The Builder Magazine

September 1922 - Volume VIII - Number 9

 

George W. Baird - A Tribute

BY THE EDITOR

SOMEWHERE in the back of my mind there lives a little poem that a traveling-man recited to me more than twenty years ago. I am afraid I shall stray far from the original of the simple little lines; but as I recall them now they run something like this:

 

"A rose to the living is more

Ere the suffering spirit has fled,

A rose to the living is more

Than sumptuous wreaths to the dead."

 

It matters not that the rendering may be far off the track, for the sentiment is preserved, which in these connections is the principal thing, and it is this sentiment that has inspired me to write a little memorial to Brother George W. Baird who has so firmly established himself in THE BUILDER'S great family of readers by his series on Memorials to Great Men Who Were Masons. This now famous series began in the first volume of THE BUILDER with an article on Masonic Memorials, which appeared in the July issue. It was followed by a second on Benjamin Franklin; and so it all began.

 

The more discerning readers have long ere this discovered the inner importance of this series of articles. Oftentimes the greatest career transmits nothing of itself to posterity save a gravestone; by that slender thread the living must keep hold of the noble dead. But what if some group of persons, for reasons of their own, begin to cut these threads? Confusion is introduced into history. It becomes necessary to preserve memorials in books which are more enduring than stones and brasses. There are mans in our land who would like to forget that many of our forefathers were square-and-compass men; they would like the world to forget it. Brother Baird has forestalled them. Gravestones in New England graveyards may crumble into indistinguishable dust; the memorials preserved in THE BUILDER will be consulted by historians generations hence. To Brother Baird the Masonic Fraternity is heavily indebted for the toil he has bestowed, and with no thought of reward, upon this task of preserving the memory of Masons.

 

George W. Baird (for portrait see frontispiece) was born in Washington, D.C. on April 22, 1843, which was a long while ago. John Tyler was president. It was the year in which Daniel O'Connell was arrested. It was one year after rubber first came into use. It was at the time when Dr. Long of Georgia first began to administer ether as an ansesthetic. For those who enjoy a bit of sly humor in their history it may be also said that it was one year before Ronge led his great defection from the Roman Catholic church and founded in Germany his new brand of it, the German Catholic Church. Those were stirring times, and he was a wise baby who chose such a year for his advent into this exciting world.

 

HIS ANCESTRY

 

His father was Matthew Baird, a steamship engineer and machinist who, in 1829, fitted and installed the machine work on the first passenger locomotive that ever turned a wheel on this continent. His grandfather was also a Matthew Baird, born of Scotch parents - be it noted - in Ulster, which is one of the counties of Ireland. This grandfather helped to draw the plans for the Executive Mansion, otherwise known as the White House; and he modelled the first composite column of the Capitol; and also did the same for the City Hall at New York. It all goes to prove that once in a while genius may be inherited. On the mother's side the family came from Virginia where, for ten generations, they had taken part in the important political, military and religious activities of the Old Dominion.

 

After receiving his elementary education in public and private schools at Washington, D.C., Brother Baird was apprenticed to a printer, and later to a machinist. At nineteen he entered the Navy as an engineer. When the Civil War broke out he was ready to take a man's part. He served on the Mississippi, Calhoun, Kensington, and Pensacola, and was under fire more than twenty times but escaped with a whole skin, thus disproving Wordsworth who said the good die young. Having a genius for mechanical work he was detailed for duty under the famous engineer B.F. Irishwood in the Bureau of Steam Engineering. He accompanied Irishwood to California in 1869 and served at the Mare Island Yard. While on the Pacific he also served on board the Saranac and the Pensacola, visiting the while almost every port from Sitka to Talcahuna. For three years he worked on the designs of new vessels and left behind him many a now-familiar invention, as will be described later. He was serving on board the Vandalia when General Grant made his famous cruise to Cairo, where he lived in the Cal-al-noussa palace. If you wish to learn more about this notable trip read the excellent account by John Russell Young.

 

After his return to the United States Brother Baird was detailed to supervise the construction of the deep-sea exploring ship, the Albatross, and designed most of the special machinery on that vessel which made such a name for itself in marine science. The Albatross brought out of the depths of the ocean more genera and species of marine life during her first year than all previous deep-sea explorations combined. She was the first government vessel of any nation to utilize the incandescent lamp.

 

Among inventions and scientific achievements to his credit may be noted the following: the Baird distilling apparatus; the pneumatic tell-tale; the evaporator; and boiler-feeder. His experiments on the mechanical ventilation of ships began in 1864 and reports were published in the Journal of the Naval Institute; many of these devices were adopted. He was a member of the board that powered the gun shops at Washington. He has written much for magazines: see the Franklin Institute for the absorption of gases by water; Science, on electric lighting, etc. The French Academy gave him the credit for being the first to prove, by mathematics, the actual flight of the flying fish, Exocetus Robustus. He designed the first anchor engine used in the navy.

 

He was a charter member of the American Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, and of the Washington Society of Engineers. He is a member of the Biological Society; the Washington Academy of Sciences; and the National Geographic Society. He is Past President of the District of Columbia Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, and Past Vice President of the general Society of the same: a member of the St. Andrews Society, which is Scotch; the John Paul Jones Club; the Cosmos Club, etc.

 

HIS MASONIC CAREER

 

Brother Baird was made a Mason in a French lodge at Lisbon, Portugal, in 1867; he affiliated with Naval Lodge No. 87 in California, and later with Hope, in Washington, D.C., of which he is a past master. He was made Grand Master in 1896; and in recent years has been Chairman of the Committee on Correspondence, his reports of which are full of information and unexpected turns, and are read with delight by all the members of the Round Table of Reporters. He is past High Priest of Washington Chapter; was knighted in Washington Commandery; is a member of all the Scottish Rite bodies; and was made a 33rd degree man in Albert Pike Consistory in 1893. He has been a member of the National Masonic Research Society from the beginning, and was formerly a member of the Correspondence Circle of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge of London, England. Needless to say, he has also traversed the sands, which journey he made in Almas Temple.

 

After the Spanish-American War, when steam had succeeded sails as a propulsive power, the "Line" of the Navy and the officers of the Engineer Corps were "amalgamated" and Brother Baird was transferred to the Line as a commander but much against his wishes. He served as commander and as captain, and when he retired was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral, in honor of the services he performed during the Civil War.

 

Brother Baird has the habit of illustrating his letters, of which he writes the most refreshing specimens, with original cartoons done in colored ink. Upon writing this little sketch to express to him the appreciation felt by the members of The National Masonic Research Society for his long continued services, I besought him to furnish me with a page of these cartoons illustrating himself; but he asked to be excused on the ground of advancing age, rheumatism, and a sick wife. To the sick wife we send our sympathies; for the rheumatism we extend our regrets; but as to the old age we all demur. Brother Baird, for all his 79 years, does not age, but, like his Masonic colleague, Chauncey Depew, refuses to capitulate to Father Time. Active as ever, eager in all good causes, he writes many little articles for the general press on Masonry and Patriotism, the two of which are fused together in his mind as they should be in every mind, and sows these about the country. May he keep at the good work for years to come! Age cannot wither or custom stale his infinite variety l

 

----o----

 

If you wish to get on, you must do so as you would get through a crowd to a gate all are equally anxious to reach. Hold your ground and push hard. - Montague.

 

----o----

 

THE EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON OUR MASONIC CEREMONIAL AND RITUAL

 

BY BRO. THOMAS ROSS, P.G.M., NEW ZEALAND

 

PART I

 

FOREWORD

 

BEFORE centering on my subject I think it would be as well if I made it quite clear that whatever antiquity may be urged for our ceremonies and ritual, our signs, words and tokens, there can be no question that shortly after the formation of the three Grand Lodges in the early part of the eighteenth century our ritual, with all that is attached to it, was much as we have it today. When I therefore enter on the object of endeavouring to prove that much of that ritual has an Egyptian origin I want the brethren to know that it was not until the year 1820, or quite 100 years after the formation of the three Grand Lodges, before there was anything like an earnest attempt made to read the hieroglyphics or sacred Writings of Egypt, while it was quite another fifty years before the Book of the Dead was deciphered and given to the world by Lepsius Wilkinson, Naville, Petrie, Wallace Budge and other enthusiastic Egyptologists.

 

The reading of the hieroglyphics or sacred writings was for centuries before the Christian era confined to the priests of Egypt, and was called by themselves the writing of the priests, so that when Christianity became the dominant religion in Egypt the old worship became obsolete the priests died out, and the knowledge and practice of the priestly writings went completely out of use, was neglected, forgotten, and for a period of 1500 years utterly unknown to the world.

 

Egyptology, or the science of studying the ancient language, history and religion from the hieroglyphics, is a thing of almost yesterday, and may be looked upon as one of the most romantic episodes in the domain of literature.

