The Builder Magazine

June 1920 - Volume VI - Number 6

 

MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO WERE MASONS

JAMES A. GARFIELD

BY BRO. GEO W. BAIRD. P. G. M.. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

A PARTICULARLY beautiful, artistic memorial to President James A. Garfield stands at the Maryland Avenue entrance to the Capitol grounds, in Washington City. The memorial was modeled by Niehaus and Ward, and is a masterpiece.

 

Garfield successfully combined the arts of statesmanship and war in a fashion equalled by few other men. He had the distinction of being the only man ever elected to membership in the House, membership in the Senate, and to the Presidency in the same year.

 

James Abram Garfield was born November 19th, 1831, at Orange, Cuyahoga county, Ohio, descending from Welsh and Huguenot ancestry. His father died when James was less than two years of age, and his mother ran the farm and kept her boys together, so that James at an early age became a farm hand. This early "hustling" is probably what kindled industrious habits in the boy, who never in his life found toil to be a burden. No honest toil was too meagre for him to attempt, in order that he might earn for the support of his mother. Could there be a nobler purpose?

 

Garfield attended school as opportunity and circumstances permitted, and his ambition was to fit himself to be a teacher. No wiser plan ever existed in the heart of a boy, for the very reason that a boy best masters a subject when he attempts to teach it. There are many superficial scholars, but few superficial teachers.

 

As a teacher he began in a school possessing several rowdy students, which was not unusual in his day; but Garfield was not only a lusty youth but handy with his fists as well, and it was only a short period of time until he had a well disciplined school.

 

He experienced religion at an early age, and became a devoted member of the Campbellite branch of the Baptist Church, continuing such for the remainder of his life.

 

He made his first political speech in support of the nomination of General John C. Fremont, the standard-bearer of what was then the Republican party, after which he attended Williams College and began to teach ancient languages in Hiram College, which is evidence of his progress as a scholar. He was afterwards made President of Hiram College, which office he held in 1859 at the time he was elected to the Ohio Senate where he soon became a quick and ready debater. In one of his speeches he is quoted as saying:

 

"I regard my life as given to my country, and I am only anxious to make as much of it as possible before the mortgage on it is foreclosed."

 

In 1861 Governor Denison offered Garfield the commission of Lieutenant Colonel, which he accepted and joined the Forty Second Ohio Regiment, but he was soon promoted to be Colonel of the Regiment. He made good as a Colonel and was later promoted to be a General Offiicer. He was in the battles of the Big Sandy River, Shiloh, Little Creek, Pittsfield, and others. In 1863 he resigned his commission in the Army and returned to his seat in Congress. Here he was soon recognized as a powerful speaker.

 

His first speech of importance in the House was in January 1864, when he advocated the confiscation of certain rebel property. His best speeches were on tariff revision and against inflation of the currency. He was strictly a party debater, and was a leader of his party in the House.

 

It had long been a custom in the House for the older and stronger members to browbeat the younger ones, and while Garfieid was active in this yet he was not as bad as many of his predecessors. A story is told of the eccentric John Randolph of Roanoke. John was not only a leader, but something of a bully. It was his custom to arrive late, and to take off his overcoat as he strode down the aisle. One day a new member had ventured to rise to a privilege, and just then Mr. Randolph arrived, removing his overcoat as he advanced. The young member hesitated. "Mr. Speaker," said Mr. Randolph, and the Speaker recognized him. There was silence for a moment, when Mr. Randolph said: "Mr. Speaker, the calf from Maryland has blatted at last." But, while Mr. Garfield seemed to hold the younger members in check, he was never as unfair as Mr. Randolph.

 

At the Republican convention in Chicago, in 1880, Garfield appeared in the interest of John Sherman for the nomination to the Presidency, and he labored faithfully. But before long it became manifest that Garfield himself was to be the nominee of the meeting. There followed a vigorous campaign, in which the "credit mobilier" figured vividly. His election to the Presidency was, however, by a good majority and was generally accepted by the whole Republic. Garfield was a hearty, affable man, easy to approach, and was a good listener. He had the merit of never keeping a petitioner waiting; his reply was always ready, positive and decisive, but never offensive. His Secretary of State was James G. Blaine, who had been Speaker of the House, and who was probably the quickest and most incisive debater ever on that floor. Blaine knew how to make friends, in which his personal magnetism helped to a great extent. In campaigns he was a hearty hand-shaker and had a cheerful, encouraging word for the ward-heelers. Among these heelers was Charles J. Guiteau, a good voter, and one who expected to be paid for his vote.

 

But Mr. Blaine was like the Irishman during election time. The day after election Pat said: "Boys, yesterday I'd have kissed the foot of any of you - but now you can kiss mine." So, when Guiteau came to the State Department believing Mr. Blaine would reward him for "services rendered," he was disappointed. Whereupon he resolved to have Mr. Blaine "removed." This he effected, but the rest of his plan failed. He believed that if he killed President Garfield, making Mr. Arthur President, the latter would pardon him. He waited at the railroad station, shot President Garfield, was arrested, tried, pled insanity, and had a large number of sympathizers who sent candy and flowers to him while in jail, but Arthur did not pardon him. He had assassinated the President, who had never offended him, and plunged the nation into mourning without remorse or regret, simply to satisfy his political cravings.

 

President Garfield was a member of Pentalpha Lodge, Washington Royal Arch Chapter, and Columbia Commandery, all located in Washington, D.C.

 

--------o-------

 

WHAT THE OFFICIAL ORGAN OF THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HAS TO SAY OF THE ALLEGED K. OF C. OATH

 

The reappearance in certain sections of the country of the bogus Fourth Degree oath of the Knights of Columbus has led Supreme Knight James A. Flaherty, of Philadelphia, to issue a warning to any who take part in circulating this alleged oath and to request the press of the United States and Canada to aid in enlightening the public regarding the falsity of this "oath."

 

"The Knights of Columbus," Bro. Flaherty has stated, "invite information from anybody regarding circulators of the alleged K. of C. Fourth Degree oath. This bogus oath, revolting in character, has been in circulation for many years. It is a blasphemous and evilly designed document, calculated to stir up religious hatred and to inflame bigotry.  Strangely enough, its appearance coincides with general election years.

 

"The Knights of Columbus is not an oath-bound organization, and as far as secrecy is concerned, we have more than once submitted the internal workings of the Order, even to the details of degree work, for examination by non-Catholics, even ministers of Protestant denominations, who have found us to be simply a patriotic organization striving to do good wherever and whenever we can.

 

"Recently this disgusting bogus oath, containing foolish threats of massacre and carnage against those who do not agree with us in religious matters, was circulated in Albany and Providence and in up-State parts of New York and rural sections of other States.  An attempt was made to circulate it during the war, but the Department of Justice stopped that, the circulator bong an alien enemy - and that fact is significant in the present attempt to revive the 'oath.' The 'oath' is usually printed with a catch lie at the bottom, stating that it has been taken from the Congressional Record.  The truth is that it has appeared in the Record, as evidence in an election case in which it was successfully used against a candidate who happened to be a Knight of Columbus.  His opponent strongly disclaimed knowledge of the 'oath.'

 

"The Knights of Columbus believe that this 'oath' is circulated by ignorant persons who are victims of a more or less intelligent attempt to discredit the organization and cause religious strife, for political or other ends.  We shall prosecute those who malign us by distributing this 'oath' whenever and wherever we may find them.  We have already obtained a large number of convictions in various parts of the country.

 

"The press of the country can render a distinct service by warning the public against this foolish attempt to create bigotry and ill-feeling, especially at this time."

 

The real obligation taken by the K. of C. is in itself sufficient proof of the vile absurdity of the so-called oath.  It follows:

 

"I swear to support the Constitution of the United States.  I pledge myself, as a Catholic citizen and Knight of Columbus, to enlighten myself fully upon my duties as a citizen and to conscientiously perform such duties entirely in the interest of my country and regardless of all personal consequences.  I pledge myself to do all in my power to preserve the integrity and purity of the ballot, and to promote reverence and respect for law and order.  I promise to practice my religion openly and consistently, but without ostentation, and to so conduct myself in public affairs, and in the exercise of public virtue as to reflect nothing but credit upon our Holy Church, to the end that she may flourish and our country prosper to the greater honour and glory of God." From the April, 1920, issue of "The Columbiad," the official organ of the Knights of Columbus.

