The Builder Magazine

May 1920 - Volume VI - Number 5

 

MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO WERE MASONS

STEPHEN DECATUR

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

ONE OF the idols of the Navy was Captain Stephen Decatur, who lost his life in a duel in 1820. There were two Stephens of the surname Decatur - father and son. The elder served faithfully and well during the War of the Revolution, was a member of Veritas Lodge No. 16, in Maryland, and later a member of St. John's Lodge No. 20, also located in the same State. The Decaturs were Huguenots, and of French descent.

 

Stephen Decatur II, is the subject of this essay. He was born in Maryland in 1779, and initiated into St. John's Lodge October 12th, 1799, at Newport, Rhode Island. We are indebted to Brother Gilbert Patten Brown for this Masonic record.

 

Stephen Decatur II was appointed a Midshipman in 1798, and served with distinction under Captain Barry, Captain Bainbridge and Captain Dale. While under the command of Captain Valentine Morris, Lieutenant Decatur became active against the Barbary Pirates, those wolves of the Mediterranean who had been for ages levying tribute on every sail that passed in or out of the straits. Gibraltar itself gets its name (Gib-al-Taric) from a famous chief of the pirates, and the word "tariff" comes from Tarifa, the seaport where these robbers made their headquarters. It was strange that European governments sanctioned this high-sea tariff, and it is equally strange that a new government should be the first to forcibly oppose it. But this followed so soon upon the war with France (for it was a de facto war) when our Commissioner, Pinkney, said to the French Deputies, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute," that it was thought worth while to "buck" a second time.

 

Like Paul Jones, Decatur was said to be the pink of politeness, courteous, punctillious and courtly, but it was an easy matter for him to be led into a quarrel. He was one of the best seamen of his day, and it was a time when sail was the propelling power and the importance of proficiency in seamanship could not be over-estimated.

 

Decatur was a man of correct judgment; he neither over nor under estimated his adversary. His plan for cutting out and destroying the Philadelphia (one of our frigates captured by the Barbarians) was admirable, and it was wholly executed by himself. So successful was the plan that it at once brought him into the limelight. And it was also so successful in disturbing the balance of the Barbarians that they were, from that time, practically out of the grafting business. A grateful Congress voted Decatur a sword, two months' pay and a Captain's commission, and two months' pay was also voted to the officers and seamen engaged with him.

 

Later he took part in an allied attack on a flotilla of gun boats, which he boarded, and, in a hand-to-hand fight, conquered the enemy. A Tropolitan Captain killed Decatur's brother, a Lieutenant, but soon thereafter Stephen crossed swords with that pirate and killed him. Out of eighty men who opposed Decatur that day, fifty-two were killed or wounded, while Decatur's loss was but fourteen.

 

The War terminated in 1805 and Decatur was inactive until the War of 1812. In that war he commanded a frigate, and captured the Macedonian in a desperate fight. Decatur found a strong enemy, but conquered him. For this victory Congress voted him a gold medal. He also captured the Hornet, but soon the enemy appeared in such force that Decatur, with his squadron, found it prudent to remain in the sounds of Long Island rather than to go out upon the open sea. Finally, however, he was cornered and captured by a superior force. After his parole he was obliged to face a court of inquiry, which honorably acquitted him.

 

Decatur commanded a fleet of three ships in 1815, in the Mediterranean, when he fell in with the Algerine frigate Mashouda, taking the Algerine Admiral Rais Hammida and nearly one hundred of his officers and men besides nearly four hundred other prisoners. On board Decatur's flagship, the Guerriere, there were fourteen killed and wounded.

 

In 1815 Decatur was appointed Navy Commissioner, which office he held until his death, which occurred in a duel with Commodore Barron. Barron had been Decatur's commander and they had been very close friends. But during the war with Great Britain, while Barron was in Europe Decatur saw the urgent need for his return and was irritated at Barron's delay. The real reason, as afterwards discovered, was that Barron had not the necessary funds for his return trip. Decatur made some disparaging remarks about the delay, which reached Barron's ears. He might have stood these remarks from some one for whom he had not such an intimate liking, but from Decatur who had been so near and dear to him, he could not stand them, and so challenged Decatur to a duel.

 

They fought on the district line between the District of Columbia and Maryland, on a spot called the "Bladensburg Duelling Ground" because of so many duels having been fought there. Both fell at the first fire, Barron severely and Decatur mortally wounded.

 

Decatur's body was placed in a vault in Washington until 1846 when it was removed to St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Churchyard, in Philadelphia, where the beautiful fluted column, with a Tuscan cap, and on a cubic plinthe, marks the spot. The column is surmounted by an American eagle, emblem of freedom. The eagle is seen poising upon the globe. Perhaps the artist hoped for this emblem of freedom to extend its influence over the whole globe. Surely no greater champion of freedom ever trod the globe than he who rests beneath this beautiful column.

 

WASHINGTON’S MASONIC CONNECTIONS

 

BY BRO. ARTHUR M. ELLIS, CALIFORNIA

 

The historical data herewith presented bearing on the Masonic connections of Brother George Washington is of particular value to the Craft in that it has been obtained from sources entirely independent of Masonic records or traditions.

 

JOHN ADAMS, President of the United States, wrote a letter June 22, 1798, more than a year prior to Washington's death, in which he spoke of Warren of Massachusetts, and other Masons, adding "Such examples as these and a greater still in my venerable predecessor would have been sufficient to induce me to hold the Institution and Fraternity in esteem and honor as favorable to the support of civil authority, if I had not known their love of the fine arts, their delight in hospitality, and devotion to humanity."

 

This contemporaneous endorsement of Masonry and the unqualified recognition that Washington's connection with the fraternity was sufficient warrant for giving approbation to it do not serve to quiet the clamors of the enemies of Masonry. There are yet persons of influence who declare that Washington discarded Masonry before the Revolutionary war. One of them recently stated in print, "The Alexandria, Va., lodge has no claim on him, nor has any other subsequent to 1768."

 

Masons are possessed of sources of information that serve to make such statements ridiculous, but a resort to Masonic records and traditions is of little avail with the hostile profane. There seems to have been no serious attempt to examine the matter from the standpoint of the unbiased historian. What proofs, if any, are there apart from the records and documents under the control of Masonic lodges, that Washington was a constant adherent to the Craft throughout his life and that it continued to receive his approval and support ?

 

There are two important sources, which are not Masonic, which are not now and which never have been, under Masonic control, and which are available to those who seek the truth. The first is the collection of Washington's correspondence in the Library of Congress; the second is the newspapers of Washington's time. The contents of these are set forth in Sachse's Masonic Correpondence of Washington and in Pennsylvania Sesqui-Centennial Celebration of 1902 but no attempt has ever been made to critically consider these and other public evidences in a group by themselves, and to appraise their weight as such independent proof.

 

In 1834 and 1849 the United States Government purchased large portions of Washington's papers from his family. These were stored in the Department of State until 1903. They were then transferred to the Library of Congress and first became available to the historian. Amongst them are many letter books in which the secretaries employed by Washington placed copies of letters and replies. There are also original drafts of various letters entirely in the handwriting of Washington himself.

 

An examination of these documents and other data such as stand entirely free from every possibility of contamination or bias through connection with the Craft discloses the following:

 

The General Advertiser, a newspaper published in Philadelphia, in its issue of Saturday, January 2, 1779, gives a full account of the public celebration of St. John's Day, Dec. 28, 1778. Washington is there named as having been the seventh person in the order of the procession. Three hundred brethren marched in great solemnity to Christ Church.

