SOME DISTURBING REMINDERS FROM

THE ERA OF THE GREAT SCHISM

Bro.  William Neil Love, P.G.M.


(81-05-23)

Primary sources for Masonic research are difficult to come by in
Alberta.  Therefore, this essay is based entirely on secondary
sources - that is, wellknown and respected Masonic historians
whose integrity has never been suspect and whose well-researched
writings may not be entirely free of honest error but are
certainly worthy of serious consideration.

This paper falls into two halves.  The first part deals with the
facts of history, and the source - except where otherwise
specified - is culled from the findings of Brother H. L. Haywood,
and which appear mainly in his volume, The Newly-made mason.  The
second part deals with the lessons emerging from this history and
their possible application to conditions today.  I have chosen to
play the devil's advocate by stating the case for those Brethren
who share the unsettling opinion that the Masons of North America
run the risk of repeating some of our more unfortunate Masonic
history.  The paper is consciously provocative, with the
intention to spark lively discussion.

PART ONE

Newly-made members of the Craft might not be familiar with that
troubled period in the 17-hundreds referred to by Masons as "The
Great Schism".  At that time there occurred a deep division
within the fraternity into opposing factions given the names of
"The Moderns" and "The Antients".  The subject has renewed
pertinence because there are many concerned Masons on this
continent, and right here in this jurisdiction of Alberta, who
point to trends in our conduct and activities today that, if
unchecked, could lead to a second or North American "Great
Schism".  In other words, they feel that unless we are alert to
the symptoms, we may find Masonic history recurring.  For it is a
commonly accepted truism, that if we fail to heed the lessons of
history, we may find ourselves obliged to repeat them.

To correctly summarize the events leading to the "Great Schism"
and their consequences is no small challenge in itself.  No less
an author than Joseph Fort Newton found that the series of
schisms within the Order which began in 1725 comprise a very
complex period, and often prove both confusing and bewil-
dering.(1) Certain myths and errors were long perpetuated and
went largely unchallenged until more recent research put them to
rest.  Historian H. L. Haywood stated that the full facts, and
hence their full significance, were not discovered until about
1900.  Therefore, he warns, one must be wary of authorities
relying on information prior to this date. (2)

1. Newton,  The Builders,  p. 198

2. Haywood, The Newly-made mason,  p. 40


Our starting point in these matters is the formation of the First
Grand Lodge in London in 1717 and the publication of Anderson's
Constitutions shortly thereafter.  It is well that we note that
the founding of a Grand Lodge was not n any way out of step with
established usage and custom for the time.  It was not a sudden
and arbitrary act dreamed up by a few enthusiasts, thereby
leaving themselves open to accusation that they introduced
innovation from the very

Newton stressed that nothing is clearer than that the initiative
came from the heart of the order itself, and was in no sense
imposed upon it from without . . ." (3) He stated that the
organization of the Grand Lodge, far from being an innovation -
much less a revolution - was simply a revival of older and
well-established practices of quarterly and annual assembly, and
he quoted Anderson of Constitutions fame to support his case ". .
.'it should meet Quarterly according to ancient Usage', tradition
having by this time become authoritative in such matters." (4)

Going back even further, Haywood stated that prior to about
1400's it was established custom for groups of Masons to gather
and constitute themselves a local Lodge to deal with a particular
situation; say, building a church or manor house; and then to
disband when their business had been concluded.  It was only in
the fourteen-hundreds that in a few centres permanent Lodges,
rather than just temporary, began to appear, with written
charters.  In the same manner the periodic assemblies of Lodges
into a "Grand Lodge" evolved naturally into a perimnent General
Assembly in 1717 when it was found to be of some benefit.

Then as now, changes were indeed taking place with the march of
civilization.  But it is well to note that the changes were
designed to reinforce timeless objectives, rather than to weaken
them by the introduction of shallow and abstracting, and
potentially dangerous, innovations.

In view of the later divisions within the Craft, it is perhaps
worth noting the social status of the first Grand Lodge Officers. 
The incumbants of the offices of the first Grand Master and his
two Wardens were described as simply "a gentleman, a carpenter,
and a captain." According to Newton, beyond these three there is
no record of the other individuals concerned.  Nevertheless, we
do know that, far from being an aristocratic body, the first
Grand Lodge was democratic in the broadest sense.  ". . . of the
four Lodges known to have taken part (in its formation), only one
- that meeting at the Rununer and Grape Tavern - had a majority
of Accepted Masons in its membership; the other three being
Operative Lodges, or largely so." (6)

It was stated, however, that the first Grand Master was to
preside "....'till they should have the Honour of a Noble Brother
at their Head. (7) Haywood noted that the desire to have a "Noble
Brother" at their head was not an act of snobbery but followed
the custom of societies in the nation to have a sponsor of the
ruling class to act as spokesman in high places. (In fact, about
a hundred years later Queen Victoria herself was to be the Royal
Sponsor of Freemasonry.) Nevertheless, herein lay the seed for
future dissent!

3 Newton, op.cit., p. 172

4 Ibid., p. 170

5 Haywood, op.cit., pp. 27 & 28

6 Newton,   loc.cit.

7 Haywood, op.cit.,  p. 27

As a handy reference for this period, The Pocket History of
Freemasonry by Pick and Knight lacks the exhaustive detail of a
more thorough volume of serious research.  There is just not the
space for hair-splitting argument and following up every clue and
innuendo.  At the same time, by its very brevity, this reference
quickly sorts out the wheat from the chaff and underlines the key
historical points.  In discussing the causes of the "Great
Schism", it states "These can be found partly in the slackness
and weak administration of the original governing body at this
time . . . and partly in certain changes in custom and ritual
which had been made, some deliberately. (8) Now, that might have
been the understatement of the year, for those changes in custom
and ritual were of such fundamental importance as to split the
Craft asunder.