 

Most of you are conversant with the history of the finding of the Rosetta Stone by a French officer of artillery in 1798 in Rosetta, on the coast of Egypt.  This stone is of black basalt, and is one of the most treasured relics in the Egyptian galleries in the British Museum, being the key that unlocks the mysteries of the Egyptian writings.

 

The Rosetta Stone is a monumental slab or tablet set up as a record of the benefactions of Ptolemy V, a king of Egypt about 195 B.C.; it contains fourteen lines of hieroglyphics, thirty-two lines of Demotic, and fifty-four of Greek, coming in that order from the top.  The Greek text was easily read, a translation being published in 1801-2.  Since it stated that the monument was a bilingual one (the writing of the priests and the writing of the books being the Egyptian identical with the writing of the Greeks) men of letters set themselves the task of trying to decipher the hieroglyphics.

 

In the years 1819 to 1822 Mr. Thomas Young, an Englishman, and M. Champollion, a Frenchman, stated that these characters, which were generally looked upon as picture-writing, were letters of an alphabetic or phonetic value.  Certain characters, as may be seen in the hieroglyphic part of the stone, were written in cartouches or cartridge-shaped enclosures, and these cartouches recurred in the Greek text under the name of Ptolemy.  Eventually such names as Ptolemy, Berenice and Cleopatra were spelt out, and thus a key was obtained, which enabled them to unlock the secret of reading the records of the priests of Egypt.

 

In the latter half of the last century Ernest Renan, the celebrated French water, truly said: "Egypt remains a lighthouse in the profound darkness of antiquity." One would almost think the compilers of our ritual had these words in mind when we read in our lectures: "The usages and customs of Freemasonry, our signs and symbols, our rites and ceremonies, correspond in a great degree with the mysteries of ancient Egypt." An assertion such as this would naturally lead one to expect in working the several degrees some reference or some allusion to the religion and mysteries of Egypt as the origin of some part at any rate of our ritual.

 

On the contrary however, nearly the whole of our ceremonial is attributed to episodes in the life of some member of the Jewish race as narrated in the Holy Scriptures, while almost all our words and passwords are given as being derived from the same source. Not a single one of the signs, tokens or words are pointed out as corresponding with those used in the religion or mysteries of ancient Egypt.  It will be my endeavour to show the brethren wherein much of our ceremonies correspond with the religion of Egypt, and that we can fairly claim the fundamentals of the Masonic ritual to have had an origin hoary with antiquity compared with the religion of Israel.

 

RELIGION OF ANCIENT EGYPT

 

It would be as well before going further to glance briefly at the religion of Egypt, for each of the Egyptian mysteries, like those practised in Syria, Greece and Rome, was based on some circumstance in the life of their gods and goddesses.

 

The religion of ancient Egypt is to be found in a vast collection of religious texts, arranged in 190 chapters.  They have been collected from the walls of tombs and temples, from papyrus rolls enclosed in mummy cases along with their occupants, and from writings upon the mummy cases and sarcophagi themselves.  A

very fine example of this is the picture shown in Fig. 1, being The Alabaster Sarcophagus of Seti I, who lived 1360 B. C. This very fine coffin has upon it extracts from nearly all the texts, and, many of them being illustrated, the illustrations make the text doubly interesting.  The part presented to us shows the divine bark of Ra, the Sun God, being conveyed through the fourth hour of the mysteries. The bottom of the sarcophagus shows a beautiful full-size painting of the Goddess of the Heavens (Fig. 2,) surrounded with texts of the same religious litany.

 

The name Book of the Dead has been given to these writings, and as far back as Egyptian history and traditions can go the Book of the Dead appears to have been an integral part of the religions of Egypt.  No mere man was the author of this remarkable collection.  The texts were dictated by God Himself at the creation of the world, to Thoth, the Scribe of the Gods, who is shown as having the body of a man and the head of a bird, and is always depicted in the act of writing the decrees of the deities.  We might style Thoth the Divine emanation of wisdom and learning, the inspiration of God to man, the first to fill the place ascribed by Plato to the Divine Logos and by St. John to "The Word." The picture in Fig. 3 represents Thoth in his different attributes, "Lord of Writing," "Great God," "Scribe of the Gods," and "establisher of millions of years."

 

Thousands of years before Moses wrote, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the Egyptian story of the creation had been given to Egypt as we have it here in Fig. 4, where the god Nu is rising out of the primeval water bearing on his outstretched arms the boat of the sun god Ra; this is being received by the goddess of the heavens Nut, who again stands on the head of Osiris, whose body encloses the region of the underworld.  In the center of the picture we have the Sacred Scarabaeus, symbol of the Creator raising himself out of the primeval void, and separating the firmament above from the waters beneath.

 

The Book of the Dead contains (as we see here) a history of the creation, the attributes of God, the powers and functions of the attendant gods and goddesses, as well as the ceremonies required to enable a to live such a life on earth as shall prevent his soul from being cast into that pit of fire, where the doomed one must not only suffer eternal torment, but, as can be seen in Fig. 5, must undergo a species of penal servitude.

 

On the other hand, a man who lives a good life and acts up to the teachings of the inspired writings, will obtain from Osiris, the "Lord of Everlastingness," as his final reward, not only the crown of immortality, but a pleasant existence in the Elysian fields.  There he will live in the company of the gods, there his crops will grow luxuriantly, his cattle be sleek and docile, and there he can have the company and fellowship of those whom he loved and knew on earth.  We find this belief borne out in the prayer of Sepa, as shown in Fig. 6.

 

With the exception of a few tales, the records of the wars, expeditions of their rulers, detailed statements of the erection of their temples, tombs and monuments, and some hymns to the gods and goddesses, the chief and almost only literature of the Egyptians was the Book of the Dead. We can, therefore, realize how inseparably these chapters, with their formula of rubrics, litanies, ceremonies, passwords and signs must have entered into the minds and lives of the people.

 

To an outsider the people of Egypt almost deserved the sneer of Juvenal: "Who knows not what monsters mad Egypt can worship; whole towns worship a dog, nobody Diana"; or that of Plutarch: "The Egyptians, by adoring the animals and reverencing them as gods, have ruled their religious worship with many ridiculous rites. To this Origin, one of the Christian fathers, very pertinently replies, "Many, listening to accounts they do not understand, relative to the sacred doctrines of the Egyptian philosophers, fancy that they are acquainted with all the wisdom of Egypt, though they have never conversed with any of their priests, nor received any information from persons initiated into their mysteries."

 

Now, although every province, city, town, and even household had its god or trinity of gods, over and above all there reigned the Supreme Ruler of heaven and earth - the great First Cause, Creator and Preserver of all, the Great Architect of the Universe - Ra, the Sun God, called in Upper Egypt Amun Ra, "the hidden one." As proof of this, we have, in the Book of the Dead, among the many hymns to Ra, "Thou art the one God who didst come into being in the beginning of time." "Thou didst create the earth; thou didst fashion man; thou didst make the abyss of the sky; thou didst create the watery abyss; and thou didst give life to all that therein is." "O Thou One, Thou mighty One, of myriad forms and aspects." So when we contemplate the group of prominent deities in Fig. 7 we see Ra, the Great Architect in some of his myriad forms and aspects.

 

Ra, or Amun Ra, and the triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus were worshipped throughout the whole of Egypt from the earliest pre-dynastic times to the very end of its civilization under its native rulers, a period of anything from 7,000 to years.  The worship of Isis and Horus and the ceremonial of Ra and Osiris have survived to the present day, though under different names; the former in a branch of the Christian Church, and the latter, as I hope to show, in our Masonic cult.

 

Having set forth this general claim for the close connection between our ancient moral system and that of Egypt, let me show briefly under separate headings how some of our more familiar symbols, traditions and ceremonies may be explained in the light of Egyptology.

 

THE POINT WITHIN A CIRCLE

 

The God Ra is written phonetically with the hieroglyphs R. and A., i.e., a mouth and an arm, followed by the two ideographs, a circle with a dot in the centre and a seated god. But on most occasions the name of Ra, the Sun God, is written with the ideograph of a point within a circle, as though the name was of "too essential a nature to be fully comprehended by human wisdom or clearly pronounced by the tongue of any individual."

 

This sign of a point within a circle was used by the kings of Egypt for thousands of years as their royal title to the throne, while they did not scruple to style themselves (as we see in Fig. 8), sons of Ra.  The same sign is even today used by astronomers in writing of the sun as the centre of the heavenly bodies, and is referred to in our Masonic ritual.

 

MASTER AND WARDENS

 

The sun, being the visible emblem of the god Ra, had three names or aspects.  In the morning he was Kheper Ra, or Ra Harmachis, the opener of the day. The Sphinx, the oldest monument in the world, was called Ra Harmachis, the rising sun.  This huge figure, with the face and head of a man and the body of a lion, is 140 feet long and over 60 feet in height.  As it sits there see (Fig. 9) facing "the east, to open and enliven the glorious day," it represents wisdom and strength.  For thousands of years also it represented beauty, for in 1200 A. D. the learned Arab, Abd-el-Latif, described the face as being very beautiful and the mouth as graceful and lovely.