 

Elkanah Watson, who afterward served this country as an agent in France, delivered a large quantity of gunpowder to Washington at Cambridge in 1775 when need of it was critical. The acquaintance thus begun was never dropped. In 1782 Watson and his partner Cassoul sent a highly ornamented Masonic apron to Washington from France. In his memoirs, published in 1856, (page 135), Watson quotes the letter with which they transmitted the apron. In it they. speak of Washington as being "a brother" and subscribe themselves as having "the favor to be by all the known members your affectionate brothers."

 

The original draft of Washington's reply to this, all in the handwriting of Washington, is in the Library of Congress. Amongst other things he uses in it the following expression: "For your affectionate vows permit me to be grateful and offer mine for true Brothers in all parts of the world." The original letter is owned by the Grand Lodge of New York, but the draft has never been in the possession or control of any Masonic organization.

 

The Pennsylvania Packet, published in Philadelphia, in its issue of July 13, 1784, reads:

 

"Alexandria, July 1. On Thursday, the 24th ult. the brethren of Lodge No. 39 met at their lodge room to celebrate the Festival of St. John the Baptist, . . . after which they walked in procession accompanied by their illustrious brother his excellency General Washington to Mr. Wise's tavern, where they dined and spent the remainder of the day in enjoyments becoming their benevolent and respectable institution."

 

In Washington's diary, Feb. 12, 1785, appears this:

 

"Received an Invitation to the Funeral of Willm Ramsay, Esqr. of Alexandria - the oldest Inhabitt of the Town; & went up - walked in procession as a free mason - Mr. Ramsay in his life time being one & now buried with the ceremony & honors due to one."

 

In 1789 Washington became President, the capitol then being New York. Rhode Island kept out of the Union until the following year. It then acquiesced. In order to cement the friendly feeling Washington then made the first Presidential tour and he visited Newport. Many different bodies there paid their respects to him. King David's Lodge presented a written address which most unequivocally was limited to fraternal relations. It read:

 

“To George Washington, President of the United States of America. We the Master, Wardens and Brethren of King David's Lodge in New Port Rhode Island with joyful hearts embrace this opportunity to greet you as a Brother, and to hail you welcome to Rhode Island.... We felicitate ourselves in the honor done the brotherhood by your many exemplary virtues and emanations of goodness proceedil from a heart worthy of possessing the ancient mysteries of our Craft; being persuaded that the wisdom and grace wit which heaven has endowed you, will square all your thoughts, words, and actions by the eternal laws of honour equity, and truth, so as to promote the advancement of all good works, your own happiness, and that of mankind.

 

"Permit us then, illustrious Brother, cordially to salute you with three times three and to add our fervent supplications that the sovereign architect of the universe may always encompass you with his holy protection."

 

Washington's reply is as follows in part: "Being persuaded that a just application of the principles which the Masonic Fraternity is founded, must be promotive of private virtue and public prosperity, I shall always be happy to advance the interests of the Society, and to be considered by them as a deserving brother." The original address and letter are in the collection of the Boston Athenaeum. They were published in the Newport Herald, August 26, 1790. A copy of each is in Letter Book II, fols. 27-29, Library of Congress, in the handwriting of William Jackson, Wasington's Secretary.

 

In 1791 Washington went on his second Presidential tour throughout the South.

 

St. John's Lodge, Newbern, North Carolina, presented him an address on his arrival there April 20, 1791. In it they speak of him as a "true and faithful brother, the skilful and expert craftsman, the just and upright man." In his reply Washington spoke of the Masonic organization as being "a fraternity whose association is founded in justice and benevolence." Copies of both address and answer are in Letter Book II, folios 47-49, Library of Congress, in the handwriting of William Jackson.

 

Prince George's Lodge of Georgetown, South Carolina, presented him a somewhat similar address, April 30, 1791. In it they said among other things:

 

"We behold in you . . . a Brother of our most ancient and most honorable Order . . ." In reply, Washington said in part, " . . . I am much obliged by your good wishes and reciprocate them with sincerity, assuring the fraternity of my esteem. I request them to believe that I shall always be ambitious of being considered a deserving Brother."

 

These are entered in Letter Book II, fols. 60-61, in Jackson's handwriting.

 

The Grand Master of South Carolina was General Mordecai Gist. He had been a Brigadier General and Master of Military Lodge No. 27 in the Maryland line. He wrote an address in behalf of the Grand Lodge, May 2, 1791. In a portion of it he said:

 

"When we contemplate the distresses of war, the instances of humanity displayed by the Craft afford some relief to the feeling mind; and it gives us the most pleasing sensation to recollect, that amidst the difficulties attendant on your late military stations, you still associated with, and patronized the Ancient Fraternity. Distinguished always by your virtues more than the exalted stations in which you have moved, we exult in the opportunity you now give us of hailing you brother of our Order, and trust from your knowledge of our institution, to merit your countenance and support."

 

Washington in his reply made two positive statements that should be carefully noted. One was "I recognize with pleasure my relation to the brethren of your Society, and I accept with gratitude your congratulations on my arrival in South Carolina. Your sentiments on the establishment and exercise of our equal government are worthy of an association, whose principles lead to purity of morals, and are beneficial of action."

 

The other was: "I shall be happy, on every occasion to evince my regard for the Fraternity."

 

Copies of the address and reply are in the Library of Congress in the handwriting of Jackson. The address was printed in the Charleston City Gazette, May 6, 1791.

 

A somewhat similar address was made by the Grand Lodge of Georgia and it was replied to by Washington briefly in the same general manner. Copies in Jackson's handwriting are in Letter Book II, fols. 77 and 78.

 

After 1792 the capitol was Philadelphia. On Jan. 3, 1792, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania presented him an address in which they declare it is done "in the pride of Fraternal affection," and express the hope that Washington "may be long continued to adorn the bright list of master workmen which our Fraternity produces in the terrestrial Lodge."

 

Washington's introductory sentence in reply was:

 

"Gentlemen and Brothers, I receive your kind congratulations with the purest sensations of fraternal affection."

 

The address and reply are copied in Letter Book II, fols. 104-105 by Dandridge, Secretary to the President.

 

The Massachusetts Grand Lodge in the same year addressed him, saying amongst other things that they had dedicated their Book of Constitution to him, being "convinced of his attachment to its cause, and readiness to encourage its benevolent designs."

 

In his reply Washington speaks of the lodge as "a Society whose liberal principles must be founded in the immutable laws of truth and justice," and says further, "To enlarge the sphere of social happiness is worthy the benevolent design of a Masonic institution." Copies of both address and reply are in Letter Book II, fols. 106-108 in the handwriting of Dandridge.

 

On September 18, 1793, the cornerstone of the capitol building at Washington was laid by Washington in concert with the Grand Lodge of Maryland, and Lodge No. 22 from Alexandria, Virginia. Washington wore the apron which had been presented to him by Lafayette. Numerous accounts of this great Masonic event are in existence. The Maryland Gazette of Annapolis, Sept. 26, 1793, states that the cornerstone was laid by Washington, and on it was deposed corn, wine and oil. The New York Journal and Patriotic Register of Oct. 19, 1793, speaks of the Masonic procession as having been brilliant. The account given in Columbian Mirror and Alexandria Gazette in its issue of Sept. 25, 1793, has been adopted by the official accounts of the laying of the corner stone issued by the United States Government - House Document No. 211, 1896, Hundredth Anniversary of Capitol, p. 121 et seq.; History of U. S. Capitol - Senate Document No. 60, 1900, Vol. I, p. 14 et seq. This account states that Washington wore the Masonic apron given to him by Lafayette, that he acted as Grand Master pro. tem. and that the corner stone was laid by him "and his attendant brethren.