 

--------o--------

Kindness is wisdom. There is none in life But needs it and may learn.

 

-Bailey.

 

NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF MASONIC RANKS

 

BY BRO. SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, ENGLAND

 

The story of Freemasonry is now a twice-told tale, but it is a story which seems never to grow old.  THE BUILDER has more than once published brief accounts of that history but it needs not to apologize for giving to our readers another account, somewhat longer, written by a brother who has devoted much thought to this important subject.  We ask our readers to study this essay with care for it will give them a bird's-eye view of a vast field of history.  Essays are very often valuable, in that they give a busy man a rapid glimpse of a small section of a great theme; a treatise like this is of far more value, even if it does require more patient study, for it enables him to comprehend the story of Masonry as a whole - Editor.

 

I. THE NATURE OF THE INQUIRY

 

All brethren who have paid any attention to the early history of the craft are aware that our present ceremonial, while it embodies archaic features easily recognized by any one moderately acquainted with medieval language and formulas, and such as no eighteenth century antiquary could have interpolated, (1) is in its form and order the work of the founders of the Grand Lodge Of England and their successors down to the union of the rival Grand Lodges in 1813.  It is certain that its framers from Anderson and Desaguliers to Preston recast and greatly amplified their materials.  We do not know fully what those materials were; indeed Anderson, who was anything but a critical antiquary, seems to have wilfully thrown a cloud of obscurity round his operations; nor is credulity the worst that has to be laid to his charge.  Accordingly, so far as any direct evidence goes, it is very possible to entertain the gravest doubts as to the authenticity not only of Anderson's superstructure but of his foundations.  These doubts have been carried by some learned brethren to the length of maintaining that superiority of the Master to the Fellow Craft is a pure invention or misconception void of historical warrant in the practice of the old operative lodges.  With great respect for the much needed and excellent critical work of those brethren - it is enough to name Gould, Hughan, Speth, Chetwode Crawley, last but not least Dr. Fort Newton, and Dr. Hammond the accomplished librarian of the Grand Lodge of England, who are still with us - I cannot follow them to that length, and shall try to show cause for holding that there was an element of genuine restoration - restoration to be distinguished from unbroken continuity, but not merely fictitious - in the eighteenth century fabric of speculative Masonry.  That Anderson and Desaguliers did not find three degrees existing in practice at the beginning of the eighteenth century may be taken as established: the only arguable question is whether we shall speak of two or one.  But it is another thing to deny that there had ever been three ranks in operative Masonry; whether properly called degrees or not, is a minor question.  So far as I know the word "degree" does not occur as a regular term in any of the earlier documents.

 

I shall not enter on detailed criticism of previous opinions, which would only make a tedious and intricate discussion, but give my own view of the evidence on the principle of trying to establish fixed points by the use of the best available means, and not attempting to reconcile the variations or Contradictions that occur in sources of inferior authority.  This method, I believe, gives the best chance of finding useful clues when one is confronted with a tangle material in which the sound and the unsound seem at first hopelessly mixed. At least it will enable me to follow the order  of time without perplexing digressions. We have to look for indications leading to conclusions or a choice of plausible opinions on the following points. What were the recognized ranks in medieval operative Masonry? How were they acquired or conferred? How far were the distinctions observed in practice in the time of transition from operative to speculative lodges? In the absence of any central authority we must not expect, in any  case, to find complete uniformity. Medieval institutions of all kinds, it may be added, are full of exceptions and anomalies; one quite common note of the antiquarian  (or otherwise interested) falsifier is that he makes things too neat and complete.

 

II. THE COMACINE MASTERS

 

In the course of the last twenty years attention has been called to the importance of the Lombard association of builder-architects (not an ordinary trade gild) known as the Comacine Masters. The recognition of their special standing as independent of any local regulations, and their influence on the general development of European architecture in the Middle Ages, may be taken as proved. (2) It is not to my present purpose to touch on more or less plausible conjectures as to their remote antecedents and possible connection with Eastern traditions. What concerns us here is the fact that the magistri Comacini claimed and exercised  a cosmopolitan privilege very like that of the Masters or Doctors of medieval universities, namely the right of both practising and teaching their art anywhere. There is no authentic evidence of any express imperial or papal grant of any such privilege, (3) but in the Middle Ages custom and repute would for most working purposes do as well as formal title, the notion of possession with its highly important juridical consequences being extended  to usage of all kinds. The University of Oxford had nothing else to rely on for its authority to confer degrees; and in the craft itself we have the "time immemorial" lodges. Now the analogy of university degrees to the ranks established in the Comacine fellowship demands a word of special notice; (4) I do not think it can be accidental: In the Comacine ranks we find the three grades of novices or apprentices, operatori or craftsmen, and magistri. Brethren will remember that at this day the F.C. is still formally exhorted to study the liberal arts and sciences - the medieval trivium and quadrivium and the M.M. to assist and instruct the Brethren in inferior degrees. The parallel to university ranks is exact.  We have in the medieval university system, especially in its English form, the commencing student or undergraduate (a convenient English term lacking a Continental equivalent) who is a member of the body but a mere learner under constant discipline, having only inchoate rights of promotion on satisfying the proper tests; then the bachelor of arts, (5) recognised as proficient to a certain extent, and with a limited authority to teach, but still learning and not released from discipline (in statu pupillari); and lastly the master of arts or doctor, (for down to the fifteenth century these titles were equivalent) who is not only qualified to teach but bound to teach and preside as "regent" at disputations for a certain time.  Traces of the distinction between "regent" and "non-regent" M.A.'s survived in England till our own days.  The essence of the master's or doctor's degree was license to teach in any recognised university; whether any or how many students would come to be taught being a matter dependent on the master's own ability.  In like manner the Master Mason was free, in the operative period, to undertake a contract and form a working lodge to execute it.  In the fully developed university system of the later Middle Ages, now most nearly preserved in England, the doctor's degree belonged only to the superior faculties of theology, medicine and law. (The Faculty of Letters is a creation of our own time, and music is on a rather different footing). It would be fanciful to seek for any real analogy between the faculties outside Arts and the Masonic or quasi-Masonic orders and degrees outside ancient craft Masonry; but it seems worth remark that in the majority of European universities there has been a dislocation and consolidation of degrees curiously like that of which we have indications in the later operative Masonry, the faculty of Arts having made its mastership a doctorate under the name of Doctor of Philosophy, and the bachelor's degree having atrophied or never been fully established.  The preliminary point I am here making is that the general idea of three ranks, namely, novice, worker still under instruction, and master giving instruction, is no modern invention but rooted in authoritative medieval tradition.

 

It is certain that Italian master-builders came to England at the very beginning of the Middle Ages; it is a safe inference that they brought the Comacine tradition, as there is positive architectural evidence that they brought Comacine symbolism with them; and no one acquainted with the wide and rapid spread of medieval institutions and forms by direct imitation (in the universities, again, as much as anywhere, also in municipal and other customary rules) will hesitate to believe that they found imitators.  The later importation of Italian masters and artificers towards the end of the fifteenth century was of a different kind, and is not to the purpose here.  We are now ready to proceed to the evidence found in English documents.  I may premise that I take no notice of modern publications purporting to reproduce ancient texts or give the substance of ancient materials, but having no authentic history, coming from no proper custody, and lacking corroboration from more trustworthy sources.  Happening to be rather familiar with documents of that kind in the medieval history of English law, I am clearly of opinion that even so far as there is nothing extravagantly improbable in their contents it is unsafe to treat them as historical proof of anything.  One cannot so much as infer from them what was current belief or tradition at the time when they were written; for they may represent nothing but the conjecture or invention of some eccentric writer who was wilfully manufacturing evidence in support of his peculiar views.  It is an elementary caution that any copy of a alleged original which fails to account for that original, or even gives a false account, must be regarded with the gravest suspicion, a suspicion not to be removed by the matter being on the face of it consistent with genuineness, if it is so.  Many forgeries have been very plausible; and interpolations in copies or reconstructions of perished or lost genuine documents may give much trouble, and on the whole have given more than downright forgery.  The fact that a copy comes from proper custody (such as, to take the simplest case, the place where the missing original or an official duplicate ought to have been) is a reason for giving it faith and credit, but unfortunately not a conclusive reason.