It all began in London when a member of the British aristocracy
was chosen Grand Master.  On the surface this appears to have
been not unusual and perhaps harmless, but as things were in
British society at this time, a chain of consequences was thereby
set up.  The Grand Master, chosen from the nobility, naturally
associated with his class equals and tended to fill his
appointments to Grand Lodge with aristocrats.

The class structure of society was so inflexible at that time,
that no man would set aside the rights and prerogatives of his
nobility even as a Grand Master. (9) Discrimination on grounds of
colour or race was less important than discrimination on grounds
of rank.  The end result was that ". . . the whole system of
British aristocracy was imported into the Fraternity." (10) The
introduction of that innovation led to further innovation. (By
the way, the term "inovation" might encompass today many of those
things some Brethren refer to as "gimmicks" and "novelties".)

Newton wrote that

. . . there was a fear, not unjustified by facts, that the
ancient democracy of the order had been infringed upon by certain
acts of the Grand Lodge of 1717 . . . giving to the Grand Master
power to appoint the Wardens. . .

Nor was that all.  In 1735 it was resolved in the Grand Lodge
"that in the future all Grand Officers (except Grand Master)
shall be selected out of that body" - meaning the Past Grand
Stewards.  This act was amazing.  Already the Craft had let go
its power to elect the wardens, and now the choice of the Grand
Master was narrowed to the ranks of an oligarchy in its worst
form - a queer outcome of Masonic equality. (11)

The Craft had been captured by a special-interest group, who
introduced more innovation tailored to suit their own needs!

Pick and Knight refer to an abuse in the form of the illegal sale
of constitutions by Lodges operating under the guidance of these
innovators.  They cite the example of a certain George Lodge,
then No. 3, who saw fit to sell their regalia and ". . . Warrant
for thirty guineas to 'some Honourable  Gentlemen Newly Made'."
(12) a group whose membership appears to have been heavily larded
with members of the aristocracy. Another evident bias toward the 
nobility is revealed by the action of the Committee  of  Charity 
which  was  charged

8 Pick and Knight,  The Pocket History of Freemasonry,  p. 102

9 Haywood,  op.cit.,  p. 31

10 Ibid.

11 Newton,   pp. 198 & 199

12 Pick and Knight,  op-cit.,  p. 113

with looking into this irregularity.  Far from correcting the
abuse, the Committee saw fit to legalize it with their ruling
that " - . . as a mark of high respect to his Grace the Duke of
Beaufort and the other Noblemen and Honourable Gentlemen who meet
under the name of the Lodge of Friendship . . . the constitution
of No. 3 should remain with them . . . " (13)

It is also noteworthy that a minority seemed to have an influence
in other ways out of proportion to its numbers.  Pick and Knight
state that one of those "Honourable Gentlemen Newly Made" who
purchased the Warrant for the new Lodge named Friendship - one
Thomas French - was appointed Grand Secretary a short year after. 
A later examination of the records revealed that over a certain
period, out of 20 Grand Wardens  recently  appointed,  no  fewer 
than  13  had come from the ranks of this same Lodge of
Friendship."(14)

These examples notwithstanding, Haywood's writings wade more
boldly into the controversy by avoiding hang-ups over details
while concentrating on the fundamental trends and on what he sees
as their inevitable results: a deep split in the Craft between
the innovators who came to be called "The Moderns" and a faction
who wished to preserve our tenets and principles pure and
unimpaired, calling themselves "The Antients".

If any one individual stands out above the rest in the ensuing
struggle, it would be the champion of the Antients, Laurence
Dermott, who was Grand Secretary of the Antients from 1752 to
1771; approximately twenty years.

The History Of Masonry And Concordant Orders asserts that
Dermott, more than any other, seemed to have been the moving
spirit in sustaining this great schism, (15) is As might be
expected, Dermott ". . . has been severely criticized by his
opponents, and Laurie charges him with unfairness in his
proceedings against the Moderns, with treating them bitterly,
with quackery, with being vainglorious of his own pretentions to
superior knowledge. (16)

Dr. Mackey, in his History Of Freemasonry, would seem to have
partially agreed when he said ". . . I am afraid there is much
truth in this estimate of Dermott's character.  As a polemic, he
was sarcastic, bitter, uncompromising, and not altogether sincere
and veracious . . . (17) (Dr.  Mackey's writings, it might be
pointed out, appeared well before the turn of the century and
therefore, according to Haywood, are suspect.) If Mackey erred in
his judgment of Dermott, he was in good company.  No less a
Masonic writer than R.F. Gould dismissed the man as little more
than a house painter with little education. (18)  But Haywood
tells us that these descriptions were ill-considered, to say the
least, " . . . because almost nothing was even known about
Dermott when Gould wrote his history. (19)

This writer cannot help but comment that any individual who today
rises to defend the Craft against innovations and gimmicks risks
attack by those who would hope to "modernize" the Order and
change it to suit their own tastes.  This is as true now as it
was then! One may even suggest that Dermott's opponents were
increasingly incensed as they gradually came to reallize the
"awful truth" that he was, after all, right!

13 Pick and Knight,  op.cit.,  p. 114  18 Haywood,opcit.,p. 40

14 Ibid.,  p. 113, footnote            19 Loc.cit,

15 History of masonry and Concordant orders, p. 554


16 Loc.cit.

17 Loc.cit. (quoting Mackey)

Let us return to the exact words of Haywood based on the more
recent evidence.

