THE BUILDER JULY 1919
A CATHOLIC TREATISE ON MASONRY
FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPAEDIA

We have been asked many times "What are the objections of the
Roman Catholic Church to Freemasonry?" and "Why can not a
Catholic become a Freemason?" Believing that our readers would be
interested in the article on "Masonry" which appears in "The
Catholic Encyclopaedia," we are herewith reprinting it by
permission of the publishers of that work.

PART I NAME AND DEFINITION

LEAVING aside various fanciful derivations we may trace the word
mason to the French macon (Latin maito or machio), "a builder of
walls" or "a stone-cutter" (cf. German Steinmetz, from metzen,
"to cut"; and Dutch vrijmetselaar). The compound term Freemason
occurs first in 1375 according to a recently found writing, even
prior to 1155 (The Freemason's Chronicle, 1908, I, 283,
frequently referred to in this article as Chr.) and, contrary to
Gould (Concise Hist., 109, 122), means primarily a mason of
superior skill, though later it also designated one who enjoyed
the freedom, or the privilege, of a trade guild (Gould, "Hist.",
I, 278, 279, 410; II, 153 sqq.). In the former sense it is
commonly derived from freestone-mason, a mason hewing or building
in free (ornamental) stone in opposition to a rough (stone) mason
(A. Q. C., VIII, 35, 155 sq.; Boos, 104 sqq.). This derivation,
though harmonizing with the meaning of the term, seemed
unsatisfactory to some scholars. Hence Speth proposed to
interpret the word freemasons as referring to those masons
claiming exemption from the control of the local guilds of the
towns, where they temporarily settled (A. Q. C., X, 10-30; IX,
167). In accordance with this suggestion the "New English
Dictionary of the Philological Society" (Oxford, 1898) favours
the interpretation of freemasons as skilled artisans, emancipated
according to the medieval practice from the restrictions and
control of local guilds in order that they might be able to
travel and render services, wherever any great building
(cathedral, etc.) was in process of construction. These
freemasons formed a universal craft for themselves, with a system
of secret signs and passwords by which a craftsman, who had been
admitted on giving evidence of competent skill, could be
recognized. On the decline of Gothic architecture this craft
coalesced with the mason guilds (A. Q. C., XI, 166-168).

Quite recently W. Begemann (Vorgeschichte, I, 1909, 42-58)
combats the opinion of Speth (A. Q. C., X, 20-22) as purely
hypothetical, stating that the name freemason originally
designated particularly skilled freestone-masons, needed at the
time of the most magnificent evolution of Gothic architecture,
and nothing else. In English law the word freemason is first
mentioned in 1495, while frank-mason occurs already in an Act of
1444-1445 (Gould, "Concise History," 166 sq.). Later, freemason
and mason were used as convertible terms. The modern
signification of Free in which, since about 1750, the word has
been and exclusively understood, dates only from the constitution
of the Grand Lodge of England, 1717. In this acceptation
Freemasonry, according to the official English, Scottish,
American, etc., craft rituals, is most generally defined: "A
peculiar (some say 'particular' or 'beautiful') system of
morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." Mackey
(Symbolism of Freemasonry, 1869, 303) declares the best
definition of Freemasonry to be: "A science which is engaged in
the search after the divine truth." The German encyclopedia of
Freemasonry, "Handbuch" (1900, I, 320 sq.), defines Freemasonry
as "the activity of closely united men who, employing symbolical
forms borrowed principally from the mason's trade and from
architecture, work for the welfare of mankind, striving morally
to ennoble themselves and others and thereby to bring about a
universal league of mankind (Menschleitsbund), which they aspire
to exhibit even now on a small scale." The three editions which
this "Handbuch" (Universal Manual of Freemasonry) has had since
1822 are most valuable, the work having been declared by
English-speaking Masonic critics "by far the best Masonic
Encyclopedia ever published." ("Transactions of the Lodge Ars
Quatuor Coronatorum," XI [London, 1898], 64).

ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY

Before entering upon this and the following divisions of our
subject it is necessary to premise that the very nature of
Freemasonry as a secret society makes it difficult to be sure
even of its reputed documents and authorities, and therefore we
have consulted only those which are acknowledged and recommended
by responsible members of the craft, as stated in the
bibliography appended to this article. "It is the opprobrium of
Freemasonry," says Mackey (Encyclopedia, 296), "that its history
has never yet been written in a spirit of critical truth; that
credulity . . . has been the foundation on which all Masonic
historical investigations have been built, . . . that the missing
links of a chain of evidence have been frequently supplied by
gratuitous invention and that statements of vast importance have
been carelessly sustained by the testimony of documents whose
authenticity has not been proved." "The historical portion of old
records," he adds, "as written by Anderson, Preston, Smith,
Calcott and other writers of that generation, was little more
than a collection of fables, so absurd as to excite the smile of
every reader" (Chr., 1890, II, 145). The germs of nearly all
these fantastic theories are contained in Anderson's "The
Constitutions of Free Masons" (1723, 1738) which makes
Freemasonry coextensive with geometry and the arts based on it:
insinuates that God, the Great Architect, founded Freemasonry,
and that it had for patrons, Adam, the Patriarchs, the kings and
philosophers of old. Even Jesus Christ is included in the list as
Grand Master of the Christian Church. Masonry is credited with
the building of Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, the Pyramids, and
Solomon's Temple. Subsequent authors find the origin of Masonry
in the Egyptian, Dionysiac, Eleusinian, Mithraic, and Druidic
mysteries; in sects and schools such as the Pythagoreans,
Essenes, Culdees, Zoroastrians, and Gnostics; in the Evangelical
societies that preceded the Reformation; in the orders of
knighthood (Johannites, Templars); among the alchemists,
Rosicrucians, and Cabbalists; in Chinese and Arabic secret
societies. It is claimed also that Pythagoras founded the Druidic
institution and hence that Masonry probably existed in England
500 years before the Christian Era. Some authors, considering
geological finds as Masonic emblems, trace Masonry to the Miocene
(?) Period (Donnelly, "Atlantis the Ante-diluvian World"); while
others pretend that Masonic science "existed before the creation
of this globe, diffused amidst the numerous systems with which
the grand empyreum of universal space is furnished" (Oliver, I,
20, sq.).

It is not then difficult to understand that the attempt to prove
the antiquity of Freemasonry with evidence supplied by such
monuments of the past as the Pyramids and the Obelisk (removed to
New York in 1879) should have resulted in an extensive literature
concerning these objects (Chr., 1880, I, 148; II, 139; 1884, II,
130; Gruber, 5, 122-128). Though many intelligent Masons regard
these claims as baseless, the majority of the craft (see, for
instance, "The Voice" of Chicago, Chr., 1885, I, 226) still
accept the statement contained in the "Charge" after initiation:
"Ancient no no doubt it is, having subsisted from time
immemorial. In every age monarchs (American rituals: "the
greatest and best men of all ages") have been promoters of the
art, have not thought it derogatory to their dignity to exchange
the sceptre for the trowel, have participated in our mysteries
and joined in our assemblies" (English ritual, 1908, almost
identical with other English, Irish, Scottish, and American
rituals). It is true that in earlier times gentlemen who were
neither operative masons nor architects, the so-called geomatic
Masons (see Gould, "Hist.", I, 408, 473, etc.) joined with the
operative, or domatic, Masons in their lodges, observed
ceremonies of admission, and had their signs of recognition. But
this Masonry is by no means the "speculative" Masonry of modern
times, i. e., a systematic method of teaching morality by means
of such symbols according to the principles of modern Freemasonry
after 1723. As the best German authorities admit ("Handbuch," 3rd
ed., I, 321; Begemann, "Vorgeschicte, etc.," 1909, I, 1 sqq.),
speculative Masonry began with the foundation of the Grand Lodge
of England, 24 June, 1717, and its essential organization was 
completed in 1722 by the adoption of the new "Book of 
Constitutions" and of the three degrees: apprentice, fellow,
master. All the ablest and most conscientious investigations by
competent Masonic historians show that in 1717 the old lodges had
almost ceased to exist. The new lodges began as convivial
societies, and their characteristic Masonic spirit developed but
slowly. This spirit, finally, as exhibited in the new
constitutions was in contradiction to that which animated the
earlier Masons. These facts prove that modern Masonry is not, as
Gould (History, II, 2, 121), Hughan (A. Q. C., X, 128) and Mackey
(Encyclopedia, 296 sq.) contend, a revival of the older system,
but rather that it is a new order of no greater antiquity than
the first quarter of the eighteenth century.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND SPIRIT 

There have been many controversies among Masons as to the
essential points of Masonry. English speaking Masons style them
"landmarks," a term taken from Deut., xix, 14, and signifying
"the boundaries of Masonic freedom," or the unalterable limits
within which all Masons have to confine themselves. Mackey (3,
17- 39) specifies no less than twenty-five landmarks.  The same
number is adopted by Whitehead (Chr., 1878, I, 187, 194 sqq.) "as
the pith of the researches of the ablest Masonic writers." The
principal of them are: the method of recognition by secret signs,
words, grips, steps, etc.; the three degrees including the Royal
Arch; the Hiram legend of the third degree; the proper "tiling"
of the lodge against "raining" and "snowing," i. e.,  against
male and female "cowans," or eavesdroppers, i. e., profane
intruders; the right of every regular Mason to visit every
regular lodge in the world; a belief in the existence of God and
in future life; the Volume of the Sacred Law; equality of Masons
in the lodge; secrecy; symbolical method of teaching;
inviolability of landmarks (Mackey, "Jurisprudence," 17-39; Chr.,
1878, I, 194 sqq.; 1888, I, 11). In truth there is no authority
in Freemasonry to constitute such "unchangeable" landmarks or
fundamental laws. Strictly judicially, even the "Old Charges,"
which, according to "Anderson's Constitutions," contain the
unchangeable laws, have a legal obligatory character only as far
as they are inserted in the "Book of Constitution" of each Grand
Lodge (Fischer, I, 14 sq.; Groddeck, 1 sqq., 91 sqq.; "Handbuch,"
3rd ed., II, 154). But practically there exist certain
characteristics which are universally considered as essential.
Such are the fundamental principles described in the first and
sixth articles of the "Old Charges" concerning religion, in the
texts of the first two English editions (1723 and 1738) of
Anderson's "Constitutions." These texts, though differing
slightly, are identical as to their essential tenor. That of
1723, as the original text, restored by the Grand Lodge of
England in the editions of the "Constitutions," 1756-1813, and
inserted later in the  "Books of Constitutions" of nearly all the
other Grand Lodges, is the most authoritative; but the text of
1738 which was adopted and used for a long time by many Grand
Lodges, is also of great importance in itself and as a further
illustration of the text of 1723.

