may be that he gave 
Washington the design having the six-pointed stars, for in heraldry a five-point was 
not considered a star but a mallet or spur. But when Betsy suggested a five-point star 
because she could make it with one clip of her scissors, Washington, who never 
claimed to know anything of heraldry, at once made the change. We see the effect still 
in our coinage for the stars around the head of the goddess of liberty are six-pointed 
while on the other side where the stars represent states, they are five-pointed. Look at 
a half dollar for yourself. 


So this Francis Hopkinson incident tends to confirm and not disprove the Betsy Ross 
story for she claims only to have MADE the first stars and stripes flag, giving 
Washington credit for the design. 


MONEY PAID BETSY FOR MAKING FLAGS Practically all flags during the 
Revolution were supplied by the states or by individuals. So in contrast to 
Hopkinson's unrecognized bill as designer, here is one of actual money "paid to Betsy 
Ross as maker of flags: 



"State Navy Board, May 29, 1777 (8). Present William Bradford, Joseph Marsh 
Joseph Blewer, Paul Cox— An order on William Webb to Elizabeth Ross, for fourteen 
pounds twelve shillings, two pence for making Ships Colours & c, put into William 
Richards' Store. 14-S12-D2." 


Here is about $70 paid for the labor of making flags. Even today the slowness of such 
matters in getting by the red tape to the pay stage would suggest that at least some of 
the money was earned well back in 1776. Further, as Pennsylvania did not adopt a 
state flag until Oct. 9, 1799, it is not unreasonable to conclude in view of other known 
facts, that "Ships Colours" means the stars and stripes. 


WASHINGTON IN PHILADELPHIA, MAY 22 TO JUNE 5, 1776 (9) Betsy Ross 
and her daughters were not of a literary turn of mind but were devout Quakers 
devoted to the arts of the needle. Their recollection of the date of the visit of 
Washington, Morris and Ross is given only approximately as "a short time before the 
Declaration of Independence." It is therefore necessary to show that Washington was 
in Philadelphia at that time, which is established by letters he wrote from there at the 
time and by a number of entries in the Journal of Congress. 


The Journal of Congress for May 16, 1776, contains a resolution instructing its 
president, John Hancock, to request Washington to come to Philadelphia to consult 
regarding "the ensuing campaign," and the manuscript of the Hancock letter to 
Washington is now in the Library of Congress. In response Washington accompanied 
by his wife arrived May 22 and remained until June 5, 1776, but was not again in 
Philadelphia until Aug. 2, 1777. 


On May 3 1 , he wrote to his brother saying that the attitude of England had become 
such that there remained but one choice— Independence (10). On May 28 he wrote in 
detail to Major General Putnam at New York. Among the other things he urged that 
he "Speak to the several Colonels and hurry them to get their colors done"." So the 
records not only prove that Washington was in Philadelphia at the time indicated by 
Betsy Ross but in addition that he was mindful of the need of flags, particularly as he 
recognized that the only course was "independence." 



THE FLAG HOUSE In 1898 an association was formed to buy the Betsy Ross flag 
house and maintain it as a shrine of liberty free to all the people. The charter members 
number many to whom even "unsentimental historians" would bow in deference in 
matters historic. 


STARS AND STRIPES USED FREELY DURING REVOLUTION 


The Geographic Magazine says that the "stars and stripes was not carried in the field 
by the land forces during the Revolution." It is true bunting was scarce and flags few 
and usually individual meaning not supplied by the Congress. While company 
"colors" were carried yet the headquarters of all land forces, all forts and ships did 
show "Old Glory." Further the Geographic Magazine contradicts itself by showing the 
stars and stripes carried by the 3d Maryland regiment. See flag 411, page 339 and 
described on page 352. It is the same flag shown by THE BUILDER as 32. It is one of 
the few if not the only flag of the Revolution still preserved. It is carefully guarded in 
the State House at Annapolis and bears on the case the legend "No. 1 Old Glory (12)." 
What the Maryland regiment did, it is more than probable other regiments did also. 
Thus THE BUILDER is sustained and the Geographic Magazine refuted even out of 
its-own pages. 


Another proof is the Bennington flag No. 395, page 339 and described on 348. This 
flag is not only the stars and stripes but the stars are arranged around the year 1776, 
probably the date the flag was put in service. 


THE GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE OVERLOOKS THE FLAG OF 1818 


Finally the Geographic Magazine omits the flag adopted April 4 and approved by the 
President April 13, 1818, and substitutes another, thus again erroneously contradicting 
THE BUILDER and perverting history. No. 8 in the Geographic Magazine is given as 



the flag before Congress in 1818, whereas No. 22 in THE BUILDER was the flag 
adopted and the ONLY one before Congress at the time. 


After pages of discussion which seemed to get farther and farther from agreement, 
Congress referred the whole flag problem to Samuel Chester Reid (13), commander of 
the Armstrong. He solved it by returning to the original 13 stripes and adding a Star 
for each additional state. Mrs. Reid made the sample flag and it was presented with 
her husband's report to Congress and was adopted without change, April 4, 1818, and 
in compliment to Mrs. Reid, its maker, the new flag was raised over the Capitol April 
13, though the law did not go into effect until July 4, 1818. The Mrs. Reid flag then 
adopted had its 20 stars arranged in the form of one large star (14) and this form of 
Old Glory was the ONLY one known to the interior of the country for many years. 
Preble says: "This form was used for many years by the Military Department whereas 
the Navy Department adhered to parallel lines." True, Congress made no requirement 
as to the arrangement of stars because it adopted a specific flag then on exhibition 
before them. It was a parallel to the action of Congress on June 14, 1777, in adopting 
a flag then before them and well known. Congress never specified the arrangement of 
the stars or stripes. So there came to be used so many forms and proportions that there 
were 66 variations in use by the various government departments. This led President 
Taft in 1912 to issue an order covering the whole subject (15). It is assumed that page 
3 12 of the Geographic Magazine is in harmony therewith. 


Of this form of the flag so unfortunately omitted by the Geographic Magazine, the 
historian James Schouler says (16): 


"The new flag of the United States, hoisted April 13, 1818, fol the first time over the 
chamber of assembled representatives at Washington, WITH ITS TWENTY STARS 
SO DISPOSED AS TO FORM ONE GREAT STAR in the center of the azure field 
while the long red and white stripes danced in the breeze, spoke a parable. That 
spangled host, soon to be increased in number, spoke of a Union to be progressive and 
perpetual, while the thirteen stripes recalled the founders whose memory must ever be 
cherished." 



As stated at the outset these errors are not pointed out in any spirit of captious 
criticism. Indeed, they are sincerely regretted and it is earnestly hoped the Geographic 
Magazine will correct them in an early issue. 


(EDITOR'S NOTE: "The Story of 'Old Glory'— The Oldest Flag," by Brother John W. 
Barry, the present Grand Master of Iowa, was first published in Volume II of THE 
BUILDER, in 1916. This article has been reprinted in pamphlet form in two styles of 
binding, red buffing at $1 .00 and paper at 35c per copy. A frontispiece in colors 
showing the evolution of the American Flag accompanies each pamphlet.) 

(1) Vide American Archives, 4th Series, vol. IV, p. 568, also Avery, vol. V, p. 307. 

(2) Vide American Archives, 4th Series, vol. IV, p. 750. 

(3) Vide Cyclopedia American History, vol. II, p. 1432. 

(4) Vide Avery, vol. VI, p. 68. 

(5) Vide Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Ed., vol. XXIII, p. 944. 

(6) Vide Washington Irving's Washington, vol. IV, p. 327. 

(7) Vide Evolution of the American Flag, Appendix C. 

(8) Vide Pennsylvania Archives, 2d Series, vol. I, p. 164. 

(9) Vide Journal of Congress for May 16, 24, 25th. 

(10) Vide Ford's Writings of Washington, vol. IV, p. 105. 

(11) Vide American Archives, vol. VI, p. 637. 

(12) Vide Battle Flags, Clinton L. Riggs, p. 5. 

(13) Vide Preble, p. 339 Vide American Encyclopedia, vol. VII, p. 251. 

(14) Vide also Britannica, vol. XX, p. 905. Vide 14 Niles Register for 1818. 

(15) Vide Executive Order, vol. 1637, Oct. 29, 1912, Taft. 



(16) Vide History of U. S., James Schouler, vol. Ill, p. 106. 


— o — 


The real history of mankind is that of the slow advance of resolved 
deed following laboriously just thought. 

— Ruskin. 




FOR THE MONTHLY LODGE MEETING 


CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN— No. 17 


DEVOTED TO ORGANIZED MASONIC STUDY 


Edited by Bro. Robert I. Clegg 


THE BULLETIN COURSE OF MASONIC STUDY FOR MONTHLY LODGE 
MEETINGS AND STUDY CLUBS 


FOUNDATION OF THE COURSE 



THE Course of Study has for its foundation two sources of Masonic information: 

THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. In another paragraph is explained how 
the references to former issues of THE BUILDER and to Mackey's Encyclopedia may 
be worked up as supplemental papers to exactly fit into each installment of the Course 
with the paper by Brother Clegg. 


MAIN OUTLINE 


The Course is divided into five principal divisions which are in 
turn subdivided, as is shown below: 

Division 1 . Ceremonial Masonry. 

A. The Work of a Lodge. 

B. The Lodge and the Candidate. 

C. First Steps. 

D. Second Steps. 

E. Third Steps. 

Division II. Symbolical Masonry. 

A. Clothing. 

B. Working Tools. 

C. Furniture. 


D. Architecture. 



E. Geometry. 

F. Signs. 

G. Words. 

H. Grips. 

Division III. Philosophical Masonry. 

A. Foundations. 

B. Virtues. 

C. Ethics. 

D. Religious Aspect. 

E. The Quest. 

F. Mysticism. 

G. The Secret Doctrine. 

Division IV. Legislative Masonry. 

A. The Grand Lodge. 

I. Ancient Constitutions. 

2. Codes of Law. 

3. Grand Lodge Practices. 

4. Relationship to Constituent Lodges. 

5. Official Duties and Prerogatives. 

B. The Constituent Lodge. 



1. Organization. 

2. Qualifications of Candidates. 

3. Initiation, Passing and Raising 

4. Visitation 

5. Change of Membership. 

Division V. Historical Masonry. 

A. The Mysteries— Earliest Masonic Light. 

B. Studies of Rites— Masonry in the Making. 

C. Contributions to Lodge Characteristics. 

D. National Masonry. 

E. Parallel Peculiarities in Lodge Study. 

F. Feminine Masonry. 

G. Masonic Alphabets. 

H. Historical Manuscripts of the Craft. 

I. Biographical Masonry. 

J. Philological Masonry— Study of Significant Words. 

THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS 


Each month we are presenting a paper written by Brother Clegg, who is following the 
foregoing outline. We are now in "First Steps" of Ceremonial Masonry. There will be 
twelve monthly papers under this particular subdivision. On page two, preceding each 



installment, will be given a number of "Helpful Hints" and a list of questions to be 
used by the chairman of the Committee during the study period which will bring out 
every point touched upon in the paper. 


Whenever possible we shall reprint in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin articles 
from other sources which have a direct bearing upon the particular subject covered by 
Brother Clegg in his monthly paper. These articles should be used as supplemental 
papers in addition to those prepared by the members from the monthly list of 
references. Much valuable material that would otherwise possibly never come to the 
attention of many of our members will thus be presented. 


The monthly installments of the Course appearing in the Correspondence Circle 
Bulletin should be used one month later than their appearance. If this is done the 
Committee will have opportunity to arrange their programs several weeks in advance 
of the meetings and the Brethren who are members of the National Masonic Research 
Society will be better enabled to enter into the discussions after they have read over 
and studied the installment in THE BUILDER. 


REFERENCES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS 


Immediately preceding each of Brother Clegg's monthly papers in the Correspondence 
Circle Bulletin will be found a list of references to THE BUILDER and Mackey's 
Encyclopedia. These references are pertinent to the paper and will either enlarge upon 
many of the points touched upon or bring out new points for reading and discussion. 
They should be assigned by the Committee to different Brethren who may compile 
papers of their own from the material thus to be found, or in many instances the 
articles themselves or extracts therefrom may be read directly from the originals. The 
latter method may be followed when the members may not feel able to compile 
original papers, or when the original may be deemed appropriate without any 
alterations or additions. 


HOW TO ORGANIZE FOR AND CONDUCT THE STUDY MEETINGS 



The Lodge should select a "Research Committee" preferably of three "live" members. 
The study meetings should be held once a month, either at a special meeting of the 
Lodge called for the puipose, or at a regular meeting at which no business (except the 
Lodge routine) should be transacted-all possible time to be given to the study period. 


After the Lodge has been opened and all routine business disposed of, the Master 
should turn the Lodge over to the Chairman of the Research Committee. This 
Committee should be fully prepared in advance on the subject for the evening. All 
members to whom references for supplemental papers have been assigned should be 
prepared with their papers and should also have a comprehensive grasp of Brother 
Clegg's paper. 


PROGRAM FOR STUDY MEETINGS 


1. Reading of the first section of Brother Clegg's paper and the supplemental papers 
thereto. 


(Suggestion: While these papers are being read the members of the Lodge should 
make notes of any points they may wish to discuss or inquire into when the discussion 
is opened. Tabs or slips of paper similar to those used in elections should be 
distributed among the members for this puipose at the opening of the study period.) 


2. Discussion of the above. 


3. The subsequent sections of Brother Clegg's paper and the supplemental papers 
should then be taken up, one at a time, and disposed of in the same manner. 



4. Question Box. 


MAKE THE "QUESTION BOX" THE FEATURE OF YOUR MEETINGS 


Invite questions from any and all Brethren present. Let them understand that these 
meetings are for their particular benefit and get them into the habit of asking all the 
questions they may think of. Every one of the papers read will suggest questions as to 
facts and meanings which may not perhaps be actually covered at all in the paper. If at 
the time these questions are propounded no one can answer them, SEND THEM IN 
TO US. All the reference material we have will be gone through in an endeavor to 
supply a satisfactory answer. In fact we are prepared to make special research when 
called upon, and will usually be able to give answers within a day or two. Please 
remember, too, that the great Library of the Grand Lodge of Iowa is only a few miles 
away, and, by order of the Trustees of the Grand Lodge, the Grand Secretary places it 
at our disposal on any query raised by any member of the Society. 


FURTHER INFORMATION 


The foregoing information should enable local Committees to conduct their Lodge 
study meetings with success. However, we shall welcome all inquiries and 
communications from interested Brethren concerning any phase of the plan that is not 
entirely clear to them, and the services of our Study Club Department are at the 
command of our members, Lodge and Study Club Committees at all times. 


HELPFUL HINTS TO STUDY CLUB LEADERS 


From the following questions the Committee should select, some time prior to the 
evening of the study meeting, the particular questions that they may wish to use at 
their meeting which will bring out the points in the following paper which they desire 
to discuss. Even were but five minutes devoted to the discussion of each of the 



questions given it will be seen that it would be impossible to discuss all of them in ten 
or twelve hours. The wide variety of questions here given will afford individual 
Committees an opportunity to arrange their program to suit their own fancies and also 
furnish additional material for a second study meeting each month if desired by the 
members. 


In conducting the study periods the Chairman should endeavor to hold the discussions 
closely to the text 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 Chairman should request the speaker to make a note of the 
particular point or phase of the matter he wishes to discuss or inquire into, and bring it 
up when the Question Box period is opened. 


QUESTIONS ON "APPROACHING THE EAST" 


Into how many sections is the present study divided ? What are they? What is your 
definition of the meaning of the word "orientation" ? When may the candidate be said 
to be "oriented" ? To what were temples of ancient times dedicated ? How were they 
oriented ? Why ? How were ancient cities oriented ? Where was the altar placed in 
ancient times? Why? What was the situation of the Holy place in the Temple of 
Solomon ? From whom did the Operative Masons derive their practice of placing the 
Master's chair in the East? What did the Pagans see in the Sun? Is there a 
representation of the Sun in the Masonic East? How did the ancient peoples hope to 
find God? Through whom do we expect to find God ? 


II 


How far north does the Sun reach in its summer journey ? Whence originated the 
thought of the North as a place of darkness ? What did the North symbolize to the 
ancient peoples ? What does it symbolize to us ? Why ? Have Masons today any 
superstitions regarding the North? 



What does the South symbolize? What stage of man's existence is symbolized by the 
South ? Whose station is in the South in the Masonic Lodge? Why? What order of 
architecture is represented in the South? In the West? In the East? 


