BUILDER MARCH 1919

ALABAMA GRANTS FULL RECOGNITION TO GRAND LODGE AND GRAND ORIENT OF
FRANCE AND SWISS GRAND LODGE "ALPINA"

At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Alabama, held in
Montgomery Dee. 4th and 5th, 1918, Brother Oliver D. Street,
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence, submitted the
following special reports which were adopted:

GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE

At the last Communication of this Grand Lodge your Committee on
Foreign Correspondence was directed to secure all available
information relative to the present status of Freemasonry in France
and report the same to this Communication, with recommendations.

Your committee has made a careful investigation and was early
impressed with the great confusion and lack of information (or
rather misinformation) concerning French Masonry existing in the
United States. It is necessary to understand that the doctrine of
exclusive territorial jurisdiction which has proved so beneficial
to American Masonry is not and never has been recognized in France.
There exist two well-known systems both professing to practice
genuine Freemasonry throughout the same territorial jurisdiction
and yet both living on terms of perfect harmony and good fellowship
with each other. We refer to the Grand Orient of France and the
Grand Lodge of France. They are entirely separate and distinct
bodies and in any intelligent examination of their respective
claims it is necessary to bear this fact constantly in mind. Where
this is not done we frequently find otherwise reliable writers
attributing to one of them the resolutions and the acts of the
other. Let it, therefore, be distinctly understood that this report
deals exclusively with the Grand Lodge of France.

From a letter dated July 26, 1917, from the Grand Lodge of France
to the Grand Secretary of this Grand Lodge we quote the following:

'The Grand Lodge of France was constituted in 1804 by the Supreme
Council 33d for France and the French Colonies to administer and
control the lodges working the three degrees of Craft Masonry. In
1904, as the result of friendly negotiations with the Supreme
Council our Grand Lodge became a Sovereign and Independent body.

"As an integral part of the A. & A. S. Rite, our Masonic principles
are those common to the Rite in general as set forth in the
declaration of the Convention of Lausanne in 1875."

This letter is signed by the Grand Master, the Grand Secretary, the
Grand Orator and the Grand Treasurer and may, therefore, be taken
as official and authoritative.

The declaration of Lausanne referred to above so far as material to
our present inquiry reads as follows:

"The Freemason reveres God under the name of the Grand Architect of
the Universe. Whatever religion he - may profess, the Freemason
practices the most complete tolerance towards those who have other
convictions. The Masonic alliance is, therefore, neither a
religious nor an ecclesiastical one. It requires of its members no
profession of faith."

For one hundred years the Grand Lodge was subordinate in a greater
or less degree to the Supreme Council. In 1879, what may be termed
its modern history began. The year 1896 witnessed a very material
extension of its rights and powers and the year 1904 marks its
complete independence, and the consummation of an arrangement
between it and the Supreme Council quite similar to that prevailing
in the United States between the Grand Lodges and the Supreme
Councils of the Scottish Rite, giving it exclusive control of the
first three degrees. It is true the lodges forming the Grand Lodge
of France were of Scottish Rite origin, but this is true of other
Grand Lodges recognized by Alabama, and even New York and
Louisiana, and perhaps others now have subordinate lodges working
the Scottish Rite symbolic degrees. This Grand Lodge has not in the
past considered this as good ground for refusing recognition, and
your committee does not so consider it now.

Through a confusion of the Grand Lodge with the Grand Orient of
France it has been frequently charged that the Grand Lodge is
atheistical in its teachings. The letter from which we have quoted
above should be sufficient to refute this accusation. Besides all
the documents and correspondence of the Grand Lodge is captioned
"To the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe." As further
proof we cite the following from the pen of Brother Robert F.
Gould, certainly one foremost Masonic historian, in his "Concise
History of Freemasonry," (1904):

"Under the auspices of the Supreme Council, there has of late been
established a Grand Loge de France, which works in the three Craft
degrees, while the Supreme Council itself takes sole charge of the
4-33. The new Grand Lodge is desirous of putting a stop to the
discussion in lodges of political and religious questions, a
practice which distinguishes the Masonry of France from that of the
generality of other countries where the consideration of such
questions is forbidden. The atheistical doctrine of the Grand
Orient is not shared by the Supreme Council of France."

We have seen above that the Grand Lodge of France emanated from the
Supreme Council and shares the same views and doctrines with it.
The fact that its constitution is silent concerning at belief in
Deity proves nothing; the constitution of our own Grand Lodge is
silent on that Subject.

