                THE SPURIOUS REVELINGS OF

                     SAMUEL PRITCHARD

  The earliest exposition or expose' of Freemasonry of             
importance or interest to Masons was made in 1730, when          
a pamphlet was published in London, entitled:  "MASON-           
RY DISSECTED" by Samuel Pritchard.  This pamphlet                
gained tremendous notoriety.  There were several subse-          
quent editions of this work, and revisions were made in          
1737 and 1738, as well as translations into the French,          
German and Dutch languages.                                      
  The title and foreward will be sufficient here to give us        
an idea of the contents of this exposition.   It reads:          
"MASONRY DISSECTED, being a universal and genuine               
description of all its branches, from the original to the        
present time, as it is delivered in the constituted regular      
Lodges, both in City and Country, according to the several       
degrees of admission, giving an impartial account of their       
regular proceedings in initiating their new members in           
the whole three degrees of Masonry, to which is added            
the authors vindication of himself, by SAMUEL PRIT-              
CHARD, late member of a constituted Lodge."                      
Albert Mackey expressed that it contained a good deal           
of plausible matter, mingled with some truth, as well as         
falsehood, and further, that it became the basis or model        
on which many subsequent, so called expositions, such as         
Tobal Cain, Joachim and Boaz, etc., were framed.                 
  It is generally assumed that Pritchard died in obscuri-          
ty.  However, Albert Mackey records an interesting and           
perhaps  amusing sidelight on Pritchard's demise.  The           
French Abbe' LARADUN, another antagonist of the Fra-             
ternity, published his exposition, "Franc Macons Ecrases,"       
in Amsterdam in 1745 and on page 135 of that book he             
manufactured a wild tale about Pritchard's death, stating,       
that Pritchard was carried by force, at night, into the          
Grand Lodge of England, put to death, his body burned           
to ashes, and all the Lodges in the world were informed         
of the execution.  Mackey adds, "that the Abbe' is satis-        
fied of this wonderous narrative because he had heard it         
told in Holland and in Germany, all of which only proves         
that the french calumniator abounded either in an invent-        
ive faculty, or in a trusting faith."                            
  Pritchard's work more or less influenced two develop-            
ments which still cause consternation and questions today.      
  The first may be traced this way.  During the years              
of its infancy, the Grand Lodge of England cautiously            
refrained from making any public proclamations,  par-            
ticularly about the character, intents and purposes of           
Freemasonry.  Even the wording of the OLD CHARGES,              
which served to explain Masonic law and principles, to           
the consternation of many students, revealed many possi-         
ble interpretations.  However they were deliberately so          
phrased as to prevent any distortion of their true mean-         
ing, particularly by those who sought to expose or to            
eliminate the Fraternity.  Masonry had many rivals in            
literary, religious, and political organizations in the early    
years and so whenever a public statement was necessary           
in its defense, the Grand Lodge merely stated that Free-         
masonry served the purpose of promoting the Brother-                          
hood of Man, Charity and Truth and gave no further ex-           
planation.                                                       
  Yet, despite the care and caution, exercised by the              
Grand Lodge, the Fraternity was gravely suspected by             
some opponents of being an old sect under new guise,             
which was serving unconventional aims of the libertine,
also called pantheist, cult.  So dangerous became these
accusations, that the Grand Lodge felt obliged to deny
these charges.  This denial is expressly stated in the first
of the Old Charges.  It begins:  "A Mason is obliged, by
his tenure, to obey the moral law, and if he rightly un-
derstands the art, he will never be a stupid atheist nor an
irreligious libertine."
  But, neither the emphasis on charity and brotherhood
nor the denial  of libertinism freed the Fraternity from
the attacks of  those religious and political enemies who
felt their own ambitions and aspirations for power, and
control of the  minds of men, endangered by Masonry. 
Not only was the Fraternity attacked in literary essays,
or stayed by Church bans, but Roman Catholic, as well
as protestant authorities, now subjected Masons to the
same penalties which they had once imposed upon heretics.