What is the significance of the West? What place did the West occupy in Operative 
Lodges ? In Greek mythology ? What does the expression "gone West" signify ? 


Ill 


Why is the candidate instructed to face the East ? What does the East symbolize ? 
Whence originated knowledge ? Name some of the symbols of the East visible in the 
Masonic Lodgeroom. What celebrated characters in ancient and biblical history came 
from the East? What nations are synonymous with the word "East"? To whom did the 
East signify the dawn of a new day? Why are our dead buried with their feet to the 
East ? 


IV 


What is the significance of the candidate's approach to the East? How would you 
answer the questions propounded in the present study paper concerning your duty to 
God, your country, your neighbor and yourself? Are you in accord with the answers 
given to these questions in that part of the paper just read? Can you add to them? 
(Discuss the several duties of a Mason as outlined in the Entered Apprentice Charge.) 


SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES 


Mackey's Encyclopedia: 



Cardinal Points, p. 134. East, p. 226. Orientation, p. 537. 


THE BUILDER: 


Vol. I— Symbolism of the First Degree, p. 235. Vol. II— What An Entered Apprentice 
Ought to Know, April C. C. B., p. 7. 


FIRST STEPS BY BROS. H.L. HAYWOOD AND R.I. CLEGG 


We have this month combined the papers of Brother Haywood and Brother Clegg 
rather than to print them separately as formerly and then to use one as a supplemental 
paper, as we find that at many study meetings the supplemental paper is sometimes 
neglected simply because to use it would necessitate re-opening discussions that had 
already been closed. The material of Brother Haywood's which we are using is taken 
from the manuscript of his forthcoming book on "The interpretation of the Three 
Degrees of Blue Lodge Masonry," soon to be published. EDITOR. 


PART V - APPROACHING THE EAST 


I THIS portion of the ceremony has many things to tell us, which, in order to simplify 
the discussion, we may break into four divisions: (1) Orientation, (2) Symbolism of 
the Cardinal Points, (3) Significance of the East, and (4) the meaning of the 
Candidate's Approach to the East. 



In early Egypt, as Norman Lockyer tells us in his "Dawn of Astronomy," the most 
brilliant of all works on Orientation, and as authoritative as it is readable, it was the 
custom to dedicate a temple to some planet or star, to the Moon in one of her phases, 
or to the sun at one of his various periods. Originally, perhaps, a majority of the 
temples were dedicated to the rising sun; in that event the building was so situated that 
on a given day in the year the light of the sun would pass between the pillars at the 
entrance and fall upon the altar at the moment of his first appearance above the 
horizon. This placing the temple so as to face the dawn gave rise to the term 
"Orientations," which means "finding the east." However, other temples were directed 
toward the moon or star, and this also, by an accommodation of language, was called 
orientation. The term was further used, in after days, when a building of a city was 
laid out in harmony with the cardinal points; according to this usage the City of Rome 
was oriented, for its first form was a quadrangle with a gate facing in each direction. 
(A.Q.C. vol. 4, p. 87.) This custom was practiced by the Jews, and indeed may be 
considered as universal throughout the ancient world. Moreover it was carried over 
into Christian customs, for all the early churches were oriented to the sun, the 
Apostolic Constitutions specifying that a church must be "an oblong form, and 
directed to the east." 


Inasmuch as the orienting of a temple was chiefly for the puipose of permitting the 
light to fall on its altar on a given day, the altar was necessarily placed in the west end 
of the building. This arrangement must also have been often used by the Jews, even 
though they did reverse so many "heathen" customs, for Dr. Wynn Westcott tells us 
that, "It is clear that both the Mosaic Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon had the 
Holy Place at the west." But, he goes on to say, and this is a point especially deserving 
of our attention? "it is equally certain that churches from the earliest Christian 
development have always reversed the positions when possible." This is to say, 
though Christian houses of worship were placed east and west as the heathen temples 
had been, they were built with their altars in the east end instead of in the west. It is 
from the Christian churches of Medieval times, no doubt, that the Operative Masons 
derived their practice of placing the Master's station in the East. 


The pagans saw in the sun a symbol of Deity, in its rays an emblem of the Divine 
forth- shining; accordingly they had the sun, or a representation of the sun, in the East. 
We also worship a Deity whom we have clothed with Light, but in our East is no 
longer the natural sun, or even a representation thereof, but a man, the Master. To my 
mind this is a thing of profound significance, though I can not place the weight of the 
name of any one of our authorities behind my inteipretation. Ancient peoples, like 



ourselves, were in search of God, even as are we. They hoped to find Him in Nature, 
among the things that He had made, even as the Wise Men followed a star in their 
search for Him; but whereas they went "through Nature to God," we go "through man 
to God," and believe that His completest unveiling will be found in the perfected 
human soul, even as the Master of Masters said, "He that hath seen ME hath seen the 
Father." 


II 


Mackey uses as an illustration the fact that the sun in its summer journey never passes 
north of 23d 28', and that a wall built anywhere above that will have its northern side 
entirely in shadow even when the sun stands at his meridian. As this fact became 
known to early peoples it led them to look upon the North as the place of darkness. 
Accordingly, in all ancient mythologies, that portion of space was regarded with 
suspicion and even with terror. This prejudice was carried over into the Middle Ages, 
and traces of it, often dim and vague, survive to this day in popular customs. In his 
"Antiquities of Freemasonry," Fort writes that the "North by the Jutes was 
denominated black or sombre; the Frisians called it 'Fear comer.' The gallows faced 
North, and from these hyperborean shores beyond the North everything base and 
terrible proceeded." To the churchmen of medieval times it carried a like sinister 
meaning, as we may read in "Animal Symbolism in Ecclesiastical Architecture" (E. P. 
Evans, p. 258); "The north is the region of meteorological devils which, under the 
dominion and leadership of the 'Prince of the power of the air' produce storms and 
convulsions in Nature and foster unruly passions and deeds of violence in man. The 
evil principle, as embodied in unclean beasts and exhibited in obscene and lascivious 
actions, was properly portrayed in the sculptures and painting on the north side of the 
church, which was assigned to Satan and his satellites, and known as 'the black side.'" 
Milton connects Satan with the North and Shakespeare speaks of demons "who are 
substitutes under the lonely monarch of the north." This cardinal point has a similar 
meaning in Masonry, and the portion of the Fodge on the northern side should contain 
no furniture or lights. 


By token of the same symbolic reasoning the South stands for all that is opposed to 
the North; in that direction the sun reaches his meridian, pouring light, warmth and 
beauty. Accordingly, church builders of old time were wont to depict on the South 
wall of their churches the triumphs of Christianity, and the millennial reign of Christ, 



In the Lodge the Corinthian column, type of beauty, is stationed in the South as is also 
the Junior Warden. It is the place of High Twelve, and the scene of the labors of the 
Craft. As the West is the place of the sun's setting and of the closing of the day it 
stands for rest, for darkness, and for death. In Operative Lodges it was the place set 
apart for finished work. In Greek mythology it was the place of Hades, that is, 
darkness and death; as we may read in Sophocles. 


"Life on life downstricken goes Swifter than the wild bird's flight, Swifter than the 
Fire-God's might, To the westering shores of Night." 


Tennyson makes Arthur to go into the West and Ulysses to travel beyond the paths of 
the setting sun; and at this day, it is said, soldiers in the trenches of Europe speak of a 
dead comrade as having "gone West." To the West all men come at last, men and 
Masons, to the beautiful, tender West, and lay them down in the sleep that knows no 
waking. 


Ill 


We face the source from whence comes light. Knowledge has ever been associated 
with the East. Thence came the Arabian contribution of algebra to our mathematical 
information. Euclid and Pythagoras were therefrom, and the many who in mere 
conversation unconsciously use such phrases as "the shortest distance between two 
points is a straight line," or practically refer to "the music of the spheres," are alluding 
to these industrious and thoughtful pioneer scientists and philosophers whose names 
are forever famous among Freemasons. From the East came the mysterious Magi, the 
three Wise Men, unto the manger at Bethlehem. Around them has lovingly clustered, 
the legends founding and formulating a great faith, the very graciousness of glory that 
is Christendom. Led by a star, symbol serene of hope, they came. At the quaint and 
curious cradle they gave their gifts, worshipped and went their way. 


Egypt, the mystical and ancient, is in the East. Monuments mysterious and of great 
antiquity are scattered over the land with astounding freedom in numbers and 



dimensions. Figures and hieroglyphics appear profusely on very many surfaces and 
these inscriptions, more or less definitely deciphered, tell strange stories of the world's 
oldest-known centers of civilization. 


Further to the eastward sweeps India, China, Siam and Japan. These be homes of 
philosophies profound and appealing. Down from a remote period of the earth's 
history there has been nourished in these countries the blaze of a religious reasoning 
not yet reduced to embers, only, of once active fiery faiths. 


To the East then do we turn our eyes as did the Druids of Britain or the followers of 
Mithras. They saw in the East the dawn of new days, a source of light and warmth, a 
never-failing and never-faltering friend the hope for harvests, the sure promise of 
sheaves of grain and garlands of flowers. 


If there is one symbol that recurs again and again in Our Blue Lodge Ritual, like a 
musical refrain, it is the East; of this I almost despair to speak, save in crudest outline, 
so rich and so many-sided is the truth enshrined in it. As the center of gravity is to the 
earth, and all things thereon, so is the East to a Masonic Lodge; the Master sits there, 
the representative of a complete humanity; the Blazing Star shines there, the mystic 
"G" at the center of the rays; it is the bourne, the goal, the ultimate destination, 
towards which the whole Craft moves. 


IV 


If this inteipretation of the East is valid, as I am profoundly convinced that it is, the 
candidate's "approach to the East" is a symbolic act of far-reaching meaning, for it 
means nothing less than that he has tuned his will toward the perfecting of his own 
human nature in order to enter into communion with the Divine; if he is compelled to 
advance by a certain regulated manner it is in token of the fact that the soul itself is a 
realm of law and that he who would reach the soul's highest development must walk 
in harmony with the spirit's laws; and if, in the succeeding degrees, his manner of 
approach approximates more and more toward a perfect step it is in recognition of the 



necessity of gradual and orderly progress in the highest growth Always and 
everywhere, in whatever condition or task a man finds himself, if he would "go up 
into the seer's house," he must mount by those virtues of Purity, Beauty, and Truth 
which are the hidden laws of the seer's own heart. 


Is this the mood wherein we all walk to the East, upright and regular of step ? None 
other should be our manner if we but grasp the intent of the instruction. 


At this time, too, we may also bear in mind the foundation of Masonic ethics. Do we 
give heed to our duty to God? What is our- debt to Country? What may our neighbors 
expect of a Freemason ? What owe we to ourselves? 


Nought is there in Masonry that interferes with the very fullest performance of every 
single syllable of just requirement an individual can fulfill in answer to the foregoing 
questions. 


Our duty to God is a sincere accord with all his wishes, to live in his world with every 
willingness to do his will, to serve him loyally, to be his in all things and for all ends. 
Nothing less may be the measure of a Mason's faithfulness. 


My country affords me home and property protection, a fair foothold among men, a 
buckler and a bulwark against hostile armies, a place where prosperity is surely 
possible and happiness most probable if I but do my part. Could I do less? As a Mason 
I should aim at more. Patriotism assuredly among Masons is a primary principle. 


Am I a distant neighbor? Am I friendly? Is there any better way of making friends 
than by being one? Does duty to neighbor mean to a Mason aught else than a 
courteous concern that they shall never receive from him anything but help in 
misfortune, commendation in success, and always good cheer ? 



Shall a Mason be selfishly solicitious of his own person and property? Certainly not to 
the extent where it endangers the rights of others. A Mason is moderate of claims 
personal to himself. He is cautious of acts whereby his body and mind may suffer. 
Intemperance of appetite is as shunned by him as is the intemperate word. Never does 
he over-indulge the body, or by malicious word or deed wound another. Out of his 
mouth goes not the hasty ill-considered judgment, neither into it enters the enemy to 
steal away his brains or cripple his bodily powers. 


Think of these things, my brethren, when making a promise, assuming any obligation 
to God or man. For these be indeed the thoughts that thrill the thinking Mason at all 
critical times. Yes, they do truly come close to his mind and heart when he sees the 
initiate first face Eastwardly. 


He that faces the East aright and proceeds to approach thereto is wise and opportune 
in purpose and in timeliness. His feet will walk the path deliberately if he is but 
started properly and instructed intelligently. Well, how is he instructed to proceed? 


Brethren, you know as well as I. You are aware of the manner of movement and the 
extent thereof. Think well of its meaning. Grasp the importance of motion by a regular 
plan. 


Search the symbolism of all these acts. Not one of them is unimportant. Each has a 
deep significance to the discerning eye. For of such is Masonry. It means nothing to 
those that are blinded by prejudice, dumb of expression and deaf to understanding. To 
the attentive glance much is revealed and to him that is fortified and equipped by a 
cultivated consciousness the Craft opens a great store of Knowledge when 
approaching the East. 


I ask not for forgiveness, Lord, nor help, Nor strength nor mercy at Thy hand. Give 
me just faith, Oh Lord, sincere and true, Faith in my fellowman. I see, Oh, Lord, the 



wonder of Thy work But ask not understanding of Thy plan. Grant me a faith to guide 
me in the world, Faith in my fellowman. 


— George Gatlin. 


"CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM AND OTHER ESSAYS" A REVIEW 


BY BRO. JOHN SEAMAN GARNS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 


"Christian Mysticism" is the title of a slender little volume of essays by Brother H. L. 
Haywood, Editor of the Library Department of THE BUILDER— a volume which 
even the most casual reader will find richly rewarding. 


The author's foreword states the impulse out of which the book has grown: "the hope 
that it may lead some kindred spirit to seek a closer walk with that little band of God- 
intoxicated spirits who hold in their hands today, as ever before, the destinies of 
religion." 


The initial essay, which lends its title to the volume, is an illuminating introduction to 
mysticism in general. In it the author has rendered great service to the lay reader by 
clearly discriminating mysticism from occultism, on the one hand, and from religions 
or authority on the other. He then proceeds to sketch with rare appreciation the spirit 
of each of the various groups of mystics— Nature, Love, Philosophical and Devotional 
Mystics, as well as that larger group of those who, like St. Augustine, Luther, Fox, 
Loyola and many another "have never yielded themselves entirely to the life, albeit 
they have tasted of its hidden manna and drunk from its brimming wells." 


There follows a spirited defense of mysticism from the oft-repeated charge of other- 
worldliness and sloth on the one hand, and intellectual vagueness and fuzzy 



mindedness on the other. Far from being a beautiful mirage conjured up by visionaries 
along life's hard horizon lines, it is, the author feels sure, "human nature's daily food." 


At the close of the essay the author takes the interested reader by the hand and points 
him helpfully forward into the literature of the subject, advising as to the best order in 
which to read the books mentioned and what one may hope to gain from each. Taken 
all in all, as a brief, practical and inspiring introduction to mysticism, this little essay 
has probably never bee surpassed in the literature of the subject. 


The two remaining essays in the volume are the ripe fruit of the author's own mystical 
experience. A the titles would indicate, "The Secret Place of the Most High" and "The 
Invisible World" are short excursion into the world of spiritual experience, under the 
guidance of one sure of foot and keen of vision. The author's thought in all the essays 
is crystal clear; his style smooth and flowing. To readers mystically inclined, as well 
as that larger audience of uninitiated ones who would in brief compass get a first hand 
interpretation of mysticism, the book will prove invaluable. 


"Christian Mysticism" is published by The Murray Press, Boston, at fifty cents. 
Copies may be had from the publishers or through the National Masonic Research 
Society. 


Reverence for age is a fair test of the vigor of youth Kingsley. 


Regard him as a revealer of treasure for you who reveals your faults.— Buddha. 


THE DEGREES PROBLEM BY BRO. H. L. HAYWOOD, IOWA 


THE "Degrees Problem" (it will long remain that— a problem) may be best stated in a 
group of questions: What is a Degree? Why have we three degrees? How many 



degrees did the old Operative Masons use? What were they? How did they originate ? 
Whence came our Blue Lodge Degrees ? In answering these questions in what way 
circumstances permit I shall try to observe the scientific rule of keeping separate our 
theories of what may have happened from the facts which show what did happen; and 
when a theory is required to bridge over a gap in the facts I shall try to be frank 
enough to call it a "theory." This may in itself prove a gain, for times without number 
Masonic writers, more zealous than accurate, have offered as facts what really were 
theories having very little evidence behind them. (Let this not be understood as 
throwing stones against any of our writers, for in many cases— Oliver may be 
mentioned here— their wildest theories have led ultimately to fruitful discoveries of 
facts; besides, what weaknesses Masonic writers have had they have shared in 
common with writers in other fields.) 