It is the conclusion of your committee that the Grand Lodge of
France is a regular Masonic body and it has been recognized as such
by the following Grand Lodges, and doubtless others, within the
last twelve months, viz., Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota,
Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, District of Columbia, and New Jersey.

We, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Grand Lodge F. & A. M. of Alabama hereby
recognizes "La Grand Loge de France" as a regular, legitimate and
independent governing body of symbolic Masonry and the Grand Master
is authorized and directed to arrange for an exchange of
representatives.

GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE

Another duty of your Committee on Foreign Correspondence is to
inquire into the claims of the Grand Orient of France to
recognition and to report thereon our conclusions and
recommendations. The task has proven a large one and on account of
the polemical character of most of the literature on the subject it
has been difficult to get all the facts. We believe, however, that
we are in possession of those that are material.

The Grand Orient is the oldest Masonic organization existing in
France. According to its own claims it dates back to 1736, but it
is certain that it has had a continuous history under its present
name from the year 1796. Originally its Masonry was derived from
the Ancient Craft of England, but upon French soil it underwent
many changes in organization and ritual. Gradually it absorbed and
took control of a great number of degrees floating around as
Masonic, but in course of time by selection and elimination it
evolved a system of seven degrees of which the basis is those of
Apprentice, Companion and Master, corresponding to our first three
degrees. From its origin till 1869, the Grand Orient was recognized
by and enjoyed the fraternal regard of all the Masonries of the
world. Since that date many of the grand lodges have refused to
have any Masonic relations with it.

The reasons assigned for this have been the following:

1. Its system of organization and government.

2. That it does not respect the territorial jurisdiction of other
grand bodies.

3. That it does not require the Bible to be displayed in its
lodges.

4. That it is agnostic in its teachings.

5. That it dabbles in polities.

It is necessary to consider each of these objections separately and
we trust the brethren will bear with us if this report is somewhat
lengthy.

Organization and Government.

Controlling as it does other degrees than the first three, the
organization of the Grand Orient at first appears to us somewhat
complex, but it is sufficient for our purpose in this connection to
state that the fundamental body is, as with us, the blue or
symbolic lodge. The Supreme governing body is the General Assembly,
which meets once a year and is composed of one delegate elected
from each lodge and corresponds very closely to our Grand Lodge.
The General Assembly elects from others than its own members the
Council of the Order, consisting of thirty three members, who
thereby become members of the General Assembly. This Council of the
Order exercises controlling authority over the Craft generally
between sessions of the General Assembly, within the limits fixed
by the Constitution and Regulations of the Order. It finds its
nearest counterpart among English speaking Grand Lodges in the
Boards of General Purposes, so well known among Grand Lodges of
British-countries. The bodies controlling the higher degrees known
as "Chapters" and "Councils" have no control whatever over the
Symbolic lodges. The form of government and organization of the
Grand Orient has never except by a very few been regarded as
affording any obstacle to its recognition as a regular and
sovereign governing body of Symbolic Masonry.

Your committee have carefully read the constitution and regulations
of the Grand Orient, also an official pamphlet issued by it
entitled "La Frane-Maconnerie du Grand Orient de France," and we
have found nothing in them to which a Mason of the most exacting
ideas could object. On the contrary, they afford many evidences of
the highest understanding and appreciation of Masonic principles.

Invasion of Jurisdiction.

In 1869 and immediately following, many jurisdictions severed
relations with the Grand Orient because it recognized and
established relations with a spurious Supreme Council of the
Scottish Rite organized in Louisiana by one Foulhouse, which
Supreme Council essayed to charter symbolic lodges of the three
degrees. At the December, 1869, Communication of the Grand Lodge of
Alabama, this action of the Grand Orient was severely criticised by
the Grand Master and the Committee on Foreign Correspondence but no
action was taken. This cause of discord, however, has long Since
been removed and the Grand Orient has amended its ways in this
regard so we do not consider this as any longer material to our
present inquiry.

The Bible and Belief in Deity.

It is convenient to treat together the third and fourth objections
above enumerated. Beginning in 1878, there was a very general
withdrawal of recognition of the Grand Orient by the other Masonic
powers because, it was charged, it had professed atheism. What it
had really done was to strike from its constitution an affirmation
of a belief in Deity. In our judgment the signification and
importance of this action has been greatly exaggerated. From its
foundation till 1849, the constitution of the Grand Orient
contained no declaration of a belief in Deity, yet during all those
years the Grand Orient was fully recognized by all the Masonic
world. On August 10, 1849, the Grand Orient inserted the following
clause:

"Freemasonry has for its principles the existence of Deity and the
immortality of the soul."

