The Builder Magazine

August 1923 - Volume IX - Number 8

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FRONTISPIECE – LIONEL VIBERT

ANDERSON'S CONSTITUTIONS OF 1723 - By Bro. Lionel Vibert, P. M., England

IS FREEMASONRY A RELIGION ?.- By Bro. H. L. Haywood

CAMP ROOSEVELT: A BOY BUILDER - By Bro. F. L. T., Illinois

SOME NOTES ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD "FREEMASON" - By Bro. H. L. Haywood

THE STORY OF PHILIPPINE MASONRY - By Bro. G.J. Mariano, Philippine Islands

THE GREEN DRAGON TAVERN, OR FREEMASONS' ARMS - By Bro. Charles W. Moore, Massachusetts

 

THE LIBRARY

A German Masonic Bibliography

Concerning Theophrastus Bombastus Von Hohenheim

A Burbanked Browning

 

THE QUESTION BOX

The Builder's Attitude Toward Occultism, Etc.

The Meaning of the Word "Mystery"

Concerning the Mark Master Degree

An Easy Way to Get Masonic Books

 

CORRESPONDENCE

The Mathematics of the Bible

Information Wanted

 

YE EDITOR'S CORNER

 

----o----

 

VOLUME IX – NUMBER 8

 

TWO DOLLARS FIFTY CENTS THE YEAR

TWENTY-FIVE CENTS THE COPY

 

THE BUILDER – August 1923

 

Anderson's Constitutions of 1723

 

By Bro. LIONEL VIBERT, Past Master Quator Coronati Lodge No. 2076, England

 

Bro. Lionel Vibert, of Marline, Lansdowne, Bath, England, is author of Freemasonry Before the Existence of Grand Lodges and The Story of the Craft and is editor of Miscellanea Latomorum.  He has contributed papers to the Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, notably one on "The French Compagnonnage," a critical and exhaustive treatise that is bound to replace Gould's famous chapter among the sources available to the rank and file of students of that important theme.  After having devoted his attention for several years to pre-Grand Lodge Masonry, Bro. Vibert is now specializing on the Grand Lodge era the records of which are still so confused or incomplete that, in spite of the great amount of work accomplished by scholars in the past, a work "great as the Twelve Labours of Hercules" remains yet to be done.  The paper below is one of the author's first published studies of the Grand Lodge era. To us American Masons, who live under forty-nine Grand Jurisdictions and to whom Masonic jurisprudence is an almost necessary preoccupation, any new light on that formative and critical period, and especially on Dr. Anderson whose Constitutions is the groundwork of our laws, is not only interesting but useful.

 

THE GRAND LODGE THAT WAS brought into existence in 1717 did not find it necessary to possess a Constitution of its own for some years.  Exactly what went on between 1717 and 1721 we do not know; almost our only authority being the account given by Anderson in 1738 which is unreliable in many particulars.  Indeed it cannot be stated with certainty whether there were any more than the original Four Old Lodges until 1721; it would appear from the Lists and other records we possess that the first lodge to join them did not do so till July of that year; the statements as to the number of new lodges in each year given by Anderson are not capable of verification.  It was also in the year 1721 that the Duke of Montagu was made Grand Master on 24th June, having probably joined the Craft just previously.  The effect of his becoming Grand Master, a fact advertised in the dally press of the period, was that the Craft leapt into popularity, its numbers increased, and new lodges were rapidly constituted.  Even now it was not anticipated that the Grand Lodge would extend the scope of its activities beyond London and Westminster, but Grand Master Payne, possibly anticipating the stimulus that would be provided by the accession to the Craft of the Duke, had got ready a set of General Regulations, and these were read over on the occasion of his installation.  Unfortunately we do not possess the original text of them but have only the version as revised and expanded by Anderson.  But we can understand that in a very short time it would be found necessary for these regulations to be printed and published to the Craft.  Their publication was undertaken by Anderson, who took the opportunity to write a history of the Craft as an introduction, and to prepare a set of Charges; his intention clearly being to give the new body a work which would in every respect replace the Old Manuscript Constitutions.  The work consists of a dedication written by Desaguliers and addressed to Montagu as late Grand Master; a Historical introduction; a set of six Charges; Payne's Regulations revised; the manner of constituting a new lodge; and songs for the Master, Wardens, Fellow Craft and Entered Apprentice, of which the last is well known in this country (England) and is still sung today in many lodges.  There is also an elaborate frontispiece. The work was published by J. Senex and J. Hooke, on 28th February, 1722-3, that is to say 1722 according to the official or civil reckoning, but 1723 by the so-called New Style, the popular way of reckoning. (It did not become the official style till the reform of the calender in 1752.) The title page bears the date 1723 simply.