The division of our ritual into three degrees is one of the evidences that Masonry is 
truly a "progressive" science for it is by this means that it adapts itself to the gradual 
unfoldment of the candidate's comprehension. Gould defines a "degree" as 
"representing a rank secretly conferred." Speth's definition is more elaborate: "A 
Masonic degree is a rank and dignity with which one is, by legal authority, invested; 
by a ceremony of initiation or reception, longer or shorter, scenic, spectacular or 
instructive, or with scenic pomp." (A.Q.C. vol. 1, pp. 77.) Hughan speaks to the same 
end in writing on degrees: "they are conferred," he writes in the A.Q.C. Transactions, 
(vol. 3, p. 25) "only on the favored few, to the exclusion of all others, with peculiar 
secrets attached to each; separate obligations as respects their esoteric (secret) 
character, and distinct ceremonies." 


Blue Lodge Masonry may be pictured as an elevated platform ascended by three 
steps; indeed, the three degrees are sometimes spoken of as the "three steps," for they 
represent stages of a progress. But a degree is more than a step; more also than a rank, 
or grade, though it contains the meaning of each of these terms within itself, because, 
as now used, every Blue Lodge degree is embodied in a distinctive ceremony without 
which the degree can not be a degree. This embodiment of the degree in its 
appropriate ceremony is a fact of high importance, for around it evolves the whole 
controversy over the origin of our three degrees. 


This "grading" of members according to their several stages of development, like 
almost every other usage in Masonry, is no arbitrary arrangement but springs up out 



of the requirements of human nature as grass grows out of the sod. This is proved by 
the fact that in all forms of secret societies among primitive races the membership was 
divided into grades, consisting, usually, of boys, young unmarried men, married men, 
and elders. On this, Professor Hutton Webster, whose "Primitive Secret Societies" 
gave us our information concerning the "Men's House," makes this significant 
comment: "The tribe becomes in fact, a secret association, divided into grades or 
classes out of which as a later development arise the 'degrees' of the secret societies." 
And just as we have words, grips, and secrets to distinguish the degrees one from 
another so the primitive men were often physically marked— as by circumcision— and 
were usually given a new name and a secret language. Such a custom as this would 
not have survived through these almost countless centuries did it not fulfil some 
requirement of our nature. 


That the members of the old Operative Masons Lodges were similarly graded is a fact 
which our authorities have not disputed, whatever may have been their other 
differences. All of them would, I believe, agree with R. H. Baxter when he says: "One 
thing is clearly determined, that from earliest times the grades of Apprentice, Fellow, 
and Master were recognized, and it is purely a question for debate as to whether 
separate ceremonies, with distinguishing secrets, marked the admission to the 
different steps." 


Our authorities have also been agreed that much of the symbolic material which now 
composes our three Blue Lodge ceremonies was in existence long before the Grand 
Lodge era, during which time our degree ritualism was given its present form. Two or 
three citations will prove this. In his "Collected Essays" (p. 125) Gould writes: 
"Beyond all reasonable doubt the essentials of the three craft degrees must have 
existed before the formation of the First Grand Lodge— that of England— in 1717." 
Speaking of the Ancient Constitutions (or "Old Charges") which were in use at least 
as early as the Fifteenth Century, Baxter says that "only a slight stretching of the 
imagination is necessary to read the whole of the essentials of the Three Degrees 
(including the Royal Arch) into these documents." To the same end writes Woodford: 
"Where did the Freemasonry of 1717 come from? To accept for one moment the 
suggestion that so complex and curious system, embracing so many archaic remains, 
and such skilfully adjusted ceremonies, so much connected matter, accompanied by so 
many striking symbols, could have been the creation of a pious fraud, or ingenious 
conviviality, presses heavily on our powers of belief, and even passes over the normal 
credulity of our species. The traces of antiquity are too many to be overlooked or 
ignored." Thus, these three representative modem writers agree that the materials of 



which our three degree ceremonies are composed existed, for the most part, before the 
era of Speculative Masonry; and the moment we pass behind that date there is no time 
limit to be set to the antiquity of these materials. "If we once get back beyond or 
behind the year 1717, i.e. into the domain of Ancient Masonry, and again look back, 
the vista is perfectly illimitable, without a speck or shadow to break the continuity of 
view which is presented to us." 


But now arises the questions, when was this symbolic material cast into its present 
form? Was this done by the fraternity before the Grand Lodge period, or afterwards ? 
This constitutes the famous "Degrees Problem" over which our scholars have 
conducted so prolonged a debate. 


In dealing with this debate it will help us much to get first in mind the fact that all the 
debaters agree that a Third degree was "concocted" after the formation of the Grand 
Lodge, the proofs of which are many and conclusive. The Anderson Constitution of 
1723 recognizes but two degrees and uses "Fellow Craft" and "Master Mason" as 
meaning the same thing; but in the 1738 edition of the same Constitutions three 
degrees are recognized, thus proving that the Third came into existence during the 
intervening period. The earliest mention of the Third is found in a speech by a Dr. 
Drake, dated 1726, delivered at York. The earliest known date of the use of the three 
degrees by a regularly constituted Lodge is 1732. So much of an innovation was this 
Third Degree that at first men were made "Masters" only in Grand Lodge; so slowly 
did the new system take hold that we find, so late as 1751, that when George Bell was 
deputized to constitute a Lodge at Cornwall he was only a Fellow Craft and was not 
made a Master until some time afterwards. Subordinate Lodges were permitted to 
make Masters in 1725 but the part seems to have been so seldom understood that 
special "Masters' Lodges" were organized to confer the degree. As more and more 
members among the various subordinate Lodges came to leam the part, the "Masters' 
Lodges" died out and all Lodges "put on" the Three Degrees. But even so, this system 
was not definitely and finally fixed until after the "Union" in 1814; two years after this 
date R.H. Baxter says, "a special Grand Lodge was convened at which the Lodge of 
Reconciliation opened a Lodge in the first, second, and third degrees, successively, 
and exhibited the ceremonies of initiating, passing, and raising a Mason. These 
ceremonies were adopted by Grand Lodge as rehearsed, with two alterations in the 
Third, and are therefore the true and only genuine ceremonial of the Craft for use at 
the present day." 



Having arrived at this point we can see that the real "Degrees Problem" hinges on the 
question, Whence came the Entered Apprentice and Fellow Craft degrees ? Were they 
in use by the Operative Masons of ancient times ? Our scholars have fallen into two 
"schools" in their answer to these questions, one holding that the old Masons used 
only one degree ceremonial the other contending that they used two. 


1. The "One Degree" theory. The first of our historians to advance this hypothesis was 
Findel in 1862; but as it is W. J. Hughan whose name is most usually associated with 
the "One Degree" school we shall let him present that side of the case. "In the light of 
duly authenticated facts, distinct and separate Masonic degrees are never met with, 
alluded to, or even probable, prior to 1716-7. . . It is still a difficulty with me to 
understand how brethren versed in Craft lore can see proof that more than one esoteric 
(secret) ceremony was known to and practiced by our Masonic forefathers anterior 
(previous) to the Grand Fodge era." (See A.Q.C. vol. 10, p. 127.) "The antiquity or 
continuity of Freemasonry is one thing, and that of degrees quite another." He admits 
that the members of the old Fodges were divided into grades but he denies that a 
separate ceremony was used in passing the candidate from the Entered Apprentice 
grade to the Fellow Craft grade, and he can find no evidences of any such ceremonial 
in the Ancient Constitutions. "The Apprentices became Fellow Crafts or journeymen, 
on their 'essays' or work being passed by competent judges . .; but never because of 
taking certain degrees (ceremonies) until the last (Eighteenth) century." With this 
position Steinbrenner, Murray- Fyon and other writers have agreed. 


2. The "Two Degrees" theory. The best statement of this "school" is George William 
Speth's essay published in the A.Q.C. vol. 3, p. 28, and I would refer you to that for a 
complete statement. In that argument he contends that "from the 14th to the 18th 
centuries, two ceremonies existed— that of making Masons, or binding to the Craft- 
-and that of passing masters and admitting to the Fellowship." He declares that in 
those ceremonies "there were secrets, other than those of the manipulation of stone." 
If asked why we have no plainer evidences of these two ceremonies in the latter 
Seventeenth and early Eighteenth centuries he would reply "that the Masons of 1 7 1 7 
inherited symbolism of the meaning of which they were ignorant; that to produce this 
ignorance a long course of decay and deterioration must have obtained, thus carrying 
our symbolism back for an infinite period." Speth believes that the passing from the 
Entered Apprentice grade to the Fellow Craft grade was too important a step not to 
have received embodiment in a ceremonial; that the Fellow Craft must have received 
secrets unrevealed to the Apprentice; and that the giving of these secrets must have 
constituted a separate ceremony, or degree. With this position Gould, it seems, and 



Woodford agree, as do a large number of modem Masonic scholars. Hughan, even, 
towards the last, with a rare candor, acknowledged that the most recently discovered 
evidence points in the direction of "two Degrees." 


Thus stands the case! When doctors fall out how shall we common folks agree? 
Speaking for myself I am undecided as yet, though it seems to me that the "Two 
Degree" theory is the more probable of the two; I believe that two simple ceremonies 
must have been in use down to the Seventeenth century; that during that period a great 
deal of symbolic material was brought in, or re-discovered, by the Speculatives who 
were then accepted; and that this added material increased the length of the 
ceremonies so much that they were split up into three parts for the sake of 
convenience, the old Fellow Craft or Second Degree being used as the Third, and the 
old Apprentice part being split in two to give us our present First and Second degrees. 
However, this is only theory, as is also the "One Degree" hypothesis, and they must be 
considered as such. You also, brother, may fashion your own theory; if it is reasonable 
we shall not quarrel, however much we may differ. 


In whatever manner these degrees came into existence, and whatever their age, one 
thing is certain at least, there is a tmth in them, and a symbolism, which have proved 
worthy to teach the world. For Masonry has long aspired to be, and in a strict sense, 
now is, a universal science. 


EARLY KNIGHTS TEMPLAR IN NORTH CAROLINA 


BRO. MARSHALL DE: LANCEY HAYWOOD, GRAND HISTORIAN 


In the old files of newspapers in the North Caroline State Library, at Raleigh, are 
many scattered items relative to Masonry, in its various branches, but the one given 
below, concerning the Knights Templar, seems somewhat out of the ordinary. It is 
from the Raleigh Register of December 31, 1813: 



KNIGHT TEMPLAR ENCAMPMENT Notice is hereby given to Brethren, &c.— 


That the Encampment at Mock's Old Fields, Rowan County, (N.C.) acting under 
charter designated "Freeland Lodge, No. 33," on the registry and under the jurisdiction 
of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee, will have their regular 
meetings, (or Encampments hereafter) on Christmas, Good Friday, and Ascension 
days. 


Visitors will cheerfully be admitted, and due attention paid them. By order of the M. 
W. H. P. &c. 


JOHN HAM, Scribe. October, A. D. 1813. 


There are several remarkable points about this notice. The Templars therein 
mentioned profess to work by authority of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and 
Tennessee, a body embracing the two States jointly until Tennessee formed a separate 
Grand Lodge in 1813, but which never claimed jurisdiction over any subordinate 
bodies except Blue Lodges. Furthermore, Freeland Lodge No. 33, in Rowan County 
(as shown by the old Grand Lodge Proceedings) was a Blue Lodge. The presiding 
officer in the above quoted notice, M. W. H. P. (Most Worshipful High Priest?) 
sounds more like the Chapter than the Commandery of the present day, as does also 
"Scribe" instead of Recorder, though the Scribe in a Chapter is not the recording 
officer. On the other hand, the observance of Christmas, Good Friday, and Ascension 
Day are anniversaries observed by the Knights Templar, and not by the Royal Arch 
Masons. 


The above mentioned newspaper, less than a year later, on March 24, 1814, contained 
an obituary which has a bearing on the same matter. It is as follows: 



DIED.— At Salisbury, on the 12th inst., after a long and complicated illness, Mr. 
Francis Coupee, sen., editor of the "North Carolina Magazine," and member of the 
Knight Templar Fraternity. He was interred on Sunday by a Masonic procession, and 
the solemn performance of all the funeral rites of that high order, in the presence of a 
great and respectable concourse of people.— Mr. C. was a man of humane and 
benevolent affections— of a just, manly, and patriotic spirit. He was a kind and 
affectionate husband, a tender and indulgent father, a faithful and obliging friend, and 
a good citizen. He was left a loving wife, eight children, a numerous connection of 
relatives, and a large circle of friends and acquaintances to deplore his loss. He is 
gone ! His spirit has fled to that world of spirits whence no traveller returns! And how 
applicable to him are the words of the Poet! 


"How 1-ov'd, how valu'd once, avail thee not, 
To whom related, or by whom begot: 

A heap of dust alone remains of thee; 

'Tis all thou art, and all the proud shall be." 


It would be interesting to know where the Templars in Rowan County in 1813, were 
taught the work they used. As for their authority to work, we may gain some light 
from Redding's Illustrated History of Free Masonry, published in 1907, which (on p. 
670) says: "Blue Fodges sometimes conferred the Templar degrees." The oldest 
Commandery now working in North Carolina dates back only to 1825, and the several 
Commanderies of the State did not organize the Grand Commandery of North 
Carolina until 1881. In Webb's Freemason's Monitor, edition of 1802, pp. 292 - 293, 
there is a brief chapter on Knights Templar in America, mentioning the formation in 
1797 of the "Grand Encampment" of Pennsylvania, with later "Encampments" at 
Philadelphia (two), Harrisburg, and Carlisle. It also gives "Encampments not under 
the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania," these being: 


The Old Encampment in the City of New York. Jerusalem Encampment, New York. 
Montgomery Encampment, Stillwater. Temple Encampment, Albany. St. John's 
Encampment, Providence (R. I.) 



In the collection of Masonic Songs in the back of this monitor will also be found, 
among other poetic effusions, the "Knight Templar's Song." 

— o — 

LIFE, THE BUILDER 

When Life, the Builder, demands more room, 

He calls his servant, Death, 

And bids him take to the earth once more, 

The body, of form and breath; 

But he keeps for himself, of course, 

The timeless worth of the whole; 

All love, all light, all truth, 

All thought, and hope, and force; 

And builds them again a form more rare, 

To house the advancing soul; 

With a joy more deep and a faith more fair, 

Than ever it owned before; 

For Life, the Builder, is lord of Youth, 



And master of Death and Pain; 


And weights the balance with absolute truth, 
On the side of permanent gain. 

— Emeline Earrington. 


— o- 


THE FAITH THAT IS IN THEM— A FRATERNAL FORUM 

EDITED BY BRO. GEORGE E. FRAZER 
PRESIDENT, THE BOARD OF STEWARDS 

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS 


Wildey E. Atchison, Iowa 

Geo. W. Baird, District of Columbia. 

Joseph Barnett, California. 

John W. Barry, Iowa. 

Joe L. Carson, Virginia. 

Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia. 

Henry R. Evans, District of Columbia. 
H.D. Funk, Minnesota. 



F. B. Gault, Washington. 

Joseph C. Greenfield, Georgia. 
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts. 
H. L. Haywood, Iowa. 

T. W. Hugo, Minnesota. 

M. M. Johnson, Massachusetts. 

John G. Keplinger, Illinois. 

Harold A. Kingsbury, Connecticut. 

Dr. Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri. 

Julius H. McCollum, Connecticut. 

Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio. 

Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky. 

Frank E. Noyes, Wisconsin. 

John Pickard, Missouri. 

C. M. Schenck, Colorado. 

Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois. 

Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin. 

Oliver D. Street, Alabama. 

H.W. Ticknor, Maryland. 

Denman S. Wagstaff, California. 

S. W. Williams, Tennessee. 



(Contributions to this Monthly Department of Personal Opinion are invited from each 
writer who has contributed one or mor articles to THE BUILDER. Subjects for 
discussion are selected as being alive in the administration of Masonry today. 
Discussions of politics, religious creeds or personal prejudices are avoided, the 
purpose of the Department being to afford a vehicle for comparing the personal 
opinions of leading Masonic students. The contributing editors assume responsibility 
only for what each writes over his own signature. Comment from our Members on the 
subjects discussed here will be welcomed in the Question Box and Correspondence 
Column.) 