 

At midday, when the sun was at his meridian, he was Ra, the strong one: "When all beasts and cattle reposed in their pastures and the trees and green herbs put forth their leaves."

 

At even he was Atmu, or Temu, the closer of the day: "When thou settest in the western horizon the earth is in darkness and is like a being that is dead." This last quotation is strikingly shown in the illustration to chap. xviii. of the Book of the Dead.  The Sun God, in shape of the Sacred Eagle with disc on head and folded wings, is about to set in the mountains of the west.  Isis and Nepthys, sister goddesses, are adoring two lions, representing the sun of yesterday and the sun of tomorrow - a fine allegory of past, present and future.

 

Thus we see that Ra Harmachis, like our W.M. was placed in the east; Ra, like our J. W., represented the sun at its meridian; and Temu, like our S. W., is placed in the west to close the day, or, as the Egyptian ritual puts it: "I am Ra Harmachis in  the  morning, Ra in his noontide, Temu in the evening."

 

THE. TWO GREAT PILLARS

 

Next in importance to the worship of Ra, the Sun God, was the cult of Osiris and Isis and of Isis and Horus.  The adoration of these gods and this goddess was not only the dominant religion in Egypt from the very earliest until the latest times, but during nearly a thousand years it had spread into Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, and throughout the whole of the Roman Empire.  In many cases Osiris is identified with Ra, the Sun God, while Isis is most frequently shown wearing the disc of the moon or the crescent moon on her head.

 

In the texts Isis is the divine consort of Ra Osiris.  She is the moon who rules the night as the sun rules the day; and every month at Now Moon she gathered the sun into her lap to be impregnated anew.  "That I may behold the face of the sun and that I may behold the moon for ever and ever," was the great wish of the pious Egyptian (Book of the Dead, chap. xviii).

 

Osiris and Isis are often pictured as the two eyes of Ra, and in that capacity enter largely into the mysteries of Ra.  Now, when we consider how much the sun and moon bulked in the worship of the Egyptians and surrounding nations, let us see what effect this would be likely to have on those two great pillars placed by King Solomon at the porchway or entrance to his temple at Jerusalem.  Before the temple of the sun at Heliopolis (the On of Genesis), Osertsen the First (of the twelfth dynasty B. C. 2435) set up two obelisks.  One of them remains there today, the only trace left of that gorgeous building where Joseph's father-in-law served as priest to the Sun God, where Moses, as the adopted son of Pharaoh, must have worshipped and conducted the mysteries of the temple; and where, two thousand years later, learned Grecians like Herodotus came to study.  These two obelisks would undoubtedly represent the two most important objects in the worship of the heavenly bodies, the sun and the moon, Osiris Ra and Isis.

 

About 1000 years later, or, to be exact, B.C. 1566, Queen Hatasoo, of the eighteenth dynasty, set up two obelisks in front of the Temple of the Sun at Karnak.  They are there today, the one standing, the other fallen down, a memorial to the worship of the two heavenly bodies. Fig. 10 gives us this obelisk as it stands to-day.

 

I have a work published in 1757, "Travels in Egypt, by Frederick Lewis Norden, Capt Danish Navy." Captain Norden visited Karnak on 11th December, 1737.  In his book he has plates in the old copper engraving, and among them he has this view (Fig. 11), which I have copied from his book.  Speaking of this plate, he says: "I drew magnificent antiquities in all the situations is was possible for me and as they offered themselves to my sight."

 

We can see by Captain Norden's drawing that obelisks were standing at the entrance to the temple less than two hundred years ago.  So that the artist who made for us the drawing of Karnak restored (which we have here in Fig. 12), placed the obelisks in the position they originally stood when set up by Queen Hatasoo nearly 3600 years ago.  The queen, in an inscription on the walls of her temple, describes them as "two great obelisks of granite of the south, and the summit of each is covered with copper and gold, the very best which can be obtained; they shall be seen from untold distances, and they shall flood the land with their rays of light. I have done these things because of the loving heart I possess towards my father, Amun Ra, the Sun God."

 

Some centuries later at Medinet Abu was placed a very fine pair of pillars at the porchway or entrance to the temple.  We see by this that the obelisk has given place to a pillar with an ornamental capital.  These pillars (Fig. 13) were set up by Rameses III about 1200 B.C., or quite 200 years before King Solomon built the Holy Temple at Jerusalem.

 

The pillar seems to have been largely used in the religious thinking of the Egyptians, either as an emblem of the Deity or a thank-offering from the worshippers. In many of the temples to-day there are beautiful lotus and papyrus pillars, while in numerous vignettes in the Book of the Dead we have Osiris seated in a shrine upheld by two graceful pillars.  Now, when we see that not only in Egypt, but in the surrounding countries, the worship of the sun and the moon was not only the prevailing but the popular religion of the people, there is little to be wondered at that when the Israelites left Egypt they not only carried away with them a very strong bias in favour of this worship, but had that propensity considerably strengthened when they settled down among the sun and moon worshippers of Palestine.  So rampant was this prejudice in favour of sun and moon worship, that we find Moses denouncing it in no unmeasured terms, and threatening death on the "man or woman that hath brought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God in transgressing His covenant, and hath gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the sun or the moon" (Deut. xvii. 2, 3).  In spite of these warnings, however we find years afterwards "Josiah put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense to the sun and to the moon" (2 Kings xxiii. 5).  Again we read, "At that time, saith the lord, they shall bring out the bones of the brings of Judah, and the bones of his Princes, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem out of their graves, and they shall spread them before the sun and the moon whom they have loved and whom they have worshipped" (Jer. viii. 1, 2).

 

Ezekiel saw "five and twenty men with their backs towards the temple of the Lord and their faces towards the east, and they worshipped the sun towards the east" (Ezek. viii. 16).  The Jewish women told Jeremiah: "But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth to burn incense unto the Queen of Heaven (the moon or Isis) and to pour out drink unto her as we have done, we and our fathers and our kings and our princes in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem" (Jer. xlix. 17).  One more quotation, this time from the sorely afflicted Man of Uz: "If I beheld the sun when it shines or the moon walking in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly enticed or my mouth hath kissed my hand" (Job xxxi. 26, 27).

 

When we thus see the influence that sun and moon worship had upon the children of the Exodus, and when we consider that though settled in Palestine they were surrounded by nations who paid homage to the sun and moon under the names of Osiris Ra and Isis, Baal and Astarte, Milcom and Ashtoreth, and Adonis and Cybele, and when we read that Solomon took to himself wives from Egypt, Moab, Ammon, Edmon and Phoenicia we are quite prepared for the information given in I Kings xi. 5 that "Solomon went after Ashtoreth, the Goddess of the Zidonians (the moon), and after Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites (the sun)."

 

This brings us to still another consideration that, in view of these telling quotations from Scripture, are we not justified in assuming when Solomon put up those two great pillars at the porchway or entrance to the temple (as portrayed by R.'. W.'. Bro. Haweridge in Fig. 14) they had an esoteric meaning entirely different from that ascribed to them in holy writ and that only by adopting the view I shall now put before you as to the signification of those pillars can we bring in the meaning given to them in our ritual.

 

We are told that the pillar on the left denoted strength, while that on the right signified to establish. Let us suppose that these two pillars, no matter by what names they were called, had also a hidden meaning, what more appropriate conception for signifying strength could be selected than the Sun God.  The sun was all powerful, all beneficent, daily observing all that transpired on earth, while the pillar on the right, if we put it down as representing the moon goddess, would answer as the Establisher.  The phases of the moon marked out the weeks, each moon was a lunar month, and with unfailing regularity she indicated the Jewish festivals, marking them to stand firm forever, and when conjoined with the strength of the sun what better designation could be applied than stability?

 

If we consider the question carefully and reflect on all that the sun and the moon stood for to these people at this particular time, we can see that strength and stability would be a more apt interpretation for those bodies than could be deduced from the great-grandfather of David and the assistant high priest at the dedication of the temple.  Reading certain passages of the Psalms helps to confirm us in this.  "They shall fear Thee as long as the sun and moon endure throughout all generations." (Ps. lxxii. 5.) "It shall be established forever as the moon." (Ps.lxxxix. 37).  "He appointed the moon for seasons, the sun knoweth his going down." (Ps. civ. 19).

