THE BUILDER October 1916

NON-CHRISTIAN CANDIDATES

BY A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DISPENSATION, MASSACHUSETTS

(Several Brethren have asked of late about the admission of
non-Christians in general, and of Buddhists in particular, into the
fellowship of Freemasonry. Pertinent to this important question is
the following report of a Committee appointed to deal with the
request for a Dispensation from the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts
for International Lodge at Pekin, China. The report is the work of
a very able Committee, of which Brother Roscoe Pound was a member,
and he it was who presented its findings to Grand Lodge. We take
pleasure in reproducing the report, as worthy of wide reading and
long pondering, for that it stands so squarely on the fundamental
principle of Freemasonry, than which there is no firmer basis for
Freedom, Friendship and Fraternity among men.)

In Grand Lodge, Boston, December 8, 1915.

The special committee appointed to take under consideration the
fourth and fifth questions discussed in that part of the address of
the M. W. Grand Master at the last Quarterly Communication which
has to do with the establishment of International Lodge at Peking,
China, begs to report as follows:

Stated briefly, the first of those questions is with reference to
the eligibility of candidates who subscribe to prevailing Oriental
religions. This question may be considered with respect to Oriental
religions in general, but should also be looked at with respect to
Buddhists and followers of Confucius, since it is probable that the
matter, so far as this Grand Lodge is concerned, will be only
academic as to other creeds. In the case of Mohammedan, Hindu, and
Parsee, the question no longer admits of discussion. The practice
of the United Grand Lodge of England and its predecessors,
undoubted for almost a century and a half, would of itself suffice.
In 1776, Umdat-ul-Umara, eldest son of the Nabob of Arcot, was
initiated at Trichinopoly in a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the
Provincial Grand Master for Madras. This reception of a Mohammedan
Prince was an event of such significance that it was made the
subject of congratulations by the Grand Lodge of England. The
Parsees of Western India, so Gould informs us, long ago took an
active interest in Masonry, and one of them, Brother Cama, was
elected Grand Treasurer of the Grand Lodge of England in 1886. With
respect to Hindus, it seems that there was an impression as late as
1860 that they were not eligible for Masonry, and the initiation of
a Brahman in Meridian Lodge No. 345, in that year raised a vigorous
discussion in the Masonic press. But it should be noted that the
discussion did not turn upon any supposed ineligibility of the
adherents of Oriental religions, but solely on the question whether
the Brahman faith involved belief in God, as Masons understand such
belief. The arguments of the Master of the Lodge was that "the very
groundwork of the Brahman faith is the belief in one Grand
Superintending Being." (See Freemason's Magazine, April 21,
September 8, October 13, 1860; May 18, 1861.) In 1861, two Sikh
Princes were initiated, and there does not appear to have been any
doubt upon this matter since that time. In 1874 a Hindu was Master
of a Lodge under the English constitutions. (See Gould, History of
Freemasonry, III, 333, 336; Mackey, History of Freemasonry, VII,
1892.)

It would belie all our professions of universality if this were not
so. We must guard jealously the Landmark--one of the few undoubted
and universally admitted Landmarks--that calls for belief in God,
the Grand Architect of the Universe. In Brother George F. Moore's
well-known paper upon the subject he justly pronounces this the
first Landmark in Freemasonry. But the idea of God here is
universal. Each of us may interpret it in terms of his own creed.
The requirement is not that Masons adhere to this or that
theological system or conceive of God in terms of this or that
creed. It is a simple requirement of belief in the One God, however
manifested, upon which philosophers and prophets and saints and the
enlightened religions of all time have been able to agree. It is
enough to say that we fully concur in the eloquent and convincing
presentation of this matter in the address of the Grand Master.