In the latter, the first article of the "Old Charges" containing
the fundamental law and the essence of modern Freemasonry runs
(the text is given exactly as printed in the original, 1723): I.
Concerning God and Religion. A Mason is obliged by his Tenure, to
obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he
will never be a stupid Atheist (Gothic letters) nor an
irreligious Libertine (Gothic letters). But though in ancient
times Masons were charged 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 be good men and true or Men of Honour and Honesty, by
whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished;
whereby Masonry becomes the Centre of Union and the Means of
conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have
remained at a perpetual Distance."

Under Article VI, 2 (Masons' behaviour after the Lodge is closed
and the Brethren not gone) is added: "In order to preserve peace
and harmony no private piques or quarrels must be brought within
the door of the Lodge, far less any quarrels about Religion or
Nations or State Policy, we being only, as Masons, of the
Catholick Religion above mentioned, we are also of all Nations,
Tongues, Kindreds and Languages and are resolved against all
Politicks (printed in the original in Gothic letters) as what
never yet conduced to the welfare of the Lodge nor ever will.
This charge has been says strictly enjoin'd and observ'd; but
especially ever since the Reformation in Britain or the dissent
and seccession of these Nations from the communion of Rome.

In the text of 1738 the same articles run (variations from the
ed. of 1723 are given in bold-face type): 1. Concerning God and
Religion. A Mason is obliged by his Tenure to observe the moral
law as true Noahida (sons of Noah, the first name of Freemasons)
and if he rightly understands the craft, he will never be a
stupid atheist or an irreligious libertine nor act against
conscience. In ancient times the Christian masons were charged to
comply with the Christian usages of each country where they
travelled or worked; but Masonry being found in all nations, even
of diverse religions, they are now generally charged to adhere to
that religion, in which all men agree, (leaving each Brother his
own particular opinion), that is, to be good men and true, men of
honour and honesty, by whatever names, religions or persuasions
they may be distinguished; for they all agree in the three great
articles of Noah, enough to preserve the cement of the lodge.
Thus Masonry is the centre of their union and the happy means of
conciliating true friendship among persons who otherwise must
have remained at a perpetual distance. VI. 1. Behaviour in the
Lodge before closing: . . . No priate piques nor quarrels about
nations, families, religions or politics must by any means or
under any colour or pretence whatsoever be brought within the
doors of the lodge; for as Masons we are of the most ancient
catholic religion, above mentioned and of all nations upon the
square, level and plumb; and like our predecessors in all ages,
we are resolved against political disputes, as contrary to the
peace and welfare of the Lodge.

In order to appreciate rightly these texts characterizing modern
"speculative" Freemasonry it is necessary to compare them with
the corresponding injunction of the "Gothic" (Christian)
Constitutions regulating the old lodges of "operative" Masonry
till and after 1747. These injunctions are uniformly summed up in
the simple words: "The first charge is this that you be true to
God and Holy Church and use no error or heresy" (Grand Lodge Ms.
No. 1, Gould, "Concise History," 236; Thorp, Ms. 1629, A. Q. C.,
XI, 210; Rawlinson Ms. 1729-39 A. Q. C., XI, 22; Hughan, "Old
Charges"). The radical contrast between the two types is obvious.
While a Mason according to the old Constitution was above all
obliged to be true to God and Church, avoiding heresies, his
"religious" duties, according to the new type are essentially
reduced to the observation of the "moral law" practically summed
up in the rules of "honour and honesty" as to which "all men
agree." This "universal religion of Humanity" which gradually
removes the accidental divisions of mankind due to particular
opinions "or religious," national, and social "prejudices," is to
be the bond of union among men in the Masonic society, conceived
as the model of human association in general. "Humanity" is the
term used to designate the essential principle of Masonry
(Groddeck; "Handbuch," 3rd ed., I, 466 sqq.). It occurs in a
Masonic address of 1747 (Oliver, "Remains," I, 96; 332). Other
watchwords are "tolerance," "unsectarian," "cosmopolitan." The
Christian character of the society under the operative regime of
former centuries, says Hughan (Chr., 1876, I, 113), "was
exchanged for the unsectarian regulations which were to include
under its wing the votaries of all sects, without respect to
their differences of colour or clime, provided the simple
conditions were observed of morality, mature age and an approved
ballot" (see also Chr., 1878, I, 180; 1884, II, 38; etc., Gould,
"Conc. Hist.," 289 sq.). In Continental Masonry the same notions
are expressed by the words "neutrality," "laicite,"
"Confessionslosigkeit," etc. In the text of 1738 particular
stress is laid on "freedom of conscience" and the universal,
non-Christian character of Masonry is emphasized. The Mason is
called a "true Noahida," i. e. an adherent of the pre- Christian
and pre-Mosaic system of undivided mankind. The "3 articles of
Noah" are most probably "the duties towards God, the neighbour
and himself" inculcated from older times in the "Charge to a
newly made Brother." They might also refer to "brotherly love,
relief and truth," generally with "religion" styled the "great
cement" of the fraternity and called by Mackey (Lexicon, 42) "the
motto of our order and the characteristic of our profession." 