 

Another shown (Fig. 15) is from an ancient Cyprian coin depicting the old temple of Aphrodite, at Paphos, built about 100 years before the temple at Jerusalem.  In addition to the pillars at each side of the entrance to the temple, the sun and moon are also represented as adorning the top of the building.  Let us bear in mind that Solomon's intimate friend and adviser was Hiram, King of Tyre, that his Chief Master Mason was Hiram Abif, that his principal architect was Adoniram, all Phoenicians; that this temple of Paphos, which was at the time the glory of the Mediterranean Coast and lay only a short distance from Tyre, would powerfully influence the minds of these in the immediate vicinity.  Nor is it improbable that the architecture of this temple, with its pillars, would appeal to the Phoenician craftsmen and would largely guide them in suggesting to Solomon a similar style of sanctuary in the house he was about to build for the Lord God of Israel.  There is yet another motive that may have influenced Solomon in dedicating these pillars to solar deities.  Professor Sayee says that Hadad was the Supreme Baal or sun god of Babylonia and that his worship was widespread in Palestine and Syria, also that the abbreviated form of the name of Hadad was Dad, Dadu, and the biblical David.  If therefore David was the Palestinian name for Baal, the sun god, what more likely than that Solomon would be ready to take this opportunity of perpetuating the memory of his illustrious father. Fig. 16 shows Hadad, the Syrian sun god, in the form of a pillar, with solar emblems, a solar crown and grasping a fiery sword symbolic of the thunderbolt.

 

The Encyclopedia Biblica, in treating of the two pillars, suggests that the names given are enigmatical and that they must have a religious significance.  That not improbably the full name of the pillar on the left hand is Baal-zebul (dwelling of the sun), and in later times probably the name of the second pillar was literately mutilated because of the new and inauspicious associations which had gathered round it.  Solomon, to have been consistent with the teachings of Moses, should have erected only one pillar as a symbol of that unity of the Divine Being, which was so integral a part of the worship of the Israelites.

 

In setting up two pillars he was conforming to the belief of every one of the surrounding nations, i.e., A duality in the divine, the sun and moon representing the active and passive principle in nature, the male and female element. Coming down to later times we find these two pillars prominent in Druidic enclosures used for the rites of sun worship, while the two steeples or towers at the front of our Christian cathedrals and churches look as if they were an unconscious survival of the votive obelisks or pillars erected to the sun or moon before the temples of Egypt.

 

----o----

 

THE AMERICAN MASONIC FEDERATION CASE

 

BY BRO. CHARLES C. HUNT, DEPUTY GRAND SECRETARY, IOWA

 

During the first two weeks of last May a trial was held in the Federal Court at Salt Lake City, Utah, that attracted the attention of Masons in many lands.  Mathew McBlain Thomson, Thomas Perrot and Dominic Bergera were haled into court as heads of the so-called American Masonic Federation, Inc., and indicted for fraudulent use of the mails.  The hearings showed that these men were crooks and robbers who had seduced men into spurious lodges for no other purpose than to mulct them out of their money.  They were convicted and each one fined $5,000.00 and sentenced to Fort Leavenworth for two years, Judge Martin J. Wade saying that he would have given them the limit of the law had it not been for Thomson's advanced age.  In the article which follows, Brother C.C. Hunt, who was present throughout the trial as an expert witness, has given a synopsis of Thomson's claims so far as the Craft degrees are concerned: in a succeeding article he will deal with Thomson's Scottish Rite claims.

 

FOR ABOUT fifteen years there has been a clandestine Masonic organization at work in this country headed by one Mathew McBlain Thompson with headquarters at Salt Lake City, Utah.  This man was born in Ayr, Scotland, in 1853 or 1854 and claims to have been made a Mason in 1874 or 1875, in Glasgow, Melrose Sts. John Lodge, a pendicle of the Ancient Lodge of St. John of Melrose, Scotland.  One of his own papers says that he went "into Newton-on-Ayr St. James No. 125, on the registry of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and Patna Bonnie Doon No. 565 on the same registry.  Of the latter, Brother Thomson was Right Worshipful Master for several years.  He was also Grand First Principal of the Early Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland; Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of the Temple and Malta in Scotland; Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Grand Council of Rites, and later Grand Recorder of the same.  Brother Thomson demitted from his Scottish membership in 1896, affiliating with King Solomon lodge No. 27, of the Locals [Thomson called regular Masonic lodges by this name] at Montpelier, Idaho, in 1998 (there being no Scottish Rite lodges there), in which he held office, and represented the lodge in the Grand Lodge of the State of Idaho for several terms.  During the last term he sawed as Grand Orator."

 

On November 1, 1906, Thomson demitted from King Solomon Lodge. He organized the so-called Grand Lodge Inter-Montana, January 9, 1907.

 

n 1919 he claimed to have ten thousand members in this country and that his organization had been recognized in practically every country in the world.  His Federation was organized on the basis of a stock promotion scheme, with paid organizers armed with plausible arguments which only those thoroughly posted in Masonic history and jurisprudence could refute.  He claimed that with the exception of Louisiana the United States was unoccupied territory Masonically and that not a single one of the Grand Lodges in this country had a charter authorizing it to work; that each of the thirteen colonies organized a Grand Lodge of its own, without the lodges therein first obtaining consent of the Grand Lodge from which their charters had originally been issued; that the lodges in the colonies, by thus breaking away from the home Grand Lodges of Great Britain without first obtaining consent, became irregular and clandestine organizations, and that therefore, the field in this country was open to any regular organization that chose to occupy it; that later recognition by the Grand Lodges of Great Britain did not make these self-formed Grand Lodges legitimate.  In support of this argument he quotes as follows:

 

"Page 302, Volume IV, Gould's History of Freemasonry:

 

"'In the year 1777 application for charters of erection and constitution having been made by a number of Masons to the Ancient Grand Lodge, of which the late Joseph Warren, Esq, had been G. M., as many of the officers of that Grand Lodge as could be assembled, met in form of a Grand Lodge, the Deputy Grand Master then in the chair.  And after carefully attending to the constitutions and usages of Masons in all ages and the principles upon which that Grand Lodge existed, they were unanimously of opinion that they could not legally grant charters, because the late G.M., Dr. Joseph Warren, held his authority by virtue of a commission given to him only as Provincial Grand Master, and to be revoked at the pleasure of the Grand Lodge of Scotland.  Now the principal being dead, the commission was of consequence vacated.  They then assumed the powers of a Grand Lodge.

 

"'From the foregoing, the principles then adopted by this Grand Lodge, upon which they have practised and from which they have never seen occasion to recede, may readily be collected."'

 

"Page 517, Volume IV, Gould's History of Freemasonry:

 

"'Since the beginning of the year 1850, seventeen Grand Lodges have been formed in the United States.  In every case it has been assumed or expressly declared, that the proceeding was a matter OF INHERENT RIGHT, and in no case, so far as the printed record discloses, has the consent of the parent Grand Lodges been sought."'

 

"Page 332, Hughan and Stillson's History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders:

 

"'The Grand Lodge of Tennessee is the only Independent Grand Lodge in the United States that was organized by authority of a warrant; for the instrument issued by the Grand Lodge of North Carolina does not simply permit the lodges to withdraw their allegiance from it, but it prescribed conditions; in fact, it was almost identical in phraseology with the warrants of deputations issued by the Grand Lodges of England for Provincial Grand Lodges in the Colonies and Provinces."'

 

SPECIMEN OF THOMSON'S ARGUMENTS

 

As an illustration of Thomson's method of describing the organization of the state Grand Lodges, note the following:

 

"Now, let us see where Pennsylvania got its authority."

 

"On the 24th day of September, 1786, the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania closed its labours forever and renounced whatever authority it may have previously had, whether regular or irregular, and by that act its members became clandestine or irregular Masons.  On the following day September 25, 1786, they assembled and formed a self-constituted Grand Lodge, from and by no Masonic authority whatever.  This is historically the origin of Pennsylvania Grand Lodge."

 

"An unbiased and full investigation into the methods in which these so-called Grand Lodges were formed will readily disclose to the reader just how irregularly they have been formed, and withal, they one and all prate considerably about regularity, and claim an other organizations of Craft Masonry to be irregular, when, as a matter of fact and of history, the shoe is on the other foot."

 

Gould's Concise History, p. 338, gives the following note which has been quoted by Thomson as his authority for claiming the regular Grand Lodges of the United States illegitimate:

 

"The death of Joseph Warren raised a constitutional question of much complexity.  What was the status of the Grand Lodge after the death of the Grand Master? It was disposed of by the election of Joseph Webb to the position of 'Grand Master of Antient Masonrys in the State of Massachusetts.  This, if we leave,out of consideration the Lodge (and Grand Lodge) of Pennsylvania in 1731, was the first sovereign and independent Grand Lodge in America, and the second was the Grand Lodge of Virginia, which was established in the following year."

 

As a matter of fact, these quotations prove the very opposite of Thomson's contentions.  They are given by Gould and his co-labourers as showing the growth of a principle of Masonic law that has now become established, namely, that a Grand Lodge cannot form another Grand Lodge; or in other words, that no Grand Lodge derives its authority from a charter granted by another Masonic Grand Body, but that such power or authority is derived from the lodges which compose the Grand Lodge itself.