 

In December, 1796, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania addressed Washington, the occasion being the publication of his intention to retire from public life. In his reply he addresses them as "Brothers" and says in part: "I have received your address with all the feelings of brotherly affection, mingled with those sentiments for the Society, which it was calculated to excite." The address and reply are copied in Letter Book III, pp. 244-245, in the handwriting of G. W. Craik, his secretary.

 

In March, 1797, Washington retired from the presidency and returned to Mt. Vernon. Lodge 22 thereupon invited him to a Masonic dinner and also presented him an address in writing. Washington attended the lodge April 1, 1797. His answer was then read in open lodge. The introductory portion of it runs: "Brothers of the Ancient York Masons of Lodge No. 22: While my heart acknowledges with Brotherly Love your affectionate congratulations on my retirement from the arduous toils of past years, my gratitude is no less excited by your kind wishes for my future happiness.'

 

The letter of the lodge, the address and Washington's reply are copied in Letter Book II, folios 294-295, in the handwriting of Tobias Lear, Washington's Secretary. Claypool's American Daily Advertiser of Philadelphia, in its issue of April 11, 1797, gives an account of the meeting of Lodge 22. After the meeting an "elegant" dinner was had. At this Washington offered the toast, "The Lodge at Alexandria, and all Masons throughout the world."

 

In the same month the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts forwarded an affectionate address to Washington, signed by Paul Revere, Grand Master. The delivery of this was delayed for some unexplained reason. On its receipt Washington at once forwarded to Revere a letter of apology for his delay in answering. He also wrote a most careful and significant letter to the Grand Lodge. The original draft of this letter, entirely in the handwriting of Washington himself, containing several interlineations and modifications in his own hand, is in the collection of manuscripts in the Library of Congress. In this he addresses the members of the Grand Lodge as "Brothers." One of the significant statements contained in it is the following: "My attachment to the Society of which we are members will dispose me always to contribute my best endeavours to promote the honor and interest of the Craft." He concludes the letter with the following: "With the assurance of fraternal regard and best wishes for the honor, happiness & prosperity of all the members of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts."

 

In 1798 trouble with France had reached such a stage that Congress ordered an army to be raised and made Washington Lieut.-General. In November he was in Baltimore and the Grand Lodge of Maryland presented him an address in which they stated that it was "the greatest boast of their Society, that a Washington openly avows himself a member of it and thinks it worthy of his approbation." The draft of Washington's reply, sent from Elkton, Maryland, Nov. 8, 1798, is in the Library of Congress. He addresses the members of the Grand Lodge as "Gentlemen & Brothers." In it he makes the following unqualified declaration:

 

"So far as I am acquainted with the principles and doctrines of Freemasonry, I conceive them to be founded on benevolence, and to be exercised for the good of mankind; I cannot, therefore, upon this ground withhold my approbation of it."

 

It is subscribed thus:

 

“I am, Gentlemen and Brothers,

Very respectfully

 

Your most ob't servant."

 

The Maryland letter was Washington's last written communication bearing upon Masonry. His funeral, as is admitted everywhere, was a Masonic one. Dr. E. C. Dick, Master, and Rev. James Muir, D. D., Chaplain of Lodge 22, performed the funeral ceremonies. The General's apron was on the casket together with his sword. Details as to the funeral were published broadcast throughout the country.

 

Opponents of the Craft have sought to make capital of a letter written by Washington to Rev. G. W. Snyder in 1798 prior to his letter to the Grand Lodge of Maryland. They overlooked his second letter to Snyder, Oct. 24, 1798, in which he reiterates his faith in Masonic lodges. Rev. Snyder had written to Washington and charged that "some of the lodges in the United States" had caught the infection and cooperated with the Illuminati and Jacobins. He further said that he thought Washington might block the progress in "the English lodges over which you preside." The term "English lodge" had a meaning at that time as distinctive and well-recognized as contrasted with American Lodges as now are the York Rite and Scottish Rite. Immediately after the American revolution a movement was started to withdraw the lodges of this country entirely from allegiance to the English Grand Lodges. Many of the lodges, however, insisted on retaining their English charters and it was several decades before the American lodges had full possession of the field. There were three "English lodges" in Quebec until very recently, as contrasted with the great number of "Quebec" lodges." Hence, when Washington wrote that Snyder was in error as to his presiding over the "English lodges" and that he had not been in one more than once or twice in thirty years he was literally correct. Such statements were called for in his reply as naturally as would a similar answer be prompted now from a member of a Commandery who had never had any connection with the Scottish Rite if he were urged to take some action with respect to the activities of the Scottish Rite. Washington was urged by Snyder to act in the "English lodges."

 

The details available from Masonic sources which cover the skeleton of fact above outlined and give to Washington's Masonic connection its life and color are far more important than the dry memoranda here set forth. It may be serviceable, however, to many readers to have at hand the foregoing succinct statement of indisputable facts established in complete independence of any Masonic connection or influence that show the unreserved recognition by Washington of his Masonic affiliation and also his unqualified approbation of the fraternity throughout his life.

 

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

 

ON THE WAY

 

--------------

 

BY BRO. G. A. NANCARROW, INDIANA

 

--------------

 

As we travel on our journey

From our morning to our night,

Touching flowers by the wayside,

Sometimes losing in the fight;

As we taste of joy and sorrow,

Zeal and languor, love and hate,

Let us know, my wayside brother,

That there is no kinder fate.

 

When our Parent came to planning

What His children here should do,

He, in wisdom, gave us labor-

Some for me and some for you;

Knowing well that, big and little,

Human hands will shape or mar

Just as idle boys make mischief

And the idle monarchs war.

 

By our labors we must progress

On the rugged road we climb;

By our effort and endeavor

Live a growing life through time.

For this stop is but a moment

Twixt the life that we have done,

And another in the cycle

Of our evolution's run.

 

Would we in the life to follow

Find a higher plane than here;

Would we walk above the level

We are treading in this sphere;

We must earn our fee of entrance

E'er we knock upon the door;

We must pay the price in labor

Or move backwards from this shore.

 

God holds out His hand to aid us

Up the steeps that we must climb

Through this vale of failing effort

Toward that promised life sublime.

Let us grasp the hand He offers

Sending one hand down below,

To pull up some fainting brother

With a longer way to go.

 

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

 

Good citizenship implies more than a mere negative goodness, merely refraining from law-breaking of any sort. Duties of a positive nature are imposed and these are incumbent upon us as a part of our Masonic obligation. It can be insisted that we are bound, even more than others, to support the institutions of the Republic and to uphold the American ideal and principles. That such institutions and principles are akin, in very essence, to the ideas and ideal of Masonry, is plain to those within and without the Fraternity. - Robert Sterling Teague, P. G. M. Alabama.

 

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

 

The crown of all faculties is common sense; it is not enough to do the right thing, it must be done at the right time and place. Talent knows what to do; tact knows when and how to do it.

 

- W. Matthews.

