YORK RITE AND SCOTTISH RITE: JOHN LEISK TAIT.

THE AMERICAN FREEMASON
APRIL 1914

THERE is no other subject in all the circle of Masonic interest about which
centres so much misunderstanding and ill feeling as cluster about the
rights, rules and practices of the Scottish Rite.  Broadly stated, that ill
feeling is grounded upon misunderstanding. It is because the brethren do
not know the facts, or because they draw unwarrantable inferences from
the facts, that heart-burning exists.

It is not the intention of this paper to enter upon an inquiry into the issues
between the various claimants for Scottish Rite jurisdiction in this country
and abroad.  That is their private business and should be settled among
themselves and strictly by themselves.  As the writer views it, any of them
dragging York Rite bodies into such a controversy errs in that duty of
deference which every man or any organization, owes to the individual and
inalienable right of another to stand aloof from a quarrel to which he is not
a party.

But as between the York Rite and the Scottish Rite, there are certain
fundamental differences which, being understood, deprive sectarianism of
its sting; for the two occupy totally different and divergent fields and can
not become rivals where the origin, essence and object of each is clearly
differentiated.  They are the poles of Masonic teaching and practice.  Upon
them turns the whole universe of Masonic institutions.  It would be no more
absurd for the Arctic Esquimaux to rail and flout at his brother of the
Antarctics, to denounce him as an infidel and a fool because he built his
igloo at the opposite end of the globe, than it is for the York Rite Mason to
denounce his Scottish Rite brother because of his allegiance - or vice
versa.

It has been stated that the two rites are diametrically opposite in some of
their aspects.  This may be clearly seen in the manner of their inception. 
The York Rite arose from independent subordinate lodges; the Scottish
Rite, from a Supreme Council.  The one represented the crystallization,
among working and middle class men, of the moral and political tenets
which had been slowly gathering force and form throughout the ages; the
other, the sublimation of those same tenets among kings and statesmen. 
The one was a movement among the people; the other, a dynamic
readjustment among their rulers.  The one was essentially democratic; the
other, essentially aristocratic.

In the York Rite, the supreme authority is vested in the subordinate lodge;
in the Scottish Rite, in the Supreme Council.  In the York Rite, the genius
of government is republican; in the Scottish Rite, it is oligarchical. 
Teaching the same essential truths, breathing a philosophy which is
identical, each traverses a separate route to the same goal - separate and
divergent because they were set in divergent channels at the beginning.

It is historically established that to Frederick the Great belongs the honour
of compacting the Scottish Rite into the present definite system.  Probably
all of the 33 degrees now conferred were in existence prior to his time, but
they were diffused and ineffective, lacking definiteness of organization.  On
May 1, 1786, an organization was perfected with Frederick at its head and
"Constitutions" were formally adopted, bearing the signature among others
of Frederick himself, by which the "Constitutions of 1762" and the rite itself
were amended and enlarged from the "Rite of Perfection," consisting of 25
degrees, into the present system of 33 degrees.  Under these Constitutions
of 1786 the Scottish Rite Masons of the present day are working, and to
them they profess allegiance.

As between the two rites, there is an analogy, somewhat loose it is true, but
certainly suggestive, to the two fundamental schools of American politics
- the one representing the doctrine of States' Rights, the other clamouring
for centralization of the governing power; the one professing a government
"of the people, by the people and for the people," the other asserting a
beneficent paternalism; the one staunchly maintaining the sovereign right
of every individual to voice and vote, the other as stoutly battling for the
right of an aristocracy of intellect, integrity and utilitarianism.

It is begging the question to argue that the form of Scottish Rite
government is obsolete.  There are too many of the great world powers
now operating under similar plans, and operating worthily.  The contention
which is sometimes made that time has rebuked the aristocratic idea and
brought forth in its stead the democratic idea, sounds vapid when it is
placed in deadly parallel with the undisputed fact that the York Rite is far
more ancient in origin than the Scottish Rite.  The one consideration worthy
of serious attention is that of results - what is being achieved? It is
undoubted that if the reins fall into the hands of evil men, evil to the craft
must follow - whether in the York Rite or in the Scottish Rite.  It is doubtless
true that in such case the remedy might be applied more quickly in the
York Rite.  It is doubtless true that the Scottish Rite contains the
possibilities of greater abuses.  It is no less certain that it contains the
possibilities of bigger achievements.  The great desideratum in each rite is
that good men, the very best men in the Craft, shall be given authority.

At the same time it must not be overlooked that there are those who, by
reason of temperament, education or prejudice, can never be brought to
believe that good to the Craft can come out of a form of government which
is aristocratic - just as there are others who denounce the policy of the York
Rite as unsafe and conducive to demagoguery.  It is largely a matter of
viewpoint.  It is likely that as long as the world lasts there will be found
examples of each which may be justly cited both in defense of each and
in condemnation of each. It is doubtless true that each has its part to play,
and will continue to play that part, in the evolution of the race; because
men are born with fundamental differences in temperaments see things
differently and are individual in their preferences; and there is no indication
that they will cease to be so in the ages to come.

Those who condemn the Scottish Rite, then, because of its peculiar form,
or because of its rules and regulations, are not to be taken too seriously. 
The rite is hardly to be blamed for these, since they are its individual
expressions of Masonic political conviction.  These things, if they are to be
changed at all, must be changed by the rite itself and of its own volition. 
This change may or may not come with the years.

But there is one particular in which in some localities the rite is open to
criticism; and that is that it is not sufficiently careful, in the extension of its
membership, to explain to applicants the radical differences between
Scottish Rite polity and that of the York Rite.

The applicant for Scottish Rite degrees is always in this part of the world a
York Rite Mason.  He knows more or less about York Rite polity.  He
assumes, unless he is a man of more than ordinary reading, that it is
identical with that of the Scottish Rite.  He has a right to this assumption
unless he is informed by those who take his application; and it is taking a
wholly unfair and unmasonic advantage of his ignorance to induct him into
what he may not approve without stating the facts to him broadly and
giving him the chance to decline without embarrassment - before the
application is signed.

If he approves, as a great many do, he will be grateful for the frankness
with which he was treated and will make all the more loyal a member of the
rite; if he disapproves, while he may decline to become a member, he must
always, at least commend the ingenuousness of the membership.