QUESTION NO. 10— Shall each American Grand Lodge establish representatives at 
each Central and South American Grand Lodge as a means of promoting Pan- 
American harmony? If so, shall such representatives be residents of the foreign 
jurisdictions to which they are accredited? If you do not favor the policy involved, 
please state your conception of the attitude of American Masonry in bringing about 
closer and more friendly relations between the nations of North and South America. 


Real Masonry in South America. 


In your statement of the "next question for discussion" you have touched me on a 
belligerent spot. For several years I have advocated by all means in my power the 
extension of our acquaintance with our South American brethren and I am glad you 
have now taken it up, as my field was necessarily limited. 


If American Masonry is not to be dubbed and declared the Masonic Pharisee of the 
world and the hypocrite of the century it must get out of its "holier-than-thou" attitude 
toward all other Masonic peoples who, by racial or temperamental difference of 
make-up differ in how they do in certain non-essential things. 


I was told that it was almost impossible to get into touch with the South American 
brethren— I had not the least difficulty in getting in intimate and pleasant connection 
and correspondence with the officers of three Grand Bodies. I did not try for any 



more. I found the trouble was at this end. I found out this, that one Grand Secretary 
returned a very fraternal letter with the request that it be either written in English, or 
the charges for translation sent— just think of it! 


I found those I was fortunate enough to select for correspondents to be very 
interesting and most anxious to become better acquainted. They were very polite and 
courteous, very much more in earnest than any other Masonic Bodies with whom I 
had ever been in touch. Of course they do not do things as we do, but their principles 
are the same, their ideas coincide, they are hungry for sympathy and size up with us in 
their average with our average, while their stars are of as great magnitude as any 
which shine over us. 


In my opinion, the first thing to do is for the Grand Lodges to unite on an Ambassador 
to the Masons of South America— a big man, a broad sympathetic Mason, an 
intelligent, courteous gentleman, an experienced philosopher who is able to see things 
through the other fellow's spectacles, and who, while well- versed in the acknowledged 
universal principles of Universal Masonry, has forgotten the verbiage of the ritualist 
and the technical silliness of the Masonic lawyer. Send him down and I will guarantee 
that his report will coincide with what I have written. T. W. Hugo, Minnesota. 


* * * An Earnest Negative. In reply to the question propounded for discussion in the 
Fraternal Forum for this month I would emphatically say No ! 


The term "universality" has been misused almost universally. My conception of its 
proper Masonic meaning is perhaps peculiar, but I think, logical and correct. True, in 
a secondary sense it does mean "in every clime a Mason may be found," but that has 
been perverted to include organizations and men calling themselves Masons who 
cannot properly be recognize as such. The primary and principal meaning of 
universality is comprehensiveness. Our Institution is more peculiar in this than in any 
other feature. It includes all good things among men but is in no wise religious, 
philosophical or political specifically. 



Latin Masonry is its exact antithesis in this particular and also in being, like the 
Church of Rome and the German (Prussian) Empire, governed from above, and is not 
a Brotherhood. They are not of our household, however worthy of our consideration 
otherwise. I would as soon recognize the Odd Fellows or Knights of Pythias. These 
are honorable and good organizations, but each is doing a specific branch of good 
work and we cannot unite with them without narrowing our limitless horizon. Far be it 
from us to criticize them for their specific beneficial features or for antagonizing the 
corruptions of the Church of Rome, but neither one is of our mission. 


I want no "closer relations" with anything under God's blue sky except Ancient 
Masonry. Disaster lies ahead of such "closer relations" and if the mistaken movement 
goes far enough dissension and schism are not far away. 


I am sorry I have not a copy of our special report (Foreign Correspondence 
Committee) adopted unanimously last week by our Grand Lodge on a request for 
French recognition. Perhaps our Grand Secretary would send it to you. It is along the 
above lines and covers the ground more fully. 


I do favor extending relief to French unrecognized Masons in distress, and even those 
among German prisoners, on the ground that "these generous principles should extend 
further. Every human being has a claim upon our kind offices. Do good unto all, etc.," 
but I would not affiliate with an organization which perverts Masonry or which has 
not as its fundamental the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man, and is not 
a democracy. Joseph W. Eggleston, Virginia. 


* * * Send Down a Delegation. Unless we can find some more potent influence than 
that of establishing representatives at Central and South American Grand Lodges, I 
doubt if the Pan American Masonic harmony will find the bonds of Brotherhood 
drawn much closer, or receive much benefit. 


What, for instance, has the representative of the Grand Lodge of Ireland near the 
Grand Lodge of Virginia, or the representative of the Grand Lodge of Illinois near the 



Grand Lodge of Ireland, done to promote such harmony? I ask because I know. 
(That's Irish.) The offices of representatives near Grand Lodges, from my experience 
in many jurisdictions, are usually handed out to the brethren worthy of some 
preferment that will give them Grand Lodge rank, but not active Grand Lodge office, 
and they are usually not expected, or permitted, to "put in their oar" in Grand Lodge 
affairs. 


No ! a delegation of prominent and properly accredited Masons will do more in one 
Grand Visitation than a representative will accomplish in a life-time. Joe L. Carson, 
Virginia. 


Favors Exchange of Representatives. I have long been in favor of a proposal that each 
Grand Lodge establish representatives at each Central and South American Grand 
Lodge, as a means of helping Pan-American harmony, for the reason that this has 
been advocated so continuously by our Latin American Masonic brothers, and I know 
from their personal assurance that it would accomplish the desired effect. Many of my 
correspondents are Grand Lodge officers and Masonic leaders in the Central and 
South American countries. They tell me that Freemasonry in their belief is to be the 
strong cementing bond between the United States and their countries. They do not 
seem to comprehend our attitude at all. I have had suggestions that we American 
Masons co-operate with them in establishing an international bureau of some sort for 
the puipose of getting our countries better acquainted with each other. These 
suggestions take various forms, from museums of South and Central American 
products, to a central bureau something like that of Switzerland. Mexicans have 
assured me that their Grand Lodges appreciate for the most part Americans, and have 
a sympathetic attitude toward us and that the distrust of Americans by Mexicans is 
due to the exploitation of their country by great corporations. 


From Brazil I was informed that the actual Grand Master of that country was directly 
responsible with his brother Masons for swinging that nation into line with America in 
this war. A member of the Colombian Supreme Council is very much disgusted with 
his own country as headquarters for German propaganda and wants to know if we in 
America could not co-operate with the Masons there in a campaign of education, and 
so on. 



They all think that if the American Grand Lodges knew of the great educational and 
charitable work of the South and Central American Masons we would be only too 
glad to establish firm Masonic relations with them, and they strongly state that in that 
event they would be able to do tremendous work of conciliation. 


Our Latin American brothers have abandoned all hope of getting in touch with us at 
present and are planning an international Federation of their own for May 25th. 


I would favor the appointment as representative from American Grand Lodges not 
only residents of foreign countries to which they are accredited, but natives as well. I 
must say that I believe all this will be impossible to accomplish unless our American 
jurisdictions can refer the matter with power to act, to some central bureau such as 
was suggested by Grand Master Curbelo of Cuba several years ago and practically 
ignored by us. Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky. 


Is Latin Masonry Our Masonry? In reply to the question "shall each American Grand 
Lodge establish representatives at each South American and Central American Grand 
Lodge as a means of promoting Pan-American Masonry," I beg leave to say that I am 
in doubt as to the propriety of this movement. 


In my sea-going days I visited many South and Central American countries, but 
balked at attending most of their Lodges, though frequently discussing the puiposes of 
Masonry with individual Masons with whom I became acquainted. 


First of all I do not believe that Latin Masons understand Masonry as we do. We all 
know that no nation has ever been able to change its religion without taint of the 
preceding creed. The very bronze effigy of Saint Peter, in the church of that name in 
Rome, is in reality but a statue of Jupiter. 



The Cholos of Peru and the Peones of Chile will attend the mass of the Church of 
Rome and, within an hour, devotedly bow in reverence to the deities of their 
ancestors, without, in all probability, knowing the difference. It is habit with them. 


And so with Masonry. Many American Masons seem determined to Christianize 
Masonry, while the Latins are segregating in their Lodges apparently seeking relief 
from the oppression of the soi disant Christianity in their Republics. 


The writer is looking at the situation as fairly as possible and is not influenced by 
hearsay or public opinion, but speaks from personal experience. 


The average Latin Mason balks at the Master's Degree as being higher than the thirty- 
third degree, but for peace and harmony and to secure the recognition of American 
and English-speaking Masons, has separated the symbolic degrees and formed his 
sovereign Grand Lodge which he believes, or at least hopes, will bridge the chasm. 
But he has, beyond a doubt, a lingering belief that Scottish Rite Masonry is 
"universal" Masonry. He often states this belief, and has many good reasons for his 
statement. 


There are many very superior men and Masons in the United States who cannot be 
convinced that we should recognize any Grand Lodge of Scottish Rite origin, and as 
the Latin nations rarely have a Masonic origin other than the Scottish Rite, we can 
understand why they regard that Rite as "universal Masonry." 


I am making a life effort to reconcile international or "universal" Masonry. The very 
lectures in the Entered Apprentice degree instruct the candidate that "Masonry unites 
men of every country, sect and opinion," and this is much better executed in English, 
Scotch and Irish Lodges than in our own American Lodges. 



In British Lodges visitors are admitted if they can prove legitimacy in any Lodge not 
interdicted, while visitors to our Lodges are frequently turned away if they come from 
a Lodge that has not been formally recognized. You can find proof of this in the 
decisions of Grand Masters in the Grand Lodge proceedings, year after year. 


I would like to ask the reader to place himself in the position of a visitor thus turned 
down. What would he do, naturally? Only a few years ago a prominent Mason asked 
my advice concerning the eligibility of certain Argentine Masons, then in the city, to 
visit our Lodges, as our Grand Lodge at that time had not formally recognized 
Argentine. My view was that they were eligible— the Argentine brethren, however, 
found the doors of the Scottish Rite open to them, and a warm welcome awaiting them 
within, and did not return to our symbolic Lodges. 


This is my view of the situation, and my belief is that before we can amicably, 
profitably and fraternally make the representative system a success in the South and 
Central American countries we must first make visitations, fratemalism and altruism 
possible. 


We are but creatures of habit. What we leam in our early youth we are certain to 
practice and soon it becomes a habit with us. This is why the Church of Rome, in its 
wisdom, insists upon the parochial schools, opposes public schools, and adopts 
babies, for what the little creature absorbs in its tender years it will be certain to retain. 
George W. Baird, District of Columbia. 


Teach Our Masonry to South America. The Latin American seems to value his 
Masonry —to be proud of it. We have some Latin Masons among us whose wives go 
to confession. They are good fellows— good Masons, generally, as they see the light- 
scoffers generally at church ceremonials. However, they love to pray in their Lodges. 
The prayer rather ties them, as it were, to the "old regime." Now in the balance of 
their Lodge work they have quite a satisfactory substitute for church. This is 
particularly true of those who belong to the Scottish Rite. As many join as are able. 



Grand Lodges they have, of course. How could they exist without the right and title or 
opportunity to wear the lordly insignia their Grand Lodges afford? How little the thing 
would amount to, were they not privileged to hold stately, magnificent court, and in 
grandiose fashion, sign their names to gorgeously "sealed" documents for 
transmission to the Masonic world. There is a condition existant there, which has 
developed into a misfortune. It is the practice of the Scottish Rite in most of the South 
American countries to confer within their temples and under their seal, all the degrees 
of Masonry, from the first to the thirty second. This is very unfortunate, inasmuch as 
their Rite substitutes a great deal that is immaterial for our own satisfying, complete 
and magnificent symbolism of the symbolic degrees. 


Many of their novitiates stop at the Master's degree. I have examined some of them— 
once by authority of our Grand Secretary. They apparently know very little 
concerning symbolic Masonry. The Scottish Rite practice has brought symbolic 
Masonry into some disrepute among them. That Rite was to them, made to fit into the 
niche vacated by the pot of incense. 


Yet these peoples are endeavoring to be Masons through it all. Western civilization, 
together with commercial connections with this country, will help along. A new 
business system, wiping out their universal practice and desire to make settlements 
but once a year must be adopted before we shall be able to take the place of Germany 
in their markets. We in California know something of the Spanish "grandee" methods 
of business. There are exceptions of course. 


To make a new man, from start to finish, out of our Southern brother is almost too 
much to expect of Masonry in one generation. A representative from each of our 
Grand Lodges to each of theirs would be but a small leverage. It would be better to 
appoint one of their own residents each time to such a place. After appointment, bring 
him over here once a year at our expense. Teach him some "Blue Lodge" Masonry in 
all its truth and simplicity. Teach him of a Mason's relation to God and Government, 
and of the absolute necessity of their separation from the control sought to be 
exercised by Church— of a new baptism for his wife and children at the font where 
liberty was baptised. So make an American Mason (there is no North or South) out of 
a few of these delegates, turn them loose among their native sons and daughters and 
time will tell the story of a revolution for Liberty in spite of all— which shall bring 



light out of darkness and salvation to an oppressed people. Denman S. Wagstaff, 
California. 


* * We Differ Only as to Details. My opinion is that an attitude of cordial and 
fraternal esteem should be taken and maintained by the Masonic Bodies of North 
America toward those of Central and South America. Sympathetic and careful 
consideration should be given to the claims of regularity of all of the Masonic 
organizations of our Southern neighbors and we should establish fraternal relations 
and exchange representatives with every one of them found to be practicing real 
Freemasonry. It is in every way desirable that the great peoples of North and South 
America should know each other better fraternally, socially, politically and 
economically. By all means let us shake hands with our South American brethren. Our 
great ideals are identical however much we may differ on details. O. D. Street, 
Alabama. 


* * * 


The 1918 Congress at Buenos Aires. 


There is room and place for more Pan- Americanism and we must prepare for a great 
commercial war with the despicable Huns after the present carnage has passed into 
history, unless, as I sincerely hope and pray, the fangs of the German rattlesnake may 
be so thoroughly extiipated after America is through with the abnormal monster, that 
Germany may occupy among the nations a place even lesser than that of poor 
Belgium and Servia which she has ravaged to the utmost. 


As a first means of promoting a better understanding between the Masonry of North 
America and that of Latin America, I would recommend the sending of one or more 
accredited representatives of one or more Grand jurisdictions of the United States, or 
of a National Masonic Educational Society like ours, to the International Masonic 
Congress to be held at Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 25th, 1918. Such representatives 
might study the aims and purports of this Congress, ascertain the dividing lines which 



have hampered recognition of certain of our Latin American brethren and report back 
their findings in such a manner as to reach all of the Grand jurisdictions of this 
country. 


I incline to the opinion of Sovereign Grand Commander Vicente Biagini that our 
present status as regards our international recognitions is "an impossible sociological 
consideration." The germinal idea of the forthcoming International Latin American 
Congress called by the Masons of the Argentine Republic contemplate: 


"1. Such fundamental studies as may arise for debate. 


"2. Consideration of future action which may promote Pan-American Masonry. 


"3. Reception and consideration of any proposition from delegates. 


"4. Ways and means of submitting propositions to the bodies interested. 


"5. Publications, communications and correspondence." 


The way lies open to American Masonry to at least unofficially hear their Latin 
American brethren upon their own ground. We can no longer afford to shut ourselves 
behind a Chinese wall of exclusion. We must weld the chains of Masonic universality 
stronger. Even as new conditions have again brought up the old, old question of 
devising a possible means for again according recognition to that French Masonry 
which played so important a part in abolishing feudalism in France, through its spread 
of the Masonic philosophy and the slogan "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," so now with 
an eye to the future should we welcome the invitation of Latin American Masons to at 
least talk the matter over. More can be accomplished by having our representatives, 
even though unofficially, present at such a representative Latin American gathering 



than reams of well-elucidated arguments pro and con flooding our Masonic grist mills 
from year to year. 


The crying need of today is action— quick and spontaneous action that may be 
provocative of results. After cementing the bonds of a Pan-American recognition it 
will be time enough to call a European International Masonic Congress upon the same 
lines and so achieve ultimately the great need of the future— a real world Masonry. 
John Lewin McLeish, Ohio. 