Of the ancient Masons it is no longer said that they were obliged
to "be of the religion" but only "to comply with the Christian
usages of each Country." The designation of the said
"unsectarian" religion as the "ancient catholick" betrays the
attempt to oppose this religion of "Humanity" to the Roman
Catholic as the only true, genuine, and originally Catholic. The
unsectarian character of Masonry is also implied in the era
chosen on the title page: "In the year of Masonry 5723" and in
the "History." As to the "History" Anderson himself remarks in
the preface (1738): "Only an expert Brother, by the true light,
can readily find many useful hints in almost every page of this
book which Cowans and others not initiated (also among Masons)
cannot discern." Hence, concludes Krause (Kunsturkunden, 1810, I,
525), Anderson's "History" is allegorically written in "cipher
language." Apart, then, from "mere childish allusions to the
minor secrets," the general tendency of this "History" is to
exhibit the "unsectarianism" of Masonry. Two points deserve
special mention: the utterances on the "Augustan" and the
"Gothic" style of architecture and the identification of Masonry
with geometry. The "Augustan" which is praised above all other
styles alludes to "Humanism," while the "Gothic" which is charged
with ignorance and narrow-mindedness, refers to Christian and
particularly Roman Catholic orthodoxy. The identification of
Masonry with geometry brings out the naturalistic character of
the former. Like the Royal Society, of which a large and most
influential proportion of the first Freemasons were members
(Begemann, "Vorgeschichte," II, 1910, 127 sq., 137 sq.), Masonry
professes the empiric or "positivist" geometrical method of
reason and deduction in the investigation of truth (Calcott, "A
Candid Disquisition, etc.," 1769; Oliver, "Remains," II, 301.) In
general it appears that the founders of Masonry intended to
follow the same methods for their social purposes which were
chosen by the Royal Society for its scientific researches (Gould,
"History," II, 400). "Geometry as a method is particularly
recommended to the attention of Masons." "In this light, Geometry
may very properly be considered as a natural logic; for as truth
is ever consistent, invariable and uniform, all truths may be
investigated in the same manner. Moral and religious definitions,
axioms and propositions have as regular and certain dependence
upon each other as any in physics or mathematics." "Let me
recommend you to pursue such knowledge and cultivate such
dispositions as will secure you the Brotherly respect of this
society and the honour of your further advancement in it"
(Calcott; Oliver, ibid., II, 301-303). It is merely through
inconsistency that some Grand Lodges of North America insist on
belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible as a necessary
qualification and that not a few Masons in America and Germany
declare Masonry an essentially "Christian institution." According
to the German Grand Lodges, Christ is only "the wise and virtuous
pure man" par excellence, the principal model and teacher of
"Humanity" ("Sign.", 1904, 45 sq., 54; Gruber [5], 49 sqq.; Idem
[41, 23 sq.). In the Swedish system, practised by the German
Country Grand Lodge, Christ is said to have taught besides the
exoteric Christian doctrine, destined for the people and the
duller mass of his disciples, an esoteric doctrine for his chosen
disciples, such as St. John, in which He denied that He was God
(Findel, "Die Schule der Hierarchie, etc.", 1870, 15 sqq.;
Schiffmann, "Die Entstehung der Rittergrade," 1882, 85, 92, 95
sq.). Freemasonry, it is held, is the descendant of the Christian
secret society, in which this esoteric doctrine was propagated.
It is evident, however, that even in this restricted sense of
"unsectarian" Christianity, Freemasonry is not a Christian
institution, as it acknowledges many preChristian models and
teachers of "Humanity." All instructed Masons agree in the
objective import of this Masonic principle of "Humanity,"
according to which belief in dogmas is a matter of secondary
importance, or even prejudicial to the law of universal love and
tolerance. Freemasonry, therefore, is opposed not only to
Catholicism and Christianity, but also to the whole system of
supernatural truth. The only serious discrepancies among Masons
regarding the interpretation of the texts of 1723 and 1738 refer
to the words: "And if he rightly understands the Art, he will
never be a stupid Atheist or an irreligious Libertine." The
controversy as to the meaning of these words has been
particularly sharp since 13 September, 1877, when the Grand
Orient of France erased the paragraph, introduced in 1854 into
its Constitutions, by which the existence of God and the
immortality of soul were declared the basis of Freemasonry
(Bulletin du Grand Orient de France, 1877, 236-50) and gave to
the first article of its new Constitutions the following tenor:
"Freemasonry, an essentially philanthropic, philosophic
(naturalist, adogmatic) and progressive institution, has for its
object the search after truth, the study of universal morality,
of the sciences and arts and the practice of beneficence. It has
for its principles absolute liberty of conscience and human
solidarity. It excludes none on account of his belief. Its device
is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." On 10 September, 1878, the
Grand Orient, moreover, decreed to expunge from the Rituals and
the lodge proceedings all allusions to religious dogmas as the
symbols of the Grand Architect, the Bible, etc. These measures
called out solemn protests from nearly all the Anglo-American and
German organs and led to a rupture between the Anglo-American
Grand Lodges and the Gr. Or. of France. As many freethinking
Masons both in America and in Europe sympathize in this struggle
with the French, a world-wide breach resulted. Quite recently
many Grand Lodges of the United States refused to recognize the
Grand Lodge of Switzerland as a regular body, for the reason that
it entertains friendly relations with the atheistical Grand
Orient of France ("Intern. Bull.," Berne, 1908, No. 2). This
rupture might seem to show, that in the above paragraph of the
"Old Charges" the belief in a personal God is declared the most
essential prerequisite and duty of a Mason and that
Anglo-American Masonry, at least, is an uncompromising champion
of this belief against the impiety of Latin Masonry.