Dermott was what Eighteenth Century men called a genius, a small
class of great men of which Christopher Wren and William
Shakespeare were more famous specimens . . . He had many talents,
and they were of high excellence; he was a learned  man (he could
read Ancient Hebrew), a forceful and even powerful writer as is
proved by the Book of Constitutions which he wrote, a singer, an
after-dinner speaker to hear whom men drove many miles, an
organizer and administrator, a driving, daring, bold, tireless,
ingenious, inventive, undiscouragable character, who withal had a
great and an almost instinctive understanding of Freemasonry. 
Who were the greatest Masons (and as Masons) of that century?
Desaguliers? Preston? The Duke of Sussex? Thomas Smith Webb? If
so Dermott belongs to the list because he ranks second in
achievement to none of these names. (20)

Would that we had a Masonic leader of such stature today!

Leaving the matter of personalities, let us return to the abuses
that led to the Great Schism.  The results of introducing the
innovations, according to Haywood, are briefly as follows:

They gave rise to attacks on the Masonic hierarchy by the lower
classes because they identified the Craft with the
special-interest group: the aristocracy.  In reaction, the Grand
Lodge curtailed its activities; withdrew from public exposure;
kept a low profile; made alterations in its modes of recognition;
permitted changes and emasculation of the ritual; tolerated the
lapse of the dignified ceremonies of Grand Lodge installations;
and generally diverted the objectives and activities of the Craft
from its time-nonoured purpose.

The cumulative result was the chasm opening between Masons of the
so-called upper classes" and those of the "lower classes", a
division down the middle between the majority in the Craft and
the minority of the special-interest group.

This "Great Schism" lasted some forty years while pressures built
up against the innovations.  The emasculation of the ritual meant
a consequent lowering of its dignity, if nothing else.  But
Haywood said this had more fundamental import.  In his words,

A Newly Made Mason ought to note that any question about the
Ritual is a question of what Freemasonry is or is not, because in
one form  or another, directly or by implication, literally or
symbolically, the Ritual is a series of statements about what it
is to be a Mason it is the means by which a Lodge "makes" a
Mason.  To omit something from the Ritual is to omit it from
Freemasonry. (21)

When the Masonic offices were filled with arictocrats, the Lodges
came to serve only the narrow considerations of a
special-interest group.  Many Lodges ceased to be Lodges and
became purely social clubs, and the Freemasonry was replaced
entirely with light-hearted conviviality.   (22)

The situation seemed to come to a head with the great Irish
potato famines which saw some two to three million Irish
migrating into England and other lands.  Among the migrants to
England were many good Masons who, on wishing to

20 Haywood,  op.cit.,  p. 40

21 Ibid., p. 41

22 Ibid., p. 33

affiliate as was their right, found themselves blocked by those
people who seemed to have captured much of the Craft.  When they
sought to visit they were turned back at the door and the reason
why they were turned back was made abundantly clear, when they
were told that too many of them were carpenters, plumbers,
stone-masons, teamsters, and similar members of the lower
classes.  "These gentlemen were wearing a workingman's leather
apron . . . (and yet) could detect no self-contradiction in their
refusing to sit with Masons in a Masonic Lodge if a Mason was a
carpenter.  Jesus of Nazareth could not have visited auch a
Lodge.  This snobbishness was an extraordinary and fateful result
of the 'modernizing' of the Fraternity which was being made."
(23)

At this point it should suffice to relate that the immigrant
Masons formed their own Lodges outside of the Grand Lodge of
London.  Meantime, to quote Haywood,

During this same period a number of Lodges on the List of the
Grand Lodge at London . . . became so resentful at this new
exclusiveness, and so violently disapproved of the innovations of
which the Grand  Lodge had become guilty, that they began to
withdraw from it, and did so in such number that at a later time
some 135 of them had been counted.  By the end of the decade of
1740-1750 A.D., where one Irish Mason withdrew himself from the
Grand Lodge at London, ten English Masons had done so.  Along
with them, and agreeing with them, were a hundred or so
independent regular Lodges (called St. John's Lodges) which had
never been on the Grand Lodge's Lists.  This refusal to recognize
the so-called "modernizing" of Freemasonry reached such a pitch
at the last that the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland
withdrew recognition from the Grand Lodge at London. (24)

The struggle ensued for some two generations.  With the Grand
Lodges facing eye-ball to eye-ball for over forty-five years, it
was the innovators who appear to have blinked first.  In 1789 the
Moderns were moved to appoint a committee which was to approach
their rivals to see if they could achieve a reconciliation.  But
reconciliation was slow to come.  Feelings had been running so
high that members of one faction were forbidden even to visit
Lodges of the other. (25)

Nevertheless, despite efforts to lock out rivals, there continued
to be a certain flow of traffic across the picket lines from one
body to the other.  Indeed, Pick and Knight (26) state that there
were even cases of Brethren belonging to both the Moderns and the
Antients at the same time.  This is not to say that they saw no
grounds for dispute.  It is at least arguable that they
understood the situation quite clearly but hoped to help bring
about a remedy by working from within.