* * * A Canadian Opinion. The question that you submit for discussion is one that 
from the wording of it, is of interest to American Grand Lodges only. For the sake of 
promoting international harmony in its broadest sense, I would say that everything 
possible should be done in the way of establishing friendly relations between different 
bodies of Masons. This would involve, of course, a careful searching into the 
antecedents of each of these foreign jurisdictions and generally finding out everything 
possible about them. 


My idea has always been that more friendly relations should be established, if 
possible, not only with South America but with the Masonic jurisdictions of the whole 
world. If we talk universal Brotherhood we should act it as well, and this end can 
never be accomplished by putting up artificial walls which, in some cases, our 
neighbors cannot even look over. P. E. Kellett, Manitoba. 




MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE 


BY BRO. ROSCOE POUND, DEAN, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 



III. MASONIC COMMON LAW 


IN England, the common law, using the term to mean the traditional element of the 
legal system, is the customary course of decision in the English courts from the 
thirteenth century to the present, as developed and applied to the conditions of the 
present by jurists and judges in the nineteenth century. In America, the common law, 
using the term in the same sense, has four chief constituents: (1) the course of decision 
in the English courts prior to colonization, or at least prior to the Revolution, so far as 
applicable to the social, political, economic, and physical conditions in America; (2) 
the course of decision in American courts since the Revolution; (3) the course of 
decision in England and other countries with England legal institutions since the 
Revolution; and (4) international law, or the body of rules governing the relations of 
individuals with foreign states and citizens of one state with those of other states 
which has been received by general agreement of the community of nations in modem 
times. Thus it will be seen there are two types of rules which go to make up the 
common law of the lawyer— universal principles, upon which English and American 
courts alike have proceeded since the Revolution, and local American usages, of a 
general and permanent nature, which have developed in this country since our 
independence. 


In the same way we may recognize two types of usages in our Masonic common law: 
on the one hand a universal body of usage, developed in eighteenth-century Masonry 
after the revival of 1717, and on the other hand a general body of usage developed in 
the United States, chiefly in the nineteenth century, through decisions of Grand 
Masters and the review thereof in Grand Lodges, in which the former is developed 
and applied. In this lecture I shall speak only of the former. 


Masonic common law, in the stricter sense, I take to be the body of tradition and 
doctrine, developed in eighteenth-century Masonry, which is of such long standing, is 
so universal? and is so well attested, that, although it lacks the absolute authority of 
the Landmarks, it stands at the foundation of our Masonic legal system. It is to be 
used to inteipret and supply gaps in Masonic legislation and it is never lightly to be set 
aside. Our fathers used to say that statutes in derogation of the common law were to 
be strictly constmed. Whether or not this is tme in the everyday law of the state it may 
well be tme in Masonry where these settled customs have entered into the very 
stmcture of the Order. The foundation of all study of Masonic common law is in 



Mackey's exposition of the Landmarks. We may grant that not more than one-third of 
his twentyfive Landmarks are to be accepted as such. Nevertheless he succeeded 
wonderfully in putting his finger on the significant points in generally accepted 
Masonic usage. Everything that has been done since has been done in the light of his 
exposition and on more than one point he said all that was to be said. Hence the most 
effective mode of treating Masonic common law is to take up his list of Landmarks 
seriatim and expound those which seem to be rather doctrines or institutions of our 
common law as such, showing that they are not to be classed as Landmarks. 


Dr. Mackey puts as the first Landmark the modes of recognition. These, he says, are 
the most legitimate and unquestioned of the Landmarks. To use his own words, "They 
admit of no variation; and if ever they have suffered alteration or addition, the evil of 
such a violation of the ancient law has always made itself subsequently manifest." 
Indeed at first sight, nothing might seem more fundamental, and yet Masonic history 
gives us pause. 


For one thing, there is Preston's version of the causes of the great schism in Masonry 
in the eighteenth century. Even if we do not accept this— and 1 take it Gould has shown 
that we should not— it is highly significant as to the development of the important 
Masonic institution in question. 


Preston's narrative is that in consequence of the expose of Masonry in Prichard's 
Masonry Dissected, a change was made in the mode of communication of the degrees, 
so that the words of the Entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft degrees were exchanged. 
This change, he gives us to understand, took place in 1739. But there is pretty 
conclusive evidence that the order of the Moderns, which Preston tells us, represents a 
change made in 1739, was the order which obtained in 1737 and the assertion that 
there was a change, made by Dermott and by Preston a generation later, seems 
traceable to two sources: (1) The change from two parts to three degrees definitely 
established in 1738, which was the cause of much discontent at the time and was one 
of the causes of a revolt from the Grand Lodge of England in 1739; and (2) a 
statement of a spurious ritual of 1766, one of a crop of spurious rituals and exposes of 
which the decade 1760 to 1770 was prolific, that such a change was made in 
consequence of Prichard's Masonry Dissected. What the author knew was that 
Prichard's order and that of the Grand Lodge of England were not the same. Of course 
Prichard could not be wrong! That Prichard's book had a considerable influence on 



Masonic ritual is a significant as well as a curious fact, showing how fluid the 
Masonry of the period really was. The conclusion that the order of 1737 was what it 
remained till the union with the ancients in 1813 might at first seem to sustain 
Mackey's view. But how can we adhere to it when we find that the prevailing order 
today is not that of 1737 and that two distinct systems of recognition prevailed in 
England from 1747 to 1813? 


Again, we are taught not to be dogmatic when we note that a distinct substitute word 
has prevailed in many parts of the world and may possibly go back to Jacobite 
Masons in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Even if we do not accept the 
view that "macbenac" is mac benach (blessed is the son) and is an allusion to the 
Pretender, the prevalence of this distinct word puts a heavy burden of proof upon 
those who would assert the immemoriality and universality of our present modes of 
recognition. If we suppose it to be a corruption, analogus to "Peter Gower" and 
"Naymus Graecus," when we put our substitute word of four syllables (pronounced as 
three) beside "macbenac" and the mysterious "maughbin" of operative manuscripts, 
we may well wonder whether we have anything more than a clever working into 
Hebrew of a corrupt word hopelessly lost or an eighteenth-century endeavor to make a 
word worthy of the occasion. At any rate, such reflections compel modesty in laying 
down Landmarks. Perhaps the card or receipt for dues now required of the visitor in 
more than one jurisdiction is not so counter to fundamental principles as has been 
asserted. 


Yet one cannot doubt that the established modes of recognition are upon a much 
firmer basis than the ephemeral creatures of Grand-Lodge legislation and Grand- 
Lodge decision. As far as anything can be established short of the Landmarks these 
are established. They are a part of our common law and deserve to be cherished as 
such. 


Dr. Mackey's second Landmark is the division of Craft Masonry into three degrees. 
Here he has support in the English pronouncement of 1813 "that ancient Craft 
Masonry consisted of the three degrees of Entered Apprentice, Lellowcraft, and 
Master Mason, including the Holy Royal Arch." But, he adds, "that disruption has 
never been healed, and the Landmark, although acknowledged in its integrity by all, 
still continues to be violated." A Landmark universally violated since 1813 may 
indeed excite our suspicion. And here again history compels us to take a different 



stand. For whether 1717 was a revival or a beginning in Craft Masonry, there can be 
no doubt that the middle of the eighteenth century did not preserve our high degrees 
—it created them. The first known reference to the Royal Arch is in 1741 . In that year 
the records of a Lodge (No. 21) set forth that in a procession the Master was 
"preceded by the Royal Arch carried by two excellent Masons." In 1744 Dassigny, an 
Irish Mason, tells us that there was an assembly of Royal Arch Masons at York, that 
the degree had been brought from York to Dublin, and that it had been practised in 
London "some small space before." He also tells us that the Royal Arch Assembly at 
York was "an organized body of men who have passed the chair." The evidence seems 
clear that this was the first additional or high degree. On the whole we may be pretty 
sure it was worked in England at least from 1740 and Gould thinks it has its origin in 
the alteration of the Master's creed in the constitutions of 1723. The Past Master's 
degree does not appear till the Grand Lodge of the socalled Ancients in 1751, and this 
was not admitted by the regular or so-called Modem Grand Lodge till 1810. But 
gradually, as the thirst for high degrees grew, probably influenced not a little by the 
growth of elaborate "systems" of high degrees on the Continent, a practice arose of 
conferring the Royal Arch upon Masons not qualified to receive it by a fictitious or 
constructive passing them through the chair, and thus a Past Master's degree arose and 
in effect a new rite. For this a new ceremony was evolved which, it is shown clearly 
enough, has no relation to the simple communication of secrets known to Payne, 
Desaguliers, and Anderson. This rite or these degrees were worked in the Craft 
Lodges, and during the schism both the Modem and the Ancient Grand Lodges came 
to permit them indifferently. Thus at the union it was possible to recognize the Royal 
Arch as a component part of ancient Freemasonry. By this time, however, it had 
achieved an independent existence. One might say, of course, that this is but the tale 
of the disruption of which Mackey speaks. But there is clear testimony to the contrary. 
In 1757, Manningham, Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England 
(Modem), in a letter on the subject of the high degrees, said: "These innovations are 
of very late years, and I believe the Brethren will find a difficulty to produce a Mason 
acquainted with any such forms twenty, nay ten years ago. My own father has been a 
Mason these fifty years and has been at Lodges in Holland, France and England. He 
knows none of these ceremonies. Grand Master Payne, who succeeded Sir 
Christopher Wren, is a stranger to them, as is also an old Brother of ninety I conversed 
with lately. This Brother assures me he was made a Mason in his youth and has 
constantly frequented Lodges till rendered incapable by advanced age, and never 
heard or knew of any other ceremonies or words than those used in general amongst 
us." This is not conclusive. But it is very suggestive that the Royal Arch was 
attributed by Ireland to distant York, and yet has no warrant in York records till 1761. 
A priori, one must feel the tme word is an essential part of Masonry; that it is, as 
Dermott put it, "The root, heart, and marrow of Masonry." Yet in the face of history 
this is no warrant for pronouncing it a Landmark that communication of the tme word 



is a part of Craft Masonry. On the contrary it is notorious Masonic common law that 
this is a matter for rites that build on Craft Masonry and vary infinitely in the details. 


So also with the division into three degrees. I discussed the evidence upon this point 
in a lecture last year upon the causes of divergence in ritual (1). Perhaps it is enough 
to say that there seems indubitable proof that originally there were two "parts" and 
that our present system of working the two parts in three degrees arose in some way 
between 1723 and 1728 and was not accepted universally for many years after the 
latter date. And yet nothing in Masonry short of a Landmark could be better 
established. If the system of three degrees cannot claim the immemorial existence that 
characterizes a Landmark, it can claim to be of such long standing, to be so universal, 
and to be so well attested— in that it is the common element in every rite that has ever 
been devised— as to be a fundamental institution of Masonic common law. 


The third Landmark in Mackey's exposition, namely, the legend of the third degree, 
was considered in the last lecture. (2) 


Next Mackey puts, as his fourth Landmark, to use his own words, "The government of 
the fraternity by a presiding officer, called a Grand Master, who is elected from the 
body of the Craft." Here again history gives us pause. Tradition does indeed tell us of 
Grand Masters prior to 1717 and Anderson, in 1738, gave us a long and palpably 
apocryphal list. As to Sir Christopher Wren, whom Anderson has taught us to 
consider the last Grand Master prior to the so-called revival, there is at least much 
doubt whether he was a Mason at all. And there is every reason to hold that there were 
no Grand Masters prior to the election of Sayer on St. John the Baptist's day, 1717. It 
might be said that the name is not important if it may be shown that some such officer, 
elected from the body of the Craft, has existed from time immemorial. But this cannot 
be shown and evidently is not true. 


We have abundant evidence as to speculative Lodges in England at least as far back as 
1646, and have good reason to believe that speculative Masonry was widely diffused 
in seventeenth-century England and that persons of the first rank were joining eagerly. 
Had there been such an institution as a Grand Mastership with the dignity and 
authority which it involves, it could not possibly have left no trace in the voluminous 



writings and loquacious diaries of the time. Moreover, we have actual written minutes 
of the Masons at York from 1712 and minutes from 1705 were once extant and are 
authentically established. These show that there was no Grand Lodge and no Grand 
Master at York till 1725. Prior to that time there was an annual assembly of Masons 
presided over by a '’President' ’ for the time being. But this President was a mere 
chairman of what was really a sort of convention. In 1778 when a claim of priority 
was made for the Grand Lodge at York, these presidents were made into Grand 
Masters. But the contemporary records show they were nothing of the sort and that the 
Grand Lodge organization at York in 1725 was fashioned upon the model of the 
London Grand Lodge of 1717. Likewise in Scotland we have abundance of evidence, 
including Lodge records, covering the whole of the seventeenth century. Nowhere is 
anything disclosed at all like a Grand Mastership, unless it be the appointment by the 
crown of a "Warden-General" for the Masons at the end of the sixteenth century. This 
obviously proves too much. 


It must be concluded, therefore, that the institution of the Grand Master is no 
Landmark. Yet here also is an undoubted and fundamental institution of Masonic 
common law. From the revival in 1717 to the present the Grand Mastership has been 
the cornerstone of Masonic organization. It has established itself as a universal 
institution and is as thoroughly a part of Masonry as anything short of a Landmark 
may be. Hence one must needs feel some pain in reading in the proceedings of 
American Grand Lodges that "the office of Grand Master is a constitutional office"— 
meaning that it is derived from, gets its powers by virtue of, and has its prerogatives 
determined by Masonic legislation. One may suspect, indeed, that those who so speak 
confound the "constitution" of an American state and the "constitutions" of 
Freemasonry. The latter, let us ever bear in mind, are but statutes. So far as we have a 
"constitution" in the sense of American public law, it is to be found in the Landmarks. 
The Grand Master is not the creature of Masonic legislation. To that extent Mackey 
was absolutely right. If his office and his prerogatives are not Landmarks, then we 
may grant that Masonic legislation in any jurisdiction may impair the office and shear 
it of its time honored prerogatives. In the same way the ruthless hand of the legislator 
may, as a mere display of power, alter any of our established usages short of a handful 
of Landmarks. But unless and until this is clearly and expressly done, the common 
law of Masonry prevails. Surely the mouth of the Masonic legislator is speaking great 
things when he tells us that we are to look to the pages of his codes to tell us the full 
measure of the powers and prerogatives of the Grand Master, who is older than 
legislation. For the Grand Master dates from 1717, while the first Masonic 
legislation— itself only declaratory— is the compilation of General Regulations by 
Grand Master Payne in 1720, approved by the Grand Lodge of England in 1721. 



Legislation may alter and take away, but is not the source and will not be until 
ignorance or innovation go so far as to lead some jurisdiction to set up a "constitution" 
in the sense of American public law in the place of the "constitutions" (as a body of 
legislation) which alone are known to Masonic law. 


Mackey's fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth Landmarks have to do with prerogatives of 
the Grand Master and hence cannot be admitted to be Landmarks for the reasons 
above set forth. If the office of Grand Master did not exist in form or in substance 
prior to 1717 it is obvious that the prerogatives of that office cannot be of immemorial 
antiquity. Some of these prerogatives, however, are undoubted common law. Thus 
Mackey's fifth Landmark reads "The prerogative of the Grand Master to preside 
over every assembly of the Craft, wheresoever and whensoever held." As he is Grand 
Master only within his jurisdiction, this means that he may assume the chair at any 
and every communication not only of the Grand Lodge but of any subordinate or 
constituent Lodge. This is certainly Masonic common law and is not a power derived 
from legislation, although constitutions may have declared it. Until constitutions add 
or subtract something we may not concede that they are sources. When they merely 
declare we may look to the universal practice of Masons since the eighteenth century 
and to the established customs of the Craft since the Grand Lodge system became 
established as the real sources of Masonic law. 


The sixth and seventh Landmarks in Mackey's system have to do with the prerogative 
of the Grand Master to grant dispensations for conferring degrees at irregular times 
and for opening and holding Lodges. Here again we have undoubted institutions of 
Masonic common law. For we have here an idea perfectly familiar to the formative 
period of Masonic Institutions however alien to the political and legal ideas of today. 
The dispensing power was part of the royal prerogative in England down to 1688 and 
a dispensing power for special occasions upon special reasons was regarded- and 
perhaps must to some extent be regarded always— as inherent in all magisterial office. 
Adaptation and application of general rules to actual cases which are sometimes 
particular rather than general in their significant characteristics is the essence of 
administration. 