 

Dr. Anderson was born in Aberdeen, and was a Master of Arts of the Marischal College in that city.  He was in London in 1710 and was minister of a Presbyterian Chapel in Swallow Street, Piccaldilly, till 1734.  He was also chaplain to the Earl of Buchan, and as the Earl was a representative peer for Scotland from 1714-1734, it was probably during these years that he maintained a London establishment.  We do not know that the Earl was a Mason, although his sons were.  When Anderson was initiated we do not know either; but it may have been in the Aberdeen Lodge.  There is a remarkable similarity between his entry in the Constitutions of his name as "Master of a Lodge and Author of this Book," and in entry in the Aberdeen Mark Book, of "James Anderson, Glazier and Mason and Writer of this Book." This was in 1670 and this James Anderson is no doubt another person.  It just happens most unfortunately that the minutes for the precise period during which we might expect to find our author are missing.  In any case he was familiar with the Scottish terminology which he no doubt had some share in introducing into English Freemasonry.

 

Nor can it be stated with confidence when he joined the Craft in London.  He was Master of a lodge in 1722, a lodge not as yet identified, but there is no record of his having had anything to do with Grand Lodge prior to the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Montagu.  He was not even present at the Duke's installation; at all events Stukeley does not name him as being there.  He himself, in his version of the minutes, introduces his own name for the first time at the next meeting.

 

HOW HE CAME TO WRITE THE WORK

 

His own account of the work, as given in 1738, is that he was ordered to digest the Old Gothic Constitutions in a new and better method by Montagu on 29th September, 1721, that on 27th December, Montagu appointed fourteen learned brothers to examine the MS., and that after they had approved it was ordered to be printed on 25th March, 1722.  He goes on to say that it was produced in print for the approval of Grand Lodge on 17th January, 1722-3, when Grand Master Wharton's manner of constituting a lodge was added.  In the book itself are printed a formal Approbation by Grand Lodge and the Masters and Wardens of twenty lodges (with the exception of two Masters), which is undated, and also a copy of a resolution of the Quarterly Communication of 17th January, 1722-3, directing the publication and recommending it to the Craft.

 

With regard to the committee of fourteen learned brethren and the three occasions on which the book is alleged to have been considered in Grand Lodge, the Approbation itself states that the author first submitted his text for the perusal of the late and present Deputy Grand Master's and of other learned brethren and also the Masters of lodges, and then delivered it to Grand Master Montagu, who by the advice of several brethren ordered the same to be handsomely printed, This is not quite the same thing.

 

And it is to be noted that in 1735 Anderson appeared before Grand Lodge to protest against the doings of one Smith who had pirated the Constitutions which were his sole property.  His account of this incident in the 1738 edition suppresses this interesting circumstance.  Further it is very clear from the Grand Lodge minutes that the appearance of the book caused a good deal of dissension in Grand Lodge itself, and it brought the Craft into ridicule from outside; in particular Anderson's re-writing of Payne's Regulations was taken exception to.  Anderson himself did not appear again in Grand Lodge for nearly eight years.

 

The true state of the case appears to be that Anderson undertook to write the work as a private venture of his own and that this was sanctioned, since it was desirable that the Regulations at least published, without any very careful examination of his text, or of so much of it as was ready, and that when it was published it was discovered, but too late, that he had taken what were felt by many to be unwarrantable liberties not only with the traditional Charges but also with Payne's Regulations.

 

THE BOOK IS ANALYZED

 

In using the term Constitutions he was following the phraseology of several of the versions of the Old Charges, and in fact the word occurs (in Latin) in the Regius, though Anderson never saw that.  It was apparently traditional in the Craft.  The contents of the work itself indicate that the various portions were put together at different dates and Anderson tells us it was not all in print during Montagu's term of office.