Perhaps it is superfluous to add anything to the argument from the
practice of the premier Grand Lodge and the argument from
principle. But if any still harbor scruples it may be noted that
except for Hutchinson and Oliver, whose view that Masonry is a
distinctively Christian institution obviously can not be admitted,
Masonic scholars and teachers have been at one upon this point. In
a passage afterward quoted in Webb's Monitor Preston says: "The
distant Chinese, the wild Arab, or the American Savage will embrace
a brother Briton [Webb adds "Frank or German"] and he will know
that beside the common ties of humanity there is still a stronger
obligation to engage him to kind or friendly offices."
(Illustrations of Masonry, Bk. 1, par. 3). Certainly we are not to
suppose that this Chinaman and this "wild" Arab are Christians. But
Preston speaks elsewhere in no uncertain tones: "The doctrine of
one God, the creator and preserver of the universe, has been their
firm belief in every age; and under the influence of that doctrine
their conduct has been regulated through a long succession of
years. The progress of knowledge and philosophy, aided by divine
revelation, having abolished many of the vain superstitions of
antiquity and enlightened the minds of men with the knowledge of
the true God and the sacred tenets of the Christian faith, Masons
have readily acquiesced in and zealously pursued every measure
which could promote a religion so wisely calculated to make men
happy. In those countries, however, where the gospel has not
reached and Christianity [has not] displayed her beauties, the
Masons have pursued the universal religion or the religion of
nature; that is to be good men and true, by whatever denomination
or persuasion they have been distinguished; and by this universal
religion the conduct of the fraternity still continues to be
regulated." (Illustrations of Masonry, 2 ed., 154.) The Grand
Master's address has already quoted Mackey upon this subject. A
score of passages from Albert Pike might be quoted to the same
effect. Let one suffice. After explaining that "these ceremonies
have one general significance to every one of every faith who
believes in God and the soul's immortality," he proceeds: "In no
other way could Masonry possess its character of universality; that
character which has ever been peculiar to it from its origin; and
which enabled two kings, worshippers of different Deities, to sit
together as Masters while the walls of the first temple arose."
Finally, we may cite the words of Rev. Joseph Fort Newton, which
have the endorsement of the Grand Lodge of Iowa: "While Masonry is
theocratic in its faith and philosophy, it does not limit its
conception of the Divine, much less insist upon any one name for
'the Nameless One of a hundred names.' Indeed, no feature of
Masonry is more fascinating than its age-long quest of the Lost
Word, the Ineffable Name; a quest that never tires, never tarries,
knowing the while that every name is inadequate, and all words are
but symbols of a Truth too great for words--every letter of the
alphabet, in fact, having been evolved from some primeval sign or
signal of the faith and hope of humanity. Thus Masonry, so far from
limiting the thought of God, is evermore in search of a more
satisfying and revealing vision of the meaning of the universe, now
luminous and lovely, now dark and terrible; and it invites all men
to unite in the quest--

One in the freedom of the Truth,
One in the joy of paths untrod,
One in the soul's perennial Youth,
One in the larger thought of God.

Truly the human consciousness of fellowship with the Eternal, under
whatever name, may well hush all words, still more hush argument
and anathema. Possession, not recognition, is the only thing
important; and if it is not recognized, the fault must surely be,
in large part, our own. Given the one great experience, and before
long kindred spirits will join in the "Universal Prayer" of
Alexander Pope, himself a Mason:

Father of all ! in every age,
In every clime adored,
By Saint, by Savage, and by Sage,
Jehovah, Jove, or Lord !" 
(The Builders, 262-263.)