But in truth all Masonry is full of ambiguity. The texts of 1723
and 1738 of the fundamental law concerning Atheism are purposely
ambiguous. Atheism is not positively condemned, but just
sufficiently disavowed to meet the exigencies of the time, when
an open admission of it would have been fatal to Masonry. It is
not said that Atheists cannot be admitted, or that no Mason can
be an Atheist, but merely that if he rightly understands the Art,
he will never be a stupid Atheist, etc., i. e., he will not hold
or profess Atheism in a stupid way, by statements, for instance
that shock religious feeling and bring Masonry into bad repute.
And even such a stupid Atheist incurs no stronger censure than
the simple ascertaining of the fact that he does not rightly
understand the art, a merely theoretical judgment without any
practical sanction. Such a disavowal tends rather to encourage
modern positivist or scientific Atheism. Scarcely more serious is
the rejection of Atheism by the British, American and some German
Grand Lodges in their struggle with the Grand Orient of France.
The English Grand Lodge, it is true, in its quarterly
communication of 6 March, 1878 (Chr., 1878, I, 161) adopted four
resolutions, in which belief in the Great Architect of the
Universe is declared to be the most important ancient landmark of
the order, and an explicit profession of that belief is required
of visiting brethren belonging to the Grand Orient of France, as
a condition for entrance into the English lodges. Similar
measures were taken by the Irish, Scottish, and North American
Grand Lodges. But this belief in a Great Architect is so vague
and symbolical, that almost every kind of Atheism and even of
"stupid" Atheism may be covered by it. Moreover, British and
American Grand Lodges declare that they are fully satisfied with
such a vague, in fact merely verbal declaration, without further
inquiry into the nature of this belief, and that they do not
dream of claiming for Freemasonry that it is a "church," a
"council," a "synod." Consequently even those are acknowledged as
Masons who with Spencer and other Naturalist philosophers of the
age call God the hidden all-powerful principle working in nature,
or, like the followers of "Handbuch" (3rd ed., II, 231), maintain
as the two pillars of religion "the sentiment of man's littleness
in the immensity of space and time," and "the assurance that
whatever is real has its origin from the good and whatever
happens must be for the best."