 

III. OPERATIVE MASTER MASONS

 

Let us begin with a class of testimony which is undesigned, authentic and strictly contemporary, the designation of masons in medieval building accounts, or fabric rolls, to use a term current among antiquaries.  Mr. W. R. Lethaby's book "Westminster Abbey and the King's Craftsmen" (1906) gives us a good selection. (6) We read of a "magister Robertus cementarius" in 1169 (p. 115).  Then from the middle of the thirteenth century onwards we have a series of King's Masons beginning with Master John of Gloucester (p. 161, etc.) who are regularly called Master: but this was not merely an official title, for several other masons are so called, and in 1307 Master Richard de Wytham, mason (therefore already a master) was appointed to be Master at the King's Palace and the Tower, that is, director of the works. Towards the end of the thirteenth century timber was ordered "to make a lodge for Master Michael and his masons" (p. 181). "Master" therefore certainly meant something definite. Mr. Lethaby thinks there was some sort of gild which conferred the title, and mentions as a known fact that "in the fifteenth century there were yearly congregations of masters": of which more presently. The election by the masons of the City in 1315-6 of six paviors to repair the pavements (p. 186) proves that they were then recognized as an organized body.

 

There is also frequent mention of Master Carpenters, but nothing to show exactly how far their position was like that of Master Masons.

 

So far then we know that a master mason was a mason qualified in some ascertained way to undertake and control building operations, (7) and that in the City of London there was an established community of masons in the early fourteenth century, probably much earlier. It does not seem likely that in such a body the designation of Master rested on nothing but unofficial reputation.

 

Riley's Memorials of London (1868) furnish valuable supplementary matter. In 1356 regulations were made for the trade of masons by "twelve of the most skilful men" equally representing the "masons hewers" and the "light masons and setters" (p. 280); these skilful men are referred to as "the said Masters so chosen" by the body of th trade. Among other rules "no one shall take work in gross" - that is as a contractor- "if he be not of ability in a proper manner to complete such work." In 1298 Master Simon de Pabingham and Master Richard de Wetham, masons, are reconciled before the Mayor (nature of difference not stated).  As to Masters in other callings, the master farriers apparently control their trade (A.D. 1356, p. 292), and in the Barbers' gild it seems that the only Masters were the two elected Wardens (A.D. 1376, p. 394).  Variations in the usage of different trades are only what we should expect.

 

Now let us turn to the Sacrist Rolls of Ely edited from the muniments of Ely Cathedral by Canon F.R. Chapman and dating from the late thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth century. (8) We meet with one John Attegrene who is mentioned several times during five years before he is entitled Magister Cementarius' in 1339-1840; therefore, in the learned editor's words, "not apparently at first a master mason, but attaining that distinction after some years": vol. i, p. 47; the words of the entry are "in stipend.  Johannis Attegrene Magistri Cementarii per ann. 1.pound 6s. 8d" (ii.  99). Canon Chapman's inference appears not only natural but inevitable, and the supposition that "magister" was only a customary title of office during a particular employment is excluded by the evidence of the Westminster rolls already cited.

 

From the fabric rolls of York Minster published by the Surtees Society (9) we learn that in the fourteenth century the regulations as to hours of work were laid down in detail by the Dean and Chapter, and the master masons and his fellows swore to observe them.  The conditions on which a new worker is received are rather strict.  After a week of probation the reception has to be "of the common assent of the master and keepers of the work, and of the master mason." The master and keepers first named appear to be supervisors appointed by the Dean and Chaper. If the master mason is disabled the warden ("magister secundarius cementariorum") is too act as deputy with half the salary." (10)

 

It is certain that the trade had an active government of its own in the fourteenth century and that regular assemblies fixed or attempted to fix wages. "The masons seem to have resisted the Statutes of Labourers more successfully than any other craft." (11) In 1360-1 (34 E. III, c. 9) Parliament declared all such trade regulations void as contrary to the Statute of Labourers (25 E. III. st. 2. c. 2, A. D. 1350) and insisted on wages being paid by the day and not otherwise according to the Statute at rates not exceeding 4d. a day for a "mestre mason de, franche peer" (12) (freestone mason) and 3d. for others; but the right of lords to make their own bargains with contractors is saved. In 1425 (3 Hen. VI. c. 1. often cited in the modern literature of Freemasonry) this was reinforced by an absolute prohibition of the meetings themselves; the conveners were to be adjudged felons, and those attending to be liable to arbitrary fine and imprisonment.  It is by no means clear that these Acts ever had much effect; in any case the Elizabethan lawyers treated them as repealed, though not expressly, by the legislation of their own time.  All the medieval labour statutes were repealed in the course of the nineteenth century.

 

So far the extraneous evidence, as we may call it.  As witness for the state of things about the end of the fourteenth century we have the operative masonic documents collectively known as Old Charges.  A list of them is given in a most useful book to which we shall recur, Edward Conder's "Records of the hole craft and fellowship of masons," Lond. 1894, et. p. 219. (13) The number there given as extant is 63, but in 1915 as many as 75 were known. (14) Most of these are seventeenth century copies of earlier originals (one late 16th, about a dozen 18th), seemingly good copies in the main; but two, the "Halliwell" or "Regius" and the "Cooke," both in the British Museum, exist in actual medieval MSS, (15) and moreover appear by internal evidence to be the earliest in original date.  All these documents contain generally similar matter though not always in the same order; the usual order is as follows: (1) Invocation of the Trinity. (2) Definition of the liberal arts and especially geometry. (3) Origin of geometry and architecture given in a legendary chronicle form.  The confusion of persons and times, such as Euclid being Abraham's clerk, and Charles Martel (in some MSS. corrupted into Marshall) speaking with a man who had been at the building of Solomon's temple, is no more than occurs in other medieval legends. (4) Foundation of masonry and yearly assemblies by King Athelstan." (16) (5) Charges to be delivered to masons for their instruction: here the most considerable variations occur.  There are "articles" addressed to masters and "points" to working fellows.

 

Let us now see what we can find about master masons in the Old Charges, beginning with the earliest.

 

The "Halliwell" or "Regius" document, the oldest of all in substance, is unique in its form, being versified. It is written in a "Gothic" hand of about the end of the fourteenth century; the text has been accessible in print for more than seventy years. (17) The title is "constituciones artis gemetrie secundum Enclydem," geometry being identified with the higher skill of architecture (a word not yet known) as distinct from the mere journeyman's craft; and the space given to the relation of master and apprentice - an apprentice bound for seven years (v. 122) - is ample proof that the writer's object was quote practical.  The apprentice must be free born, for otherwise his lord might reclaim him even in the lodge (v. 129 seq).  The master is bound to teach the Prentice (v. 241); and the precept "to him that was higher in this degree" (18) to "teach the simplest of wit" is exalted by being ascribed to Euclid (vv. 35-40).  The prentice must keep his master's counsel's and what is done in the lodge to himself (vv. 275-286), but there is nothing to show whether any secrets are formally imparted to him or not; and every working mason is to take his pay from the master "full meekly" (v. 298). (20)

 

Masters are the more skilful and worshipful of the craft (vv. 31-46) and are bound to attend general congregations of which they have notice, except for sickness or other reasonable excuse (vv. 105-118); evidently an important duty, as it has a whole "articulus" to itself.  A master must not undertake work unless he is capable of carryings it through, as we have seen already (v. 195).  Receipt of summonses to congregations would presumably be conclusive proof of mastership; whether there was any other form of admitting or recognizing masters does not appear so far.  Masons (including masters, it would seem) address one another as fellows (v. 51).  But at the assembly "there shall be masters and fellows also" (v. 409).  If plain English words have any meaning, the writer regarded masters as superior to ordinary fellows, however their condition was acquired.  These assemblies were public functions at which the Sheriff, the mayor of the city and other magnates were expected (v. 411). (21) We cannot doubt that they were really held and did regulate the trade; otherwise there would have been no occasion for Parliament first to annul their rules and then to forbid them altogether.

 

Next we turn to the Cooke MS (22) which need not be much later than the Regius; indeed the originals (for it is a combination of two documents, as Speth has proved in his excellent critical commentary appended to the Quatuor Coronatorum facsimile) (23) may have been earlier.  It is written in a book hand of the first half of the fifteenth century. (24) The contents are in many ways peculiar.  It begins with a sort of general thanks-giving instead of an invocation, and gives consecutively two different versions of the Euclidean legend, in the second of which the scribe mechanically copied the corrupt form "Englet" or "Englat." The first version refers (1. 640) to the "book of our charges," which probably resembled if it was not identical with the charges following the second version.