 

Before entering upon the discussion of this question, we must remember that a very large part of the law of Masonry is similar to the common law of a country: in other words, it is unwritten law which is the result of customs and usages that have gradually grown up and become generally recognized as law. Masonic laws may be divided into three classes: first, written law; second, unwritten law; third, regulations; and they rank in the order named.  The unwritten laws consist of time-honoured customs and usages of general recognition, adapted to the conditions and time in which they live, and not repugnant to the written laws.  In general, the rules governing the legitimacy of lodges and Grand Lodges are determined by the unwritten laws of Masonry.  When we study Masonic authorities we find two general theories as to legitimacy: first, that a lodge, to be legitimate, must be able to trace its descent through at least one of the Grand Lodges of Great Britain; second, that it may either trace its origin to Great Britain or to a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

 

The above remarks apply to the legitimacy of subordinate lodges. When one considers the legitimacy of Grand Lodges other principles are in effect.  There are certain general requirements such as that the Grand Lodge must be, first, organized by legitimate lodges; second, organized in a governmental unit with a political government of its own; third, it must be supreme in its authority over its own members in matters Masonic, - that is, it must be subject to the laws of no other Masonic organization nor derive its powers from any other; fourth, it must be Masonic in its character.  A lodge to be legitimate must have a charter from a legitimate Grand Lodge authorizing and empowering it to work.  A Grand Lodge working under such a charter would not be legitimate, since it must derive its authority from the legitimate lodges of its territory and not from any other power, Masonic or otherwise.  Charles T. Granger, P.G.M., and at one time a judge of the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a report to the Grand Lodge of Iowa in 1911, said:

 

"We may state, as an axiom of Symbolic Masonic law, that Symbolic Masonry, in its organizations and workings, is a law unto itself, in that it looks to no higher or foreign fraternal source for authority, sanction or guidance, but is the creative power within itself of all needful agencies, and to this end the subordinate lodge is the primal source of authority and the only source from which can spring a legitimate Grand Lodge, and hence the legitimacy of a Grand Lodge depends, in the first instance, on the legitimacy of the lodges that gave it birth, and, of course, in addition thereto, it must meet the limitations and requirements of the ancient landmarks of the order."

 

DESCENT FROM BRITISH MASONRY

 

Therefore, the most general theory is that to be legitimate descent must be traced in some form from the Grand Lodge of Great Britain.  Here I am speaking of the Craft degrees only.  Some Grand Lodges will, in addition to this, recognize a lodge that has been organized by a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in territory not occupied by a regular Grand Lodge, but they will not recognize a Grand Lodge formed by such a Supreme Council.  If the lodges formed by a Supreme Council in unoccupied territory declare their independence and organize themselves into a Grand Lodge for that territory, some legitimate Grand jurisdictions will recognize them.  Others will not, unless the lodges themselves can trace their origin from Great Britain.

 

Lodges were formed in the first place by charter from one or more of the three Grand Lodges of Great Britain.  After this country became independent of Great Britain, the lodges in each colony organized a Grand Lodge for themselves.  This method of procedure has been recognized as legitimate by the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland, and this is shown by the fact that in every case a Grand Lodge thus formed has been recognized as legitimate by the lodges of the mother country.

 

The authority to form a Grand Lodge was inherent in the nature of the institution under the principle in the Old Charges that "Every Mason should be true to the government of the country in which he lives." From this charge it became recognized that each country should have a Grand Lodge of its own which would be supreme over its own members.  Otherwise, Masons in different countries owing Masonic allegiance to a foreign power might find themselves in a position where their obligations to their Grand Lodge and to their country would be antagonistic to each other. This principle was recognized in this country before the formation of the Federal government, and even after its formation the principle was adhered to; and it was recognized that the several lodges of each state had a right to form themselves into an independent Grand Lodge.  All attempts to form a general Masonic government for the United States failed.  Hence, we have no General Grand Lodge.  All legitimate Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France as well as the colonies of Great Britain and states of the United States, have been self-constituted, and no question of legitimacy has ever been raised, except by Thomson, because of that fact.

 

 

GRAND LODGE OF PENNSYLVANIA AN EXAMPLE

 

In reference to the formation of Grand Lodges in the United States, no better illustration can be given of the recognition of the right of the lodges in a country to form an independent Grand Lodge than in the case of the formation of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1786, and its prompt recognition by the Grand Lodge of England.  The proceedings of this occasion are set out very fully in the "Memorial Volume" issued by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1912. In page 57 of this volume we find the declaration of independence which was passed unanimously on Monday, September 25, 1786.  It is as follows:

 

"Resolved that this Grand Lodge is and ought to be a Grand Lodge Independent of Great Britain or any other authority whatever, and that they are not under any ties to any other Grand Lodge, except those of Brotherly Love and Affection, which they will always be happy to cultivate and preserve with all Lodges throughout the Globe."

 

On the same day, at a Grand Convention of thirteen different lodges

 

"it was unanimously resolved that the Lodges; under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania lately held under the authority of the Grand Lodge of England will and now do form themselves into a Grand Lodge to be called the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania and Masonic Jurisdiction thereunto belonging to be held in Philadelphia and that the late Grand Officers continue to be the Grand Officers of Pennsylvania invested with all the Powers, Jurisdictions, prominence and authority thereunto belonging 'till the usual time for the next election, and that the Grand Lodge and the particular Lodges govern themselves by the Rules and Regulations heretofore established 'till other Rules and Regulations shall be adopted."

 

A letter was then written to the Grand lodge of England announcing the action taken and the reasons therefor.  The reply of the Grand Lodge of England was as follows:

 

"... We reflect with pleasure that the Grand Lodge of England has given birth to a Grand Lodge in the western world, whose strict adherence to the ancient and immutable landmarks of our order reflects honour on its original founders.  Here we must beg leave to state that we conceive that in constituting your Grand Lodge we necessarily communicated to it the same independent sovereign Masonic authority within your jurisdiction which we ourselves possessed within ours, amenable to no superior jurisdiction under Heaven, and subject only to the immutable landmarks of the craft.  All Grand Lodges in Masonry being necessarily Free, Independent and Equipollent within their respective jurisdictions, which consequently excludes the idea of subjection to a foreign authority of the establishment of an Imperium in Imperio."

 

It should be noted that in declaring their independence from the Grand Lodges of Great Britain, the prevailing motive was loyalty to the government of the land in which they lived.  Inasmuch as loyalty to the state is one of the cardinal principles of Freemasonry, this action has met with universal Masonic approval.

 

As a matter of fact all that the statement of Gould with reference to Massachusetts (quoted above) was intended to mean is that a Grand Lodge could not legitimately be formed from a Provincial Grand Lodge.  The death of the Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Massachusetts left that Grand Lodge with no executive officer until another could be appointed by the home Grand Lodge, but this difficulty was solved by the formation of an independent Grand Lodge and the election of Joseph Webb to the position of "Grand Master of Antient Masonry." Gould nowhere states, either directly or indirectly that this election or the action of the lodges of Massachusetts and other states in thus forming a Grand Lodge was illegal. In fact, he expressly states:

 

"Within seven years after the close of the War of the Revolution, the system of Grand Lodges with Territorial Jurisdiction was firmly established. It became an accepted doctrine that the Lodges in an independent State had a right to organize a Grand Lodge; that a Lodge so created possessed exclusive jurisdiction within the State; and that it might constitute Lodges in another State in which no Grand Lodge existed and maintain them until a Grand Lodge should be  established in such State." (Gould's Concise History, p. 339.)

 

In this Gould recognized the principle that the authority to form a Grand Lodge rests in the lodges themselves and does not come from some outside power.

 

THOMSON'S FALSE THEORY

 

Thomson claimed for himself and his so-called American Masonic Federation that the theory of territorial exclusiveness is unmasonic and peculiar to America, in this he was wrong: it is also generally recognized in Great Britain, Canada and Australia. The basis of this theory is the same as the principle that accords to political governments the right of having exclusive jurisdiction over their own territory. Its existence is established by the fact that our right to exclusive jurisdiction is generally recognized by  the Masonic world, and the fact that when a recognized Grand Lodge is established in any of the British Colonies, no other Grand Lodge will issue a charter for a new lodge in that territory.

 

In the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England relative to the formation of the Grand Lodge of Canada the fact of recognition by the Grand Lodge of England was expressed in the statement of the Grand Master of England that he would issue no more charters for new lodges in the territory covered by the Grand Lodge of Canada.

 

Thomson also claimed that American Grand Lodges are clandestine because of the alleged fact that they are not universal, and refuse to recognize Masonry in other countries, because of religion, race, or some other assumed reason which is contrary to the principles of universality. When at his trial he was asked to define Universal Masonry, as used by him to distinguish himself from other Masons, he replied:

 

"Masonry that knows no creed save the one belief in

the all Father who as we express it, is the Great Architect

of the Universe, the Creator, and leaving to every man his

own opinion after that; that takes no stock in what country

a man may be born, what language he may speak, or  his

politics and things like that, or anything except that he be

a good man and a true one."