 

THE CRYPTIC DEGREES

 

By Bro. GUSTAV A. EITEL, MARYLAND

 

PART III

 

FROM Moore's Free Masons Monthly Magazine for November, 1848, we have the following account of the introduction of the Royal and Select Masters' Degrees, by Albert G. Mackey, M. D., whom we in have come to consider authority on all Masonic subjects upon which he writes:

 

"The proper jurisdiction under which the Degrees of Royal and Select Master should be placed is a question that is now beginning to excite considerable discussion and much embarrassment among the fraternity.  It is, therefore, the duty of every brother who wishes this 'questio vexata' amicably and judiciously, settled, to communicate to his brethren whatever he may suppose will conduce to this 'consummation most devoutly to be wished.' Allow me to throw in my mite.   "The history of these degrees will show that the Chapters and Councils are now contending for that to which neither ever had any legitimate right.  And it seems to me that the former are as much justified in taking the jurisdiction of these degrees from the latter, as these were in taking it some years ago from the administrative body of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, to which it originally belonged.  The controversy terminates in a contest for the distribution of the spoils of war.

 

"These degrees of right belong to the Supreme Council of the 33d Degree, Ancient Scottish Rite, and the claim to them has never been abandoned by that body.  At the establishment of the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem, in Charleston, S. C., on the 20th February, 1788, by brothers Joseph Myers, Barend M. Spitzer and A. Forst, Deputy Inspectors-General of Frederick II., of Prussia, Myers deposited in the archives of the Council certified copies of the said degrees from Berlin, in Prussia, placing them at the same time under the care and jurisdiction of this body.  Copies of these degrees are still retained in the archives of the Supreme Grand Council at Charleston."

 

(Brother Mackey then refers to the communication sent by the Grand Chapter of Maryland to the Grand Chapter of South Carolina, and its action there-on as quoted elsewhere, in which an adverse report was made by the committee, and the Grand Chapter decided that it was improper and inexpedient to issue a jurisdiction of these degrees, and thus interfere with the rights and privileges of their brethren and companions in another and higher order of Free Masonry.) Continuing, he says:

 

"The Supreme Council for the Southern States has never abandoned its claim to these degrees. It has organized Councils of Royal and Select Masters, in other States, as, for instance, in Mississippi and South Carolina, either directly, or through the intervention of its subordinate Councils of Princes of Jerusalem, and although no application has lately been made to this body for a charter for a Royal and Select Council, I see not how, without impairing its rights, it could refuse to grant a charter when applied for by 'true and trusty' persons.  In fact, the degrees continue to be given by our Inspectors, and as there are now no Royal and Select Councils in South Carolina, the old ones being extinct, the degrees can only be obtained from such authority.  Brother Barker, who, perhaps, constituted as many Councils of Royal and Select Masters as any other man in the United States, did so only as a Deputy Inspector-General and the agent of the Supreme Council, and, therefore, although I have not time to hunt up statistics, I have no hesitation in believing that half the Councils and Grand Councils in the country owe their existence, and with it their original allegiance, to the Ancient Scottish Rite.

 

"The matter, however, has now become inextricably confused, and I know of but one method of getting out of the difficulty.  Although the Supreme Councils of the 33d are not willing to have their authority and rights wrested from them vi et armis, I have no doubt - but I do not speak officially - that for the good of Masonry they would willingly enter into any compromise.  Let a convention of Royal and Select Masters be held at some central point.  To this convention let the most intelligent companions, legitimately possessing the degrees, whether from Councils of Royal and Select Masters, as in most of the States, from Royal Arch Chapters, as in Virginia, or from Councils of Princes of Jerusalem, or from Grand Inspectors-General, as in South Carolina and Mississippi - let the wisdom there congregated be directed to the amicable settlement of this dispute.  The important point is not to have these degrees placed in any particular order, but to make the mode and manner of conferring them, whether it be before or after the Royal Arch, uniform throughout the country.  The decision made for two successive triennial meetings by the General Grand Chapter, viz., in 1844 and 1847, as tending to destroy this uniformity and produce 'confusion worse confounded,' can not but be regretted by all good Masons."

 

It will be seen that the degrees were cultivated in South Carolina, or at least the Select Degree, at an early date.  In consequence of the authority by which the degrees were conferred, the Grand Council system was not recognized, but the Supreme Council was regarded as the lawful governing power.  Accordingly, in 1858 and 1859, nine Councils were chartered by that body.  In deference to the usage in other jurisdictions the Supreme Council (Scottish Rite) waived its claims and a Grand Council was formed in Charleston on February 15, 1860.  The Minutes of this Assembly were published with the proceedings of the Grand Chapter.

 

Companion George W. Warvelle, LL. D., Pas Grand Master and Grand Recorder of the Grand Council of Illinois, is another Masonic scholar and writer who emphatically dissents from the Scottish Rite claims and theory. For more than a score of years he has been searching for "facts" in lieu of "fables" and "traditions." The discoveries of his research have been presented from time to time.

 

Space prevents reproducing all he has written on this subject. One of his earlier contributions is:

 

GENESIS OF THE DEGREE OF ROYAL MASTER MASON

 

AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE THIRD MASS CONVENTION OF THE ROYAL AND SELECT MASTERS OF ILLINOIS, AT PEORIA, SEPTEMBER 6, 1893.

 

I had found in my reading that much - nearly all - that had been said or written upon this subject in recent years was but a repetition of old statements made at a time when the knowledge of the Rite was very limited, and the sources of information not as accessible as at present; that little or no attempt was made at verification, and that, in many instances, these same old statements, taken oftimes at second hand, had been coloured, changed or distorted in the retelling to suit the varying fancies of the narrators.  It was the confusion created by these discordant recitals that stimulated me in the first instance to investigate the subject for myself, and it was the facts as I found them that induced me to communicate them to you.  I entered upon this work with neither prejudice or bias, and in my investigations I sought only to ascertain the truth.  I endeavoured, so far as I was able, to separate the real facts from the fancies and fictions into which they had become imbedded, and to weigh, with impartiality and fairness, the evidence that was offered in support of the various theories which at different times have been advanced.  The effect of my inquiries was to cause a thorough revision of many of my own previously conceived opinions concerning these degrees and the complete rejection of a number of matters that had formerly commanded my implicit belief, and as the conclusions which I announced were in many respects opposed to certain generally received and hitherto unquestioned theories of origin, I have, during the year that has intervened, continued my researches with a view to demonstrate either their correctness or fallacy.  In so doing I have necessarily expanded my field of operations and at the same time examined with greater scrutiny the ground already traversed, and while, in a few minor particulars, some slight changes have been made, the general tendency of my search has only been to strengthen the position which I assumed in my address of last year.

 

I have brought together for your consideration today a few facts relating to the degree of Royal Master, some of which have only been discovered within very recent years, and to them I append my own conclusions. If these latter should differ from those reached by men who are older and wiser than myself I can only say, it is with no disparagement of the thoughts or opinions of others that I offer my own; I reason from the light that is within me; possibly I am mistaken, but I think I am right, and so thinking I do not hesitate to express my views.