 

In a general way the matter is much like that of the Regius, but there is a unique passage about the congregations said to have been instituted in King Athelstan's time (1. 700 sqq.). These were to be annual or triennial, and "at such congregations they that be made masters should be examined of the articles after written, and be ransacked whether they be able and cunning to the profit of the lords" (i. e. employers) "of whom they take their pay for their service and for their travail," 1. 725.  Evidently the author of this passage believed that a master mason's standing was not or ought not to be complete until he had satisfied the masters assembled in a regular congregation that he was well acquainted with the articles, that is, the duties of a master as delivered in the charges, and that he was competent as a practical undertaker of building works.  The former branch of the examination may well have been on the way to become a mere ceremony at the beginning of the fifteenth century; (25) we do not know how the latter was conducted, but perhaps testimonials of work actually accomplished would be accepted as sufficient proof of competence.

 

The later MS. recensions of constitutions and charges, read in their natural sense, plainly confirm the witness of the Regius and the Cooke MSS. that master and fellow were the names of distinct ranks.  In an affirmative sentence, indeed, "masters and fellows" may be thought ambiguous.  But there is nothing ambiguous about the repeated negative injunctions enumerating the various things that "no master nor fellow" or "no master nor no fellow" may do. (26) Not that I assert or believe that the distinction was still alive when our present copies were written; but it must have been alive at the date of their originals. If "no master nor no fellow" is not a decisively disjunctive phrase, I do not know how the idea of two distinct classes is to be conveyed in the English language.

 

IV. THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY PRACTICE

 

What can we infer from our documents as to the actual usage of the later Middle Ages? I submit, with all due reserve and subject to correction or new information, that it was something like this.  Any qualified fellow of the craft may take a contract if he can find an employer to intrust him with the work, and companions to work under him. So long as the building is in progress, be the time longer or shorter, he is "governor of the work" and called master, but strictly master only of the lodge he has formed for that special undertaking (there is no election of a master by the lodge in the purely operative period, except possibly, one may guess, if the master dies or is disabled before the work is finished). (27) In order to obtain the permanent rank of Master he must be approved and certified in a general assembly. We have seen that the proceedings were public, and that public officers were present who were not members of the craft.  It is therefore most improbable that any new secrets were then and there inaparted to the approved master; indeed it is hard to see what more he can have had to learn.

 

Now let us turn again to the statement in the Cooke MS. about the examination of masters.  It is not a common form; the author whose work our scribe copied must have made it with a purpose.  It looks as if he thought the practice of examination had been unduly relaxed, and wished to reinforce it by the mythical authority of King Athelstan, or it may be that he objected to the methods of new unionism (to use a modern phrase) whereby the congregations fell foul of Parliament, and intended to give his companions a hint that it was better to stick to their ancient office of keeping up the technical standard.  Again he may have had some personal interest in the fees paid by masters on approval and have been anxious about their falling off.  Fees were a great matter in the Middle Ages.  This, however, is guesswork.

 

Then the Cooke MS. has yet another curious passage after the "Points" - perhaps not in its right place, perhaps taken from a different source - where we hear of a class of "new men." "At the first beginning" (of the congregation) "new men that never were charged before be charged in this manner" - namely, in short, to keep no company with thieves, to work honestly, render true accounts in things for which they are accountable, behave as lawful men generally, "and that they keep with all their might and (sic) all the articles aforesaid:" Something must be wrong with the text; for the duties specified are those of ordinary workers but the Articles dealt with those of masters.  One suspects an accidental omission; perhaps we should read "[all the points] and all the articles aforesaid"; but the lacuna may be more considerable.  We can infer, as the MS. stands, only that at these assemblies a charge in the nature of general exhortation and distinct from the "articles" and "points" was delivered to masters or fellows, or both, attending for the first time, and that every man newly qualified as fellow or master was bound to attend at the first opportunity.  Charges of this type are familiar to all Brethren in our modern ritual.  To my mind the passage (assuming it to be a correct statement of actual practice) leaves us in doubt whether this exhortation was the preface to a formal admission, and does not enable us either to affirm or to deny that there was such a ceremony.

 

On the while it seems likely that in the first half of the fifteenth century the craftsman who had executed one or two contracts with success was already apt to be so well content with the reputation of a de facto master as to be in no hurry to incur the trouble and expense of proceeding to the official completion of his title. But that completion may have been expected of a mason who aspired to be master of the works for a great undertaking such as the building of a collegiate church or material additions to a cathedral or minster. Similarly, in a rough way, the M. A. degree is kept alive in England at this day mainly as a qualification for academic franchise or scholastic or ecclesiastical office. The university analogy further suggests that only formally approved master masons had an effective vote in the general assemblies.  I have not found any clear indication of the time when the practical business of the congregations died out, or when they ceased to be even formally convened; but I should guess that the former date cannot be put later than about the middle of the sixteenth, or the latter than the first quarter of the seventeenth century.

 

V. THE TRANSITION PERIOD

 

In the sixteenth century there was a general decay of the old craft regulations, those of masonry among them; but there was also a special reason for the standing of a master mason losing its importance.  The introduction of the word "architect," hardly in use before the sixteenth and not common till the seventeenth century, marks the advent of a sort of men, trained not in the old craft ways, but in the new art that had come in with the new learning, who treated their profession as being of a higher order than the builder's industry. When the architect who had never been a craftsman was the real "governor of the work," and the master mason was no better than a foreman or clerk of the works, it was no longer worth while to be an operative master mason.  The operative lodges gradually became little more than social clubs preserving the symbolic traditions of the craft with various degrees of care and fidelity, something like the Inns of Chancery in the legal profession when they ceased to be active bodies working in auxiliary subordination to the Inns of Court: and as a measure of self-preservation they reinforced themselves by adopting or "accepting" honourary members who had nothing to do with the operative craft. These "accepted" members were the ancestors of our modern fraternity, and "speculative" in the sense of having studied, or being deemed to have studied geometry and architecture without being craftsmen. (28) We may see in the adoption of Sir Christopher Wren at the very latest stage of the transition, if it took place, an expiring attempt on behalf of the attenuated operative tradition to revive its credit by linking it with the new school of architecture. But the fact is in doubt; we have here an example of perhaps the most troublesome kind of minor historical problem, here the affirmative side rests on weak though in itself not incredible evidence, the negative on the lack of confirmation in the quarters where we might reasonably look for it. (29) Aubrey's well known memorandum 1691 (30) cannot, however, be dismissed as void of all foundation; no motive for invention appears, and if Wren was invited to become a brother late in his life, at is not unaccountable. The simplest explanation is that nobody thought of it sooner; or for some reason Wren may have had difficulties about accepting, and taken a long time to decide. A more careful diarist would have saved posterity much trouble by being at the small pains of ascertaining that the meeting  he noted as appointed for that very day, May 18, 1691 was actually held. But Aubrey was careless. Later inaccurate gossip is of no value as confirmation, but so far as its particulars are inconsistent with Aubrey's contemporary note it is equally worthless as contradiction. As Chetwode Crowley judiciously said, Aubrey's testimony remains admissible for what it is worth. (31) It seems just possible that Wren was adopted in expectation of active assistance, and that he failed to render it; if so there might be a grain of truth in Anderson's otherwise very suspicious story of his neglect. (32) But, whether we decide for or against Sir Christopher's membership, or leave the matter as an unsolved puzzle, there is nothing in it to help us to any general conclusion.