 

Taking the Approbation first, this is signed by officers of twenty lodges; the Master and both Wardens have all signed in all but two.  In those, numbers eight and ten, the place for the Master's signature is blank.  Mr. Mathew Birkhead is shown as Master of number five; and he died on the 30th December, 1722.  Accordingly the Approbation must be of an earlier date and of the twenty lodges we know that number nineteen was constituted on 25th November, 1722, and number twenty if, as is probable, it is of later date, will have been constituted possibly on the same day but more probably a few days later. Thus we can date the Approbation within narrow limits.  In his 1738 edition Anderson gives a series of the numbers of lodges on the roll of Grand Lodge at different dates which cannot be checked from any independent source, and he suggests that on 25th March, 1722, there were already at least twenty-four lodges in existence because he asserts that representatives of twenty-four paid their homage to the Grand Master on that date; and that those of twenty-five did so on 17th January, 1722-3. Because of Anderson's assertion as to twenty-four lodges some writers have speculated as to the lodges the officers of which omitted to sign or which were ignored by the author.  But the truth probably is that these lodges - if they existed at all - were simply not represented at the meeting.

 

The Approbation is signed by Wharton as Grand Master, Desaguliers as Deputy, and Timson and Hawkins as Grand Wardens.  According to the story as told by Anderson in 1738 Wharton got himself elected Grand Master irregularly on 24th June, 1722, when he appointed these brethren as his Wardens but omitted to appoint a Deputy.  On 17th January, 1722-3, the Duke of Montagu, "to heal the breach," had Wharton proclaimed Grand Master and he then appointed Desaguliers as his Deputy and Timson and Anderson, (not Hawkins,) Wardens and Anderson adds that his appointment was made for Hawkins demitted as always out of town.  If this story could be accepted the Approbation was signed by three officers who were never in office simultaneously, since when Desaguliers came in Hawkins had already demitted.  This by itself would throw no small doubt on Anderson's later narrative, but in fact we know that his whole story as to Wharton is a tissue of fabrication.  The daily papers of the period prove that the Duke of Wharton was in fact installed on 25th June, and he then appointed Desaguliers as his Deput and Timson and Hawkins as his Wardens.  It is unfortunate that Anderson overlooked that his very date, 24th June, was impossible as it was a Sunday, a day expressly prohibited by Payne's Regulations for meetings of Grand Lodge.  There are indications of some disagreement; apparently some brethren wished Montagu to continue, but in fact Wharton went in the regular course; the list of Grand Lodge officers in the minute book of Grand Lodge shows him as Grand Master in 1722.  And that Hawkins demitted is merely Anderson's allegation.  In this same list he appears as Grand Warden, but Anderson himself has written the words (which he is careful to reproduce in 1738): "Who demitted and James Anderson A.M. was chosen in his place;" vide the photographic reproduction of the entry at page 196 of Quatuor, Coronatorum Antigrapha Vol. X; while in the very first recorded minute of Grand Lodge, that of 24th June, 1723, the entry as to Grand Wardens originally stood: Joshua Timson and the Reverend Mr. James Anderson who officiated for Mr. William Hawkins.  But these last six words have been carefully erased, vide the photo reproduction at page 48 Quatuor Corontorum Antigrapha VOL X, which brings them to light again.  Hawkins then was still the Grand Warden in June 1723, and on that occasion Anderson officiated for him at the January meeting.  The explanation of the whole business appears to be that Anderson in 1738 was not anxious to emphasize his associated with Wharton, who after his term of office as Grand Master proved a renegade and Jacobite and an enemy to the Craft.  He had died in Spain in 1731.  For the Book of Constitutions of 1738 there is a new Approbation altogether.