On September 14, 1877, there was substituted for this declaration
the following:

"Masonry has for its principles mutual tolerance, respect for
others and for itself, and absolute liberty of conscience."

This change placed the Grand Orient back precisely where it had
stood during all the years prior to 1849, when, as already stated,
it was recognized without question by all the Masonic world. It is
well to bear in mind that this change was proposed by Brother
Desmons, a Protestant Minister of the Gospel, who at the time
declared that this action was not to be regarded as a negation in
any sense of a belief in Deity. It was done to meet a charge made
by the Roman Catholic Church that Freemasonry was attempting to
foster a spurious religion; the purpose was to demonstrate, as has
often been explained, that Freemasonry did not attempt to usurp the
function of the church. The wisdom of taking this action for any
such a reason could only be judged after a careful study of the
disturbed religious and political conditions of France at that
time. But it should be borne in mind that it is not the wisdom of
the action but the right of the Grand Orient to take it that we are
concerned with. If they were within their legitimate rights and
powers as Masons, then we have no right to excommunicate them
because they did what we regard as an unwise or mistaken thing.
That they had the right to make this alteration in their
constitution can not be doubted. They simply eliminated what they
themselves had put in less than thirty years before and in so doing
brought their constitution back again, as they contend, into strict
conformity to the original constitution of the Grand Lodge of
England, which was silent on both belief in Deity and the
immortality of the soul. Besides, the constitution of our own Grand
Lodge and of many other regular grand lodges are also silent on
both these Subjects. In this regard the Grand Orient is today no
worse off than the Grand Lodge of Alabama, yet with astonishing
inconsistency it was on this precise ground that the Grand Lodge of
Alabama in 1878 based its action in severing relations with the
Grand Orient. The record of that action shows unmistakably that it
was not duly considered and was to some extent at least, if not
decisively, influenced by the fact that the Grand Orient had
recently extended recognition as above stated to the spurious
Louisiana Supreme Council. We may dismiss this phase of the
question from further consideration with the confident conclusion
that there is nothing in it requiring us to treat the Grand Orient
as a non-Masonic body.


A year or two later than the above change in its constitution, the
Grand Orient made certain alterations in its internal arrangement
stand ritual. These alterations added to the chorus of disapproval
that had arisen against that body. It is now necessary to examine
these changes and this is by far the most difficult portion of our
task.

We have been favored by the Grand Orient with a printed copy of its
Ritual of the first three degrees. What we have said above of its
Constitution and Regulations we can repeat with emphasis of this
Ritual. It is dignified and impressive, agreeing in its outlines,
with two important exceptions, with our own ritual, though not so
dramatic as ours. To any thing actually contained in this Ritual no
one could have the slightest objection. The two exceptions just
alluded to are in the nature of omissions.

It must be frankly admitted that the effect of these omissions in
its ritual and practices was that the Grand Orient (1) made it
optional with its lodges to display or not to display the Bible,
and with its initiates to be obligated on the Bible, or on such
other book as they might deem more sacred, or on no book at all,
and (2) that it no longer exacted of them a declaration of a belief
in Deity. And here is where the battle has raged hottest around the
question of the recognition of the Grand Orient.

Now let us face these questions squarely and not dodge them as some
Grand Lodges have done. We were once of the opinion that these two
omissions barred the Grand Orient from the category of Masonic
bodies, but we have changed that opinion. We have reached the
conclusion that according to the original plan of Masonry neither
the display of the Bible in lodge nor the exaction of a belief in
Deity is essential to constitute a Masonic body.

To even approach a correct solution of these questions, it is
necessary for brethren to understand and bear constantly in mind
that Masonry throughout all parts of the world is not uniform. It
would be narrow and provincial in the extreme for the Grand Lodge
of Alabama to draw the line on another grand lodge merely because
in some particular it departs from what Freemasonry in Alabama
requires. It is not to be denied that in making the two omissions
above named the Grand Orient waived two things which we have made
essential to a Masonic lodge in this State, but we must not fall
into the conceited error that Alabama Masonry is the standard by
which to judge all others. To get this universal standard we must
go back to the original plan of Masonry as exemplified by the
earliest statement of the laws, principles, doctrines and practices
of modern Speculative Freemasonry. By universal agreement this is
to be found in "The Charges of a Free-Mason, extracted from the
Ancient Records of Lodges beyond Sea and of those in England,
Scotland and Ireland for the use of the Lodges in London; to be
read at the making of New Brethren or when the Master shall order
it," drawn up in 1722 and first published by the Grand Lodge of
England in Anderson's First Book of Constitutions in 1723. They
appear in our Monitor under the name of "Ancient Landmarks." It is
agreed by Masons everywhere that any organization claiming to be
Masonic which can measure up to-the requirements of these "Charges"
must be recognized as legitimate Freemasonry. Dr. Albert G. Mackey
enumerates these "Charges" as among the documents of "sufficient
authority to substantiate any principle or to determine any
disputed question of Masonic law."