 

We have anticipated a little, but the digression is not material.  The really dark time of the transformation is the sixteenth century.  Lodges had been temporary working associations for a time varying with the magnitude of the undertaking. They became local and permanent, with something of a superficial likeness to craft gilds, from which they were really as different as could be.  There were, of course, real craft gilds of masons in the towns, distinguished from other trade gilds by the customary right of intercommoning, to borrow a legal term from another region, whereby the fellow of any one gild was entitled to be received and to work in the jurisdiction of any other.  Hence the need of passwords and tokens for recognition. But we have no evidence that the fixing of lodges to a local habitation was accomplished by any process of amalgamation with gilds. That which actually happened in the singular case (so far as we know) of London was, as we shall immediately see, not so simple.  It is easy to suppose then when a master mason of good repute had fulfilled a contract and had reason to expect another, his companions might find it more profitable to stay with him than to disperse in search of other work. That would account for a lodge acquiring a continuous existence, but it would bring it no nearer to the change of the master from the founder into an annually elected officer. I have not met with any light on the process, nor even any attempt to explain it. One little fact waiting to be fitted into its right place is that operative bodies continued to deliver the old charges, or abridgments of them, to their apprentices as late as the eighteenth century. (33)

 

Early in the seventeenth century we have a glimpse of the transition from operative to speculative masonry nearly but not quite accomplished in the "new articles" that occur in a few MSS. of the constitutions. (34) No person is to be accepted a freemason "unless he shall have(?) a lodge of five freemasons at least, whereof one to be a master or warden" - where "master" is obviously the name of office only - "of that limit or division wherein such lodge shall be kept, and another of the trade of freemasonry." This is not altogether clear, but it seems that a lodge was not correctly formed without at least one operative member. Now the need for such a rule shows that in most lodges the majority had ceased to be operative.  This was certainly the case, as we now know, in the Warrington Lodge to which Elias Ashmole was admitted in 1646; (35) indeed it is at least doubtful whether any operative mason was present.  "I was made a Free Mason" is the whole extent of Ashmole's disclosure as to what passed, besides the date and the names of members of the lodge attending.  Many years later, in 1682, Ashmole attended a lodge "at Mason's Hall, London" where six named persons "were admitted into the Fellowship of Free Masons." Ashmole "was the Senior Fellow among them," and the Master of the Masons' Company (of London) is named among "the Fellows" present.  There is no word of Ashmole having ever gone through any other ceremony than that of Oct. 16, 1646, at Warrington, or of any one being called Master except in virtue of his office for the time being.  The natural inference is that an "accepted" i.e. non-operative freemason was admitted as a fellow without going even in form through the stage of an apprentice (though a cumulative ceremony is not absolutely negatived), and that there was no speculative degree corresponding to the old operative rank of master mason, which had become obsolete, or confounded with that of fellow, in the course of the sixteenth century; whether practice was uniform everywhere we cannot be quite sure, but at all events there is no sign of different usages in London, and at Warrington. Honourary degrees in universities are in like manner conferred without any mention at all of the stages passed through by an ordinary candidate, and indeed degrees are quite commonly so conferred by the governing body on office-holders if they are not already graduates of the university.

 

The Masons' Hall where Ashmole attended a lodge meeting was the hall of the Masons' Company of London, and the lodge was attached to the company in the sense that the company accepted honourary members through (and it seems only through) the lodge; but the company as a subsisting craft gild was more extensive than the lodge, and the records of the lodge, unfortunately not extant, were quite distinct from those of the company. This appears in the extracts from the Company's accounts, beginning in 1620, published by Bro. Conder.  New members admitted to the Company and "coming on the livery upon acceptance of Masonry" paid distinct fees to the lodge and to the Company. (36) Apprentices taking up their freedom in the regular way of the trade after serving their seven years under a freeman might and commonly did pay a special fee of 3s. 4d. for "admission then to be a Master." This had nothing to do with the lodge, for there is no corresponding item in the fees paid by the "accepted" members. It was therefore a survival of the old operative rank, consolidated with that of fellow - a rank still distinct from membership of any merely local body, even that of the eminent London Company, and carrying in theory the privilege of being free of the craft everywhere. Its working value however does not seem to have been rated high in the year 1636, judging by the amount of 3s. 4d. as compared with the 20s. paid "by way of gratuitie to this Companie." (37) By rights, it would seem, the 3s. 4d. should have gone to some representative of the general assembly of masons and not into the Company's account.  Evidently there had long ceased to be any such person; I may add by the way that I cannot believe there was a Grand Master of Freemasons (except so far as the president of a general assembly, so long as the assemblies were held, may be regarded as such for the occasion, as Speth suggests in his commentary on the Cooke MS.) or any regular body acting like a Grand Lodge, before 1717.  The "admission to be a Master" still practised in the Masons' Company in 1636 appears to be the latest officially recorded trace of the use of that name in the old operative sense.  An inventory of 1665 shows that the Company kept a list of "the names of the accepted Masons" - that is the members of the lodge - "in a fair inclosed frame with lock and key." (38) Nothing in the Company's books tells us what became of that lodge.  It may have died out or may have separated from the Company and continued under some new name; Bro. Conder suggests as a pious conjecture that the Lodge of Antiquity may have arisen from it. (39)

 

The formation of purely speculative lodges not having any professed operative character appears to have begun only in the eighteenth century, not without discontent on the part of operative lodge members. (40)

 

Finally we have Anderson's statement about the meeting of four lodges which was the origin of the Grand Lodge of England. (41) "They and some old Brothers met at the said Apple-Tree, and having put into the Chair the oldest Master Mason (now the Master of a Lodge) they constituted themselves a Grand Lodge pro tempore in due form," etc.  The same term is applied at little further on to the chairman of the assembly and feast held at the Goose and Gridiron on St. John the Baptist's day, 1717, when Sayer was elected Grand Master. It seems natural that an actual Master of a lodge should take the chair on both occasions. Anderson's phraseology may have been intended to minimize the fact that the only persons then recognized as master masons were those who were or had been Masters of lodges, Installed Masters as we now call them: but it does not appear to me that any certain inference can be drawn.

 

VI.  THE SPECULATIVE RECONSTRUCTION

 

The state of things before the creation of the Grand Lodge of England seems to have been as follows:

 

In the community of operative masons there had been three grades, namely apprentice, fellow and master, resembling the undergraduate student, bachelor and master or doctor of a university.

 

The rank of master mason had become less important from the fifteenth century onwards. It was practically extinct about the middle of the seventeenth century.

 

In the subsisting lodges about 1700 there was only one rank, generally under the name of fellow, but it seems that an actual or past Master of a lodge was entitled to some precedence.

 

I have endeavoured to give a connected view of these stages, distinguishing those points which are established or made highly probable by good witness from those which are left open by the known evidence and give room for some latitude of conjecture.  In my judgment no greater certainty is now to be looked for save by some unexpected stroke of good fortune.

 

The founders of modern freemasonry, having in their hands copies of the "Old Charges," and perhaps other material now lost, were acquainted with the old operative classification and proceeded to reconstruct it in the speculative form now familiar to us.

 

Thus was our stately and superb edifice, for so we may justly call it notwithstanding all confessed errors in design and faults of execution, built up on the ruins of the medieval order.  Our founders were credulous their credulity, as too commonly happens, was not free from admixture of something indistinguishable from pious fraud; but the blemishes affect only details of their work. The last word must be of thankfulness for the daring ingenuity which rescued the permanent and cosmopolitan elements of the ancient craft symbolism and developed them with enhanced spiritual value.

 

 (1) There is at one point an element of distinctly northern and maritime origin; I must not be more explicit in print.

 

(2) See W. Ravenscroft, The Comacines, their predecessors and their successors, London, 1910 (where other works are referred to); J. Fort Newton's The Builders, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1916, pp. 85-102, 113, 114.

 

(3) Rivoira, Le origini dell' architettura lombarda, i. 130.

 

(4) It has already been observed as regards medieval gilds in general: P. J. Hartog in Encycl.  Britann. 11th ed. x. 41, s.v. Examinations.

 

(5) The importance of this degree seems to be confined to Paris, Oxford and Cambridge.  Originally it was only the state of a candidate for the master's or doctor's licence.

 

(6) Not actual extracts from the unpublished rolls, but the scholarly character of the work is sufficient warrant.

 

(7) This confirms Gould's conclusions (History, i. 431) that a M.M. was "a duly passed apprentice who was competent to take work on his own account." The open question is what was the appointed proof of such competence.

 

(8) Cambridge University Press 1907, vol. 1, notes on transcripts, Vol. 2, transcripts: privately printed. I owe the communication of this important work to my friend Mr. Hubert Hall of the Public Record Office.

 

(9) 1859, p. 181, extract in Coulton, Social Life in  Britain, from the Conquest to the Reformation, Camb. 1918, p. 489.

 

(10) p. 166.

 

(11) Coulton, op. cit. p. 481; and see Wyclif's censure of "Freemasons and others" for their restrictive rules, ib. p. 490. "  (12) Note the division of masons as "de franche pere" or "de grosse pere." The meetings are described as alliances and covines of masons and carpenters.  In later terminology "covin" refers to fraudulent agreement, but here it is a body of confederates, see Oxford Dict. s. v. I have verified the French original of both Acts in the Statutes of the Realm. (13) Cp. Stillson and Hughan's History (Boston, New York and London, 1891) pp. 161 seq. Conder's list appears to represent a later revision. Hughan's article on Freemasonry in the Encycl. Britann. (1910) says "numbering about seventy."