 

But we have not yet done with this Approbation for the further question arises, At what meeting of Grand Lodge was it drawn up? The license to publish refers to a meeting of 17th January, 1722-23, and that there was such a meeting is implied by the reference to this document in the official minutes of June, when the accuracy of this part of it is not impugned.  But this Approbation was as we have seen drawn up between the end of November and the end of December, 1722, and between these limits an earlier date, is more probable than a later.  No such meeting is mentioned by Anderson himself in 1738.  But the explanation of this no doubt is that he now has his tale of the proclamation of Wharton at that meeting on 17th January, and any references to a meeting of a month or so earlier presided over by that nobleman would stultify the narrative. It is probable that a meeting was in fact held, and that its occurrence was suppressed by Anderson when he came to publish his narrative of the doings of Grand Lodge fifteen years later.  The alternative would be that the whole document was unauthorized, but so impudent an imposture could never have escaped contemporary criticism. Truly the ways of the deceiver are hard.

 

THE FRONTISPIECE IS DESCRIBED

 

The Frontispiece to the Constitutions of 1723, which was used over again without alteration in 1738, represents a classical arcade in the foreground of which stand two noble personages, each attended by three others of whom one of those on the spectator's left carries cloaks and pairs of gloves.  The principal personages can hardly be intended for any others than Montagu and Wharton; and Montagu is wearing the robes of the Garter, and is handing his successor a roll of the Constitutions, not a book.  This may be intended for Anderson's as yet unprinted manuscript, or, more likely it indicates that a version of the Old Constitutions was regarded at the time as part of the Grand Master's equipment, which would be a survival of Operative practice.  Behind each Grand Master stand their officers, Beal, Villeneau, and Morris on one side, and on the other Desaguliers, Timson, and Hawkins, Desaguliers as a clergyman and the other two in ordinary dress, and evidently an attempt has been made in each case to give actual portraits.  It is unnecessary to suppose, as we would have to if we accepted Anderson's story, that this plate was designed, drawn, and printed in the short interval between 17th January and 28th February.  It might obviously have been prepared at any time after June 25, 1722.  By it Anderson is once more contradicted, because here is Hawkins - or at all events someone in ordinary clothes - as Grand Warden, and not the Reverend James Anderson, as should be the case if Wharton was not Grand Master till January and then replaced the absent Hawkins by the Doctor.  The only other plate in the book is an elaborate illustration of the arms of the Duke of Montagu which stands at the head of the first page of the dedication.

 

We can date the historical portion of the work from the circumstance that it ends with the words: "our present worthy Grand Master, the most noble Prince John, Duke of Montagu." We can be fairly certain that Anderson's emendations of Payne's Regulations were in part made after the incidents of Wharton's election because they contain elaborate provisions for the possible continuance of the Grand Master and the nomination or election of his successor and in the charges again, there is a reference to the Regulations hereunto annexed.  But beyond this internal evidence, (and that of the Approbation and sanction to publish already referred to), the only guide we have to the dates of printing the various sections of the work is the manner in which the printers' catch words occur.  The absence of a catch word is not proof that the sections were printed at different times because it might be omitted if, e. g., it would spoil the appearance of a tail-piece; but the occurrence of a catch word is a very strong indication that the sections it links were printed together.  Now in the Constitution of 1723 they occur as follows: from the dedication to the history, none; from the history to the Charges, catch word; from the Charges to a Postscript 'put in here to fill a page', catch word; from this to the Regulations, none; from the Regulations to the method of constituting a New Lodge, catch word; from this to the Approbation, none; from the Approbation to the final section, the songs, none; and none from here to the license to publish on the last page.

 

Accordingly we may now date the several portions of the work with some degree of certainty.  The times are as follows:

 

The plate; at any time after June 25th, 1722.

The dedication, id., but probably written immediately before publication.

The historical portion; prior to 25th June, 1722.

The charges printed with the preceding section, but drafted conjointly with the Regulations.

The postscript; the same.

The General Regulations, after Wharton's installation

The method of constituting a new Lodge; printed with the preceding section.

The Approbation; between 25th November and end of December, 1722.

The songs and sanction to publish; after January 17th, 1722-3, and probably at the last moment.

 

Of these sections the plate and Approbation have already been dealt with.  The dedication calls for no special notice; it is an extravagant eulogy of the accuracy and diligence of the author.  The songs are of little interest except the familiar Apprentice's Song, and this is now described as by our late Brother Matthew Birkhead.