The question then is: (1) What do these "Ancient Landmarks" require
concerning the Bible? The answer is simple, "Nothing." There is not
a word in them about the Bible and the entire context is convincing
that nothing on this point was required. Prior to the promulgation
of these "Ancient Landmarks" in 1723, we have no evidence that any
use was made of the Bible in lodge except to obligate candidates
upon it, precisely as witnesses and jurors in court were sworn upon
it at that date and as we have seen done within the past twenty
years. No one ever supposed that the oath was thereby made any more
binding, but it was done only to give form and added solemnity to
the ceremony. There is no evidence that the Bible performed any
other function in lodge until the year 1760, when on motion of
William Preston (?) in the Grand Lodge of England it was; made one
of the Great Lights. From that date onward it has been displayed by
the Masonries of the British Isles and most other countries, but
the practice has never been uniform.

The Bible is not displayed on our altars now and never has been for
the reason that Masons are required to believe its teachings. We
know that there is a very large element of the Craft the world over
who do not believe the teachings of the New Testament. We know that
many individual Masons do not believe portions of the Old
Testament. Hence, unless we are perpetrating a grim mockery, we do
not employ the Bible as a profession that we as a Society accept
all its teachings and doctrines. Many of us believe these, and none
more strongly than this committee, but the point we make is that
Masonry as an organized society does not and has never exacted this
belief of its members. It can, therefore, have no other place in
our lodges than that of a symbol. In the ritual of the very Grand
Lodge that first made it one of the Great Lights, as well as in the
ritual of many other grand lodges, it is to this day termed one of
"the three great, though emblematical, Lights in Freemasonry." It
is a symbol of Truth, of Divine Truth, of all Truth, whether drawn
from some book of Revelation or from the great Book of Nature. The
stern logic of the fact that we are constantly admitting Hindus,
Chinese, Mohammedans, Parsees and Jews, not one of whom believes
all the teachings of the Bible, forces the conclusion that Masonry
regards the Bible only as a symbol. When our rituals and monitors
tell us the Bible is one of the Great Lights in Masonry and that as
such it is the rule and guide to our faith, it can only be speaking
symbolically as it certainly is when speaking of the other two
Great Lights, the square and the compasses. It is the rule and
guide to our faith because that which it symbolizes, Truth, should
rule and guide us in our faith, and in all our beliefs, thoughts,
words, and actions.

The date when it was first made a Great Light was long after the
Masonry from which the Grand Orient is descended had been carried
over from England to France. It is, therefore, folly to talk of the
Grand Orient of France or any other grand body for that matter,
being bound by the action of the Grand Lodge of England taken in
1760. Moreover, the formula used in England is not "the Bible" but
"the Volume of the Sacred Law," which would properly include only
the first five books of the Old Testament.

Nor are we unsupported in the views here expressed. We find
ourselves in accord with the highest Masonic authorities. Certainly
one of the purest and ablest Masons Alabama ever produced was
Brother Daniel Sayre. He was long one of the most distinguished
Chairmen of our Foreign Correspondence Committee. In 1855 he dealt
with the question of the office of the Bible in the lodge. See his
report for that year, page 63. The Grand Lodge of Ohio had
officially declared that Freemasonry requires of its members a
belief in the Bible. Brother Sayre declares that he believes this
"all wrong." He further says:

"That some Masons may teach the divine authenticity of the Holy
Scriptures is true, because some Masons are Christians; but Masonry
does nothing of the sort but leaves every man to his own opinions
upon the subject as it does upon his polities, his religion, his
profession."