 

(14) Ars iv. Coron. xxviii. 189.

 

(15) Complete facsimiles in Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha, vols. 1, 2. Several of the later MSS. are also facsimiles in the same series. The spelling of quotations here given is modernized.

 

(16) This tale, being unknown to all historians from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle downwards, must be set down as pure fiction. I am inclined to ascribe its origin to the antiquarian English revival under Henry I. which produced, along with Latin versions of genuine laws, the spurious laws of Edward the Confessor and other inventions. But there was also some antiquarian romancing early in the fourteenth century. Mr. Coulton (Social Life in Britain, p. 488) ingeniously suggests that "the craft chose him" (Athelstan) "as their eponymous hero on the strength of the stan (stone) in his name."

 

(17) The early history of Freemasonry in England. By James Orchard Halliwell (afterwards Halliwell-Phillips) 2nd ed. Lond. 1944. Also extracts in Coulton, op. cit. pp. 481-489. Cp. W. Cunningham, Notes on the Organization of the Mason's Craft in England (British Academy, 1913).

 

(18) I do not think any stress can be laid on the use of this word.

 

(19) The words "Privite of the chamber" which follow seem to refer to private instruction from the master.

 

(20) Brethren will hardly need to be reminded that a trace of this point, from whatever documentary source actually derived, exits in our modern ceremonies.

 

(21) What was the Sheriff doing there? Was this piece composed before 1360? or was the Statute a dead letter? Or was the Sheriff's business to see  that there was no meddling with wages?

 

(22) The history and articles of Masonry - ed. Matthew Cooke, Lond. 1861. Cooke's transcript requires correction in places as appears by the facsimile, and the MS. itself has several copyist's errors. I am indebted to my friend Mr. Hubert Hall for a fresh critical estimate of the dates.

 

(23) There is one amendment to be made in the verbal interpretation. In 1. 290 "Kindly" is not "fortunately" but "by natural reason"; "law of kind" is the medieval English for "lex naturalis"

 

(24) So Conder, Hole craft &c. p. 29, n. "circa 1430." In his texk at p. 48 an unlucky misprint reads 1480.

 

(25) So in the ancient English universities proceeding to the M. A. from the B. A. degree has long been a matter of right on payment of the fees; the last semblance of examination was abolished early in the nineteenth century. (26) e.g. Clerke MS. ap. Conder, The hole craft &c. at p. 216

 

(27)But this was at least sometimes otherwise provided for, see as to York Minster p. 12 above. cp. art. 141 of the current English Book of Constitutions.

 

(28) See Cooke MS. 1. 623 wad Speth's comment thereon.

 

(29) Especially the silence of Sir Christopher's son, who was certainly a Freemason. Preston's assertion counts for nothing, Anderson's for rather worse than nothing.  The minutes of the Lodge of St. Paul's (1723) restore the balance but are not quite convincing.  See the controversy summed up in Calvert, The Grand Lodge of England, 1917, pp. 44-52.

 

(30) Facsimiled in Chetwode Crowley's "The Masonic MSS. in the Bodleian Library," reprint from Ars IV. Coron. 1898.

 

(31) If it is worth anything it shows that Wren was not a Freemason before 1691. The alternative of supposing that Aubrey misunderstood his information or was misinformed, so that the ceremony may have really been, an installation, would leave us with no standing-ground at all   (32) Aubrey's entry is also strictly compatible with Wren, having at the last moment refused or failed to attend the meeting, and thus never having been adopted.

 

(33) Conder, op. cit. p. 142.

 

(34) Condor, The Hole Craft &c., p. 225.

 

(35) Facsimile from his diary in "The Masonic MSS. in the Bodleian Library," many times printed, last in Newton, The Builders, p. 162, and Calvert, The Grand Lodge of England, p. 2, also in Conder, op. citi 203-4.

 

(36) The Hole Craft &e. pp. 140, 171.

 

(37) Ib. pp. 162, 163.

 

(38) The Hole Craft &e. p. 179.

 

(39) op. Cit. p. 13.

 

(40) Calvert, The Grand Lodge of England, p. 17.

 

(41) Book of Constitutions, 2nd ed. 1738, p. 109.  Facsimiled in Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha, vol. 7.

 

-----o-------

 

THE MASONIC TRINITIES

 

BY BRO. L. B. MITCHELL. MICHIGAN

 

Brotherly love, the fundamental grace

By which man finds his true and rightful place;

Wc cannot know how much its meaning holds

For life with it to all that's best, unfolds.

 

Relief, the deed responsive to the sway

Of Love that loves in sacrificial way,

And thereby finds that life's a golden mine

With dividends that truly are sublime.

 

And Truth, the find of right relation to, -

Like sun and sight, - reveals unto the view

The right of things in bold finality

And then responds with its so mote it be.

 

* * * * * *

 

Friendship, the tie that gives to life its zest,

The bond by which we know each other best,

The sweetest chord in human harmony

And timed to meet its need upon the way.

 

Morality, the sense that qualifies

To virtues held as nature's highest prize,

The test alone that measures to the man

And which by right all compromises ban.

 

And brotherly love, the soulness of the Art

That gives to life its courage and its heart;

It is indeed the soul-bind of the earth,

The kindredness that gives the world its worth.

 

-----o------

 

Prosperity has this property: It puffs up narrow souls, makes them imagine themselves high and mighty, and leads them to look down upon the world with contempt; but a truly noble spirit appears greatest in distress; and then becomes more bright and conspicuous. - Plutarch.

 

THE MYSTIC TIE

 

BY BRO. JOSEPH FORT NEWTON, NEW YORK

 

"The moral solidarity of mankind is dissolved.  The danger is imminent that the end may be a war of all against all.  Sects and parties are increasing; common estimates and ideals keep slipping away; we understand one another less and less; even voluntary associations, that form of unity peculiar to modern times, unite more in accomplishment than disposition, bring men together outwardly rather than in reality."

 

These words, written by Rudolph Eucken in 1912, were like a star-shell over No Man's Land, revealing the divided mind of the world, and they had a terrible fulfilment.  The War, by its principle of violence, made no positive contribution to society, but only stirred up and brought to the surface what already existed.  For both men and nations it intensified tendencies already active, precipitated passions held in obscure solution, and brought to a focus forces that had long been uneasily accumulating.  It neither initiated nor changed the direction in which the world was moving, but it did quicken the pace, and, in quickening it, revealed it.  That is why a haunting uneasiness possesses the minds of men today. Even when local disturbances subside and isolated disputes are settled, we still doubt whether a stable tranquillity has returned or ever will return again.  For these things are only symptoms of a profound and widespread mental ferment and moral restlessness.

 

The insight of Eucken goes further back and deeper down to the real root of the matter, divining the causes and logic of it all to be moral, spiritual, religious.  For, if anything is made plain by history, it is that the mystic tie which holds humanity together in ordered and advancing life is moral and spiritual, and when that thread is cut anything may happen.  From the beginning of the century the spiritual disintegration of the modern world, the breaking of the ties that bind together the fabric of civilization, had been observed and noted by many.  Faith grew dim, moral sanctions were relaxed, and it was deemed clever and smart to talk lightly of those sanctities without which no society has long existed.  Much of our literature has been intellectually Bolshevistic for thirty years, attacking the basis of marriage, of the home, of the church, of the state, as if the moral laws were only conventions, if not fictions.  Verily we have our reward; we know now that when fools play with fire they get burned.

 

For a time, during the stress and strain and terror of the war, there seemed to be a reknitting of the ties that bind men and nations together; but it was only seeming. It was the power of fear and force, not the power of faith. How unreal, how artificial it was is shown by the rapidity with which that amazing solidarity was demobilized, to be followed by a revival of class rancor, sectarian ardor, and a narrow, myopic nationalism. A world which, having sent young men to die by the thousands for magnanimous ideals, has already half forgotten them as it cooly and briskly resumes business at the old stand - such a world may be grieved, but it ought not to be astonished, at the revolt of both the minds and souls of men.  Not that the immediate future will see a triumph of subversive schemes and radical ideas. If we follow an almost universal precedent we shall pass first through a period of luxury and extravagance, and there will he a momentary craving for the old social and religious orders, as in the years following the Napoleonic Wars.  But this is not significant.  It is merely the first reaction from the emotional strain and nervous tension of the war.  This mood will soon spend itself, and then, at once, new forms, new forces, new demands will begin to arise which will sweep away much that has seemed precious and permanent in our lives.