Things moved to a conclusion in 1809 when the Moderns Grand Lodge
apparently took a second look at what they had done and resolved
that "It is not necessary any longer to continue in force those
Measures which were resorted to in or about 1739 respecting
irregular Masons and do therefore enjoin the several Lodges to
revert to the Antient Land Marks of the Society. (27)

In 1810 the Antients found it possible to make the following  
resolution:"....a Masonic Union on principles equal and
honourable to both Grand Lodges, and preserving the Land Marks of
the Ancient Craft, would be . . . expedient and advantageous to
both. (28)

23 Haywood, op.cit., p. 37
24 Loc. ci t .
25 Pick and Knight,  op.cit.,  p. 109   27 Ibid.,  p.122
26 Loc.cit.                             28 ibid.,  p.123

This, briefly, is what has been recorded as "The Great Schism" in
Craft Masonry: the period in which a minority in the Craft
imposed upon the majority the innovations of class distinction,
exclusiveness, restriction of Masonic offices, emasculation of
the Ritual, replacement of Masonic teachings with purely social
functions, etc., and until the majority could bring about a
return to the fundamental objectives of the Order.


PART TWO

All that has been said so far was a simple re-telling of the
facts of history.  At this point we depart from the chronology of
events and launch ourselves into an examination of the lessons to
be learned and their possible application today.

No two people see things in exactly the same light. We are all
different as individuals; we have different backgrounds,
outlooks, experience in the Craft, and general knowledge, which
influence our points of view.

There is plenty of room for difference of opinion in Craft
Masonry and perhaps this essay will prompt a lively and
interesting exchange of ideas.

In this writer's view, a clear lesson emerges. the lesson is
this: innovations did occur, but correction was made and unity
re-established when men of high principle and, indeed, whole
Lodges stood up to be counted and demanded an end to tampering
with the principles, practices and objectives of the Craft.

When we step back and examine the evidence from the vantage point
of hindsight, the cause and results emerge more clearly, and it
is here where many Masons in America today point to what they
feel is clear writing on the wall.  They are concerned lest we on
this Continent be led into making similar errors, by a minority
of enthusiastic (but misguided) individuals who are working over-
time to change the Craft to suit their personal tastes.

Historian Haywood described changes which were introduced into
Freemasonry in the 17th century that led to the "Great Schism":
(29)

I. - The Craft was divided by the introduction of innovations.

II. - The image of Masonry was changed in the eyes of the public.

III. - The forms and customs were altered; the ritual was
emasculated; the Craft objectives were diverted.

IV. - The Lodges were changed into something they were never
intended to be: straight social clubs.

V. - A minority special-interest group, the aristocracy, came to
dominate much of the Craft.

We may now examine these points one at a time and in each case
itemize some possible parallels in the Craft today.  There is a
vast amount of material available but this thesis shall be
limited to little more than a series of examples.  Because of the
comparative brevity, the reader is asked to realize that each
point can be much more thoroughly supported by argument and
evidence than is given here.


29 The references to Haywood (op.cit., pp. 31-33) are
approximations used by the author and do not necessarily
correspond to Haywood's items 1-5.  Item I is related to
Haywood's 3, item II to 2, III to 5, and V to 1. There appears to
be no link between IV and 4 (Ed.)

POINT I -  HAYWOOD INTIMATED THAT THE INNOVATORS OF THE           
           17-HUNDREDS DIVIDED THE CRAFT.

ITEM: The activities of many concordant bodies in North America
today are in direct competition with (and are thereby divisive)
those of the parent body, the Craft Lodge, resulting in
competition for a Brother's time, attention, interests, and
energies.  Brethren are increasingly put in a position where they
are forced to choose where their loyalties lie.

Would one consider this to be at all divisive?

ITEM: Mounting pressures to change the "free will and accord"
rule are driving a wedge between those who adhere to the
time-honoured tenet of no-solicitation and those who wish to bend
this principle to fill the ranks of other organizations.

Can anyone deny that this sort of thing is happening?
Does it seed disunity?

ITEM: Tensions between Brethren are being aggravated by a faction
that asserts that no Mason is a "complete" Mason until he passes
through ceremonies and degrees in certain appendant organizations
which they misrepresent as being of a "higher" order.

ITEM: An invisible line has been dtawn between the 80% of the
Brethren in this jurisdiction who have chosen not to join a
concordant body, and the 20% minority of enthusiasts who have
joined.  This tends to have a geographic aspect.  That is,
country versus city Lodges.

ITEM: A growing number of Masons are becoming less active in
their Lodges and in the concordant bodies, because of their
distress over changes being introduced into the Craft -
innovations often advanced under the old argument that the Order
should be "modernized" or "change with the times." (Perhaps
better words here would be "faminized" and "liberalized.")

ITEM: There seems to have emerged - small but ominous - a
regrettable geographic polarization in this province (of Alberta,
Ed.). A North-South rivalry that should never exist, let alone be
allowed to grow, is even now being fanned by a small minority.



POINT II - IN THE 17-HUNDREDS THE IMAGE OF MASONRY WAS CHANGED IN 
           THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC: PEOPLE JUDGED THE CRAFT BY THE 
           ACTIVITIES & ATTITUDES OF A SPECIAL-INTEREST GROUP.    
           (AT THAT TIME, IT HAPPENED TO BE THE ARISTOCRACY.)

Is Masonry's image in North America being distorted again today?
Have those concerned Brethren any real grounds for their
misgivings?

ITEM: Freemasonry has traditionally been a modest organization
with a consciously  low public profile.  Today, however, on this
continent the public is increasingly exposed to the activities of
Masons in their appendant organizations where they dress up in
bright uniforms, parade, blow horns, etc., and behave in a
generally outgoing and festive manner.  Is it any wonder then
that society tends to identify this image with Craft Masonry. 
The public borrows this image to fill the image vacuum left by
the Craft, and - as in the past - one group tends to be equated
with the other.

And they are not the same thing at all!