All, we presume, will admit that Dr. Albert G. Mackey was one of
the leading scholars of the Masonic world during the first half of
the last century. Few have equalled and none have surpassed him in
the mastery of our Symbolism. From his "Encyclopedia of Masonry" we
quote the following:

"The Bible is used among Masons as the symbol of the will of God,
however it may be expressed. And, therefore, whatever to any people
expresses that will may be used as a substitute for the Bible in a
Masonic lodge Thus in a body consisting entirely of Jews the Old
Testament alone may be placed upon the altar, and Turkish Masons
may make use of the Koran, whether it be the Gospels to the
Christian, the Pentateuch to the Israelite, the Koran to the
Mussulman, or the Vedas to the Brahman, it everywhere Masonically
conveys the same idea  that of the symbolism of the Divine Will
revealed to

The following is taken from Kenning's "Cyclopedia of Freemasonry."
Its author was Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, a noted divine of his day
and at one time Grand Chaplain of the Grand Lodge of England. He
says:

"while we are very tender of the conscientious rights of others and
would be willing to recognize the methods most binding on the
individual conscience either of religious assent or moral authority
to the individual, the Bible remains open in our midst as an emblem
of Divine truth in which we believe and of that moral law which we
are bound to obey."

Brother William C. Penick was one of the most distinguished and
beloved Masons of Alabama. He was long Chairman of this Committee.
He has left on record for us his views on this question. In 1866,
the Grand Master of Minnesota had said that "although a Mason is
not required by the law of the order to reject a candidate because
of his unbelief of the Bible, yet I trust that every Mason knowing
that a candidate entertained such unbelief, would promptly exercise
his individual prerogative and promptly reject him." Brother-
Penick gave it as his opinion that the Grand Master of Minnesota
had gone too far and that Masonry did not require a belief in the
Bible.

Brother Joseph Fort Newton, author of "The Builders," one of the
finest short histories of Freemasonry, formerly of Iowa, but now
pastor of one of the greatest churches in London, England, in the
November, 1915, issue of THE BUILDER, page 264, says that "Masonry
sees the Bible as a symbol of that eternal Book of the will of
God."

Certainly none was ever more thorough master of the symbolism of
Masonry than Brother Albert Pike. He says:

"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 Pentateueh in a Hebrew lodge and the Koran in
a Mohammedan one belong on the altar; and one of these and the
square and compasses, properly understood, are the Great Lights by
which a Mason must walk and work."

In 1916, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts chartered a lodge in
China with the expressed understanding that an Islamite might and
should be obligated on the Koran and that a Hindu might have the
Vedas spread before him.

Authorities to this effect might be multiplied indefinitely. They
establish three things (1) that the Bible is only a symbol, (2)
that a Mason is not required to believe its teachings and (3) that
some other book may be substituted for it.

If it is a symbol only, if an initiate may reject its teachings in
whole or in part, if this power of substitution exists (and in the
light of the foregoing authorities we do not see how they can be
denied) then the removal of the Bible and replacing it with some
other symbol of Truth may surely be done without altering the
essential character of the Fraternity. The Grand Orient did not,
therefore, place itself outside the Masonic pale by substituting
for it the Book of Masonic Law.

The next question in our inquiry is, (2) Does the failure of the
Grand Orient to exact of its initiates a profession of a belief in
Deity deprive it of its Masonic character? This question is
fundamental and to answer it correctly we must resort to
fundamental principles and to the original authorities. We get
little help from the mass of controversial literature that has
grown up around the subject.

What then do the "Ancient Landmarks," and by these we mean, as
already explained, the "Charges of a Free-Mason," as they appear in
Anderson's First Book of Constitutions, 1723, say on this subject?
Again the answer is plain and unmistakable. The very first article
declares:

"A Mason is oblig'd, by his Tenure, to obey the Moral Law; and, if
we rightly understand the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist,
nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in Ancient Times Masons
were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country
or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient
only to oblige them to that Religion in which all men agree,
leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is to say to
be good men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever
Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished; whereby
Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the means of conciliating
true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a
perpetual Distance."

Now let us not forget that these "Charges of a Free-Mason" profess
to be and plainly are a faithful digest of the ancient teachings of
the Craft; that they were compiled by an eminent Presbyterian
clergyman of the day; that they were expressly approved and
published by the Grand Lodge of England; and that they have ever
since been regarded by Masons the world over as the last word upon
proper Masonic teaching and practice. In other words, they are in
the Masonic world viewed in much the same light that Magna Charta
or the Bill of Rights is viewed in the political world. Not that
they are absolutely unchangeable in that they may not be added to,
but any society which requires at the least what these "Charges"
require in this and other respects and which claims to be Masonic
can not be refused recognition as a Masonic body.