 

The "high degrees" in this country, at the commencement of the present century, may well be said to have been "without form and void." They consisted, in the main, of a chaotic mass of pompous titles, borrowed in many instances from extinct orders and societies, with feeble expositions of Masonic legends strangely blended with Hermetic philosophy and weak imitations of medieval chivalry.  They were conferred with little or no attempt at ritualistic elaboration, while the dramatic effects which constitute such conspicuous features in the liturgies of today were practically unknown.  As a rule they were composed of nothing more than a meagre recital of traditional history, supplemented possibly by a brief "lecture" or catechism, while many possessed not even this amount of substance.  With the exception of the Capitular degrees no effort had been made at organization, and the warrant of a Master's lodge was generally considered a sufficient authority to legitimatize the conferring of any and all degrees of which any of the members might be possessed, if, as was sometimes the ease, the conferant did not himself claim powers still greater.  A lingering recollection of the Rite of Perfection was preserved in some localities by individuals who claimed authority under the original grant of power to Stephen Morin and a little band of zealous Masons at Charleston, S.C., had vainly endeavoured about this time to assert an organized expression of the ineffable grades of that system under the name of Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, while a rival society, with the same object in view, was soon afterwards started in New York.  The best efforts of both bodies were, however, productive of but little in the way of tangible results, and it was not until fifty years afterwards that the matchless genius of Albert Pike gave shape and purpose to the Scottish Rite.

 

Among the many degrees that ambition or avarice brought into existence or rescued from oblivion about this time was that of Royal Master Mason.  From whence it was derived or how it originated we know absolutely nothing, and though there has not been wanting astute historians to trace its genealogy and declare its primary symbolism, no proof has yet been offered to substantiate the statements or support the theories which these ingenious gentlemen have advanced.

 

While the "high degrees" of every kind and nature were conferred indiscriminately by any person who might see fit to arrogate a power for that purpose, yet they were in the main dispensed by a number of gentlemen who posed under the dignified title of Inspectors General and who claimed absolute dominion over the entire Masonic world as "Princes and Chiefs of Exalted Masonry." The authority for this broad claim rested upon a delegation of power said to have been transmitted from Frederick II of Prussia at various times subsequent to the year 1762, and upon the assumption that Frederick himself possessed "the sovereign Masonic power over the craft." (4) With these claims or pretensions we as Cryptic Masons would have little or no concern were it not that certain high dignitaries of the system which was established upon the remains of the defunct Rite of Perfection have at various times asserted a right of control or dominion over all of the Cryptic degrees, and that these claims have been wholly relinquished only within very recent years.  In view of these facts an inquiry into the legitimacy of the claim is imposed upon every one who seeks to discover origin or trace descent, yet it is not my purpose at this time, to open the questions involved nor to discuss the subject in its general phases, and, save as it may incidentally occur, I shall attempt no argument with reference to Scottish Rite claims as applied to the Cryptic degrees in general, but will briefly summarize so much thereof as refers to the Royal Degree.

 

So far as I have been able to learn no Inspector of the Rite of Perfection ever made a personal assertion of any knowledge of the Royal degree or claimed any rights in connection therewith in virtue of his Inspectorship; the name itself cannot be found in any of the patents, diplomas or other documents issued in connection with that rite, although in most cases a full enumeration of the degrees possessed by the patentee and which he was authorized to confer were set forth in every grant of power.  Nor did the Supreme Council A.A.S.R. at its establishment in 1801 make any claim with reference thereto, nor does the name thereof appear in any of the documents which it issued at that time.  At the institution of the Supreme Council a full scale of degrees was adopted and announced to the Masonic world; they were thirty-three in number, including those theretofore exclusively controlled by the Symbolic Lodge, Their names and numerical progression were all set forth in orderly arrangement, and over the system thus promulgated the Supreme Council claimed original and exclusive jurisdiction. This claim, with the exception of the Symbolic degrees, has generally been recognized as just, and for years has been acquiesced in by the Masonic powers of both hemispheres.  Of the degrees composing the curriculum of the new rite, some - the majority - were taken from the old Scale of the Rite of Perfection; some were appropriated from the many "detached" degrees of the period, and some were invented for the occasion by the framers of the system; eclecticism in Masonry was then the order of the day, (5) and the right to appropriate and had was not seriously disputed.  But the Supreme Council asserted jurisdiction only over the regular series of degrees which it then promulgated as its own; whatever else might have been in the possession or within the knowledge of its members was left with them for their disposal or use, and in the manifesto which announced its organization this fact was distinctly stated.  In that remarkable document it was said that some - not all - of the Inspectors were it the individual possession of other degrees, "given in different parts of the world," which they conferred at their pleasure upon those who were high enough to understand them." (6) A partial enumeration of such detached degrees then followed, and, while a mention is made of "Select Masons of 27," no reference can be found to the degree of Royal Master.  This statement is the basis of the Scottish Rite claim of dominion over the Cryptic degrees, and while it is possible that among the side degree of which "most of the Inspectors" were in possession, there might have been that of Royal Master, yet there is no proof that such was the fact.  But even conceding that it may have been known to some of the members it was nevertheless individual property and the Supreme Council never officially asserted a jurisdictional right thereto until fifty years afterwards. In 1827, ten years after the formation of Councils and Grand Councils of the dual body of Royal and Select masters, and nearly twenty years after the regular organization of either degree as separate bodies, Bro. Moses Holbrook, then a high officer of the Southern Supreme Council, reported to the Grand Chapter of South Carolina that he had ascertained that the degrees of Royal and Select Masters were brought from Berlin, Prussia, by one Joseph Myers in 1778, (7) and that certified copies thereof, which he had been privileged to inspect, were deposited with the Council of the Princes of Jerusalem at Charleston.  This statement, although not emanating directly from the Supreme Council, which at that time was practically in a moribund condition, has formed the mainstay of all subsequent claims in which direct authority has been sought to be asserted by that body.  I have no doubt but what Bro. Holbrook's report was made in perfect good faith and a sincere belief that what he had ascertained was true.  The period of his report was an age of credulity in all matters connected with Masonry; myths and fictions were readily received as incontestable facts; forgeries passed current without question, and histories evolved from the vivid imaginations of the writers supplied the place of more authentic data.  But later years have discredited the facts upon which Bro. Holbrook relied, and the student of today classes the Berlin constitutions in the same category as the pious frauds of the early Christian churchmen. ln 1850, or thereabouts, the Southern Supreme Council, at the instance of Bro. Mackey, (8) formally assumed jurisdiction of both degrees by granting charters of constitution, and this right was maintained until 1870, when by resolution the Cryptic Council was recognized as "a separate and distinct organization in Masonry," and further control over it was "relinquished." (9) There were at this time twenty-eight Grand Councils in existence.

 

Neither the Grand Consistory nor Supreme Council established at New York by Bro. Joseph Cerneau ever made any claim to the Royal degree, notwithstanding it was so reported for many years, nor did any of its Inspectors claim authority over the Rite.  No inquiry, therefore, is raised with respect to this body.

 

The Northern Supreme Council was established at New York in 1813, but not until three years after the organization of a Council of Royal Masters in the same city.  Its powers and authority were derived from the parent body at Charleston and it professed only to exercise jurisdiction over the 33 degrees which then as now constituted the Scottish Rite.  From its organization until 1844 it was practicedly dormant, and it was not until 1860 that its present career of activity commenced.  In 1850 this body, for the first time, asserted a claim over all of the degrees of the Cryptic Rite including the Super-Excellent, alleging that it had been the custom "from time immemorial" to communicate them "in the side chambers of our Holy Temple." (10) The Northern Sup.  Council at this time consisted nominally of four individuals but was centred, in reality, in the person of Bro. James J. J. Gourgas, then a very old and infirm man.  The action of Bro. Gourgas in making this claim was doubtless prompted by the attitude then recently taken by the Southern Sup. Council, and while the Southern body never made any claim with respect to the Super-Excellent, I presume Bro. Gourgas thought he might as well take all as a part. The fiction of authority was maintained by the Northern Supreme Councils, (11) regular and irregular, until the time of the "Union" in 1867 when by common consent the matter was dropped and has not since been heard of.