It remains to consider whether Buddhists and followers of Confucius
are believers in God in such sense that they may be made Masons. As
to the former, we have the weighty opinion of Albert Pike that
Buddha was a "Masonic legislator"--that is that he gave laws in the
spirit of Masonry. He says of the original followers of Buddha:
"They recognized the existence of a single uncreated God, in whose
bosom everything grows, is developed and transformed" (Morals and
Dogma, 277.) Professor Rhys Davids, the chief authority in English
upon Buddhism, indicates that this may be a matter of dispute. But
the committee does not deem it necessary to go into this question,
to which it is indeed scarcely competent. For if any Buddhists are
to be initiated in International Lodge they will be required to
profess belief in God at the outset, and as they will be men in
whom our Brethren have confidence and will come well recommended,
we may be assured that their professions will be sincere. The same
point may be made with respect to the followers of Confucius. But
the Rev. J. Legge, an unquestioned authority, tells us that while
the teaching of Confucius "was hardly more than a mere secularism"
his predecessors on whom he built made abundant reference to the
Supreme Being and their writings contain "an exulting awful
recognition of Him as the almighty personal ruler who orders the
course of nature and providence." It seems clear that monotheists
may follow the ethical teachings of Confucius, even if sceptics may
do so likewise, and the former only will be elected to receive the
mysteries of Freemasonry.

The second question, put briefly, is with reference to the
adaptability of our rites when applied to adherents of Oriental
religions. Here again we may appeal to the settled and unquestioned
practice of the United Grand Lodge of England. In response to a
request for information addressed to him by the R. W. Grand
Secretary, Sir Edward Letchworth, Grand Secretary of the English
Grand Lodge, writes, under date of October 25, 1915: "Adverting to
your letter to me of the 11th instant, it has always been the
practice of this Grand Lodge to permit Candidates for Freemasonry
who are believers in a Supreme Being, but not in the Christian
Religion, to be obligated upon the Sacred Book of their own
religion. Thus Jews are obligated on the Old Testament, Mohammedans
on the Koran, Hindus on the Vedas, and Parsees on the Zendavesta."

On principle this must be the sound practice. It is indeed but a
corollary of the proposition involved in the first question.
Moreover the testimony of Masonic scholars is clear. The M. W.
Grand Master has already quoted from Mackey's Masonic
Jurisprudence. In another work Dr. Mackey says: "Masonically the
book of the law is that sacred book which is believed by the Mason
of any particular religion to contain the revealed will of God;
although technically among the Jews the Torah, or Book of the Law,
means only the Pentateuch or five books of Moses. Thus to the
Christian Mason the Book of the Law is the Old and New Testaments;
to the Jew the Old Testament; to the Mussulman the Koran; to the
Brahman, the Vedas; and to the Parsee the Zendavesta." In the
Entered Apprentice Lecture, as written by Albert Pike, he says:
"The Holy Bible, Square, and (Compass, are not only styled the
Great Lights in Masonry, but they are also technically called the
Furniture of the Lodge; and, as you have seen, it is held that
there is no Lodge without them. This has sometimes been made a
pretext for excluding Jews from Our Lodges, because they can not
regard the New Testament as a holy book. The Bible is an
indispensable part of the furniture of a Christian Lodge, only
because it is the sacred book of the Christian religion. The Hebrew
Pentateuch in a Hebrew Lodge, and the Koran in a Mohammedan one,
belong on the Altar; and one of these, and the Square and Compass,
properly understood, are the Great Lights by which a Mason must
walk and work.

"The obligation of the candidate is always to be taken on the
sacred book or books of his religion, that he may deem it more
solemn and binding; and therefore it was that you were asked of
what religion you were. We have no other concern with your
religious creed." (Morals and Dogma, 11.)

Much more might be cited from Masonic writers authority. But the
practice of more than a century the Grand Lodge of England and the
principle of the thing require no other support.

The committee would report that the conclusions of the M.W. Grand
Master upon the two questions referred are, in his opinion, beyond
controversy, being sustained by-long precedent and usage, by the
clearest deduction from the fundamental tenets of the Fraternity,
and by the concurrent testimony of Masonic scholars.
Fraternally submitted,
EDWIN B. HOLMES,
ROSCOE POUND,
LEON M. ABBOTT,
FREDERIC W. HAMILTON.
R. PERRY BUSH,

Committee.

Report was accepted and adopted.