The quotation above is positively every word contained in these
"Charges of a Free-Mason" concerning God and religion. Now let us
analyze it. It declares that "in ancient times" a certain rule
prevailed but that for the present and the future a new one has
been adopted. It is useless to inquire critically what that ancient
rule was. If it was the same as the new then well and good. If it
differed it must give way in favor of the new. So in any event we
need inquire only what does the new rule require.

It obliges the Mason "to obey the moral law." It obliges him "to
that religion in which all men agree." These are the only two
obligations placed on him concerning either God or religion. If,
however, this article stopped here there might have been doubt as
to what religion is meant by that "in which all men agree." It
proceeds, therefore, at once to define this religion as meaning "to
be good men and true," or "men of honor and honesty." This Article
further leaves the "particular opinions" of Masons concerning God
and religion "to themselves." Whereby, it declares, "Masonry
becomes the center of union" for those who otherwise, because of
their differing views on this subject, "must have-remained at a
perpetual distance." The purpose is unmistakable to unite all "good
men and true," all "men of honor and honesty," all who "obey the
moral law" into one society of friends, whose "particular opinions"
and "denominations or persuasions concerning God and religion had
been keeping apart and would otherwise continue to keep them apart.
Yet, two hundred years after that liberal and fraternal
declaration, and in spite of it, we see "good men and true, men of
honor and honesty," those who "obey the moral law" still being kept
at a distance from each other by "their particular opinions," by
their "denominations or persuasions" concerning God and religion.
Shall this keeping them at a distance be made perpetual? If so, one
of the great objects of our Institution will be defeated.

This Article further says "if we (i. e., the author) rightly
understands the Art he (the Mason) will never be a stupid atheist
nor an irreligious libertine." Note the peculiar phraseology. The
compiler does not say absolutely that a Mason "will never be a
stupid atheist nor irreligious libertine" and his language is very
far from meaning that an atheist or irreligious libertine can not
be admitted to the Society. He simply gives it as his opinion that
a right understanding of the Art will lead away from atheism and
irreligious libertinism.

If, therefore, we are to deny the Masonic character of the Grand
Orient we must seek elsewhere than in "The Charges of a Free-Mason"
for authority on which to base the denial. There is simply none to
be had.

We do not, of course, know what were the teachings and requirements
of the Masonic rituals of 1723, but we must conclude that this
declaration "concerning God and religion" was not in conflict with
the ritual. Anderson's work was examined and solemnly approved by
the Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master and the Grand Wardens of
the Grand Lodge of England and by the Masters and Wardens of twenty
particular lodges, as well as divers Brethren and Fellows in and
about the cities of London and Westminster. The Deputy Grand Master
was the distinguished Dr. J. T. Desaguliers who wrote the
dedication for the work and therein emphasizes the pains and
accuracy with which Dr. Anderson had discharged his task. He also
informs us that the highly esteemed Duke of Montagu, while Grand
Master, gave it his "perusal and approbation" and that Grand Lodge
also approved it while the Duke was Grand Master. Now it would be
most remarkable if the Grand Lodge and all this array of Masons and
Masonic officials gave their endorsement to a public declaration of
Masonic principles concerning God and religion which was in
conflict with the teachings and requirements of their ritual. Only
a deliberate purpose to mislead or defraud could have prompted such
a thing. Surely we are not prepared to convict them of that. We
may, therefore, safely conclude that the laws and ritual of the
original Grand Lodge in 1723 required no more of its initiates on
the subject of religion than that they should be good men and true,
men of honor and honesty, obeying the moral law. No one questions
or has ever questioned that the laws and ritual of the Grand Orient
require that its members shall be men of this character. No one
questions or has ever questioned that the personnel of the Grand
Orient will compare favorably with that of any body of men of
similar size anywhere in the world. Some have questioned but none
will ever again question the greatness, the grandeur, the nobility
of the French race, the reservoir from which the Grand Orient draws
its membership. The French people have experienced many glorious
periods in their history but never before were they so universally
acclaimed as among the very greatest and bravest and most
chivalrous people the world has ever produced.

We do not question the power or the right of the Grand Lodge of
Alabama to add the requirements of a display of the Bible and a
declaration of a belief in Deity. On the contrary, we fully approve
and indorse that action. We should be violently opposed to any
elimination by our Grand Lodge of those requirements, because it
would be an unwise and hurtful thing to do. We do not challenge the
right of Scandinavian Masonry to add the further requirement of a
profession of Christianity, but we should be violently opposed to
any such requirement being added by our Grand Lodge. Our
proposition is that we may claim the right to add to the original
requirements, but when we do we must recognize the right of others
to stand squarely upon them.