  Not until the end of 1737, when the Prince of Wales
was made a Mason, was the existence of the Fraternity
reasonably safeguarded under Royal protection, and only
then could a public defense be made against the libelous
and slanderous attacks on the character of the Masonic
institution.  And so early in 1738 a pamphlet was pub-
lished in Dublin entitled:  "The Apologia of the Frater-
nity of Freemasons," by Dr. James Anderson, the same
Dr. Anderson, who had compiled the First Book of Con-
stitutions of the Grand Lodge of England.  It was the first
work of any value that had appeared from the Masonic
press.  Dr. Anderson had composed this essay earlier, in
1730, in answer to Pritchard's expose'.  Actually, how-
ever, it was not so much a reply to Pritchard, but rather
an attempt to interpret the ceremonies which were de- 
scribed in Masonry Dissected.  Even though it was only     
a semi-official publication, it was appended to the second  
Book of Constitutions of 1738, which would indicate that
it had the approval of the Grand Lodge of England. 
Mackey says, that it ought to have been made a more
popular work among the Fraternity than it is.       
  The Church of Rome also took official recognition of   
Dr. Anderson's text.  In the records of "The History of
the Grand Orient de France," we find on pages 295-298, 
that on the 18th day of February, 1739, Pope Clement
XII ordered his executioner to publically burn the Apologia
in the Streets of Rome.  The torch which set fire to Dr. 
Anderson's interpretations is still a symbolic beacon of 
papal opposition to Masonic ideals.         
  Pope Clement XII had already taken an official stand
against Masons in the previous year.  With the publi-   
cation of Masonry Dissected, the text of the Old Charges
had become public.  We may reason that the Pope would
take offense to the second sentence in the first of the
Old Charges, because the Roman Catholic Church does 
not  tolerate  neutrality.   The  second  sentence  reads:
"But though in ancient times Masons were charged in 
every country to be of the religion of that country or na-
tion, whatever it was, it is now thought more expedient
only to oblige them to that region in which all men agree,
leaving their particular opinions to themselves."   And,     
on the 27th day of April 1738, Pope Clement XII issued
a bull against Freemasons, to the effect that a Mason     
be excommunicated by continuing his membership in the
society, and thus be deprived of all spiritual privileges        
while living, and the rites of burial when dead.                 
  A brief review will reveal, that this Bull was confirmed        
and perpetuated by Pope Benedict XIV in 1750, who spe-           
cifically stated in "Syllabus of Errors," Art. 15 "That it       
is an error to believe that any man may embrace and              
profess the religion of his choice, guided by reason."  It       
was again repeated by Pius VII in 1821, Leo XII in 1825,         
Gregory XVI in 1832, Pius IX in 1865, and finally by             
Leo XIII in 1884, who restated it in the encyclical, "Hu-        
manum Genus," in the following language:                         
  "Therefore, whatsoever the popes, our predecessors, have         
decreed to hinder the designs and attempts of Freemasons,        
whatsoever they have ordained to deter or recall persons         
from societies of this kind, each and all we do ratify by        
our apostolic authority."                                        
  That "By accepting any that present themselves, no               
matter of what religion, they, (the Masons), gain their          
purpose of urging that great error of the present day, i.e.,     
that questions of religion ought to be left undetermined,        
and that there should be no distinction made between             
verities.  And this policy aims at the destruction of all        
religions,  especially  at  that  of  the  Catholic  religion,   
which, since it is the only true one, cannot be reduced to       
equality with the rest without great injury."                    
  "But in truth, the sect grants great license to its ini-         
tiates allowing them to defend either position, that there       
is a God, or that there is no God."                              