 

Without a spiritual renewal, without a reknitting of that "moral solidarity," of which Eucken speaks so eloquently, - without the Mystic Tie - we may not hope for security and real progress.  The truth is that we have been trying to build a human civilization on a materialistic foundation, and it cannot be done.  No human community can long exist on such a basis.  Russia has rendered incalculable service to humanity, by showing, with deadly consistency, how materialism issues into anarchy and animalism.  Hear now a proof of this in the words of a spiritually-minded man who lived in the midst of it, watching the decay and destruction of his country.  Eugene Troubetzkoy, Professor of Law in the University of Moscow, in the Hibbert Journal, for January, 1920, shows us what happens when the tie of spiritual faith and fellowship is broken.  Here are words which he who runs may read:

 

"Bolshevism is first and foremost the practical denial of the spiritual.  They flatly refuse to admit the existence of any spiritual bond between man and man. For them economic and material interests constitute the only social nexus; they recognize no other.  This is the source of their whole conception of human society.  The love of country, for example, is a lying hypocritical pretence; for the national bond is a spiritual bond, and therefore wholly factitious.  From their point of view the only real bond between men is the material - that is to say, the economic.  Material interests divide men into classes, and they are the only divisions to be taken account of.  Hence they recognize no Nations save the Rich and the Poor.  As there is no other bond which can unite these two Nations into one social whole, their relations must be regulated exclusively by the zoological principle revealed in the struggle for existence.

 

The materialistic conception of society is the Bolshevist method of treating the family.  Since there is no spiritual bond between the sexes, there can be no constant relation. The rule is therefore that men and women can change their partners as often as they wish.  The authorities in certain districts have even proclaimed the 'nationalisation' of women, that is, the abolition of any private and exclusive right to process a wife even for a limited period, on the ground that women are the property of all.  The same children.  A powerful current of opinion is urging that children must be taken from their parents in order that the State may give them an education on true materialistic lines. In certain communes some hundreds of children were 'nationalised,' that is, 'taken from their parents and placed in public institutions."

 

There it is, showing us what the red logic of hell means when it works itself out in action, and what results follow when the Mystic Tie of spiritual faith and fellowship is cut.  Political anarchy, social animalism, moral bedlam follow with mathematical certainty, and all the fine and holy things of life are thrown into the junk heap. Man has an animal inheritance - moods of ape and tiger mingle in him with divine dreams and thoughts that wander through eternity - and when the Divine is denied, he reverts to the law of the jungle, and the hard-won trophy of spiritual struggle and agony vanishes.  What happens, happens again.  The Bolshevists are men of like passions as ourselves; they simply carry out with the fatal logic of fanaticism the dogma of materialism upon which we have been trying to base our modern civilization.  If anyone thinks that what has taken place in Russia cannot happen in America, he knows little of history and less of human nature.  The practical denial of the Divine dehumanizes humanity, and the rest follows as night follows day.

 

For that reason, if it should be a part of our religion to be patriotic, it must be a part of our patriotism to keep the light of spiritual faith aflame on the altars built by our fathers. Down in Wales, at a time when it seemed that revolution was inevitable, I asked a labour leader what bond held men together.  He said: "All that holds these men back is the fact that they were trained in the Sunday-schools of these Welsh chapels years ago.  That is all that keeps the spark from blowing up." Within the last four years ten thousand Sunday-schools have ceased to exist in America, and the end is not yet.  Facts such as these, and others of like kind, make a thoughtful man wonder as to what the future will be.  What confronts us is not specifically indifference to religion, but indifference to pretty well everything outside the circle of creature comfort and self-gratification.  There are many exceptions, of course, but in the main it is true that society has as yet been able to persuade only a few of its members to be really interested in its higher concerns.  By the same token, men who do care for what is finest in our national life must make use of every opportunity, every instrumentality, to keep alive the faith that makes men faithful, and the vision of the moral ideal that lights our human way toward the city of God.

 

There is no need to apply what has been said, least of all to men to whom the Mystic Tie is a reality, and who are bound together by it in a fraternity of spiritual Faith and Fellowship. In every degree of Freemasonry we are taught - by art, by drama, by symbol - the moral basis of human society, its spiritual interpretation, and the necessity of a fraternal righteousness among men, without which manhood is rudimentary and intellectual culture is the slave of greed and passion. Of Lincoln it was said, that "his practical life was spiritual," and by as much as Masonry builds men of like faith and fibre who, in private life and public service, keep a manhood neither bought nor sold, true of heart and unbefogged of mind, it is helping to weave that Mystic Tie that holds the republic together. The words of James Bryce, in "The American Commonwealth," ought to be written and hung up in our hearts:

 

"If history teaches anything, it teaches us that hitherto civilized society has rested on religion.  It was religious zeal and religious conscience that led to the founding of the New England colonies two centuries and a half ago. Religion and conscience have been a constantly active force in the American Commonwealth ever since.  And the more democratic republics become, the more the masses grow conscious of their power, the more do they need to live not only by patriotism, but by reverence and self-control, and the more essential to their well-being are those sources from which reverence and self-control flow." 

 

------o------

 

As a citizen there is one very important duty and that is the duty as a voter. Let us, brethren, lay just a little bit more stress on the observance of this privilege and this duty and a little less stress on who and what we are voting for. Oh, it is so easy to get up excitement over an individual; it is so easy to get up a temporary excitement over an issue, but it is hard to get up enthusiasm and excitement over just ordinary duty. But voting is not an ordinary duty. It is the greatest duty that we as citizens have to perform.

 

Masonry should likewise enter into the everyday life of the individual if these problems are going to be solved. Masonry is not a thing for the lodge room alone; it is not a thing for our festive occasions alone, but it is a practical everyday philosophy of life. A man to be a good Mason should be a good business man, should be a good lawyer; should be a good bricklayer or a good mechanic. Into his everyday work should go the principles that have been inculcated in his life through the medium of his lodge. He should feel that he is endeavoring to dignify his craft or his profession, he should endeavor at all times to show that the word of a Mason in business or as a laborer or as a professional man is absolutely inviolable. The fact that he is a Mason should be sufficient recommendation of his character. And in our lodges we should lay emphasis upon that fact. We should teach the fact not alone in the beautiful phraseology of our ritual, but in the common ordinary language that every man can understand, and if we find in our community Masons who are not living up to the teaching of - Masonry in their everyday business life and affairs, then some means should be found to show them the error of their ways.

 

The teaching of Masonry is nothing more or less than old fashioned, common honesty and common sense. Those are the things that are particularly needed in this hour of crisis. There is no new panacea for the ills of the world. Work honestly performed, duty faithfully done, will bring peace and happiness and contentment to our land. Let us in our lodges give consideration to the old fashioned virtues; let us bring them before our membership as we have never brought them before. Let us put greater stress upon the social side of our Institution, so that we can come to understand and know our brethren better; let us give them the inspiration of our companionship; let us give them the helpful and strengthening influence of a closer acquaintanceship; let us have them feel that as they go out in their several walks of life that they have the interest and support of the brethren of their lodges. Let us endeavor by this close, active connection and acquaintanceship and frequent meetings together to weld ourselves into one solid mass that will stand for righteousness and for honesty and for uprightness in our civic as well as our private dealings; let us be bound together into one great mass that will move forward as a solid unit for righteousness.

 

- Bro Charles H. Victor California.

 

FOR THE MONTHLY LODGE MEETING

 

CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN NO. 39

 

Edited by Bro. H. L. Haywood

 

THE BULLETIN COURSE OF MASONIC STUDY FOR MONTHLY LODGE MEETINGS AND STUDY CLUBS

 

FOUNDATION OF THE COURSE

 

THE Course of Study has for its foundation two sources of Masonic information: THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. In another paragraph is explained how the references to former issues of THE BUILDER and to Mackey's Encyclopedia may be worked up as supplemental papers to exactly fit into each installment of the Course with the papers by Brother Haywood.

 

MAIN OUTLINE:

 

The Course is divided into five principal divisions which are in turn subdivided, as is shown below:

 

Division I. Ceremonial Masonry.