The Grand Orient indignantly denies the charge that has been made
against it that it is agnostic. That it teaches or encourages its
members in any such views is plainly false. Its ritual, while
demanding no profession, is calculated to set any intelligent man
to thinking seriously on the subject. The Grand Orient does not
pretend to solve the riddle of human life. According to its theory
it is for Masonry to propound the problem and to attempt to start
its votary upon a serious search for the answer. It recognizes that
at last every man must answer the question for himself.

Three questions propounded to the candidate at his initiation have
this object. They are: "Have you a religion?" "What is it?" "Do you
practice your religion?" The ritual lays down no answer. The
candidate must frame his own answer. The legend of Hiram Abif,
identical with our version of it in its general outlines, is
introduced to teach similar lessons as with us. The acacia is
employed with the same symbolism. A part of the obligation of the
Master's degree is:

"Upon the acacia, symbol of rebirth and newness of life, I promise
to instruct the Companions and Apprentices to labor for the
intellectual and moral emancipation of Mankind."

A regulation requires that the candidate shall be of
"irreproachable reputation and habits." An admonition is, "en order
to employ well your life, reflect upon death." Other portions of
the ceremonies having the same purpose could be cited. The Masonry
of the Grand Orient rightly understood is not devoid of the
religious spirit and after all that is as much as Masonry anywhere
attempts to accomplish in the religious field. There is nothing
better understood among Masons than that it is not a religion; it
is not a religious institution in the sense that it is sen
instrument for the propagation of religious doctrines. It seeks
only to stir the religious spirit, that is to say, to beget an an
attitude toward religion that keeps the mind in an open and
receptive mood for the acceptance of religious truth as the
individual may find it. Our investigation convinces us that the
initiatory and other ceremonies and the instructions of the Grand
Orient are calculated to beget this mental and spiritual attitude
towards things religious, and that therefore it fulfills all the
requirements of Masonry according to its original plans in this
regard.

Political Activities.

Another objection that has been made to the Grand Orient is that it
dabbles in politics. It is very true that in the dark days of the
Third Republic, immediately following France's crushing defeat by
Germany in 1870-'71, when monarchists and clericals were trying to
reinstate the Empire, Masons, as individuals and citizens, ranged
themselves on the side of the Republic. It cannot be denied that
the excessive activities of some of these well known as Masons
brought discredit upon the Craft just as have evil or overzealous
Masons done on occasions in all countries. It is also true that
even now they discuss in lodge questions which we deem political
and which are political in the better sense of that term. But the
matter ends with discussion. There is no attempt to act on such
questions as a body. The questions they discuss one might also
discuss to the benefit of both Masonry and the community. It is
strictly forbidden to draw the name of Masonry into party
struggles. Section 15 of the Constitution says:

"All discussion of the acts of the civil authorities and all
Masonic participation in the struggles of political parties are
forbidden."

An official circular issued in 1886 says on this subject:

"While, as citizens, the members of the Grand Orient are free in
their political actions, as Freemasons they must abstain from
bringing the name and the flag of Freemasonry into election
conflicts and the competition of parties. All political debates at
Masonic meetings are strictly forbidden."

We do not consider this charge against the Grand Orient worthy of
serious consideration. It originated with their clerical enemies
(and clerical in France means Roman Catholic). The charge was then
taken up and frequently reechoed by others through ignorance.

We can not forbear quoting the opinion of one of the foremost and
most learned historians of the Craft, Brother J. G. Findel. He
says:

"The excommunication of the Grand Orient of France; by the Masonic
Grand Lodges is an intolerant act of Popery, the negation of the
true principles of the Craft, the beginning of the end of
cosmopolitan Freemasonry. The excommunication of the Grand Orient
of France only proves the sectarian mind of the excommunicating
Grand Lodges, which have forgotten that Masonry has for its purpose
to unite all good men of all denominations and professions; they
profess the separating element, and destroy the Craft and waste the
heritage of our more liberal and more tolerant forefathers."