 

We think no one will object to Thomson's definition of universality, but we must remember that it is an ideal to be striven for rather than a goal that has been attained. There is nothing in the law of Masonry that bars a man from being made a Mason because of race, polities or religion, providing that he is a "good man and a true one" who will exemplify in his life the teachings of Masonry; but if a man's religion, polities or race causes him to act contrary to the principles of universal brotherhood he is not a "good man and true" and should not be admitted to a fraternity with whose principles he is not in accord. In such a case it is his character which bars him and not the beliefs he may hold or the race to which he belongs.

 

We must also remember that so long as man is fallible there will be men who will permit personal prejudices to influence their decisions when they cast their ballots, but this is no more an argument against Masonry and its teachings than are the sins of Christians an argument against the teachings of Christ.

 

THOMSON'S OWN CHAIN OF TITLES

 

As for his own organization, Thomson alleged, with reference to the Craft, or Symbolic Degrees, as follows:

 

"Mother Kilwinning, being one of the thirty-three lodges forming the Grand Lodge of Scotland, still retained her ancient rights to charter craft and high degree lodges.

 

"Mother Kilwinning, becoming dissatisfied with the Grand Lodge of Scotland, withdrew therefrom and continued in accordance with her ancient custom to charter lodges until the 14th day of October, 1807, when she surrendered all her ancient privileges and took her present position under the Grand Lodge of Scotland as Mother Kilwinning No. 0

 

"Chevalier Michael Andrew Ramsay, who was initiated in Ayr-Kilwinning St. John's Lodge (a pendicle or daughter lodge of Mother Kilwinning), with other political refugees, reintroduced Scotch Masonry into France about the years 1736-1737.

 

"In the year 1743, the Farl of Kilmarnock, who was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and also of Mother Kilwinning, by virtue of the authority in him vested, chartered three Mother Lodges in France, one of which was the Grand Mother Lodge of St. John at Marseilles, France.

 

"In the year 1794, the Mother Lodge at Marseilles, France, granted a charter to Polar Star Lodge in New Orleans, Louisiana, and at a later period other Scotch lodges were formed and chartered."

 

Polar Star Lodge here mentioned was, according to Thomson, later merged with the Supreme Council of Louisiana, referred to below:

 

"On the 19th day of June, 1813, the Scotch Rite in New Orleans, Louisiana, applied for and received a charter for a Grand Consistory from the Supreme Council located at New York, which was established by authority of the Supreme Council of France, which also derived its origin through Chevalier Michael Andrew Ramsay, commencing in Scotland.

 

"On the 27th day of October, 1839 (the New York Supreme Council having become dormant), the Marquis O. de San Angelo, by virtue of the authority in him vested, established and chartered a Supreme Council in New Orleans, Louisiana, which became heir to all the rights and dignities of the New York Supreme Council, and, in fact, was inaugurated into life as the Supreme Council for the Western Hemisphere, and the charter was fully recognized and de San Angelo's acts were ratified.

 

"On September 14, 1906, Joseph N. Cheri Supreme Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Western Hemisphere, located at New Orleans, Louisiana, granted a Charter of authority to M. McB. Thomson (himself being a member of the Supreme Council and also Grand Representative of the Grand Council of Rites of Scotland) to form Craft or Symbolic Grand and subordinate lodges of Masons, and by virtue of that charter and also as a representative of the Supreme Council of Louisiana, he (Thomson) granted a charter to the Grand Lodge of Inter-Montana.

 

"Thus on the 9th day of January, 1907, the Grand Lodge 'Inter-Montana' received its Masonic Charter.

 

"On the 30th day of March, 1907, the Grand Lodge of Illinois, A.F. and A. M., Incorporated, applied for and was admitted to membership in the A. A. S. Rite by taking the oath de fideli, and again on April 5, 1907, five lodges in Boston, Massachusetts, applied for admission and were accepted and afterwards they obtained a Grand Lodge charter from the American Masonic Federation of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

 

"On the 31st day of August, 1907, the Supreme Lodge in the American Masonic Federation was formed and received its Charter from the Grand Lodge Inter-Montana.

 

"On the 21st day of September, 1907, the American Masonic Federation was incorporated. The incorporation papers are on file in the State of Idaho. This is our Chain of Title."

 

Thomson frequently refers to this Chain of Title as showing that, to quote himself, "the American Masonic Federation traces its descent back to the oldest Masonic Lodge in the known world, Mother Kilwinning of Scotland, coming to Louisiana by way of France, coming by truly lawful and Masonic charters. Can any other rite of Masonry show as clear a title?"

 

Other claims were put forth with reference to the so-called higher degrees, but in this paper I shall confine my attention to the three Symbolic degrees of Masonry.

 

THE CHAIN FALLS TO PIECES

 

With reference to the above statements, let us see how many are true and how many false, or at least, not proven. Mother Kilwinning Lodge has a strong claim to being considered the oldest lodge in the world. She first united in forming the Grand Lodge of Scotland and later withdrew, until 1807, when she re-united with that Grand Body and surrendered all rights she might have had to charter other lodges, but she never had or claimed to have a right to charter lodges to confer any but the Craft degrees of Masonry, and she never granted to her daughter lodges the power to charter other lodges. In fact, Mother Kilwinning Lodge was the only lodge in Scotland that ever had the chartering power, and she never transferred this power to any other lodge. She never chartered a lodge in France, and, therefore, could not have chartered Sts. John's Lodge, of Marseilles.

 

Chevalier Ramsay, so far as known, never introduced Masonry anywhere. He is principally known to Masonry because of an oration he delivered before the Grand Lodge of France in 1847, in which he traced the origin of Masonry to the Crusaders. This theory of Ramsay's, though supported by no proof, was readily accepted at that time, and was probably responsible for the fact that many high degrees to which the name "Scottish" was given suddenly sprang up in France about this time. Ramsay himself did not invent these degrees, nor did they come from Scotland, but the fact that he was a Scotchman probably had something to do with the name given to them. Ramsay was not a member of Mother Kilwinning Lodge, nor is it known when or where he received the Masonic degrees.

 

Waite, in his "Secret Tradition in Freemasonry" vol. 1, p. 117, says that the Mother Lodge of Marseilles was established in 1750, "though there is little means of ascertaining the circumstances under which it was initiated." Clavel says it was established in 1751 by a travelling Scotchman. Be that as it may, it soon ceased, to exist, and it did not charter Polar Star Lodge, in New Orleans.

 

Perfect Sincerity Lodge, of Marseilles, France, was organized in 1767 by the Grand Lodge of France. It is now, and has been since 1806, a subordinate of the Grand Orient of France. It was this lodge, and not Sts. John Lodge of Marseilles, which in 1796 (not 1794) chartered Polar Star Lodge of New Orleans, an action which was later reported by that lodge to the Grand Orient of France and approved by that Grand Body.

 

However, the brethren who organized Polar Star Lodge first petitioned the Grand Orient of France for a charter (this was in 1794), but on account of the troublous times incident to the French Revolution, the officers of the Grand Orient were so scattered that it could not then be acted upon. Therefore, the brethren applied to Perfect Sincerity Lodge, at Marseilles, and received a charter in 1798. In 1804 the Grand Orient of France acted upon the first petition, granted a charter, and the lodge was constituted under the charter from that Grand Body as Polar Star Lodge No. 4263. (See History of Freemasonry in Louisiana, by James B. Scott, pp. 14 and 15.)

 

STORY OF POLAR STAR LODGE

 

Shortly before the organization of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, on account of some question having been raised as to their regularity, Polar Star Lodge applied to and received a charter from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, and was by that Grand Lodge constituted as Polar Star Lodge No. 129, and as such it joined with the other lodges in organizing the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Prior to the reception of the charter from Pennsylvania, this lodge had worked the French Rite. After receiving the charter from Pennsylvania it worked according to the York Rite only, until November 20, 1820, when Polar Star Lodge began working three rites, but keeping each distinct. As Polar Star Lodge No. 5 under the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, it worked the York Rite; as No. 4263 under the Grand Orient of France, the French Rite; and later it received a charter from the Grand Orient of France as Polar Star Lodge No. 7474, authorizing it to work according to the Scottish Rite. (See History of Freemasonry in Louisiana, Scott, pp. 5, 11, 13, 28 and 29.)

 

In 1836 the Grand Orient of France demanded of Polar Star Lodge the surrender of its charter from that body, and the lodge petitioned the Grand Lodge of Louisiana to cumulate the French and Scottish Rites. This request was not granted at that time. It then

surrendered its York Rite and French Rite  charters and worked according to the Scottish Rite, as Polar Star Lodge No. 1 under the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Later, (August 15, 1840) the Grand Lodge of Louisiana permitted it to work according to either the French, Scottish, or York Rite by endorsing on the Scottish Rite charter permission so to work the other two rites. (See Scott's History, P. 49.) This lodge divided in 1857, part of its members voting to withdraw from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and affiliate with Foulhouze's clandestine Supreme Council, and the others voting to remain under the Grand Lodge. Foulhouze's clandestine lodge then laid claim to the property and records of Polar Star Lodge but was overruled in favour of the regular lodge by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in 1861. (16 La. Ann. Rep. 53.) The records of Polar Star Lodge, when brought into court, proved fatal to the claims of the Foulhouze lodge. Thus, it will be seen that Thomson could derive no title through Polar Star Lodge.