ITEM: The public activities of North American Masons are inviting
public speculation; misinterpreted perhaps, but the impressions
remain.  These activities commonly are intended to display
patriotism.

"But," protest the innovators, "is patriotism not a virtue?" The
answer lies in the difference between the words "patriotism" and
"loyalty."

"Patriotism" has a far more narrow connotation which ofttimes
strays into dangerous nationalism.  "Loyalty", on the other hand,
may be a devotion or responsibility not to country alone, but to
one's friends, one's wife and children, ones employer.  Perhaps
it is best put in the words of one concerned Mason, M.W.Bro.
Jesse W. Gern, Past Grand Master of Colorado, who said:

Certainly patriotism can be a beautiful thing . . . loyalty to
one's own ... . But too much loyalty can become an overweaning
obsession that verges on selfishness or pride, the deadliest of
the Seven Medieval Sins.  For this reason, Freemasonry does not
put a primary emphasis on country. (30)

ITEM: A close examination of the proceedings from around the
continent will reveal just how much the gimmick department of
Masonry is extending itself in an obsessive search for novelties
to entertain and distract rather than to educate and inspire. 
Some Lodges will go to any end to dream up some novelty or other
to avoid tackling our task of building individual character.

For centuries our forefathers were obliged to meet in the
operative Masons' buildings, or in the local inns.  How fortunate
they felt when the time came that they could have homes of their
very own . . . Lodgerooms or buildings constructed and furnished
to their specific design and private use.  But what is happening
today? We seem to have laid off counting our blessings!

There is emerging a great urge for eager individuals to drag
their Brethren out of their proper Lodgerooms to try to perform
our dignified and serious ceremonies in abandoned quarries,
barns, open fields, mountain tops, the decks of ships, etc.,
anywhere but in the dignified atmosphere of the formal Lodgeroom.

Is this progress ? Is this what some people mean by "keeping up 
with the times?" When concerned Brethren call for a return to  
the ancient principles and practices, it is difficult to believe
that they mean a return to the primitive facilities of our
Masonic ancestors.

ITEM: Something our forefathers were spared in their day, were
the eagerbeaver propagandists of the Craft.  Wherever one goes
today, one meets those modernizing individuals who champion the
cause of Masonic publicity campaigns.  "Stop hiding our head
beneath a bushel," is their rallying cry.  "If only we inform the
public of what good boys we are and what wonderful things we are
doing," they seem to be saying, "all our problems would be
solved." They might well add, "besides, our membership would
soar, our Lodgerooms would be crowded, and our coffers would
swell."

But is this really so? Masonry is not intended for everyone, but
for the select few.  Unless we first pull up our socks, a massive
publicity campaign could backfire.  Many of our wiser Brethren
take a look at the low attendance

30 Copied by the author from an issue of the Grand Lodge of
Colorado official publication.

in meetings, the preference of so many for the appendant bodies,
the lowering of discipline and propriety to accommodate a
permissive society; the general lack of understanding among so
many of our Brethren of what Masonry is really all about; and the
myriad of gimmicks and substitutes for the teachings of the
lessons of the Craft, and are convinced that any form of
publicity campaign could risk revealing the Order to be a rapidly
emptying shell..... a largely hollow drum just making a big
noise.  Or, to put it more bluntly - an Order of hypocrites who
don't even try to practice what they preach.

Concerned Masons argue that if we return to the ancient practices
and objectives of the Craft, there would be no need of publicity
whatsoever.  The alleged shortcomings would correct themselves
and Freemasonry would have its proper image.  They find nothing
wrong with Freemasonry, only with so many Masons!

But the publicists keep up their pressure.  Dwight Smith cited
the example of one Grand Communication at which a recommendation
was made that every Lodge Junior Warden was to be officially
named the Publicity Agent, and publicity included as one of the
laid down duties of his office.(31)

ITEM: The practice of printing and distributing Masonic pamphlets
or leaflets is widespread on this continent and even being urged
upon our own jurisdiction.  Ostensibly they are to be limited to
prospective candidates and are offered as an explanation of what
Masonry is all about.  But in fact, they wind up being
distributed to the public at large, and are even used as a
straight recruiting device.

Opponents to the pamphlet idea note that the recipients may be
left with the impression that the Brother who relies on a leaflet
to explain Masonry, apparently doesn't know what it's all about
himself, or just can't be bothered to explain in person.  Either
way they set a bad example.

Concerned Brethren are also worried about how those printed
pamphlets have a tendency to appear in little piles on church
pews and waiting rooms, or even are to be seen blowing about the
streets.

ITEM: Masonic T-shirts have now made their appearance in Alberta
another import.  They are rather informal, flimsy things, but
with some symbol or words of Freemasonry emblazoned across the
front, to help give the Craft its "proper image", of course.  So
now we find Masonry's good name competing for public attention
with all those other shirts sporting gags, racy slogans, and
four-letter words.  What is this doing to our image?

POINT  III  -  THE INNOVATORS OF THE 17-HUNDREDS CHANGED OUR      
               FORMS AND OUR CUSTOMS, EMASCULATED OUR RITUALS AND 
               DIVERTED OUR CRAFT OBJECTIVES.

ITEM: The Grand Lodge of Alberta recently undercut our
traditional word of mouth method of teaching by issuing copies of
our private Work to anyone who wants them (eprovided he is a
M.M., Ed.). This change in custom (not yet universal, it is worth
noting) has not only destroyed much of the invaluable Master -
Apprentice relationship,, but has resulted in no appreciable
improvement in the quality of the Work.  Alert Brethren watch
this "streamlining" of our practices

31 Smith, Why This Confusion In the Temple?,  p. 66

and further introduction of technology: the printing press, the
copy machine, the tape recorder, etc.  All these things are
supposed to make a man a better Mason, but they worry lest they
become too impersonal, and serve simply to relieve the candidate
of the necessity to make a little more effort on his own behalf.