  The second development which, in some degree, was in-            
fluenced by Masonry Dissected, was the divergance of             
Ritual.                                                          
  In the year 1738, a number of Brethren, in London, had           
become dissatisfied with certain proceedings and transac-        
tions of the Grand Lodge of England.  They separated             
themselves from their regular Lodges and began to hold          
meetings and initiate candidates without sanction and au-        
thority from the Grand Lodge.  Historians of the time,           
like Preston, Thory, and Dermort and others, were agreed         
that the dissatisfactions stemmed from the fact that the         
Grand Lodge had introduced some innovations altering the         
ritual and suppressing some ceremonies, which had long           
been in use.                                                     
  We know for certain, that changes were made, especially          
in the modes of recognition, and these changes, it is gener-     
ally believed, were induced by the spurious revealings of        
the notorious Samuel Pritchard, as a safeguard against           
intruders.                                                       
  At this same time difficulties also occurred between the         
Grand Lodge of England and that of York.  The seceding           
Brethren, taking advantage of this, assumed, without au-         
thority from the Grand Lodge of York, the name of An-            
cient York Masons. However, this was eventually reconcil-        
ed. But the differences with the Grand Lodge of England          
remained, since it persisted in the innovations and ritualis-    
tic changes which it had made. And so the seceding Breth-        
ren declared themselves independent, and assumed the ap-         
pelation Ancient Masons, to indicate their adherence to an-      
cient forms and ceremonies.  For a similar purpose they          
denominated the members of regular Lodges, Modern Ma-            
sons, because it was contended, they had adopted new             
forms and usages.                                                
  The secedors established a new Grand Lodge in London
under the claim that they were governed by the Ancient
York Constitutions, which had supposedly been adopted at
that City in 926.  They grew rapidly and gained many in-
fluential members in England and were eventually recog- 
nized by the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland.  They
became popular in America, and most of the Provincial 
Grand Lodges established in this Country before the Revo-
lution derived their warrants from the Grand Lodge of
Ancient York Masons.
  In 1756, Grand Secretary, Lawrence Dermort, who was 
later to become Deputy Grand Master, published a Book
of Constitutions for the use of Ancient Masons, entitled:
AHIMAN REZON, (The will of the selected Brethren).
It became the code and Masonic law for all who adhered,
either in England, or in America, to the Ancient York  
Grand Lodge; while the Grand Lodge of Moderns, or regu-
lar Grand Lodge of England, and those provincial Lodges 
in America, to whom it had issued charters, were govern- 
ed by the regulations contained in Anderson's Constitu-
tions, published in 1723.   
  And so, until 1813, when in London, all differences were
reconciled, and the United Grand Lodge of Ancient Free-
masons of England was formed, there had existed two
distinct groups of Masons, though with a similarity of
names, yet they differed in makings, ceremonies, know-
ledge, Masonic language, and installations.
  In 1816 a similar merger was effected between the two  
Grand Lodges of South Carolina, and unions of Ancients
and Moderns were made in all States where they existed.
In England the ritual, as practiced by the Ancients, had 
been adopted.  In America, however, with the unification     
of the Lodges in the different jurisdictions, came about a      
fusion of the two rituals in varying degrees.  Some juris-   
dictions remained predominantly modern, others ancient,   
but most rituals became interspersed with both.  
  Then new Grand Lodges were formed by a union of       
Lodges, chartered from different States, and these unions    
gave rise to all sorts of ritual combinations.         
  In the main, however, each jurisdiction, when it estab-
lished a Grand Lodge, became independent, and preserved 
its ritual as it had been received, or made it over by    
way of compromise, or worked it out as a possession of
its own.  The ritual then was usually entrusted to Grand 
Lecturers, or Custodians of the Ritual, as they are va-
riously  called.  These  proven  Brethren  applied  their 
knowledge and personal ability, and through the years,        
they gradually  stopped  insensible variations,  and  gave   
each local work permanency in the form, in which it was     
originally found.      
  To trace the ritual of the various jurisdictions, is not 
our purpose here.  For the curious we will briefly state,    
that our California Ritual is predominantly Modern, but     
mixed with some of the Ancient fusion.  It was derived       
from the Grand Jurisdictions of the District of Columbia,
Connecticut and Missouri.  
  Although there were several pretended expositions of 
the Masonic ritual made before Pritchard's, and many  
more came into being since, in their essence one copying
the other, none ever succeeded to dim the lustrue or to halt     
more than momentarily the growth of our fraternity.