 

Such, in brief, is the history of Scottish Rite claim and dominion over the Royal degree.  It was never a part of the Scottish system; illustrates none of its symbolism; has no connection, directly or indirectly, with any of its degrees, and no right of control, other than that which flows from simple appropriation, has ever been shown.  It is difficult at this time to understand the reasons which prompted the leaders of that rite to retain such a tenacious hold upon it, and the only rational explanation that can now be advanced is that it was held under a mistake of fact and that to the imperfect knowledge of the times must we attribute the first assumption of authority over it.

 

From all that I have thus far been able to learn, I am strongly of the opinion that the degree of Royal Master was invented during the early part of the present century and that it had its origin at the city of New York.  If it existed prior to the year 1800 or was ever conferred at other places no record thereof has ever been found nor is any reference made thereto in contemporary documents.  I have made a most diligent search through all the channels of information that were at my command and have through an extensive correspondence pushed my inquiries in every direction from whence a knowledge of this subject might be expected.  By whom it was invented we do not know, yet it is certain that for its promotion and diffusion we are indebted to Bro. Thomas Lownds.  This fact has been placed beyond dispute by the comparatively recent discovery of the old minute book of the Council established by Lownds at New York, and a number of hitherto doubtful questions in connection with the early exploitation of this degree have, by this discovery, been definitely solved.

 

From these old records it would seem that on Sept 2, 1810 at St. John's Hall in the city of New York, sixteen persons met and organized a Council of Royal Master Masons, to "be known and distinguished by the name of Columbian Grand Council." This was the first systematic effort at organization ever made of either of the Cryptic degrees, for while Bro. Eckel, at Baltimore, was wont to organize Councils for the purpose of conferring the Select degree, yet such Councils seem to have been of a temporary character and for the purpose of each particular occasion only.  The fact that sixteen persons met for the purpose above indicated establishes, as a necessary corollary, the further fact that at this time the degree was in existence and had been conferred by other authority and that parties were then in possession of it.  This fact is further emphasized by entries in the record of the admission of persons as "adjoining" members.  The natural inference, therefore, is that prior to the establishment of Columbian Council, the degree like many others of that period had been conferred by individual communication.  It was for many years supposed that this Council owed its existence to Joseph Cerneau, who at that time was a resident of New York and an active worker in a Scottish Rite body which he had established there.  In many of the arguments which have been advanced to sustain the Scottish Rite theory of origin, this statement has been repeatedly made as an historical fact, and until the discovery of this record, was accepted by a majority of the Masonic historians as true.  But it now, seems that Cerneau was never in any manner connected with this body either as an officer or member and his name is not even mentioned once in the entire record.  Nor is there the slightest intimation that the degree was either derived from or subsidiary to the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite or any superior body of any kind, and, unlike most of the Inspector's degrees which were endowed with much florid rhetoric in the statement of the authority by which they were conferred, it seems to have been organized in much the, same manner as the Capitular degrees had been a few years preceding. Nor is there any reference to the Scottish Rite with respect to qualifications for the degree which seems to have been conferred, without regard to other affiliations, on Master Masons.  Indeed, the only titles or other matters appended to the names of the officers or members was their rank in Symbolic Masonry or their lodge affiliation and during the earlier years this latter is found after the names of all candidates receiving the degree.

 

A strong reason for believing that Thomas Lownds was the originator or at least the first disseminator of the Royal degree in America, is afforded in the fact that in Columbian Council he also conferred other degrees now totally unknown and which so far as I have been able to learn, were never conferred by any of the Inspectors connected with the Supreme Councils either at Charleston or New York.  These degrees, in name if not in substance, were distinctively English, and by no process of reasoning can they be connected with the high degree systems of any of the continental rites.  Thus on Dec. 7, 1810, a Council of "Knights of the Round Table" was opened by the "Illustrious Abbot, Lownds," (12) and on March 4, 1811, a Chapter of "Illustrious Knights of the Hon. Order of the Garter" was opened by "Grand Prelate Lownds.", (13) it will require no demonstrations to show that both of these diversions were the inventions of the times, and it is but fair to ascribe them to the man who organized this body and for more than ten years presided at every meeting thereof.

 

In my address of last year I adverted to the fact that it is to Columbian Council we are indebted for the Super-Excellent degree as a regular part of our system.  It is true that a degree bearing this name was conferred in connection with the Royal Arch, both in England and America, as early as 1760, and at one time I supposed the two to be identical.  But since I last addressed you I have secured copies of the rituals of both the Excellent and Super-Excellent degrees of the old Royal Arch system and find them to be essentially different from the present degree both in historical scope and symbolic teaching, while an inspection of the old Royal Arch ritual, of which I also now have a copy, demonstrates that it could have had no connection therewith and must have been fabricated after Webb's adaptation had been made.  The inference is irresistible that it was invented in New York, probably by Lownds himself, at or near the time when he first gave it publicity.  The first mention of the degree which I have been able to find is under date of Dec. 22, 1817, when a Super-Excellent "Lodge" was opened in "ample form" and several Companions received.  From this time forward it was regularly "worked" and finds frequent mention in the minutes, wholly displacing in about a year after its introduction the "Invincible Order of the Round Table."

 

Columbian Council, from the time of its organization until 1823, met regularly as an independent body, but in this year a Grand Council was formed to control the degrees of Royal and Select Master, and Columbian Council surrendering its title of "Grand," became a constituent of the new body as No. 1 of its registry.

 

In 1816 it would seem the Council abrogated the rule which permitted Master Masons to receive the degree, and from this time on only Royal Arch Masons were accepted.  In December, 1817, a communication was received from Boston, Mass., showing that a Council of Royal Masters had been established there "within the present year," and that "they acknowledge, with much respect, the senior establishment in New York, and with their advocates do honour to same." They further pray for "written sanction" and "that they may be confirmed in their Masonic labours." The sanction was granted.  It would thus appear that this Council was regarded at this time as a legitimate source of authority for the dissemination of the degree.

 

In December, 1821, the Council of Select Masters, established by Cross, petitioned Columbian Council for a union and such proceedings were then had as resulted in a merger of the two bodies.  The minutes with respect to this interesting event are, however, extreme meagre and perhaps "absorption" would more fitly characterize the action than any other term that could be employed.  Thereafter the Select degree was regularly conferred in the same order as at present, but the name of the body continued to be Columbian Council of Royal Master Masons.

 

 On January 18, 1823, it was resolved that it was expedient to form a "Grand Council of Royal Master Masons and Select Masons" for the State of New York, and in pursuance of such resolution a Grand Council was on January 25 duly organized, which claimed "of right the government and superintendence of all Royal Master  Masons and Select Masons in the said State."

 

Such, brethren, is a rough outline of the beginning of the Royal degree in America so far as the same is now known.  To Thomas Lownds must be ascribed the credit for its life, and to Columbian Council the honour of its first organized existence.

 

In 1818, Bro. Jeremy Cross, who had previously obtained the Select degree at Baltimore, in some manner became "possessed" of the Royal degree as well, whereupon he joined the two together under one government and out of the plentitudis of his own power established a new system which he christened "Councils of Royal and Select Masters," and of which he at once became the missionary and apostle.  This (1818) is the earliest date at which the title "Royal and Select Masters" was used, and all reference thereto at any time anterior must now be regarded as a mistake or a fabrication.