They ask, "Are we making it too easy? Are we passing the buck to
machines? What has happened to the human element?"

ITEM: Increasing numbers of Lodges have capitulated to the social
trends by lowering their standards of dress and dignity.  First
names and nicknames have replaced proper titles; turtleneck
sweaters, etc., are worn by some officers instead of the
customary, more formal attire of the Lodge.  Off-colour and
ethnic jokes are common and go unchallenged, and novelties are
introduced without the traditional discipline and decorum.

ITEM: Outside ritualistic teams of all kinds are increasingly
moving into Lodges to relieve the regular officers of their
primary duties.  And we wonder why we have so many inexperienced
Past Masters walking our streets!

ITEM: The principle of modesty and unobtrusiveness in Craft
Masonry is being strained by a modern tendency to advertise one's
membership and rank to an uncomprehending public.  The example of
the Masonic bumper-stickers needs little comment.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing obsession on this
continent with pins, buttons, badges and all those other external
trappings used to advertise an individual's connections and rank. 
The trend has not gone unnoticed.  One can find in the
proceedings of the North American Conference of Grand Masters the
statement, "Our degrees - like our lapel pins and titles - come
too easily and too often. (32)

Why does no one challenge those people who wear that lapel pin
depicting a walking stick and spheres? This is a clear breach of
a solemn oath against anything whatsoever that may be legible or
intelligible to oneself or anyone else in the world.  Even if
just shrugged off as a rather cunning evasion of the exact
wording, it remains a blatant breach of the spirit of that oath. 
Doesn't anybody care anymore? Are concerned Brethren justified in
labeling this a change in form and custom?

ITEM: Last year a U.S. Masonic Jurisdiction faced loss of
recognition by other jurisdictions when it introduced innovations
aimed at grinding out new members en masse.  An edict was issued
that abolished the waiting period between degrees; removed the
necessity for a candidate to prove up -between degrees; and
permitted the initiation of candidates in large groups: one
individual only, need take part in the ceremony while a crowd of
other candidates simply looked on.  This meant that with
appropriate promotion and recruiting, any Lodge could conceivably
run through 100 new members in a weekend.

Fortunately, wiser leaders in the Craft issued an ulti@atum and
the edict was rescinded.

What is your reaction to this? Would you welcome visitors, so
initiated, to your Lodge? Do you feel that such innovations tend
to be schismatic? Some Masons do, Think about it.  While thinking
about it, ask yourself the question; "Is this issue really dead,
or is it likely to reappear through the back door of the Craft?"

32 Recorded by the author during the North American Conference of
Grand Masters, Colorado Springs, CO., February, 1979.

POINT IV  -  THE EARLY INNOVATORS THAT CAUSED THE GREAT SCHISM    
             CHANGED LODGES INTO SOMETHING THEY WERE NEVER        
             INTENDED TO BE: i.e., STRAIGHT, RESTRICTED SOCIAL    
             CLUBS.


ITEM: While fully acknowledging the benefits to be derived from
social activities in a Lodge, many concerned Brethren worry lest
we again go too far in these distractions and forget our true
Masonic purpose.  They cite the cases where Masonic programs are
drastically curtailed or eliminated altogether because they may
delay the party.  "The ladies are waiting!" Sound familiar?

ITEM: There is a growing tendency for Lodges to put entertainment
ahead of instruction in Lodge programs.  Thus we see a drift to
pass over interesting and informative Masonic speakers in favour
of talks on such topics as pollution, breathalizers, or the drug
problem . . . anything at all, in fact, that can be found
anywhere, except the one thing we can get nowhere else:
Freemasonry.

ITEM: The practice of holding "open installations" is fairly
widespread in the United States.  While applauded by some, other
Masons have profound misgivings.  They realize that once such
novelties are introduced, they are exceedingly difficult to
eradicate.  It is brought about, of course, in the interests of
"modernizing" the Order, or again, to "change with the times."

An open installation is one in which family and friends are
invited to participate.  In the opinion of many, these affairs
sometimes become nothing more than a restricted ego trip for the
Grand Lodge officers rather than a dignified and traditional
ceremony, attended by the Craft as a whole.  There is again a
tendency to shorten the ceremony by elimination of longer and
more esoteric passages lest it bore the visitors . . . A direct
parallel to the emasculation of the ritual in the 17th century.

The real tragedy of some of these truncated ceremonies, however,
is that they are turning a traditional Rite into a purely social
event which fewer and fewer of the rank and file of Masons even
bother to attend, their places having long since been filled with
women and children, cousins and grandchildren, parents and
in-laws, and all-manner of business connections.

ITEM: The socializers and innovators of today who work so
enthusiastically to change Masonry's role, have introduced a
twist never dreamed of by their predecessors who brought about
the first "Great Schism".  It came with the advent of the service
club idea, and the modern efforts on this continent to divert
Masonry's objectives into service club activities.

We are being urged daily to launch our Lodges into projects,
campaigns, charity drives, and other highly visible pommunity
projects.  The big shift is from our traditional emphasis on
individual charity to institutional charity.

It should be apparent to the most blind that Masonic Lodges are
no more equipped to do service club work than the service clubs
are equipped to practice Masonry.


Did our distinguished forefathers intend Freemasonry to be a
service club? Are we getting off track? Some concerned Brethren
feel we might be.