 

The Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite in Louisiana laid no claim to control over the Craft degrees until 1850, when the Grand Lodge of Louisiana abolished its symbolic chambers. These chambers were a device adopted in 1833 by means of which there were three chambers or committees in that Grand Lodge, each having jurisdiction over one of the three rites; but charters in each case were granted by Grand Lodge and not by a symbolic chamber. The reason for abolishing these symbolic chambers in 1850 was to avoid the confusion incident to having three kinds of charters, but the Grand Lodge of Louisiana did then, and still does now, permit its lodges to work according to the rite they prefer.

 

It was not until 1850 that letters purporting to establish a so-called concordat between the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Grand Consistory in 1833 were brought to light. As a matter of fact, no such concordat was ever adopted by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, and the so-called concordat was later proved to be a fraud. (See Scott's History, pp. 47 and 48.) Thus no title to the Craft degrees could be derived from this Supreme Council even had it been a regular Masonic body. These degrees in Louisiana were  controlled by the Grand Lodge and by that body only.

 

That the Grand Lodge of Louisiana had always claimed jurisdiction over the Craft degrees is shown in Scott's History, pp. 23 and 24, taken from the records of that Grand Lodge. That the Scottish Rite bodies recognized the right of Grand Lodges to control the Craft degrees is shown in Folger's History, appendix, p. 125. The Supreme Council of Louisiana, however, after Foulhouze and his adherents had withdrawn therefrom, made overtures to and was united with the Southern Supreme Council of Charleston, South Carolina (Scott's History, p. 87). Two years later or thereabouts, Foulhouze and two of his adherents formed a new Supreme Council which they claimed was a continuation of the one which had united with the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction. For this unmasonic act Foulhouze was expelled from Masonry by the Grand Orient of France, of which he was a member (Scott's History, p. 87). His Supreme Council soon became dormant, but in the early part of 1867 an attempt was made to revive it. Foulhouze had abdicated, and was succeeded by Eugene Chassaignac, who created several clandestine lodges, and by opening their doors to all comers, regardless of previous condition, obtained recognition by the Grand Orient of France (see Scott's History, p. 87). This caused the white members to drift away, and that body is now composed almost entirely of creoles and colored men. Thus it will be seen that each link in Thomson's so-called "Chain of Title" is defective. Each contains some element of truth, but the truth is so expressed that to one who does not know, it seems to lend color to the false statements with which the true are mingled. Also, the truths which are stated are but partial, and should be supplemented by other facts which Thomson did not state.

 

----o----

 

SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ADVERTISED

 

"Education must be 'sold,' to use an advertising expression, just as automobiles, clothes, movies and the endless list of necessities and luxuries are 'sold.' That is to say, before a community or an individual will spend time, effort and money on education the community or individual must be convinced that education is worth having and must want to possess it.

 

"Such a comparison is fully justified by the facts. A public school system is a form of public service co-operation. The owners of the schools are the tax-payers; the directors are the members of the board of education, elected by the people. The profits from the business of public education are represented in the learning power of the tens of thousands whose knowledge, training and preparation for the work and duties of life are supplied by the public schools.

 

" 'Use must be made of what the schools have to offer, however, if the community and individuals are to get any good out of them. A public school system, the educatonal machinery and facilities of which are not being utilized by the people, is like a telephone company without subscribers or a department store without customers.

 

" 'If publicity or advertising is good business for a corporation privately owned, the profits of which go to a few, why shouldn't it be good business for a corporation publicly owned, the profits of which go to all the people of the city? Specifically, why shouldn't the public school system of a city utilize publicity to bring about the largest possible use of the system's educational facilities? . . .

 

"'Unfortunately, everybody in America doesn't believe in education....

 

" 'As only a small part of the people of the city have time to visit the schools, the majority of parents, if they are to keep in touch with the activities and policies of the system, must get this information in other ways. Children carry home to their parents much information, to be sure, but too often this is given as the child-mind and not as the adult-mind sees the situation. It is the daily newspapers, after all, that are depended upon for information of what is going on - for school news as well as other news. The newspapers, it might be said, visit the schools for the parents and tell them what is happening there. Therefore, every newspaper reporter, it is the conviction of the division of publications, should have every opportunity to see what the schools are doing. This conviction is shared by the board of education and the superintendents of schools." - Clyde R. Miller, director of the Department of Publicity, Cleveland Board of Education. - M.S.A. Bulletin No. 8.

 

----o----

 

MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO WERE MASONS - GENERAL JOHN PETER GABRIEL MUHLENBERG

 

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

 

GENERAL MUHLENBERG, friend of Thomas Jefferson and of James Monroe, came of a great family, five of whom are known to history, and two of whom are listed among the great religious leaders of America. General Muhlenberg's father, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, was a German, born in 1711, who, after his university career at Gottingen and Halle, and pastoral experiences at Franckesche Stiftung, came to this land in 1742 in response to the call from a group of Lutherans at Philadelphia. Dr. Muhlenberg accepted charge of three Lutheran congregations and almost immediately stepped into the lead of Lutheranism in this nation. It is he, more than any other man, that may rightly be called the founder of Lutheranism as an organized body in the United States, and it was he who, in 1748, organized the first Lutheran synod. He died at Trappe, formerly known as New Providence, a village in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

 

It was at this town that John Peter Gabriel, his oldest son, was born in 1746. After an education in Germany he entered the Lutheran ministry in New Jersey and later,1772, in Virginia. In 1775, while at Woodstock, Virginia, he raised the 8th Virginia (German) regiment. He was made a Colonel by General Washington, to whom, so it is said, he bore a close personal resemblance. Colonel Muhlenberg assisted in the relief of Charleston, took part in the battle of Sullivan's Island, and was with Washington at Brandywine, Monmouth, Stony Point and Yorktown. He was promoted first to Brigadier and then to Major General for meritorious conduct. "He was a member of the Virginia convention of 1776, was vice-president of the supreme-executive council in Pennsylvania in 1787-1788, and was a representative in Congress in 1789-1791, in 1793-1795, and in 1799-1801. In 1801 he was elected as a Democratic-Republican to the United States Senate, but immediately resigned to become supervisor of revenue for the district of Pennsylvania." He died in 1807.

 

The beautiful memorial to General Muhlenberg which stands in Philadelphia was erected by the state of Pennsylvania. On the pedestal of the statue, which bears a striking resemblance to a figure of Washington, is a record of some of the battles in which he was engaged. Washington was not more an idol to the people of Virginia than was Muhlenberg to the sturdy folk of Pennsylvania. Like Washington he was a man without a vice: he was one of those Christian soldiers whose faith in God was so well founded that he never feared danger, and he believed that God's providence protected him through every danger.

 

In our school days we all learned by rote a thrilling poem about a minister in the early days of the Revolution who, after an impassioned plea to his parishioners to rebel against Great Britain, suddenly threw aside his clerical robes, stepped forth in the uniform of a Virginia colonel, and recruited almost three hundred men on the spot. That man was General Muhlenberg. He used as a text the Scriptural phrase "there is time for all things" and added, with a voice like a trumpet, "there is a time to fight and that time has come now !" upon which he had drummers stationed at the church door, and a full recruiting outfit unlimbered. This spectacular but sincere deed sent a thrill through the community which was felt in every part of Pennsylvania, and made a hero of the martial preacher. Once in active service he more than fulfilled the expectations of his admirers by his skill and bravery as a fighter, and by his sagacity as a commanding officer.

 

The engagement in which General Muhlenberg most distinguished himself perhaps was the battle of Stony Point in the Hudson Highlands. The attack on this position, the reader will recall, was led by General Anthony Wayne, one of the boldest soldiers of the war. When this enterprise was first planned Washington inquired of him, "Can you do it?" "I'll storm hell, if you'll only plan it, General," replied Wayne. Storming hell, it proved to be, and Wayne himself was struck in the head by a musket ball, and believed himself mortally wounded. "March on!" he shouted to his men. "Carry me into the fort, for I will die at the head of my column." But he did not die.

 

At two o'clock in the morning he sent to Washington this message: "The fort and garrison with General Johnson are ours. Our officers and men behaved like men determined to be free." During this spectacular engagement General Muhlenberg was in charge of the rear defenses, and proved himself quite as resourceful and daring as Wayne himself.

 

Of such stuff were the Masons of Revolutionary days. General Muhlenberg was a member of Lodge No. 3, of Philadelphia. He was quite as earnest in lodge work as in church activities, and though one of the most amiable of men he earnestly and vigorously combatted every fad, fancy, fiction and peck-sniffery that invaded the Craft.