As laws are general rules the process of making them involves elimination of 
elements of particular controversies which are special to those controversies. In 
eliminating immaterial factors to reach a general rule, in view of the infinite variety of 



controversies and the almost imperceptible differences of degree in their 
approximation to recognized types, it is not possible entirely to avoid the elimination 
of factors which will be more or less material in some particular controversy. To take 
account of all these variations an over-wide discretion in the magistrate would be 
required. On the other hand, if exceptions and qualifications and provisos are 
appended to legal rules to any great extent the system of law becomes cumbrous and 
unworkable. A compromise must be made; a middle course must be found between 
over-wide discretion and over-minute law making. Necessarily, therefore, legal 
standards are more or less artificial. In the law of the state we meet this difficulty by 
discretion of judges and magistrates? by the pardoning power of the supreme 
executive, by a certain extra-legal power of juries to run away with the law in bringing 
in a general verdict. All these are but phases of a dispensing power that is inevitable if 
lifeless rules are to be made to govern creatures of flesh and blood. Hence the 
equitable powers of the Roman praetor, the interference of the Roman emperor in 
cases of shocking breach of confidence that led to the law of testamentary trusts, the 
power of the Frankish king to decide secundum aequitatem, the power of the Anglo- 
Saxon king to mitigate the law, the power of the king's chancellor to deal with 
particular cases of great hardship in accordance with equity and good conscience. 
Hence we commit the regulation of public utilities today to administrative 
commissions rather than to courts. Hence the ecclesiastical law recognized a 
dispensing power in the pope and to less extent in the bishops. Thus the dispensing 
power of the Grand Master is inherent in his office. It has its origin in the nature of 
things and is but recognized and declared by Masonic legislation where such 
legislation purports to confer it. 


More serious question arises with respect to the eighth of Mackey's list, namely, the 
alleged prerogative of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight. This has been the 
subject of much debate and clearly is not a general institution of Masonic common 
law Brother Hughan, indeed, styled it an "American pretension." But much 
misapprehension has prevailed in the discussion of the subject. Some tell us that the 
power has not existed "since 1717," apparently reasoning that it is incompatible with 
the Lodge and Grand-Lodge system that has prevailed since that date. On the other 
hand we are told that it is a Landmark which has been suffered to fall into disuse by 
some while others have vindicated it in its integrity. Neither position can be 
maintained. When we are dealing with a question of Masonic common law our only 
criterion is long-standing, general, well attested usage. And authorities and 
jurisdictions will necessarily differ as to the application of this criterion and will reach 
different results, exactly as the courts of our states differ as to what are principles of 
common law under which we live and reach different results so frequently that, with a 



common foundation in each, the details of the traditional law differ in all our states. 
Certainly one may say with confidence that the power in question is not a general 
much less a universal institution of Masonic common law. But if it is recognized and 
obtains anywhere by custom or declaratory legislation, there is no reason why 
Masonic jurists elsewhere should hurl argumentative thunderbolts at the authorities of 
that jurisdiction. The nine American Grand Lodges that accept Mackey's twenty- five 
Landmarks in their entirety are at least entitled to claim that with them this 
prerogative is Masonic common law and rests in their law on a higher basis than such 
purely legislative rules as those which in some American jurisdictions preclude those 
who follow certain occupations from becoming Masons. For a logical argument may 
be made for the power as an incident of the common-law prerogative of the Grand 
Master to dispense with the law for grave reasons or on important occasions and it is 
at least disputable whether some such power was not exercised by eighteenth-century 
Grand Masters. 


Mackey's ninth Landmark is thus stated: "The necessity of Masons to congregate into 
Lodges." He adds: "It is not to be understood by this that any ancient Landmark has 
decreed that permanent organization of subordinate Lodges which constitutes one of 
the features of the Masonic system as it now prevails. But the Landmarks of the order 
always prescribe that Masons should from time to time congregate together for the 
purpose of either operative or speculative labor and that these congregations should be 
called Lodges. Formerly these were extemporary meetings called together for special 
purposes and then dissolved, the Brethren departing to meet again at other times and 
other places according to the necessity of circumstances. But warrants of constitution, 
by-laws, permanent officers, and annual arrears are modem innovations entirely 
outside the Landmarks and dependent entirely on the special enactment of a 
comparatively recent period." 


The comment of Brother George F. Moore in this connection is very pertinent. He 
says: "This amounts to saying that a society of men must be a society— that an 
association of men must associate, that a fraternity of men must fraternize. A common 
definition of a Freemason is 'one of a secret association composed of persons united 
for social enjoyment and mutual assistance.' But it is not so clear that the meeting of 
Freemasons were to be called 'Lodges' nor is there any evidence of a Landmark 
prescribing the use of the word 'Lodge'." 



We must remember that the Lodges of seventeenth-century England were often mere 
occasional assemblies of Masons and indeed were called "assemblies” at York. Often 
any number of Masons who find themselves in a convenient place at a convenient 
time are seen holding a Lodge. As a Landmark, therefore, this must fail. Yet nothing 
is more undoubted in Masonic common law than the system of regular and permanent 
Lodges that grew up in England after 1691, became an established part of the Grand 
Lodge system of 1717, and obtained universal authority in the Masonic world. 


Mackey states his tenth Landmark thus: "The government of the Craft when so 
congregated [i. e. in a Lodge] by a Master and two Wardens is also a Landmark. A 
congregation of Masons meeting together under any other government, as that for 
instance of a president and vice-president, or a chairman and subchairman, would not 
be recognized as a Lodge. The presence of a Master and two Wardens is as essential 
to a valid organization of a Lodge as a warrant of constitution is at the present day. 
The names, of course, vary in different languages; but the officers, their number, 
prerogatives and duties are everywhere identical." 


A few points are noteworthy in connection with the organization of a Masonic Lodge: 
(1) the organization with a Master and two Wardens is analogous to that of a parish in 
England, with the rector and two wardens. (2) It is the same as that of the Craft gilds 
in England, where there was a Master or governor (or some such title) and two 
wardens. (3) We know the title Master was not always used. In York the chief officer 
was called President. In Scotland he was called Warden. But this is not decisive and is 
no proof that there were not three officers. (4) The Master and Wardens were 
recognized and their duties defined in the old ordinances of the Steinmetzen of the 
fifteenth century. (5) The relation of the number three to the numerical symbolism so 
universal in Masonry suggests strongly the antiquity of the Master and Wardens. 


On the whole this tenth of Mackey's Landmarks comes very near to fulfilling the 
requirements. In a former article (3) I indicated my reasons for not so recognizing it. 
But Brother Moore accepts it as a Landmark. At any rate its place as an unquestioned 
institution of our common law is secure. 



We come next to Mackey's eleventh Landmark. His language is: "The necessity that 
every Lodge when congregated should be duly tiled is an important Landmark of the 
institution which is never neglected. The necessity of this law arises from the esoteric 
character of Masonry. The duty of guarding the door and keeping off cowans and 
eavesdroppers is an ancient one which constitutes, therefore, a Landmark." 


I suppose if there is such a thing as a Landmark, we should have to agree that secrecy 
is a Landmark. But notice that Mackey claims not only secrecy as a Landmark, but 
also the mode of maintaining secrecy by purgation of the Lodge and by tiling. Notice 
also the way he proves this, not historically, but logically or analytically. This is a 
good example of the analytical method in Masonic jurisprudence. Mackey's argument 
may be put thus: Masonry is a secret institution in its very nature. Hence secrecy is an 
unalterable fundamental. But the traditional incidents of secrecy, which are necessary 
to the maintenance of this fundamental institution of secrecy, are logically inseparable 
from secrecy and therefore they also are Landmarks. Consequently in his 
Encyclopedia, under the word "tiler," Mackey says that the name tiler and the office 
itself are based "not on any conventional regulation, but on the Landmarks of the 
Order." In other words, not only secrecy, but the tiling of the Lodge and the tiler, as a 
means of maintaining secrecy, are Landmarks. 


Undoubtedly we must agree that secrecy is a Landmark. We do not need analysis or 
logic for this. It is an immemorial, universal characteristic not merely of Masonry, but 
of all the like societies which, as I told you in another connection, have existed among 
all men in all times. But how far are the means of preserving secrecy Landmarks? 

How far are they fundamental and immutable, and how far are they but Masonic 
common law? This is not so easy to answer. For myself, I should say they are not a 
Landmark. One might say that where there is nothing against tradition in such a case 
we should accept it. And here we have, so far as there is evidence, the evidence of 
universal and immemorial usage. So one might say that the tiling of the Lodge and the 
doorkeeper, sentinel, outside guard, or tiler are Landmarks. But this is only saying that 
secrecy is a Landmark. As to the name "tiler"— we cannot be sure. It is hard to say 
what the word means. Some think it means one who lays tiles and is symbolical of the 
building roofed or completed. And in justification of this we are cited to the old 
practice that when a clandestine or a cowan got into the lodge a brother called out— "It 
rains"— signifying that the roof leaked for want of proper tiling. This is ingenious, and 
may be so. Others derive tiler from "tailleur," stone-cutter. This is philologically 
erroneous. There is some philological evidence that it may mean only guard. If so, the 
whole is clear. The symbolism of the roofed building is not well enough established to 



make it safe to rely on this for a Landmark. Probably recognition of secrecy and of 
purgation and tiling as a Landmark is as far as we can go. Brother Moore accepts 
Mackey's view entirely. 


Mackey states his twelfth Landmark thus: "The right of every Mason to be 
represented in all general meetings of the Craft and to instruct his representatives is a 
[twelfth] Landmark. Formerly these general meetings, which were usually held once a 
year, were called General Assemblies, and all the fraternity, even to the youngest 
Entered Apprentice, were entitled to be present. Now they are called Grand Lodges 
and only the Masters and Wardens of the subordinate Lodges are summoned. But this 
is simply as the representatives of their members. Originally each member represented 
himself; now he is represented by his officers." 


This is certainly Masonic common law, but I am confident it cannot be maintained as 
a Landmark. 


(1) In the first place it contains a refutation in itself. If prior to 1717 all Masons had a 
right to attend, what warrant was there in that year for changing a right of personal 
attendance into a right to attend by representatives? This shows that we are hardly 
dealing here with a Landmark. 


(2) As I showed in other lectures, the existence of these general assemblies prior to 
1717 is involved in great doubt historically. I think there is evidence of such 
assemblies in the seventeenth century. But I do not believe there is evidence of regular 
assemblies, much less of a system of periodical assemblies prior to 1717. To dispose 
of the matter in a few words, Masonic history is against this alleged Landmark, and 
Mackey's argument for it as a Landmark is in conflict with his assertion. But as a bit 
of Masonic common law, it is undoubted. 


In passing it should be noted that here, as in so many cases of Masonic common law, 
we have a purely English idea. Representation of every Englishman in Parliament 
through the knights of the shire and the burgesses is the-obvious analogy. Indeed 



Mackey's very language is taken from Blackstone. A very large part of Masonic 
common law is English. But when we have an idea so peculiarly English we may well 
pause and ask ourselves whether we are sure that we have a Landmark. 


Two matters of some practical importance are involved in the question as to the 
existence of this supposed twelfth Landmark. One is the question, once much mooted, 
of the right of the Entered Apprentice to ballot for candidates for the Entered 
Apprentice degree. This was the subject of a characteristically learned report by 
Albert Pike in 1854. As is well known, the question has been settled in the negative. 
The other point is one still controverted in many jurisdictions, namely, whether a 
Lodge of Master Masons is opened on the Entered Apprentice degree or a Lodge of 
Entered Apprentices is opened. This is really, it is submitted, but a matter of local law. 
One may think that the local law should be this or that on general principles of 
Masonic common law. But it cannot be that any Landmark is violated by a 
jurisdiction which takes the one view or the other. 


Mackey states his thirteenth Landmark thus: "The right of every Mason to appeal 
from the decision of his Brethren in Lodge convened to the Grand Lodge or General 
Assembly of Masons is a Landmark highly essential to the preservation of justice and 
the prevention of oppression. A few modem Grand Lodges, in adopting a regulation 
that the decision of subordinate Lodges in cases of expulsion cannot be wholly set 
aside upon appeal, have violated this unquestioned Landmark as well as the principles 
of just government." 


Notice how Mackey proves this Landmark. He says the right of appeal is essential to 
justice: therefore it is a Landmark. It is a fundamental notion injustice that there shall 
be a review of a decision; therefore it is fundamental in Masonic justice. But 
unappealable decisions are known to all legal systems. Lor example: Criminal appeals 
were not allowed in England till a few years ago; judgments and decrees for less than 
$5,000 in our federal courts were not appealable prior to 1891; petty judgments are 
unappealable in many states, and judgments were not appealable in Roman law prior 
to the empire. Hence it is by no means clear that Mackey's premises are maintainable. 
Moreover, as he admits, the practice has not been universal in modem times. But the 
conclusive objection is that this alleged Landmark assumes the existence of Grand 
Lodges prior to 1717, which we cannot concede. Nevertheless this is clearly a 
doctrine of Masonic common law. 



Mackey states his fourteenth Landmark in these words: The light of every Mason to 
visit and sit in every regular Lodge is an unquestioned Landmark of the Order. This is 
called the right of visitation. This right of visitation has always been recognized as an 
inherent right which inures to every Mason as he travels through the world and this is 
because Lodges are justly considered as divisions for convenience of the universal 
Masonic family. This right may of course be impaired or forfeited on special 
occasions by various circumstances; but when admission is refused to a Mason in 
good standing who knocks at the door of a Lodge as a visitor, it is to be expected that 
some good and sufficient reason shall be furnished for this violation of what is in 
general a Masonic right founded on the Landmarks of the order." 


This is a matter of great difficulty, not merely as to the existence of a Landmark of 
visitation, but also with respect to the limits of the right, whether founded on a 
Landmark or on common law. That there is a Landmark that Masons have a right of 
visitation is quite possible. There are several good reasons for asserting this. (1) 
Originally Lodges were not necessarily permanent. The Masons present at the time 
and place opened a Lodge. A striking illustration of this may be found in Ashmole's 
well known account of his initiation. Under such circumstances all who were there 
had a right to take part. But there were also permanent Lodges in Scotland, at least, in 
the sixteenth century. (2) The right of visitation, it may be said, inheres in the ideas of 
fraternity and universality. So far as we can use logic and philosophy they sustain 
Mackey on this point. (3) Visitation exists in all brotherhoods and societies in all time, 
so far as not purely local. It is said to have been a maxim of the Pythagoreans. (4) The 
old charges uniformly prescribe a duty of receiving "strange fellows"— that is, foreign 
Masons— and of treating them well. This is a very strong argument. 


We might, then, accept a Landmark of visitation. What, however, are its limits ? This 
is one of the most difficult and vexed questions in Masonic jurisprudence. Hence I 
prefer to regard visitation as a common law right, the limits and scope whereof must 
be considered in the next lecture. 


(To be continued) 



(1) "Causes of Divergence in Ritual," THE BUILDER, vol. Ill, Nov. C. C. B: pp. 4- 

10 . - 

(2) Masonic Jurisprudence - II, The Landmarks," THE BUILDER, vol. Ill, pp. 211- 
216. 

(3) Idem. 




EDITORIAL 


OUR LEGACY 


GEORGE WASHINGTON was a man. He lived and did not die. He was a Mason. He 
was Worshipful Master of his Lodge. Not only did he express Masonry in his life, he 
loved Masonry for itself. He was a large man. He had a goitre. He had a mole on his 
cheek. He did not look like a Sphinx. He was human. He laid the cornerstone of the 
National Capitol with Masonic ceremonies. In doing so he used a Freemason's trowel. 
As Worshipful Master he sat in a large leather chair. That leather chair now rests in a 
glass case, just a few feet from where it sat (though in a building since burned down) 
when he occupied it as the Master of that Lodge. The bases of the lights which burned 
in that Lodge Room still exist. But for the ravages of fire, the bier upon which he was 
borne to his grave would still be in existence. At the moment when he breathed his last, 
his physicians cut the pendulum cold of the clock which for years had ticked away the 
hours in his bedroom. It has never ticked since. The gloves which he wore as a Mason 
still remain. They show that he had large - very large - hands. And, withal, in that old 
Lodge Room there hangs his portrait, painted shortly before his death. A human face, 
surmounting rounding shoulders, covered with long, white hair. The face of a man who 
has lived much. An austere face - but a kindly eye. An eye which knew Brotherhood, 
and appreciated it. The eye and the face of the man and Mason whom, in 1788, was 
characterized by Edmund Randolph, Grand Master of Masons in Virginia, as "our 



illustrious and well-beloved brother, George Washington, Esq., late General and 
Commander-in-chief of the forces of the United States of America," and who, with 
others, was granted a Charter for Alexandria Lodge, General Washington becoming its 
first Master. 