 

THE HISTORICAL PORTION

 

This requires a somewhat extended notice.  The legendary history, as it is perhaps not necessary to remind my readers, brought Masonry or Geometry from the children of Lamech to Solomon; then jumped to France and Charles Martel; and then by St. Alban, Athelstan and Edwin, this worthy Craft was established in England.  In the Spencer family of MSS. an attempt has been made to fill in the obvious gaps in this narrative by introducing the second and third temples, those of Zerubbabel and Herod, and Auviragus king of Britain as a link with Rome, France and Charles Martel being dropped, while a series of monarchs has also been introduced between St. Alban's paynim king and Atheistan.  Anderson's design was wholly different. He was obsessed by the idea of the perfection of the Roman architecture, what he called the Augustan Style, and he took the attitude that the then recent introduction of Renaissance architecture into England as a return to a model from which Gothic had been merely a barbarous lapse.  He traces the Art from Cain who built a city, and who was instructed in Geometry by Adam.  Here he is no doubt merely bettering his originals which were content with the sons of Lamech.  The assertion shows a total want of any sense of humour, but then so do all his contributions to history.  But it is worth while pointing out that it suggests more than this; it suggests that he had an entire lack of acquaintance with the polite literature of the period.  No well-read person of the day would be unacquainted with the writings of Abraham Cowley, the poet and essayist of the Restoration, and the opening sentence of his Essay of Agriculture is: "The three first men in the world were a gardener, a ploughman and a grazier; and if any man object that the second of these was a murderer, I desire he would consider that as soon as he was so he quitted our profession, and turned builder." It is difficult to imagine that Anderson would have claimed Cain as the first Mason if he had been familiar with this passage.

 

From this point he develops the history in his own fashion, but he incorporates freely and with an entire disregard for textual accuracy any passages in the Old Charges that suit him and he has actually used the Cooke Text, as also some text closely allied to the William Watson.  We know the Cooke was available to him; we learn from Stukeley that it had been produced in Grand Lodge on 24 June, 1721.  Anderson, in 1738, omits all reference to this incident, but asserts that in 1718 Payne desired the brethren to bring to Grand Lodge any old writings and records, and that several copies of the Gothic Constitutions (as he calls them) were produced and collated.  He also alleges that in 1720 several valuable manuscripts concerning the Craft were too hastily burnt by some scrupulous brethren.  The former of these statements we should receive with caution; for the very reason that the 1723 Constitutions show no traces of such texts; the latter may be true and the manuscripts may have been rituals, or they may have been versions of the Old Charges, but there was nothing secret about those.  The antiquary Plot had already printed long extracts from them.

 

Returning to the narrative we are told that Noah and his sons were Masons, which is a statement for which Anderson found no warrant in his originals; but he seems to have had a peculiar fondness for Noah. In 1738 he speaks of Masons as true Noachidae, alleging this to have been their first name according to some old traditions, and it is interesting to observe that the Irish Constitutions of 1858 preserve this fragment of scholarship and assert as a fact that Noachidae was the first name of Masons.  Anderson also speaks of the three great articles of Noah, which are not however further elucidated, but it is probable that the reference is to the familiar triad of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. He omits Abraham and introduces Euclid in his proper chronological sequence, so that he has corrected the old histories to that extent; but after Solomon and the second Temple he goes to Greece, Sicily and Rome, where was perfected the glorious Augustan Style.  He introduces Charles Martel - as King of France! - as helping England to recover the true art after the Saxon invasion, but ignores Athelstan and Edwin.

 

He however introduces most of the monarchs after the Conquest and makes a very special reference to Scotland and the Stuarts.  In the concluding passage he used the phrase "the whole body resembles a well built Arch" and it has been suggested, not very convincingly perhaps, that this is an allusion to the Royal Arch Degree.

 

There is an elaborate account of Zerubbabel's temple which may have some such significance, and the Tabernacle of Moses, Aholiab and Bezaleel is also mentioned at some length, Moses indeed being a Grand Master.  He also inserts for no apparent reason a long note on the words Hiram Abiff, and in this case the suggestion that there is a motive for his doing so connected with ritual is of more cogency.  It is an obvious suggestion that the name was of importance to the Craft at this date, that is to say early in 1722, and that the correctness of treating Abiff as a surname instead of as equivalent to his "father" was a matter the Craft were taking an interest in.