 

In 1827-8, Bro. John Barker, emulating the fame and envying the gain which Bro. Cross was acquiring as a "disseminator" of Cryptic light, resolved to enter the field himself.  As Bro.  Cross had credentials from the "Grand Council of Select" at Baltimore, which subsequent developments have tended to show were spurious, (14) so Bro. Barker travelled as the "agent" of the Southern Supreme Council, 33, but the authority thereof has never been shown and is subject to much doubt.  At all events neither party worked for or accounted to any other than themselves, and the charters given by them purported to be issued only on their own authority.  In later years attempts have been made to substantiate the claim of Scottish Rite origin and consequent jurisdiction by the labours of Barker.  As a matter of fact, however, Barker's "agency" was simply an excuse for some show of authority.  I do not understand that he ever had a commission from the Supreme Council for this purpose.  His charters were granted in his own name and not in the name of the Supreme Council; his rituals were modifications of the Cross lectures, and the "emoluments" of his "agency" enriched no one but himself.  It was at one time supposed that Barker obtained his degrees from Cross, but it would now seem that he was greeted in Columbian Council, Nov. 25, 1821, (15) receiving the degrees from the hands of Thomas Lownds.

 

Through the labours of Cross, Cushman and Barker, the degree has been preserved and disseminated, and while the methods employed by these ancient worthies have at times been severely criticized, it must be remembered that age and environment have much to do with the formation of judgment and shaping of opinions.  The itinerant lecturer and degree peddler was an established feature in American Masonry until as late as 1840.  His services, never lavishly rewarded, did much to shape, protect and perpetuate the uniformity of ritual and symbolism, and while the present age has outgrown the crude methods of the fathers, we can well afford in the enjoyment of the legacy they have bequeathed to us to condone their faults and forgive their transgressions.  It is immaterial at this day that they made merchandise of degrees or sold charters on manufactured authority; they but followed the precedents of the times.  Their motives were good and presumably their wares were worth the price which they charged, and posterity, as a rule, has done honour to their memory.

 

Now one word more regarding these addresses and I have finished.  I did not expect when I addressed you last year that all of my statements would meet with ready assent or my conclusions pass unchallenged.  Old myths die hard and men do not, as a rule, give up the convictions of a lifetime without a protest.  But nothing has more strongly characterized the literary life of Masonry during the past twenty-five years than its freedom from the shackles of unverified tradition and imaginative history. The love of truth, "for truth's sake" has exerted a strong influence upon the work of the later day historian and his active efforts have been directed in attempts to show the past as it was and not what it should have been in order to sustain fanciful theories or old traditions.  To do this he must at times appear a veritable iconoclast, and the worshippers at the shrines he shatters regard him with but little favour.  That my work in this respect should be criticised and questioned I fully expected, but I was not prepared for the personal attacks, vilification and abuse which, in some quarters, a difference of opinion seems to have provoked.  I shall continue, however, in the path I have marked out, regardless of the sneers, denunciations, or super-arrogant airs of superior learning which some of my captious critics have employed in the discussion of my views and opinions.  I believe the statements of fact which I have made to be correct and feel that my conclusions are sound.  Should time and circumstances permit I shall have more to say on the Cryptic Rite at our next meeting, shattering, perhaps, another idol or two and opening up a new vista with a broader horizon and higher mental plane.  Nothing is now to be gained by concealment or a blind adherence to old beliefs or antiquated fictions.  Let us fully, freely and fairly, investigate the old canons for ourselves, with an abiding confidence in the apostolic injunction that "the truth shall make us free."

 

Another contribution by Companion Warvelle (1907) is "The German and French Traditions" which has been copied by nearly all the correspondent writers.

 

Although printed in our 1908 proceedings they will well bear reproduction in this paper with his other writings, from which we have copied so free.

 

I presume there are few of you who at some time have not seen or heard the old and persistent story of Joseph Myers' importation of the Cryptic degrees.  As the story goes, Myers brought the degrees from Berlin, Pruska, and in the year 1781, or 1788, for the accounts differ, he deposited the rituals in the Lodge of Perfection at Charleston and thereafter committed the authority for their diffusion to the Chiefs of Sublime Masonry resident in that city.  It was not until about forty years after the alleged deposit, and not until many years after the establishment of Grand Councils, that the Chiefs made the facts known.  Inasmuch as they were unable to produce the original rituals or any evidence of Myers' authority in the matter, the Masonic students have always regarded the statements as a sort of pipe dream on the part of the Chiefs, and as something unworthy of credence.

 

I am inclined to believe that the story, to some extent at least, rests on a knowledge of the practices of the early German lodges and the coincidences found in the Select Master degree.  Thus, from the earliest descriptions of the Council chamber that have come down to us we find a prescription of triangular tables, with a light on each angle, to be placed before the officers in the East.  Neither the ritual nor its accompanying lectures furnish us with any very satisfactory explanation of this furniture.  In the absence of such explanations we can only conclude that it represents an archaic survival, the original significance of which has been lost.  But this form of table, and arrangement of lights, was employed in the German lodges during the first half of the Eighteenth century, and particularly is this true of the lodges located at Berlin.  From the fact, therefore, of the coincidence of custom in the Berlin lodges and in the Select degree in America, it would be an easy matter for a lively imagination to deraign a descent of the latter from the former.

 

I have lately come across a little book published at Sulzbach, Germany, in 1803.  In this book the author, speaking of the initiation of Prince William of Prussia by Frederick the Great in 1740, describes an old and rare engraving in his possession.

 

He then describes the picture of which I venture a free translation as follows:

 

"The King sits in the Master's chair.  Before him is an altar-shaped table upon which, in the form of a triangle, are placed three burning tapers.  Near them are laid a sword, a gavel and skull.  At the left hand of Frederick stands a warden.  Before the table, without either sword or hat (which two brethren are holding) stands Prince William taking the oath."

 

I do not profess to be an adept in the translation of eighteenth century German but I think I have faithfully rendered the spirit of the original.  From the foregoing it will be seen that the East of the early German lodges resembled in some respects the East of a Council of Select Masters and it is from this circumstance, probably, that the Chiefs of the Sublime Degrees at Charleston evolved the romance of Joseph Myers' importation of the Rite. A very searching investigation a few years ago revealed the fact that the Cryptic degrees are utterly unknown in Germany and, so far as could be ascertained, had never been heard of in that country.

 

For many years the French tradition of Cryptic origins and diffusion was received without question.  Even such a Masonic scholar as the late Josiah H. Drummond endorsed the stories, for there were two of them, and in his published writings stated them as historic facts.  Further investigation subsequently induced him to discard his earlier opinions and to characterize the legends as untrue, or, at least, as not proved.  Many persons, however, still cling to the old exploded fables and the pseudo historian still drives his trade, as is apparent from the lucid expositions which from time to time appear in the Masonic press.

 

One story is that Henry A. Francken, a Hebrew peddler of eighteenth century high degree Masonry, in the year 1767, introduced the degrees of the Cryptic Rite into the States of New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island by the institution of Councils.  As late as 1875 this story was generally accepted as correct.  Just how, or where, or when, Francken received his degrees was never stated, but he was an Inspector General of the "Ineffable and Sublime" degrees and as the Inspectors generally carried everything that any reasonable person could ask for, so it was assumed that he came rightfully by the Cryptic grades and had authority to sell them.  Francken's stock in trade was supposed to have been imported from France.

 

Another story was that Joseph Cerneau brought the degree of Royal Master to the City of New York, and in the year 1807 established a Council for its exploitation. Cerneau's authority was supposed to have been derived from the Grand Consistory in France.