POINT V  -  HISTORIAN HAYWOOD STATED THAT THE FIRST "GREAT        
            SCHISM" WAS HASTENED WHEN A MINORITY (at that time    
            the aristocracy) CAME TO DOMINATE THE DIRECTION OF    
            MUCH OF THE ORDER.

ITEM: Many prominent Masons in America today feel that there is
clear danger that history is about to repeat itself on this
continent.  Not the least among them is Dwight Smith, Past Grand
Master of Indiana and probably the outstanding Masonic author in
America today.  Bro. Smith and other serious-minded Masons are
warning us that the tail is beginning to wag the dog; that a
special interest minority of members (only some 20% in Alberta)
continually seeks to advance the fortunes of other organizations
at the expense of the Craft Lodges.  Some of his fulminations are
expressed in these words:

(But) I am getting good and tired of seeing Symbolic Freemasonry
used primarily as a Sugar Daddy, as a benevolent old gentleman
whose chief reason for existence is to provide funds and housing
facilities and a stock pile for candidates.  Especially do I see
the when I see the parent body so blithely ignored, neglected and 
starved by those who drain off its resources with such
profligacy. (33)

ITEM: Many dedicated Masons on this continent worry that our
Craft meetings are being turned into sounding boards to promote
and recruit for other organizations; each group, like the
aristocrats of old, claiming to be of special importance and the
peak of the Masonic society.

Thus we see such things as the so-called "Booster Nights" or
"Family and Friends Nights," or panel discussion programs, when
mixed bags of Masons and non-Masons are invited to dinner to hear
representatives of concordant bodies deliver their public
relations speeches.  Many Brethren feel that instructing
non-Masons about other organizations is hardly an adequate
substitute for teaching Masons about Masonry.  Would our
ancestors have approved of this growing practice?

ITEM: Individuals who dare to speak out in defence of the Craft
and adherence to our time-honoured practices and principles, find
themselves the target of attacks by the innovators and
modernizers.  Their honest desire to protect our Order from
innovation is rewarded by misrepresentation and pressure from
both outside and inside the Craft, some of it subtle and some not
so subtle.  Regrettably, they have all too often felt obliged to
withhold advice and participation in areas where their leadership
is so desperately needed.

ITEM: How many of us have attended Lodges where the programs of
Masonry are abandoned, while the ceremonies of other
organizations are substituted? These often take the form of the
rites of youth groups.  Let it be made clear that the merits of
youth organizations and the virtues of supporting youth
activities are not at all in question.  What is being questioned
is why the Lodges are being asked to discriminate in favour of a
particular group over any other.

Most youth groups have the sound support of individual
Freemasons, and perhaps no better examples can be drawn than the
DeMolay or the Boy Scouts, both of which derive leadership from
enthusiastic Craft Masons.  Nevertheless, it escapes many Masons
exactly why Craft Lodges should be asked to concentrate

33 Smith, op.cit., p. 43

on some 400 members of DeMolay for special consideration while
the 35,000 Boy scouts of Alberta are ignored.  Gentle critics
complain that this is at least a distraction from our proper
Masonic business.  Less charitable censors wonder aloud whether
the Lodges are not being used to turn out more Boy Shriners.

ITEM: Another area that causes misgivings among many Brethren, is
that of membership.  Not a worry over its possible decline, but a
worry that we are becoming too concerned with quantity at the
expense of quality: that we are turning out too many members, and
too few real masons.

At one Banff Interprovincial Conference M.W. Bro.  E.J. Lockhart
of British Columbia put it this way:

. . . we should be very selective in the choice of men that we
allow into the order . . . this has a relation to membership and
the retention of members.  If we take in two or three that
shouldn't be in, because we lower our standards, we are liable to
lose five or six better prospects, and we might lose some members
that we already have. (34)

In Britain, the birthplace of modern Masonry, many Lodges
restrict membership to 100, and it seems to work just fine.  One
can get to know all his Brethren, and attendance is close to
100%.

ITEM: It is true that population shifts are making it difficult
for some smaller rural Lodges.  This is compensated for, to some
extent, by the growth of city Lodges.  For example, two Alberta
Lodges (St.Mark's and Renfrew) alone initiated over 100
candidates in a single five-year period (1973-1978).  Ten Alberta
city Lodges alone initiated almost 400 in the same five years. 
In fact, some of those Lodges appear to do little else except
initiate people.

Some concerned Brethren are left with the uneasy feeling that the
big drive for membership comes largely from outside the Craft
Lodges.  It is perhaps noteworthy, by the way, that generally
speaking, in Alberta, attendance at Lodge meetings is inversely
proportional to the size of membership.

ITEM: The Grand Secretary of Indiana took the time to examine
various Grand Lodge proceedings and to note the visitations by
Grand Masters.  He found the results astounding.  For example,
one Grand Master reported 79 visitations, but 45 were to
appendant organizations.  Another Grand Master made 69
visitations, of which only 11 were to Symbolic Lodges, and of
these six were to one Lodge.  So much for his interest in the
Craft Lodges.  Still another Grand Master showed where his
loyalties lay when he made 66 visitations and of these 62 were to
concordant orders.(35)

Many concerned Brethren are asking how long Freemasonry on this
continent can survive such neglect of its basic units.  No wonder
many Brethren are concerned that Craft Masonry on this continent
is getting short shrift, and is in need of some major
readjustment back to its traditional place of respect.