These intimate personal relics, and hundreds of others which repose in that little old 
Lodge Room in Alexandria, prove that Washington was a Mason, and loved his 
Masonry. Except perhaps the room at Mount Vernon in which he died, there is no more 
hallowed place in all Virginia. His presence is still there. You can feel it. And when 
Alexandria- Washington Lodge No. 22 is opened, there is a thrill for every Mason - 
even the words of the ritual seem to be mellowed by the echoes of the days of long ago. 
To the American Mason, at least, it is an holy place. 


A Priceless Legacy? Yes. And a legacy house as every red-blooded American Mason 
would not have it housed. As it stands, our legacy is still subject to the ravages of fire, 
and nothing but the bravery of the present members of the Lodge could possibly save 
more than a fraction of what is left to us after the fire of 1871. 


"To Us," because for eight years the "spirit of 76” has been reawakened, and these 
priceless memoirs of the Lather of Our Country are to be preserved. The coming of the 
World War has heightened their value. Democracy, and the L1RST Leader of American 
Democracy mean more to us than they did a year or two ago. And so it was that on 
Lebruary 22 last, when the George Washington Masonic National Memorial 
Association held its annual meeting, the determination to see this great American 
Masonic Legacy properly housed was stronger than ever. Even the death of General 
Shryock, the lamented President of the Association, could not deter the representatives 
of a large number of Grand Lodges there assembled. Rather was his death accepted as a 
challenge to progress. And progress was attained. 


Cash and bona fide pledges to the amount of substantially $125,000.00 were reported 
by the Treasurer. The goal which was set at the beginning as the evidence of the 
practicability of the plan had been passed. It is not enough to justify erection of a 
suitable building, even if other circumstances were auspicious. But it is now only a 
matter of organization, and a little more time. 



Steps were perfected to expand the organization so as to include the whole United 
States. Funds over and above the reported total of donations to the building fund are in 
hand to carry the message of the need for this Memorial into every Lodge in the United 
States of America. Progress up to date proves that all that is needed is to present that 
message, and the patriotic ardor of American Masonry will respond to the Call. No 
Grand Lodge, and no Mason able to contribute his mite to a fund for this Washington 
Memorial, will want to be left out. The success of the movement is at hand. 


G.L.S. 




THE LIBRARY 


EDITED BY BRO. H. L. HAYWOOD 


(The object of this Department is to acquaint our readers with time-tried Masonic books 
not always familiar; with the best Masonic literature now being published; and with 
such non-Masonic books as may especially appeal to Masons. The Library Editor will 
be very glad to render any possible assistance to studious individuals or to study clubs 
and lodges, either through this Department or by personal correspondence; if you wish 
to leam something concerning any book - what is its nature, what is its value, or how it 
may be obtained - be free to ask him. If you have read a book which you think is worth 
a review write us about it; if you desire to purchase a book - any book - we will help 
you get it, with no charge for the service. Make this your Department of Literary 
Consultation.) 


"THE MERCY OF HELL" 



IT is a notorious fact that the most eloquent sermons make dull reading. The speaker 
makes his appeal to a crowd and must therefore set his subject forth in those sweeping 
generalizations which ill accord with the printed page addressed to a solitary mind; he is 
compelled to lay on his colors with a lavish brush in order that the dullest of his hearers 
may see the picture. While we listen, this goes well enough but to read it becomes a 
different matter, for we enjoy the writer most who leaves something to our own wit or 
imagination. Moreover, as Emerson was wont to remind himself, art is ever warning its 
votaries with "thou shalt not preach" because nothing is more fatal to a writer's appeal 
than the stiff, didactic temper of the moralist. For these, and for other reasons suggested 
by these, it is not often that the great sermonizer is also a great writer. Exceptions there 
have been but not many: Bossuet may still be read, especially if one is at home in 
French; F.W. Robertson has been listed among the makers of modern English prose; in 
this country we have had Brooks and Swing. The list is so soon exhausted that when a 
man appears who displays masterhood in both crafts we are all constrained to heed so 
rare an apparition. 


Dr. Joseph Fort Newton, whose volume of sermons, "The Mercy of Hell," has been 
recently issued by the Murray Press of Boston (at one dollar), has other claims upon the 
public, but in nothing does he more challenge attention than in his ability to both preach 
and write in the grand style. He has the exquisite grace of the literary craftsman 
combined with the unction and power of the prophet and one knows not which of the 
two to admire the more. 


Dr. Newton has read prodigiously. In literature, history, philosophy, in theology, and in 
certain specialties, such as Freemasonry, he is so much at home that the most literate 
reader is astonished by the erudition of a man only turned forty; but his thirst for 
knowledge has never been permitted to discredit the arts wherewith knowledge is 
turned into light and made to shine abroad. When the present writer asked him to name 
the teachers to whom he owed most by way of literary inspiration he mentioned Mark 
Rutherford, David Swing, Goldwin Smith, Theodore Watts-Dunton and Emerson; Dr. 
Newton has saturated himself with the spirit and mood of these men so that one will 
ever and anon catch echoes of them in the pages of "The Mercy of Hell"; but Dr. 
Newton's style, for all that it may owe to these and other masters, is quite his own. It is 
a style as beautiful as it is original, capable of effects like music and painting combined, 
and often really poignant in its beanty, as those will remember who have read his 
marvelous sermon on "Why Birds Sing." 



It must not be supposed, however, that Dr. Newton is a preacher who uses the sermon 
as a mere subterfuge for essay writing. The central, the essential thing in him is the 
prophet, the mystic, the teacher of the art of living the spiritual life, to whom the pulpit 
has become the house of the seer, and the sermon a speaking of man to man about the 
highest things. His is a religion without dogmatism, a faith innocent of metaphysical 
subtleties, and everywhere in it one will discover the chaste beauty of the Mind of 
Christ; the life of God in the soul of man; it is this which he sets forth in all his scores of 
sermons, it is this which he is ever seeking, or which he is always recommending with 
every art of persuasion. They who have grown weary of sectarian exaggerations, and 
the gritty bitterness of much that passes for evangelical faith, but who still require a 
house of doctrine in which the spirit may find rest and refreshment, will find in the 
present volume that which sounds like the voices of their own souls. 


Dr. Newton's most signal contribution to the religious spirit of the times, we may say, is 
his persistent emphasis on beauty as an essential element in religion. If the Medieval 
Period can still send forth an enchantment from its ancient towers it is because the 
worshippers of that period counted beauty as necessary to the church as goodness or 
truth. When the Reformation came, with its gray conventicles and its harsh moralities, 
the note of beauty was almost lost out of the Gospel of "the Poet of Galilee"; but now, 
we may thankfully say, the prophets of religion are once more awakened to the need for 
an esthetic element in common worship, and it is Dr. Newton's distinction that he has a 
place among those who lead this new renaissance which contends that God is as 
incapable of ugliness as of falsehood. 


The element of beauty in "The Mercy of Hell" is so blended with the other elements 
that one cannot disengage it for special exhibition, but those who care to see it in freest 
play may turn to the sermon on "The Vision of the Dead." It so happens that two other 
master preachers have developed this theme, Phillips Brooks and George A. Gordon; 
comparisons are odious, especially when the living are concerned, but the student who 
lays these three discourses before him will see at once that Dr. Newton's own distinctive 
note is the loveliness wherewith he has enveloped his pages, a loveliness of spirit, of 
thought, and of diction. 



By this restoration of beauty to the craft of the pulpit Dr. Newton has done much to 
reconcile the tradition which builds on the beauty of holiness with that other tradition 
which builds on the holiness of beauty. He has helped to do that which was so sorely 
needed, he has given the preacher a legitimate place among those other workers who 
build "the House Beautiful, which the creative minds of all generations - the artists and 
those who have treated life in the spirit of art - are always building together, for the 
refreshment of the human spirit." All who teach or preach, whether from the platform or 
from the printed page, have long needed this recall to the primacy of beauty in the 
presentations of truth and the appeals to goodness; they have long needed such a 
warning "against the stupidity which is dead to substance and the vulgarity which is 
dead to form." 


— o — 


THE QUESTION BOX 


(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.) 


WHAT IS TRUTH? 


In reading "The Trial of Christ From a Lawyer's Standpoint" in the December issue of 
THE BUILDER, I was set to thinking, when I came across the passage where Pilate, 
without waiting for an answer, asked the brooding question which has haunted free men 
with free minds since the beginning of time, "What is Truth ? " 



I would appreciate your definition of Truth, as my mind wanders to the words 
"Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth," and the Eastern Stars say "Charity, Truth and 
Loving Kindness," and, if I remember rightly the same word is used again in both the 
York and Scottish Rites. 


I have looked up the reference to the word in the Gospel of St. John and have also 
consulted three dictionaries. 


A.J.G., Iowa. 


"What is Truth ? " If we could answer that question we could be gods and know all the 
secrets of the universe. Pilate's question was put to Truth itself, but he could not 
understand it. Truth is the great object of Masonic study - the age-long quest of man. It 
is the reward promised to those who are faithful, when their spiritual temple is 
completed. It has been lost in the darkness of error, and, in this life at least, we must be 
content with a substitute, which approximates to the real according to our faithfulness. 


"Truth is a tenet of our Brotherhood; 

It is the essence of Divinity; 

It is the spirit's native, mystic food; 

It is the magnet of eternity, 

Which holds all that has been or is to be, 

To one grand center, which is fixed in God, 

Whom the Accepted, Ancient and the Free 

Adore as Master - Whose impartial rod 

Each soul hath felt which yet Life's rugged path hath trod. 



Truth is eternal - all else but decay; 

For Truth is God, and God is Truth, and we 
Are shades of destiny that pass away, 

Or blend in oceans of Divinity. 

The Sun, God's Junior Warden, beams on high, 

When moon and stars have faded into night, 

To lure the soul from earth to yonder sky, 

Wherein life's mystery is lost in light 

To be unveiled at last when it hath taken flight." 

Books might be written on this subject, my brother, and not exhaust it. No one 
definition that man can give can convey an idea of Truth's nature. We can hint at its 
meaning but we can no more comprehend it than we can comprehend God himself. 


We do indeed find it in all our Masonic work, both in the York and the Scottish Rites, 
because the search for Truth is but another name for man's efforts to attain the Real and 
Eternal and free himself from delusion and the temporal. 

"The earth shall pass away, 

The stars shall fall, 

The heavens roll together 
Like a parchment scroll; 

But Truth shall live forever, 



And through endless ages give 
Her blessings to the sainted, 
And fail them, never, never." 


C.C.H. 


* * * 


DEFINITIONS OF MASONRY 


You have struck a sympathetic chord in my makeup in your article "First Steps - 
Entrance and Reception" in the January issue of THE BUIEDER. 


Your definition comes very close to one I have loved. You say Freemasonry is a system 
of moral knowledge in action. Why not shorten it and say "Masonry is morality in 
action" ? 


Now I have twenty- four definitions by the following brethren: Oliver, Dalcho, Mackey, 
Pierson, Pike, Connor, Drummond, French, Humphrey, Parker, Saunders, Morris, 
Sickles, Fitch, Dutch Handbook, Mitchell and yourself. I have but a small library and 
would like to leam more of this subject. 


Definitions may be divided into several classes. For instance, I would classify Sir 
Gilbert Parker's saying that "Masonry is not the exposition of a manufactured ritual, nor 
is it a revelation. It expresses the underlying principles which govern all the religions 
which the race has loved, and is founded upon the accumulated traditions which are 
necessities to humanity," as a Scottish Rite definition. 



The great apostle of Scottish Rite Masonry, Albert Pike, gives the definition of a 
philosopher. 


It seems to me that the Fellowcraft also has his definition, several of them in fact. 
Oliver says: "Geometry is the basis upon which the superstructure of Masonry is 
erected." Dalcho and Oliver say "a speculative science founded on an operative art. 


Mackey says "a science of morality," but it seems to me that A.T.C. Pierson has the 
Fellowcraft's definition best of all. He says "the science of sciences, because it 
comprehends within itself that of all others." 


I merely mention the above examples to illustrate the idea, and if you can point me to a 
further elaboration of it, I shall be very thankful to you. 


H.H.A., Nebraska. 


Definitions are only helpful when adding to our comprehension of any subject. They 
limit or curb the tendency of our minds to looseness of understanding or vagueness of 
vision. A good definition enables us to see straight, look far, and acquire insight. 


A definition may be so scanty of scope that it is little better, if any, than the use of the 
word it aims to explain. This is the only criticism I make of your definition and my 
own, - both are impoverished sadly by their brevity. As mere trite expressions of an 
impression left upon our mind, they have their uses perhaps, but they are too lame, 
impotent and bald for full meaty meaning and wealth of ripe suggestion. 



I commend to you my old paraphrase of St. Paul's definition in I. Corinthians, 13th 
Chapter. Begin at the first verse if you wish, - 1 prefer to begin at the fourth. In some 
versions of the scriptures we have the word "charity" rendered as "love." I suggest you 
read it as "Freemasonry" wherever "love" or "charity" occur in that memorable chapter. 


I also like to think that Romans 12:11 defines something of what a Mason should be. 


All these definitions are faulty because not so sufficiently shaip, exclusive and co- 
ordinating as to mark the Mason in any wise apart and aside from all other good men. 
Truly he is of that goodly company but not all of them are Masons. 


My only answer to such a comment as the above is that 1 think most of Masonry 
because to me it affords a rallying ground where we can unitedly as Masons pool our 
efforts with the profane for the service of mankind. A Mason is surely made so to 
prepare and guarantee him for such labor and to consecrate him for a larger usefulness 
among men. As a Mason he recognizes the brethren as equal to himself in standing and 
in dedication, stones cut and gauged four-square for the temple of God, fitted to stand 
together in closest unity strongly supporting each other. 


But there is more than this to Masonic puipose and practice, and this aspect is purely 
the attitude of the Mason to the world's work at large, his labors with Masons and non- 
Masons. No definition aiming to be complete and accurate will ignore this phase of 
Freemasonry. 


You do not quote either the late Geo. W. Speth or the late Wm. J. Hughan, or Oswald 
Wirth, all of whom have attempted to describe Masonry. Brother Hughan's definition is 
not as well known as it deserves to be and having it handy 1 copy it herewith, ft first 
appeared in answer to some comments by that able and now departed Masonic writer, 
Brother Joseph Robbins: 



"Masonry consists in the erection, by aid of the proper working tools, and on the plan 
laid down by the Grand Architect of the Universe on His great moral and Masonic 
trestleboard, the Holy Writings, of a spiritual edifice, composed of stones which have 
passed the overseer's square and bearing the mark of the Craft thereon, wherein shall 
dwell the Holy Shekinah, surrounding the Cherubim who guard the revealed Word of 
God. Any rite administered to this end by the Craftsmen who have passed the door by 
the words of wisdom, upon the steps of prudence, and with the salutations of truth, is 
Masonic beyond all possibility of doubt." 


The above very instructive definition I copy from page 440, Official Bulletin, Supreme 
Council of the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States, Vol. 7, 1885. 


And now finally, my brother, let me try again. 


Freemasonry is a system of knowledge and of morals taught secretly to the elect for 
public and private uses. What a Mason should be, what he should know and what he 
should do is the puipose of Masonic teaching. Masonry is rehearsed to the initiate by 
the rendition of ritual, imparted to his mind by story, and impressed upon the memory 
by symbols, a triple guarantee against forgetfulness. By stage-set drama, stirring story 
and the art of symbolism, the eye, the ear and the recollection continually enrich the 
understanding of the reflective members of the Craft. He that so learns its lessons will 
not expect of it the mere establishment of historical facts, but he may be sure that it will 
convey to him the finer philosophical doctrines of truth. Such were the parables of Him 
that spake as never man spake. Even as He taught in the enduring simplicity of a 
straight-forward story, and used the nearby objects of street and field, home and inn, the 
whole chastened by the tragedy of His death upon the cross, at the hands of those for 
whom He labored, - so are we Masons today humbly and perhaps too often 
unconsciously employing methods of instruction having a striking family likeness to 
those of the glorified Galilean. R.I.C. 


* * * 



MASONRY IN SWEDEN 


Our Study Club would appreciate it very much if you would answer the following 
questions as soon as possible: 


What is the present status of Masonry in Sweden? What is the reason that Masons 
visiting that country from the several Grand jurisdictions of the United States cannot 
lawfully visit Swedish Lodges? 