An American Grand Orator Zabriskie (Arizona) on 13 November,
1889, proclaimed, that "individual members may believe in many
gods, if their conscience and judgment so dictate" (Chr., 1890,
I, 243). Limousin (Acacia, 1907, I, 48), approved by German
Masons (Sign., 1907, 133 sq.), says: "The majority of men
conceived God in the sense of exoteric religions as an
all-powerful man; others conceive God as the highest idea a man
can form in the sense of esoteric religions." The latter are
called Atheists according to the exoteric notion of God
repudiated by science, but they are not Atheists according to the
esoteric and true notion of God. On the contrary, add others
(Sign., 1905, 64), they are less Atheists than churchmen, from
whom they differ only by holding a higher idea of God or the
Divine. In this sense Thevenot, Grand Secretary of the Grand
Orient of France, in an official letter to the Grand Lodge of
Scotland (30 January, 1878), states: "French Masonry does not
believe that there exist Atheists in the absolute sense of the
word" (Chr., 1878, I, 134); and Pike himself (Morals and Dogma,
643 sqq.) avows: "A man who has a higher conception of God than
those about him and who denies that their conception is God, is
very likely to be called an Atheist by men who are really far
less believers in God than he," etc. Thus the whole controversy
turns out to be merely nominal and formal. Moreover, it is to be
noticed that the clause declaring belief in the great Architect a
condition of admission, was introduced into the text of the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, only in 1815 and
that the same text says: "A Mason therefore is particularly bound
never to act against the dictates of his conscience," whereby the
Grand Lodge of England seems to acknowledge that liberty of
conscience is the sovereign principle of Freemasonry prevailing
over all others when in conflict with them. The same supremacy of
the liberty of conscience is implied also in the unsectarian
character, which Anglo-American Masons recognize as the innermost
essence of Masonry. "Two principles," said the German Emperor
Frederick III, in a solemn address to Masons at Strasburg on 12
September, 1886, "characterize above all our purposes, viz.,
liberty of conscience and tolerance"; and the "Handbuch" (3rd
ed., II, 200) justly observes that liberty of conscience and
tolerance were thereby proclaimed the foundation of Masonry by
the highest Masonic authority in Germany.

Thus the Grand Orient of France is right from the Masonic point
of view as to the substance of the question; but it has deviated
from tradition by discarding symbols and symbolical formulae,
which, if rightly understood, in no way imply dogmatic assertions
and which cannot be rejected without injuring the work of
Masonry, since this has need of ambiguous religious formulae
adaptable to every sort of belief and every phase of moral
development. From this point of view the symbol of the Grand
Architect of the Universe and of the Bible are indeed of the
utmost importance for Masonry. Hence, several Grand Lodges which
at first were supposed to imitate the radicalism of the French,
eventually retained these symbols. A representative of the Grand
Lodge of France writes in this sense to Findel: "We entirely
agree with you in considering all dogmas, either positive or
negative, as radically contradictory to Masonry, the teaching of
which must only be propagated by symbols. And the symbols may and
must be explained by each one according to his own understanding;
thereby they serve to maintain concord. Hence our G. L.
facultatively retains the Symbol of the Gr. Arch. of the
Universe, because every one can conceive it in conformity with
his personal convictions. (Lodges are allowed to retain the
Symbols, but there is no obligation at all of doing so, and many
do not.) To excommunicate each other on account of metaphysical
questions, appears to us the most unworthy thing Masons can do"
(Sign., 1905, 27). The official organ of Italian Masonry even
emphasizes: "The formula of the Grand Architect, which is
reproached to Masonry as ambiguous and absurd, is the most
large-minded and righteous affirmation of the immense principle
of existence and may represent as well the (revolutionary) God of
Mazzini as the Satan of Giosue Carducci (in his celebrated hymn
to Satan); God, as the fountain of love, not of hatred; Satan, as
the genius of the good, not of the bad" (Rivista, 1909, 44). In
both interpretations it is in reality the principle of Revolution
that is adored by Italian Masonry.

PROPAGATION AND EVOLUTION OF MASONRY

The members of the Grand Lodge formed in 1717 by the union of
four old lodges, were till 1721 few in number and inferior in
quality. The entrance of several members of the Royal Society and
of the nobility changed the situation. Since 1721 it has spread
over Europe (Gould, "History," II, 284 sq.). This rapid
propagation was chiefly due to the spirit-of the age which,
tiring of religious quarrels, restive under ecclesiastical
authority and discontented with existing social conditions,
turned for enlightenment and relief to the ancient mysteries and
sought, by uniting men of kindred tendencies, to reconstruct
society on a purely human basis. In this situation Freemasonry
with its vagueness and elasticity, seemed to many an excellent
remedy. To meet the needs of different countries and classes of
society, the original system (1717-23) underwent more or less
profound modifications. In 1717, contrary to Gould (Concise
History, 309), only one simple ceremony of admission or one
degree seems to have been in use (A. Q. C., X, 127 sqq.; XI, 47
sqq.; XVI, 27 sqq.); in 1723 two appear as recognized by the
Grand Lodge of England: "Entered Apprentice" and "Fellow Craft or
Master." The three degree system, first practised about 1725,
became universal and official only after 1730 (Gould, "Conc.
Hist.," 272; 310-17). The symbols and ritualistic forms, as they
were practiced from 1717 till the introduction of further degrees
after 1738, together with the "Old Charges" of 1723 or 1738, are
considered as the original pure Freemasonry. A fourth, the "Royal
Arch" degree (ibid., 280) in use at least since 1740, is first
mentioned in 1743, and though extraneous to the system of pure
and ancient Masonry (ibid., 318) is most characteristic of the
later AngloSaxon Masonry. In 1751 a rival Grand Lodge of England
"according to the Old Institutions" was established, and through
the activity of its Grand Secretary, Lawrence Dermott, soon
surpassed the Grand Lodge of 1717. The members of this Grand
Lodge are known by the designation of "Ancient Masons." They are
also called "York Masons" with reference, not to the ephemeral
Grand Lodge of all England in York, mentioned in 1726 and revived
in 1761, but to the pretended first Grand Lodge of England
assembled in 926 at York (Handbuch, 3rd ed., I, 24 sqq.; II, 559
sqq.). They finally obtained control, the United Grand Lodge of
England adopting in 1813 their ritualistic forms.