 

A. The Work of the Lodge. 

B. The Lodge and the Candidate. 

C. First Steps. 

D. Second Steps. 

E. Third Steps.

 

Division II. Symbolical Masonry.

A. Clothing. 

B. Working Tools. 

C. Furniture. 

D. Architecture. 

E. Geometry.

F. Signs. 

G. Words. 

H. Grips.

 

Division III. Philosophical Masonry.

A. Foundations. 

B. Virtues. 

C. Ethics. 

D. Religious Aspect. 

E. The Quest. 

F. Mysticism. 

G. The Secret Doctrine.

 

Division IV. Legislative Masonry.

 

A. The Grand Lodge. 

1. Ancient Constitutions. 

2. Codes of Law. 

3. Grand Lodge Practices. 

4. Relationship to Constituent Lodges. 

5. Official Duties and Prerogatives.

 

B. The Constituent Lodge.

1. Organization. 

2. Qualifications of Candidates. 

3. Initiation, Passing and Raising. 

4. Visitation. 

5. Change of Membership.

 

Division V. Historical Masonry.

 

A. The Mysteries--Earliest Masonic Light.

B. Studies of Rites--Masonry in the Making. 

C. Contributions to Lodge Characteristics.

D. National Masonry.

E. Parallel Peculiarities in Lodge Study. 

F. Feminine Masonry. 

G. Masonic Alphabets. 

H. Historical Manuscripts of the Craft. 

I. Biographical Masonry.

J. Philological Masonry--Study of Significant Words.

 

THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS

 

Each month we are presenting a paper written by Brother Haywood, who is following the foregoing outline. We are now in "First Steps" of Ceremonial Masonry. There will be twelve monthly papers under this particular subdivision. On page two, preceding each installment, will be given a list of questions to be used by the chairman of the Committee during the study period which will bring out every point touched upon in the paper.

 

Whenever possible we shall reprint in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin articles from other sources which have a direct bearing upon the particular subject covered by Brother Haywood in his monthly paper. These articles should be used as supplemental papers in addition to those prepared by the members from the monthly list of references. Much valuable material that would otherwise possibly never come to the attention of many of our members will thus be presented.

 

The monthly installments of the Course appearing in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin should be used one month later than their appearance. If this is done the Committee will have opportunity to arrange their programs several weeks in advance of the meetings and the brethren who are members of the National Masonic Research Society will be better enabled to enter into the discussions after they have read over and studied the installment in THE BUILDER.

 

REFERENCES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS

 

Immediately preceding each of Brother Haywood's monthly papers in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin will be found a list of references to THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. These references are pertinent to the paper and will either enlarge upon many of the points touched upon or bring out new points for reading and discussion. They should be assigned by the Committee to different brethren who may compile papers of their own from the material thus to be found, or in many instances the articles themselves or extracts therefrom may be read directly from the originals. The latter method may be followed when the members may not feel able to compile original papers, or when the original may be deemed appropriate without any alterations or additions.

 

HOW TO ORGANIZE FOR AND CONDUCT THE STUDY MEETINGS

 

The lodge should select a "Research Committee" preferably of three "live" members. The study meetings should be held once a month, either at a special meeting of the lodge called for the purpose, or at a regular meeting at which no business (except the lodge routine) should be transacted--all possible time to be given to the study period.

 

After the lodge has been opened and all routine business disposed of, the Master should turn the lodge over to the Chairman of the Research Committee. This Committee should be fully prepared in advance on the subject for the evening. All members to whom references for supplemental papers have been assigned should be prepared with their papers and should also have a comprehensive grasp of Brother Haywood's paper.

 

PROGRAM FOR STUDY MEETINGS

 

1. Reading of the first section of Brother Haywood's paper and the supplemental papers thereto.

 

(Suggestion: While these papers are being read the members of the lodge should make notes of any points they may wish to discuss or inquire into when the discussion is opened. Tabs or slips of paper similar to those used in elections should be distributed among the members for this purpose at the opening of the study period.)

 

2. Discussion of the above.

 

3. The subsequent sections of Brother Haywood's paper and the supplemental papers should then be taken up, one at a time, and disposed of in the same manner. 4. Question Box.

 

MAKE THE "QUESTION BOX" THE FEATURE OF YOUR MEETINGS

 

Invite questions from any and all brethren present. Let them understand that these meetings are for their particular benefit and get them into the habit of asking all the questions they may think of. Every one of the papers read will suggest questions as to facts and meanings which may not perhaps be actually covered at all in the paper. If at the time these questions are propounded no one can answer them, SEND THEM IN TO US. All the reference material we have will be gone through in an endeavor to supply a satisfactory answer. In fact we are prepared to make special research when called upon, and will usually be able to give answers within a day or two. Please remember, too, that the great Library of the Grand Lodge of Iowa is only a few miles away, and, by order of the Trustees of the Grand Lodge, the Grand Secretary places it at our disposal on any query raised by any member of the Society.

 

FURTHER INFORMATION

 

The foregoing information should enable local Committees to conduct their lodge study meetings with success. However, we shall welcome all inquiries and communications from interested brethren concerning any phase of the plan that is not entirely clear to them, and the Services of our Study Club Department are at the command of our members, lodge and study club committees at all times.

 

QUESTIONS ON "THE TROWEL"

 

THE BUILDER JUNE 1920

 

In conducting the study meetings the Chairman should endeavour to hold the discussions as closely as possible to the text and not permit the members to speak too long at one time, or to stray onto another subject.

 

Whenever it becomes evident that a discussion is turning from the original subject the Chairman should request the speaker to make a note of the particular point or phase of the matter he wishes to discuss or inquire into, and bring it up when the Question Box period is opened.

 

Have some brother recite the monitorial lecture on the Trowel as the working tool of the Master Mason. Why is the Trowel most appropriate to the Master Mason degree? What are the working tools of an Entered Apprentice, and their uses? What are the working tools of a Fellow Craft, and their uses? What is the function of the Trowel in the hands of a Master Mason? Why is the Trowel most symbolic in the work of temple building?

 

Of what power may we consider the Trowel to be a symbol?

 

What do we say of men who lack unity in their makeup? Whence came the word "character"? What is its present-day meaning? What may a man who lacks character do to better himself ?

 

What can he use to accomplish this end?

 

How did the builders of ancient times lay out their building designs? How and by whom was the degree work laid out in early English lodges? What was the duty of the youngest Entered Apprentice after the conclusion of the ceremony? How was the "plan of work" later displayed? What is the tracing board of a degree? Are the tracing boards of the several degrees represented in your lodge? How? Of what is the tracing board a symbol?

 

How would you answer Brother Haywood's question "What is the force that can unite individual Masons into a unified and harmonious order"? What is it that ties you to your fellow Masons? What is your conception of the "Brotherhood of Man"?

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES

 

THE BUILDER: Vol. I. - What is Masonry, p. 295. (Reference to the Trowel.) Vol. II. - The Trowel, p. 335. Vol. IV. - The Trowel, p. 38.

 

Mackey's Encyclopedia:

 

Trowel, p. 804

 

THIRD STEPS BY BRO.  H. L. HAYWOOD, IOWA

 

PART IV - THE TROWEL

 

This emblem is like a key; insignificant in itself it opens up matters of such vast import that to pursue its teachings through all their ramifications would itself require a book; consequently I can only hope to set down a few hints of the richly various applications of this emblem.

 

There is no need to say that of all working tools it is most appropriate to the Master Mason degree; it carries that significance upon its surface.  For the Entered Apprentice, who can make only a beginning at the task of shaping the ashlar, needs only the gavel and the gauge; the Fellow Craft, to bring the stone into completeness of size and form, requires the plumb, square, and level; the Master Mason's task is to set the finished stone in its place, and bind it there, for which purpose the trowel is his most necessary tool. Therefore the Master Mason has been given the Trowel as his Working Tool because it is most symbolic of his function in the great work of Temple Building; when that tool has done its work there is nothing more to do, because the structure stands complete, a united mass, incapable of falling apart; the stones which were many have now, because of the bonding power of the cement, become as one stone.

 

If the stones represent individual men, and if the Temple represents the Fraternity as a whole, it is evident that the Trowel is the symbol of that which has power to bind men together. Therefrom arises the question, What is this unifying power? Let us undertake to answer this question from the several poin