We need only to add that during the past year the Grand Lodges of
Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, Iowa, and no doubt others have
extended unqualified recognition to the Grand Orient. In Iowa this
action was taken on the advice of that splendid Mason and scholar,
Brother Louis Block. Many others have authorized mutual visitation.
Investigation is convincing them that not only was the action of
the Grand Orient within the bounds set by the "ancient landmarks"
of the Craft but that the course pursued by the grand lodges
towards it was unwarranted. We have also reached these conclusions
and we, theretore, recommend the adoption of the following
resolution

Resolved, That the Grand Lodge F. & A. M. of Alabama hereby
recognizes the Grand Orient of France as a regular, sovereign and
independent governing body of Symbolic Freemasonry and we authorize
and direct the Grand Master to arrange for an exchange of
Representatives.

GRAND LODGE "ALPINA" OF SWITZERLAND

Your Committee on Foreign Correspondence has had under
consideration the question of recognition and exchange of
representatives with the Grand Lodge "Alpina" of Switzerland, which
is the sole supreme governing body of Symbolic Masonry in that
Republic. This Grand Body has never before been the subject of
official action on the part of the Grand Lodge of Alabama. It is,
therefore, proper that we should state briefly the results of our
investigation.

The history of the Grand Lodge "Alpina" of Switzerland begins with
the founding of the Lodge of Hope at Berne, by the Grand Orient of
France in 1803. In 1818, this lodge, having severed its connection
with the Grand Orient, was erected into a Provincial Grand Lodge by
the Grand Lodge of England, modeled upon the Constitutions of
Anderson, but practicing the Schroeder ritual.

Freemasonry was first introduced into Switzerland, at Geneva, by
English Masons, in 1736. Lodges sprang up rapidly, and in 1737,
George Hamilton was appointed Provincial Grand Master. It would be
bootless to attempt to trace the devious course of Masonry in
Switzerland during the period from 1737 to 1818. At least twice it
was practically stamped out of existence.

Suffice it to say that the year 1816 found four systems in
existence, (1) lodges adhering to the Grand Orient of France, (2)
the Grand Orient of the Helvetic Rite, at Lausanne, (3) the Scots
Directory or Rectified Rite, at Zurich (later at Basle), and (4)
the Lodge of Hope, at Berne. The French lodges gradually dissolved;
the Helvetic Rite became dormant or extinct; the Rectified Rite is
mentioned by Brother Robert F. Gould in his History of Freemasonry,
Vol. III, p. 295, as "on the wane, the antiquated Templar system";
while the Lodge of Hope, as already stated, was formed into a
provincial Grand Lodge under the Grand Lodge of England, and is
described as a "lusty young giant, prepared to run his race and
confident of victory."

In 1822, the Provincial Grand Lodge and the Grand Orient of the
Helvetic Rite both dissolved, and their Masters and Wardens then
formed the National Grand Lodge of Switzerland, recognizing three
degrees only. This left the Scottish Directory, or the Rectified
Rite, as the only rival of the Grand Lodge, and on July 24, 1844,
these were united, forming the National Grand Lodge "Alpina," whose
constitutions, in the language of Brother Gould, "were almost
identical with those of England, both in spirit and machinery."

Periodically, between 1844 and 1869, the defunct Helvetic Rite, at
Lausanne, sought to regain its lost power and influence, but
without success. The "Alpina" continued to prosper, reviving old
lodges and warranting new ones. In 1869, the Helvetic Directory, at
Lausanne, resolved itself into a sort of Supreme Council under the
name of the Rectified Scottish Helvetic Directory, and began to
exercise the power of a Grand Lodge to warrant symbolic lodges of
the three degrees. For several years there was a bitter struggle
between it and the "Alpina," but in 1876, an understanding was
reached whereby the "Alpina" secured exclusive control over the
three Craft degrees, and the Directory over the additional degrees,
and its symbolic lodges joined the "Alpina." The Supreme Council,
A. and A. S. Rite, has entered into similar agreement with the
"Alpina," thus bringing about an arrangement substantially the same
as exists between Symbolic Masonry and the Scottish Rite in the
United States.

From the foregoing it is apparent that, while there has been an
infusion of certain strains of foreign blood into the "Alpina," yet
the stem of Swiss Freemasonry is of English extraction. As to
origin there can be no sound objection to the recognition of the
"Alpina" as a regular Grand Lodge.

So far as constitution, principles, customs, and practices are
concerned, we are unable to find that they anywhere are in conflict
with the best traditions and ideas of the American Craft. The
"Alpina" is recognized by many of the leading grand lodges of-the
world. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following
resolution:

Resolved, That the Grand Lodge "Alpina" of Switzerland is hereby
recognized as a regular, supreme governing body of Symbolic
Masonry, and the Grand Master is authorized to arrange for an
exchange of representatives.