 

Both of these romances passed current as genuine Cryptic history and were accepted by Mackey and other writers.  And particularly were they received by those who sought to trace the genealogy of the Cryptic degrees through the Scottish Rite.

 

With respect to the first story there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that either of the Cryptic degrees were in existence in 1767, or that Francken ever heard of them, or that he ever conferred them.  The whole story seems to be a pure fabrication.  It grew out of the fact that Francken visited the City of New York in 1767, and while there conferred the degrees of the Lodge of Perfection on two gentlemen from Albany. Subsequently he gave them a warrant for the establishment of a lodge.  The old records of these transactions, at one time supposed to have been destroyed, have been recovered, and there is not the slightest reference to the Cryptic degrees or a shadow of a foundation for the oft repeated yarn of Francken's introduction of the Rite.

 

The other tale is equally destitute of truth.  Cerneau was a resident of New York in 1807, at which time a Council of Royal Master Masons was organized and from this circumstance the imaginative historians deduced the fact that he was the organizer.  The old minutes of this Council were found a few years ago and from them it appears that Cerneau had nothing to do with its organization and that he was not even a member of the body.

 

But old myths die hard.  The Scottish Rite historians are loath to relinquish their long maintained hold on the genesis of the Cryptic degrees, and notwithstanding that the falsity of their claims has been often demonstrated they still continue to assert both the German and French traditions in support of their contentions. From time to time, in his "historical Notes," and under other captions, Companion Warvelle has contributed much more on this subject, all of which we would like to present for our Companions, but we are reminded that paper and printer's ink cost money, and we will have to be content by quoting the closing paragraph of one of his later "Notes."

 

"* * * Now what we want from the men whose views are not 'erroneous' is some tangible evidence, properly authenticated, to show the conferring of the Royal Master's degree at any time prior to the year 1805, at any place other than the city of New York, and by any other person than Thomas Lownds.  To show the conferring of the Select Master's degree at any time prior to the year 1790, at any place other than the city of Baltimore, and by any other person than Henry Wilmans.  To show the conferring of the two degrees combined into one system at any time prior to the year 1818, at any place other than Hartford, Conn., and by any person other than Jeremy Cross.  Will the gentlemen who have the 'facts' please produce them?"

 

Your committee believe they have "culled" nearly all the important data connected with the origin and the dissemination of the Cryptic degrees and have presented the views of the most prominently known Masonic students, historians and writers who have contributed to the history of the degrees covering a century or more.

 

Of those dissenting from the Scottish Rite claim or theory, Companion Schultz has devoted most of his research to the Select degree, while Companion Warvelle seems to have made the tracing of the Royal Master's degree his favourite study.

 

(4) See circular Sup. Council, S.M.J., Dec. 4, 1802. (5) Pike's Dissection of a Manifests, p. 40. (6) Manifesto Sup. Council A.A.S.R., 1802.  See also Dalcho's Orations, Charleston, 1807. (7) Mackey says the degrees were first introduced in 1783.  See address to Grand Council S.C., 1870. (8) See address to Grand Council of South Carolina, 1870.  (9) Pro. Sup. Council S.M.J., 1870. (10) See Reprint N.M.J., Vol. 1, Pt. I, pp. 212, 214.   (11) "See Constitutions N. M. J., 1860. (12) See Proceedings Columbian Council, p. 5.  (13) Ibid. (14) Cross purported to work under a commission of this kind and his original grant of power was until very lately to be seen in New York.  The genuineness of this document  has been questioned, however, and Bro. Drummond, who caused a photographic copy to be taken and submitted to experts, now pronounces the commission a forgery.  Bro. Schultz, of Baltimore, after an investigation is of the same opinion. (15) See records Columbian Council, p. 31

 

FOR THE MONTHLY LODGE MEETING

 

CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN NO. 38

 

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 LOST WORD"

 

What is the master symbol of Blue Lodge symbolism? Why should we be cautious in our endeavours to ascertain the origins of the symbolism of the Lost Word?

 

How were brethren in the early days of Masonry sometimes "made Masons"? Have our researchers yet been able to discover what the "Lost Word" was? What would those who hold to the theory that the Royal Arch Word is the "Lost Word" lead us to believe? Is there any evidence to prove beyond a doubt that this word was really the "Lost Word"?

 

Do you agree with Brother Haywood that the "Lost Word" was never a component part of the Blue Lodge work which was later taken away from the Blue Lodge and transplanted into the Royal Arch degree? If so, what are your grounds for so agreeing? If not what are your reasons for disagreeing with him?

 

What is the Legend of the Tetragrammaton? What was the custom among the Jewish people relative to pronouncing the name of Deity? How was the use of the name restricted? What finally became the penalty inflicted upon one who spoke the name aloud? What further restrictions were placed upon the use of the name? How was the name spelled?

 

When and in what manner did the true pronunciation of the name became wholly lost? What did this result in after the Exile was ended? What did the priests and scribes have left upon which to base their search? What were the vowels of the word?

 

Of what did the Tetragrammaton become the centre, and how did the search for the word spread?

 

Did the form of the legend always remain the same? What various forms did it take?

 

Has the symbolic idea centred in the search for the "Lost Word" been confined to Masonry alone? Do we find it in modern literature?

 

 SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES

 

THE BUILDER: Vol I. - "The Fourth Degree," by Bro. W.F. Kuhn, p. 44. Vol II.- "Some Deeper Aspects of Masonic Symbolism," by Bro. A.E. Waite, p.175; "The Lost Word," by Bro.W.F. Kuhn, p. 327, Vol.III. - "The Lodge," by Bro. H.W. Ticknor, p. 198; "The Lost Word," Question Box Department, p. 189. Vol.IV. -  "The Symbolism of the Master Mason Degree - The Lost Word," by Bro. Oliver Day Street, p. 322. Vol. V. "The Legendary Origin of Freemasonry," by Bro.Dudley Wright, p. 297; "What a Master Mason Ought to Know," by Bro. Hal Riviere, p. 130.

 

Mackey's Encyclopedia:

 

Incommunicable, p. 349; Ineffable Name, p. 351; Tetragrammaton, p. 781; Twelve-Lettered Name, p. 809; Unutterable Name, p. 817

 

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

 

PART III - THE LOST WORD

 

WE COME now to the crux and the climax of Blue Lodge symbolism, the master symbol by means of which all other symbols have their meaning.  Well will it be for us walk warily here, not only because the origins of the symbolism of the Lost Word are bound up with an ancient and tangled tradition; not only because it has been so often prostituted to the level of magic and superstition, even in recent times; but also because it is the embodiment of one of those ideas so high and so deep that they contain whole systems of philosophy and theology within them.  It is like the "flower in the crannied wall" of Tennyson's poem; if we could understand it, "root and all, and all in all," we would know "what God and man is."

 

Much has been written about the "Mason's word" as employed in old days, when brethren were sometimes "made Mason" by having that secret term entrusted to them; research has failed to show what this word was though some scholars believe it to have been that sovereign name which stands at the centre of the Holy Royal Arch.  Some who hold to this last named theory would have us believe that this transfer of the word from the Blue Lodge to the Royal Arch degree was so disastrous to the symbolic structure of the Blue Lodge that, to patch up the damage, a substitute word was devised to take its place until the candidate passed on to the higher grade.  But as there is little or no evidence to prove that the great word of the Royal Arch is the same as the "Mason's Word" of the old lodges that theory must be left suspended in the mid-air of conjecture.