W.P.S., Minnesota. 


We shall reply to your last question first by stating that, to our knowledge, the Masons 
of Arkansas, District of Columbia, Missouri and New York may lawfully visit Swedish 
Lodges, as the Grand Lodges of these States have officially established fraternal 
relations with the Grand Lodge of Sweden. Possibly the only reason that Minnesota 
Masons cannot lawfully visit Swedish Lodges is that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has 
never officially "recognized" the Grand Lodge of Sweden and the latter, for no other 
reason than this, is considered "clandestine" by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, if we 
rightly interpret Section 65 of Article V of the General Regulations of Minnesota, 
which defines a "clandestine" Lodge as "one without a charter or dispensation from this 
Grand Lodge or from a Grand Lodge recognized by it." 


Brother R. F. Gould, in his larger "History of Freemasonry," vol. IV, chapter XXVI, 
says that the history of Masonry in Sweden possesses an interest peculiar to itself. The 
Swedes appear to have fallen away from the simple teachings of the Craft as easily and 
early as the other nationalities of Europe, but with this difference, that instead of flitting 
from one Rite to another, constantly seeking variety, they have remained steadfast to 
their first heresy, and still work the same ceremonies that originally rivetted their 
attention about 1760. These ceremonies are in great part their own invention, although 
based, not improbably - upon the degrees of the Clermont Chapter; and as they have 
only been adopted by one Grand Body in Prussia, and by Denmark, Sweden has ever 
since been practically outside the circle of Freemasonry - a distant connection only of 



the great Masonic family. This want of intimate Masonic intercourse, combined with a 
marked absence of indigenous Masonic literature, is the reason that any history of 
Swedish Freemasonry can be no more than a sketch. 


In 1780 the Rite was rearranged and divided into three classes: 


I. St. John's Lodges, comprising the Craft. 


II. St. Andrew's Lodges, the Scots degrees: 4d, Elect or Scots Apprentices and Fellows; 
5d, Scots Master or Grand Scots Elect; 6d, Stuart brothers or Knights of the East and 
Princes of Jerusalem. 


III. Chapter: 7d, Confidants of Solomon, formerly Knights of the West; 8d, Confidants 
of St. John; 9d, Confidants of St. Andrew. Beyond this is a sort of Tenth Degree 
composed of three steps of honor - Knights, followed by Commanders of the Red Cross 
and Vicar of Solomon. The ruling body of the Order is this Tenth Degree, and its 
officers are called the Grand Wardens of the Crown, Lamp, Sword, Square, Temple, the 
Standard, the Grand Chancellor, Treasurer, and Architects, and at the head of all is the 
Vicar of Solomon. Owing to the Christian color of Freemasonry in Sweden, Solomon 
throughout is but a type of Christ, and his Vicar consequently becomes Christ's Vicar, a 
species of Protestant Pope. That the office is now always held by the King of the 
country is therefore only natural. 


On January 24, 1798, the Duke of Sudermania wrote a long letter to the Grand Master 
of England praying for a regular intercourse and mutual representation. This was 
granted and in spite of the great difference in ritual, the two Grand Lodges have ever 
since been in fraternal communion. 


Our latest statistics show that there are 43 Lodges and 13,558 members under the Grand 
Lodge of Sweden. 



W.E.A. 


* * * 


INFORMATION CONCERNING CANDIDATES FOR INITIATION 


(The following questions arere referred to us by the Chairman of the Skowhegan, 

Maine, Study Club after a recent discussion of Brother McCollum's paper on "The 
Ballot" which appeared in the October Correspondence Circle Bulletin. Any opinions or 
comments on the questions or our answers thereto by those of our members who are 
students of Masonic jurisprudence will be given space in the Correspondence Columns 
of this department.) 


Question 1. Should any brother who has the right of balloting and providing he is able 
to attend the meeting at which the ballot is to be had, seek the investigating committee 
to inform them of any reason he may have for thinking the applicant unworthy of being 
made a Mason? 


Answer. We can see no objection to a Mason informing the investigating committee of 
any reasons he may have for thinking the candidate unworthy of becoming a Mason. It 
is his privilege to do so. Also every member of a Maine Lodge has the right, under 
Section 102, Article VI, of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Maine, to object to 
the initiation of any candidate without giving his reasons therefor and such objection is 
equivalent to a rejection by ballot. Such objection may be made privately to the Master 
or to the Lodge and the reasons therefor cannot be required. Were the brother's reasons 
communicated to the investigating committee before their report to the Lodge, he would 
still have the right to file an objection to the candidate's initiation with the Master or the 
Lodge. 



Question 2. Taking it for granted the brother has given this information to the 
committee, is he subjecting himself to trial for unmasonic conduct? 


Answer. No. For if he were in possession of facts which, if made known, would cause 
the candidate to be rejected it would be his Masonic duty to reveal such facts to prevent 
unworthy material from being admitted into the Lodge. 


Question 3. If he informs the committee, is present at the meeting at which the 
candidate is to be balloted upon, and asks to be excused from voting, is he guilty of 
unmasonic conduct? 


Answer. Not according to the Maine law which provides that any member may be 
excused from voting by consent of the Lodge. 


Question 4. Does a brother lay himself open to umnasonic conduct by informing the 
committee of his objections, providing it is absolutely impossible for him to attend the 
meeting at which the candidate is to be balloted upon? 


Answer. No. 


Question 5. Should a brother who is unable to attend the meeting at which the candidate 
is to be balloted upon inform the committee or the Master if he objects to the 
candidate's initiation? 


Answer. See answer to question No. 1. 


W.E.A. 



* * * 


THE TABERNACLE ERECTED BY MOSES 


We are told in the Entered Apprentice Degree that King Solomon's Temple was situated 
due east and west after the style of the tabernacle which Moses built on the banks of the 
Red Sea "to peipetuate the remembrance of that remarkable east wind which wrought 
their mighty deliverance, and likewise the better to receive the rays of the rising sun." 


I have examined the parts of the Scriptures very carefully and fail to find that this was 
the case. Will you kindly advise me if you can locate the passage of Scripture that 
conveys this meaning? W.Y.D., Connecticut. 


If you are looking for a passage of Scripture which gives this explanation of the reason 
why the tabernacle and temple were situated due east and west, you will fail to find it. 
Both the tabernacle and the temple are full of symbolical significance, which is not 
given in the Bible. Possibly the significance was understood so well that it was not 
necessary to give the explanation. In some cases it was not given because the people 
had not reached a stage of development which enabled them to understand it. That 
every detail had a symbolical significance was firmly believed by the people 
themselves, but they were not always agreed as to what that significance was. Leyrer 
says "as to the symbolic signification of the tabernacle there cam be no doubt that the 
structure of the same was obviously determined by a complex and profound symbolism; 
but its meaning remains one of the things which will always be guess-work. Jewish 
Rabbis as well as Christian theologians have exercised their ingenuity with more or less 
success." The scriptural account gives very minute instructions as coming from God 
himself. Moses is to build the tabernacle according to the pattern shown him in the 
Mount - Exodus XXV, 9 and 40; XXVI, 30; XXVII, 8; and according to this plan the 
tabernacle is to be situated due east and west with the entrance in the East. (See Exodus 
XXVI, 14-25; XXVII, 9-19). Unless some significance was attached to it there would 
be no object in giving such minute instructions, especially as the location of each new 
camp must be chosen in view of these instmctions. If as a matter of fact this continual 



location of the tabernacle in the same direction peipetuated the remembrance of the 
mighty east wind by which their miraculous deliverance was wrought, it is natural to 
suppose that it was intended to do so. Again as to the rising sun, the Jewish 
Encyclopedia says "the opening of the gate toward the East had reference to the rising 
of the sun." (See Isaiah XLI, 2 and 25; Psalms L, 1; XIX, 4, CIII, 12.) The East meant 
forward - the direction of the face. West being behind, North to the left, South to the 
right. (See Job XXIII, 8, 9; Gen. XIII, 14; XXVIII, 14; Numbers X, 5, 6.) East is the 
part of the world where God planted Paradise. Many of the early Christians thought that 
Paradise was situated in the East. Therefore, though we may not be able to determine 
the origin of this explanation of the situation of the tabernacle and the temple, it is not 
an unnatural one and we know of no passage in the Scriptures with which it is 
inconsistent. We know that many of the Hebrew writers as well as the Apostle Paul 
gave to many of the early customs a symbolic significance which we do not find 
elsewhere in the Bible, and it is therefore natural to suppose that much of the rich 
symbolism of the temple like the parables of the New Testament was only revealed to 
those who were able to understand it. It is probable that much of it was even hidden 
from the earlier generations because they had not reached a stage of spiritual 
development which would enable them to so understand it. Masonic symbolism is of 
the same nature - it does not appear upon the surface - it is like the truth that comes to 
the diligent seeker and is revealed to him only as he is able to comprehend it. As 
illustrating a symbolical interpretation of the tabernacle which developed many 
generations after the tabernacle itself had passed away, read Paul's Epistle to the 
Hebrews. C.C.H. 


-o- 


CORRESPONDENCE 


RECOMMENDS A MASONIC COLLEGE 


Here is a matter I wish you would publish in THE BUILDER for the discussion and 
action of the brethren: 



Why not have a Masonic training school, or college, where the Masons and their 
children, or others for that matter, could get a liberal education ? We have those in the 
order whose early environment forced them to make their own way in the world, and in 
so doing were denied the benefits of a good education. Many of these, I think, would 
gladly avail themselves of the opportunity of securing more light, or if unable to attend 
themselves, would gladly and freely contribute to the establish.ment of such a school 
for the benefit of others. We are taught that we should be lovers of the several arts and 
sciences, and in what more fitting way could we live up to this teaching, than by the 
establishment of such a school, and in so doing set up an immovable landmark for the 
glory of Masonry and the betterment of the race - a landmark which even the ravages of 
time would not efface. 


If every Mason would contribute a dollar, or more if they so desired, it would make in 
round numbers $1,500,000 which would be a sufficient sum to start a school of which 
none of us would need feel ashamed. 


I would suggest that such a school, if established, be not run for profit, but be self- 
sustaining, and that it be centrally located, thereby serving the greater number of 
people, for if located in any extreme of the country many would be barred on account 
of the high traveling expenses, etc. 


Wm. Dickson, Michigan. 


* * * 


PHYSICAL QUALIFICATIONS 


In the matter of physical qualifications discussed in THE BUILDER and the article 
"Symbolism of the Perfect Man," by Brother Ticknor of Maryland, in the September 
issue, in which he says "that the candidate symbolizes, in his physical being, the perfect 



man, who alone is fit to enter into the composition of 'that spiritual building that house 
not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens,'" I take it that it is the perfect man, and not 
the symbol, which "alone is fit to enter into the composition of that spiritual building, 
that house not made with hands." 


The perfect stone was made use of by the ancient masters to put into the building, not as 
a symbol, but as part of the building, and is it not the perfect man, and not the symbol, 
that goes into the spiritual building? 


By hewing so closely to the line of symbolism, and endeavoring to hold fast to an 
ancient operative landmark, is there not danger of losing sight of the very root and 
foundation of our speculative teachings, that, "it is the internal and not the external 
qualifications that make one worthy to be a Mason" ? Is it not as a man thinketh and 
doeth, the life that he lives, that counts? Are these not the fundamentals of our 
principles and teachings? Is a man any less able to live and love, to do good, to practice 
our divine precepts, because of having gone forth to defend the principles of right and 
justice set forth in our teachings and in the doing thereof been deprived of some 
symbolic member? On this account is he any less a man, or any less a Mason; or is he 
any less worthy to be a man, or any less worthy to be a Mason ? 


While symbolism enters largely into our teachings, and it may be that the external or 
physical is the symbol of the internal or spiritual, and that the symbol should be perfect 
even as the internal is perfect, and as it was with the Great Initiate; yet it is not the 
teachings itself, nor the whole of Masonry. 


Should all of our principles and teachings stand in awe of one landmark of our ancient 
operative brothers, who used stones not as symbols? 


L.L. Reynolds. Iowa. 



* * * 


ANENT "MASONS" OF THE STONE AGE AND ACTIVITIES OF FRENCH 
LODGES 


In the February issue of THE BUILDER Brother Jox sharply raps Brother A.P.O. for 
attempting to find evidences of Masonry in the Stone Age. He says that it is a scientific 
question. Surely Brother Jox would not do away with the Seven Liberal Arts and 
Sciences. 


In every age of the world Masons were the best men of that age. Evidently the Stone 
Age man was a fierce, blood-thirsty character. We know that all men are not alike even 
in this enlightened time - some might be termed blood-thirsty even now. To judge this 
Age by the record being made by this class there would be no abiding-place for 
Masonry. And statistics show it to be a fact that there are fewer Masons per capita in the 
German Empire than in any other "civilized" nation, yet there are some Masons even 
there, however incredible it may be. 


It requires no stretch of the imagination to believe there were some good men, 
comparatively, in the Stone Age. The best men of that time, no matter what they were 
called or named, even if they were "pretty hard citizens," judging from our standard, 
they were the Masons of their time and Age. The Divine spark is always in the heart of 
man, no matter how deeply buried. 


* * * 


Brother Kellett's able paper on the Grand Orient of France reveals the same old story 
that has made sectarianism possible in the material and religious world - a lack of 
understanding of our brother's true position and what he really believes, perhaps, we 



might even say, our meddling, by setting up a standard for him. Why should not he set 
up one for us ? No doubt he would do so, were he less broad-minded and tolerant. 


We can contrast the life of intense interest in a French Lodge under the Grand Orient 
where are discussed sociological, legislative, economic and philosophical questions, 
as compared with the average lifeless interest in our own Lodges, except when there is 
a supper or work to do. Perhaps we had better be careful about throwing rocks. 


A. K. Bradley. Texas. 


* * * 


AN UNSOLICITED RECOMMENDATION 


Please give me the floor, Brother Editor, until I remark to the brethren: 


1. A Mason who subscribes for and reads THE BUILDER gets so much more out of his 
Masonry that it is a real act of conservation; it really pays him to be so engaged. 
Certainly any brother would be a very enthusiastic and well-posted Mason if he could 
often consult with such brethren as Pound, Newton, Clegg, et al., and two dollars a year 
for such a privilege would be considered a trifling cost. Well, that is just what I am 
doing right along every month in THE BUILDER and it is a "big bargain" at two 
dollars a year. May I suggest that we each and every one of us secure at least one new 
member for the Society and thus do good for all concerned? As a printer in the past I 
know that a publisher has his financial problems now as never before. And our 
publisher has his problems. 



2. Masonry is made up of men that rally to every good cause when it is properly 
presented to their attention: brethren, THE BUILDER is a good cause and ought to be 
on at least a hundred thousand library tables. It is an exponent of true Masonry. 


An anti-Mason looked through a copy of THE BUILDER which he found on my study 
table (I am a preacher) and remarked: "If Masonry is what this Journal seems to 
indicate, it strikes me that it is a good thing." Such light should be far more widely 
diffused, and to that end I pledge myself to do my part to raise the number of members 
of the Society to one hundred thousand. 


3. 1 have every number from the first, and every member joining after the first year 
owes it to himself to stock up with the previous bound volumes. He will be building for 
himself a Masonic library that will be prized in the years to come. When old age comes 
on these bound volumes will be a benediction to any Mason. 


4. For after all, brother Mason, "this is the Journal you long have sought and mourned 
because you found it not." THE BUILDER does not use valuable space and ink to 
remark that, for instance, some illustrious brother in California or elsewhere "has been 
confined to his home for a couple of days with a slight attack of the grippe." But it gives 
us each month a feast of Masonic history, philosophy, ethics, pictures, etc., and it is not 
run for the financial profit of any individual. It will put designs on every thinking 
Mason's trestle-board - great designs. 


5. And "lastly," brother Editor, without any suggestion from you or yours, I crave 
permission to again ask the brethren to put the circulation of THE BUILDER and the 
membership the Society to where it belongs - in six figures. 


Frederick W. Hart, Ohio. 



CHOICE 


If no one ever did a thing he didn't want to do 
I do not think that we would get a whole lot done, do you? 
If no one ever did a thing that wasn't any fun 
There wouldn't be a lot of use on earth for anyone. 

And here's a most peculiar thing about the whole of it: 
Although we often hate to do our little daily bit, 

The things that ultimately bring us joy and profit, too, 

Are generally the little things we didn't want to do. 


- Douglas Mallock.