 

----o----

 

THE TEACHINGS OF MASONRY

 

The following paper is one of a series of articles on "Philosophical Masonry," or "The Teachings of Masonry," by Brother Haywood, to be used for reading and discussion in lodges and study clubs. From the questions following each section of the paper the study club leader should select such as he may desire to use in bringing out particular points for discussion. To go into a lengthy discussion on each individual question presented might possibly consume more time than the lodge or study club may be able to devote to the study club meeting.

 

In conducting the study club meetings the leader should endeavor to hold the discussions closely to the text of the paper and not permit the members to speak too long at one time or to stray onto another subject. Whenever it becomes evident that the discussion is turning from the original subject the leader should request the members to make notes of the particular points or phases of the matter they may wish to discuss or inquire into and bring them up after the last section of the paper is disposed of.

 

The meetings should be closed with a "Question Box" period, when such questions as may have come up during the meeting and laid over until this time should be entered into and discussed. Should any questions arise that cannot be answered by the study club leader or some other brother present, these questions may be submitted to us and we will endeavor to answer them for you in time for your next meeting.

 

Supplemental references on the subjects treated in this paper will be found at the end of the article.

 

BY BRO. H.L. HAYWOOD, IOWA

 

PART XIII-FREEMASONRY AND RELIGION

 

 

THE EARLY operative builders of the Middle Ages were churchmen, if we may trust the many histories of architecture which deal with the subject.  This was especially true after the Gothic, or pointed arch, superseded the old Romanesque style with its round arch and its gloomy interiors, for the advent of the Gothic coincided with a revival of interest in church architecture.  This revival reached such proportions of zeal and devotion that bishops themselves studied to become architects (that word was not in use then, but the function was) and raised such great sums of money for the purpose that many little towns erected cathedral structures that would now be pointed to with pride by our great rich modern cities.  Needless to say, these builders, the bishop directors and overseers along with the men who did the toil, were true and loyal sons of the Roman Catholic Church as it then existed.

 

After a while, and through the inevitable operation of architectural evolution - there is no need to narrate the story of all the changes in this connection - the superintendency and direction of building operations (I am still referring to church and cathedral and similar structures) passed gradually into the hands of laymen.  Of these great lay architects, especially those who worked in France where Gothic reached its utmost pinnacle of glory, we have many memorials and remains; in a large number of cases we have rather complete biographical sketches and even portraits.  From all these records we know that the builders of this particular period were also loyal sons of the Mother Church.

 

It was so in England as well as in France, for we find in the Old Charges that the mason, when he came to unite with the Fraternity, was required to swear to be faithful and true to the Holy Church as well as to the King.  But after the Reformation had established itself in England - which was quite a while after the death of Henry VIII - these operative masons, along with the rank and file of men in all other walks of life, became Protestants, - that is, they became members of the Church of England.

 

 

When does the story of Operative Masons begin? Give the dates of the "Middle Ages." What was the outstanding feature, or characteristic, of Romanesque architecture? Of Gothic? Who were the first architects of Gothic? What, do you suppose, led the bishops to take such an interest in building? To what church did masons then belong? Did they all have to belong to that church? If so, why? Why did laymen come to take the place of bishops as architects, or masters of the work? Where, do you suppose, may one find the records of these oldtime master builders? Where did Gothic architecture reach its highest development? What religion was enjoined by the Old Charges? What is meant by "Old Charges"? What was the Reformation? When did it occur? What did Luther have to do with it? Henry VIII? What was the difference between a Protestant church, as we now know it, and the "Church of England"? What effect did Protestantism have on the religion of masons ?

 

In many histories of Freemasonry the account of the religious beginnings of the Craft stops off short at this place, but that is an error, a very misleading error, and one that should be carefully avoided by the Masonic student.  Freemasonry as it became organized in 1717, and as we now know it, owed much, very much, to the operative builders of the Middle Ages, but it also owed, much, perhaps quite as much, to other sources, which had nothing whatever to do with operative building.  I refer to occult societies and associations, and to scattered sources out of which many streams of influence gradually made their way into the main currents of Speculative Freemasonry.

 

In the time of Pope Innocent III (approximately in the year 1200) there began the great Albigensian Crusades.  The purpose of this immense military advance into southern France was to stamp out flourishing communities of men and women who had come to believe in a Christianity very different from that represented by the pope.  These men have been described as "Protestants before the Reformation." In a strict sense they were not Protestant, and their ideas were very far away from those made familiar to us by our own great Protestant denominations, but these men cherished independence of mind, purity of conduct, and demanded for themselves liberty of worship.  They were the "heretics." I am myself convinced - though there is not here room to furnish the data on which my conviction rests - that these "heretics" set loose in Europe a powerful stream of influence, some of which finally found its way into Freemasonry. (See "New Light on the Renaissance," by Harold Bayley, among scores of other books.)

 

All our historians, at least nearly all of them, agree that Freemasonry owes very much to certain occult societies or groups that flourished - often in secret - during the late Middle Ages, and even into the after-Reformation times.  Chief among these were the Rosicrucians and the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar had been in the East; they had come into contact with Jewish, Greek, and Arabic lore, and they had imbibed strange new ideas from far-away types of Christianity.  The authorities of the Roman Catholic Church attacked these knightly orders on the ground that they had become heretics - "Gnostics" was the exact word used.  Those who have most carefully examined the evidence (some Henry Charles Lea's great works on the period) are inclined to believe that the charges were more or less well grounded. The Knights Templar had become infected with heresy.

 

As for the Rosicrucians, not much is known about them and it is doubtful if much ever will be known about them, but it is certain that during the seventeenth century there were many powerful and original thinkers in Europe, especially in Germany, the Low Countries, and in England, who called themselves "Rosicrucians" and who made wide use of a (now) strange system of symbols and esoteric means of communication.  It is believed by some that Francis Bacon was a Rosicrucian.  I said that not much is known with certainty about them; of this one thing, however, we can be certain: they were Protestants, when they were not altogether outside the bounds of Christianity.

 

About the Kabbalists more is known. The literature called the Kabbala came into existence in Spain during the thirteenth century, or thereabouts, and won its way among the Jews who had grown weary of the sterile rationalism of Maimonides and his school.  The Kabbalistical literature was dramatically brought to the attention of the intellectual circles of Europe by Reuchlin when, in or about 1500, he caught it up as a means of preventing a terrible slaughter of Jews by the papists.  The Kabbala is a work of Jewish mysticism.  From it there came into Freemasonry, so there is good reason to believe, the Legend of the Lost Word, the Tradition of Solomon's Temple, the Tradition of the Substitute Word, the Great Pillars, etc.

 

Can you name three Masonic histories? Which one is supposed to be the best? What is meant by "occult"?  Can you tell anything about Pope Innocent III? What is meant by the word "heretic"? Can you tell anything about the Albigensian Crusades? Do you believe that Freemasonry connects in any way with the Knights Templar? Are the Masonic Knights Templar identical with the Order spoken of above? Why was the Order suppressed? Who was the last Grand Master of the Knights? Have you ever heard of Jacques de Molay? What can you tell about the Rosicrucians? Where were the Rosicrucians strongest? Describe the Kabbalists? Where did Kabbalism originate? When did Reuchlin live? What did he do? What does Freemasonry owe to Kabbalism? Was the Kabbala Jewish or Christian? If Freemasonry descended from the Kabbalists, and the other sources named above, as well as from Operative Masons of the Middle Ages, what, would you say, was the first religion of Freemasonry?

 

 

It should be further noted that during the century immediately preceding the famous Revival (1717) many men came into the Fraternity who where - to a certain extent - what would now be called Free Thinkers.  This is not to say that they were atheists or anti-religious; it means that they chose to think for themselves, and were not able to accept many things officially taught by the churches.  Quite a number of the founders and early champions of the Royal Society (this fact is overlooked so often) were active Freemasons, and so were many other learned men in different quarters who, in that period of rationalism, did not adhere to any religion at all, albeit, like Voltaire and the Deists, they believed in a Supreme Being.  It is certain that many of these men found their way into the Fraternity at a period before the Revival and I have no doubt that they had something to do at the time with the complete releasing of Freemasonry from adhesion to any one religion whatsoever.  The great paragraph "Concerning God and Religion" which Anderson (or whoever it was) incorporated in the first Grand Lodge Constitutions, is a frank statement to the effect that whereas in ancient times Freemasons had been obliged to be of the religion of the country in which they lived, that now no religious demands would be made of them save that they were not to be stupid atheists or irreligious libertines. The adoption of the paragraph marks an epoch in the evolution of religion in the English-speaking world. It was a great magna charta of spiritual liberty proclaimed at a time when religious bigotry was more bigoted than ever, and when men were suffering all manner of persecution for daring to disagree with the official dogmas of the churches. The Masonic student should make the most careful study of this period of Masonic history because it was at this time that the constitutions and landmarks were adopted (many of them, anyhow) that are still in force, and it is to that period that Grand Lodges almost always turn when seeking for precedents whereon to establish new laws or regulations or interpretations. Unle