To quote Bro. Dwight Smith again:

What can we expect when we have permitted'.  Freemasonry to
become subdivided into a score of organizations? Look at it. 
Each organization dependent upon the parent body for its
existence, yet each jockeying for a position of supremacy, and
each claiming to be the Pinnacle to which any Master Mason may
aspire.  We have spread ourselves thin, and 

34 Lockhart in Proceedings . . . Baner, 1975,

35 Smith, op.cit, p. 44

Ancient Craft Masonry is the loser. Downgraded, the Symbolic
Lodge is used only as a springboard.  A short-sighted Craft we
have been to create in our beloved Fraternity a condition wherein
the tail can, and may,  wag the dog. (36)

Those are the five of the major changes introduced into
Freemasonry which historian Haywood stated caused the "Great
Schism" of the 17-hundreds, plus a few of the parallels which
some Masons fear are being reintroduced today.

Undoubtedly there are those who feel that their Brethren are
unnecessarily concerned, that they overstate the case, that they
exaggerate the dangers, that the trends are not well-enough
established to be of real concern, or simply, that the
innovations we witness today bring as much virtue as vice.  If
that is the reader's opinion, then he need not be disturbed.  He
need only watch complacently as the trends unfold.  If, however,
he is among the ranks of the disturbed, he may be on the side of
those who wish to bring the Craft back on course before it again
splits asunder.

The critics of the current trends put their case more in sorrow
than in anger.  They feel sure that the innovators act with
sincerity and with no ulterior motives, regardless of the fact
that they sometimes open a veritable Pandora's Box-of potential
Masonic evils.  As historian Haywood said about the
first "Great Schism it :

The whole process..... was a gradual one; neither the Grand Lodge
itself nor any of its Lodges had any intention of undermining the
foundations of the Fraternity. . . and their intentions, such as
they had, were in their own eyes completely innocent ... (37)

The great tragedy is that Freemasonry in North America seems to
be entering a new era, not as a universal and unchanging faith,
but as a patchwork of independent social or service clubs, basted
together with a few shaky stitches of tradition.
     
Ill-considered innovations so innocently but so easily
introduced, may prove exceedingly difficult to eradicate.  Their
removal puts further strains on the Craft.  Their elimination
ofttimes leaves behind an unfortunate trail of recriminations,
acrimony, and disharmony that can take years to dissipate.

Only with difficulty, and with great self-discipline can an
unfortunate innovation be eradicated, and even then, in the
picturesque language of Brother Heron Lepper, a former librarian
of the Grand Lodge of England,

In vanishing from human ken, like the fiend of folklore, it left
behind a nauseous stench to remind men that something unholy has
passed  that way. (38)

Let this essay be concluded with one last comment from the depths
of the swamp.  In those immortal words of POGO,

"We have met the enemy, and he is us

36 Smith, Whither Are We Traveling?, p. 10

37 Haywood, OP-cit., p. 33

38 Pick and Knight, op.cit., p. 115

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Editors, Board of, The History of Freemasonry and Concordant
Orders, Boston and London: The Fraternity Publishing Company,
1913

Haywood, H. L., The Newly-Made Mason, Richmond, Virginia: Macoy
Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1973

Lockhart, E. J., quoted in Proceedings, 35th Annual
Inter-Provincial Conference of the Officers of the Four Western
Masonic Jurisdictions, Banff, AB, 1975

Newton, Joseph Fort, The Builders, Richmond, Virginia: ILicoy
Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1951

Pick, Fred L. and G. Norman Knight, The Pocket History of
Freemasonry, 5th ed., London: Frederick Muller Ltd., 1971

Smith, Dwight L., Why This Confusion In The Temple?, Washington,
D.C.: The Masonic Service Association, 1970

------------ . Whither Are We Traveling?, Franklin, Indiana: The
Freemason Printing Center, The Indiana Masonic Home, 1966


DISCUSSION

(excerpted from the minutes)

Brother Aspeslet talked on the value of both history and opinion
for stimulating good discussion and expressed sincere hope that
no schism is created in our time.  Brother Fox spoke of the
necessity of maintaining harmony and working together to meet the
principles of Masonry.  He demonstrated how the Research Lodge
has broken geographical boundaries with the simple dedication of
working for the Craft.  Brother Borland supported the views
expressed in the paper, and hoped that the "innovations" seen
elsewhere would not pervade the Craft in Alberta.  He was
interested in the statistics of involvement of members of append-
ant orders in their Craft Lodges.  Brother Love stated supporting
figures to answer Brother Borland, and also expanded on the
changes which had been made in rituals.  Brother Juthner raised
the problem of who were the good and bad in the Antient/Modern
conflict, casting some doubt on the Antients' purity of purpose.

Brother Laycraft felt this was a most provocative paper; he noted
the concerns raised but pointed out that some of the strongest
supporters of concordant bodies are also heavily involved in
their Craft Lodges.  Brother Senn noted that there was a basic
need for belonging, and that some Brethren move into appendant
bodies for this reason alone.  He also stated that the opinions
of today are frequently used as the facts of tomorrow, as any
history text will show.  Brother Borland commented that perhaps
the answer would be for appendant bodies to sever the link with
Craft Masonry and stand as independent bodies.

Brother Lusk complimented the speaker but warned against tunnel
vision which restricts our opportunities to grow as people. 
Other organizations have something to offer and do not steal the
person who does not wish to leave.  He stated that "you do not
increase the light of your candle by putting out those around
you." Working together is the answer.  Brother Jendyk stressed
the importance of retaining the Landmarks and not adopting
changes that are not required.  We are looking at symptoms and
not causes: we need more research!

Brother Love closed the discussion by stating that his essay was
intended to stimulate discussion and, apparently, he had been
successful.