In its religious spirit Anglo-Saxon Masonry after 1730
undoubtedly retrograded towards biblical Christian orthodoxy
(Chr., 1906, II, 19 sq.; 1884, II, 306). This movement is
attested by the Christianization of the rituals and by the
popularity of the works of Hutchinson, Preston, and Oliver with
Anglo-American Masons. It is principally due to the conservatism
of English-speaking society in religious matters, to the
influence of ecclesiastical members and to the institution of
"lodge chaplains" mentioned in English records since 1733 (A. Q.
C., XI, 43). The reform brought by the articles of union between
the two Grand Lodges of England (1 December, 1813) consisted
above all in the restoration of the unsectarian character, in
accordance with which all allusions to a particular (Christian)
religion must be omitted in lodge proceedings. It was further
decreed "there shall be the most perfect unity of obligation of
discipline, or working .... according to the genuine landmarks,
laws and traditions . . . throughout the Masonic world, from the
day and date of the said union (1 December, 1813) until time
shall be no more" (Preston, "Illustrations," 296; seq.). In
taking this action the United Grand Lodge overrated its
authority. Its decree was complied with, to a certain extent, in
the United States, where Masonry, first introduced about 1730,
followed in general the stages of Masonic evolution in the mother
country.

The title of Mother Grand Lodge of the United States was the
object of a long and ardent controversy between the Grand Lodges
of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The prevailing opinion at
present is, that from time immemorial, i. e., prior to Grand
Lodge warrants (Chr., 1887, II, 313), there existed in
Philadelphia a regular lodge with records dating from 1731
(Drummond, "Chr.," 1884, II, 227; 1887, I, 163; II, 178; Gould,
"Concise History," 413). In 1734 Benjamin Franklin published an
edition of the English "Book of Constitutions." The principal
agents of the modern Grand Lodge of England in the United States
were Coxe and Price. Several lodges were chartered by the Grand
Lodge of Scotland. After 1758, especially during the War of
Independence, 1773-83, most of the lodges passed over to the
"Ancients." The union of the two systems in England (1813) was
followed by a similar union in America. The actual form of the
American rite since then practised is chiefly due to Webb (1771-
1819), and to Cross (1783-1861).

In France and Germany, at the beginning Masonry was practised
according to the English ritual (Prichard, "Masonry Dissected,"
1730); but so-called "Scottish" Masonry soon arose. Only nobles
being then reputed admissible in good society as fully qualified
members, the Masonic gentlemen's society was interpreted as a
society of Gentilshommes, i.e., of noblemen or at least of men
ennobled or knighted by their very admission into the order,
which according to the old English ritual still in use, is "more
honourable than the Golden Fleece, or the Star or Garter or any
other Order under the Sun." The pretended association of Masonry
with the orders of the warlike knights and of the relegious was
far more acceptable than the idea of development out of
stone-cutters' guilds. Hence an oration delivered by the Scottish
Chevalier Ramsay before the Grand Lodge of France in 1737 and
inserted by Tierce into his first French edition of the "Book of
Constituvons" (1743) as an "oration of the Grand Master," was
epoch-making (Gould, "Concise History," 274 sq., 357 sq.; Boos,
174 sq.). In this oration Masonry was dated from "the close
association of the order with the Knights of St. John in
Jerusalem" during the Crusades; and the "old lodges of Scotland"
were said to have preserved this genuine Masonry, lost by the
English. Soon after 1750, however, as occult sciences were
ascribed to the Templars, their system was readily adaptable to
all kinds of Rosicrucian purposes and to such practices as
alchemy, magic, cabbala, spiritism, and necromancy. The
suppression of the order together with the story of the Grand
Master James Molay and its pretended revival in Masonry,
reproduced in the Hiram legend, representing the fall and the
resurection of the just or the suppression and the restoration of
the natural rights of man, fitted in admirably with both
Christian and revolutionary high grade systems. The principal
Templar systems of the eighteenth century were the system of the
"Strict Observance," organized by the swindler Rosa and
propagated by the enthusiast von Hundt; and the Swedish system,
made up of French and Scottish degrees in Sweden.

In both systems obedience to unknown superiors was promised. The
supreme head of these Templar systems, which were rivals to each
other, was falsely supposed to be the Jacobite Pretender, Charles
Edward, who himself declared in 1777, that he had never been a
Mason (Handbuch, 2nd ed., 11, 100). Almost all the lodges of
Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Russia were, in the second
half of the eighteenth century, involved in the struggle between
these two systems. In the lodges of France and other countries
(Abaft I, 132) the admission of women to lodge meetings
occassioned a scandalous immorality (Boos, 170, 183 sqq., 191).
The revolutionary spirit manifested itself early in French
Masonry. Already in 1746 in the book "La Franc-Maconnerie
ecrasee," an experienced ex-Mason, who, when a Mason, had visited
many lodges in France and England, and consulted high Masons in
official position, described as the true Masonic programme a
programme which, according to Boos, the historian of Freemasonry
(p. 192), in an astonishing degree coincides with the programme
of the great French Revoluon of 1789. In 1776 this revolutionary
spirit was brought into Germany by Weisshaupt through a
conspiratory system, which soon spread throughout the country
(see Illuminati, and Boos, 303). Charles Augustus of Saxe-Weimar,
Duke Ernest of Gotha, Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick, Goethe,
Herder, Pestalozzi, etc., are mentioned as members of this order
of the Illuminati. Very few of the members, however, were
initiated into the higher degrees. The French Illuminati included
Condorcet, the Duke of Orleans, Mirabeau, and Sieyes (Robertson,
"Chr.," 1907, II, 95; see also Engel, "Gesch. des
Illuminatenordens," 1906). After the Congress of Wihelmsbade
(1782) reforms were made both in Germany and in France. The
principal German reformers, L. Schroder (Hamburg) and I. A.
Fessler, tried to restore the original simplicity and purity. The
system of Schroder is actually practiced by the Grand Lodge of
Hamburg, and a modified system (Schroder-Fessler) by the Grand
Lodge Royal York (Berlin) and most lodges of the Grand Lodge of
Bayreuth and Dresden. The Grand Lodges of Frankfort-on-the-Main
and Darmstadt practise an eclectic system on the basis of the
English ritual (Bauhutte, 1908, 337 sqq.). Except the Grand Lodge
Royal York, which has Scottish "Inner Orients" and an "Innermost
Orient," the others repudiate high degrees. The largest Grand
Lodge of Germany, the National (Berlin), practises a rectified
Scottish (Strict Observance) system of seven degrees and the
"Landes Grossloge" and Swedish system of nine degrees. The same
system is practised by the Grand Lodge of Sweden, Norway, and
Denmark. These two systems still declare Masonry a Christian
institution and with the Grand Lodge Royal York refuse to
initiate Jews. Findel states that the principal reason is to
prevent Masonry from being dominated by a people whose strong
racial attachments are incompatible with the unsectarian
character of the institution (Sign., 1898, 100; 1901, 63 sqq.;
1902, 39; 1905, 6).

The principal system in the United States (Charleston, South
Carolina) is the so-called Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite,
organized in 1801 on the basis of the French Scottish Rite of
perfection, which was established by the Council of the Emperors
of the East and West (Paris, 1758). This system, which was
propagated throughout the world, may be considered as the
revolutionary type of the French Templar Masonry, fighting for
the natural rights of man against religious and political
despotisms, symbolized by the papal tiara and a royal crown. It
strives to exert a preponderant influence on the other Masonic
bodies, wherever it is established. This influence is insured to
it in the Grand Orient systems of Latin countries; it is felt
even in Britain and Canada, where the supreme chiefs of craft
Masonry are also, as a rule, prominent members of the Supreme
Councils of the Scottish Rite. There are at the present time
(1908) twenty-six universally recognized Supreme Councils of the
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite: U. S. of America; Southern
Jurisdiction (Washington), established in 1801; Northern
Jurisdiction (Boston), 1813; Argentine Republic (Buenos Aires),
1858; Belgium (Brussels), 1817; Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), 1829;
Chile (Santiago), 1870; Colon, for West India Islands (Havana),
1879; Columbia (Cartagena); Dominican Republic (S. Domingo);
England (London), 1845; Egypt (Cairo), 1878; France (Paris),
1804; Greece (Athens), 1872; Guatemala (for Central American),
1870; Ireland (Dublin), 1826; Italy (Florence), 1858; Mexico
(1868); Paraguay (Asuncion): Peru (Lima), 1830; Portugal
(Lisbon), 1869; Scotland (Edinburgh), 1846; Spain (Madrid), 1811;
Switzerland (Lausanne), 1873; Uruguay (Montevideo); Venezuela
(Caracas). Supreme Councils not universally recognized exist in
Hungary, Luxemburg, Naples, Palermo, Rome. Turkev. The founders
of the rite, to give it a great splendour, invented the fable
that Frederick II, King of Prussia, was its true founder, and
this fable upon the authority of Pike and Mackey is still
maintained as probable in the last edition of Mackey's
"Encyclopedia" (1908), 292 sq.

(To be continued)