 

THE SIX CHARGES

 

The Charges, of which there are six, are alleged to be extracted from ancient records of lodges beyond Sea, and of those in England, Scotland and Ireland.  In the Approbation the assertion is that he has examined several copies from Italy and Scotland and sundry parts of England.  Were it not that he now omits Ireland altogether we might nave been disposed to attach some importance to the former statement.  As yet no Irish version of the Old Charges has come to light but it is barely possible that there were records of Irish Freemasonry at the time which have since passed out of sight, a Freemasonry no doubt derived originally from England.  But the discrepancy is fatal; we must conclude that the worthy doctor never saw any Irish record.  And we can safely dismiss his lodges in Italy or beyond Sea as equally mythical.

 

Of the six Charges themselves the first caused trouble immediately on its appearance.  It replaced the old invocation of the Trinity and whatever else there may have been of statements of religious and Christian belief in the practice of the lodges by a vague statement that we are only to be obliged to that religion in which all men agree.  Complete religious tolerance has in fact become the rule of our Craft, but the Grand Lodge of 1723 was not ready for so sudden a change and it caused much ill feeling and possibly many secessions.  It was the basis of a series of attacks on the new Grand Lodge.

 

 CONSTITUTING A NEW LODGE

 

The manner of constituting a New Lodge is noteworthy for its reference to the "Charges of a Master," and the question, familiar to us today: Do you submit to these charges as Masters have done in all ages? It does not appear that these are the six ancient Charges of a previous section; they were something quite distinct.  But not until 1777 are any Charges of the Master known to have been printed.  It is also worthy of notice that the officers to be appointed Wardens of the new lodge are Fellow Crafts.  There is also a reference to the Charges to the Wardens which are to be given by a Grand Warden.  This section appeared in the Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge as late as 1873.

 

Anderson in 1738 alleges that he was directed to add this section to the work at the meeting of January 17 and he then speaks of it as the ancient manner of constituting a lodge.  This is also the title of the corresponding section in the 1738 Constitutions, which is only this enlarged.  But its title in 1723 is: Here follows the Manner of constituting a NEW LODGE, as practised by His Grace the Duke of Wharton, the present Right Worshipful Grand Master, according to the ancient Usages of Masons. We once more see Anderson suppressing references to the Duke of Wharton where he can in 1738, and yet obliged to assert that the section was added after January 17th in order to be consistent in his story.  It is not in the least likely that this is what was done. It was to all appearance printed at one and the same time with the Regulations, which he himself tells us were in print on 17th January, and since Wharton constituted four lodges if not more in 1722 he will not have waited six months to settle his method.  We may be pretty certain that this section was in print before the Approbation to which it is not linked by a catch-word.

 

THE REGULATIONS

 

The Regulations, as I have already mentioned, have come down to us only as rewritten by Anderson.  The official minutes of Grand Lodge throw considerable light on the matter.  The first of all relates to the appointment of the Secretary, and the very next one is as follows:

 

The Order of the 17th January 1722-3 printed at the end of the Constitutions page 91 for the publishing the said Constitutions as read purporting, that they had been before approved in Manuscript by the Grand Lodge and were then (viz) 17th January aforesaid produced in print and approved by the Society.

 

Then the Question was moved, that the said General Regulations be confirmed, so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry.  The previous question was moved and put, whether the words "so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry" be part of the Question.  Resolved in the affirmative, But the main Question was not put.

 

And the Question was moved that it is not in the Power of any person, or Body of men, to make any alteration, or Innovation in the Body of Masonry without the consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge.  And the Question being put accordingly Resolved in the Affirmative.

 

We would record these proceedings today in somewhat different form, perhaps as follows:

 

It was proposed (and seconded) that the said General Regulations be confirmed so far as they are consistent with the Ancient Rules of Masonry.  An amendment to omit the words "so far ... Masonry" was negatived.  But in place of the original proposition the following resolution was adopted by a majority: That it is not, etc.

 

The effect of this is that it indicates pretty clearly that there was a strong feeling in Grand Lodge that Anderson's version of the Regulations had never been confirmed; that there was a difference of opinion as to now confirming them, even partially; and that in fact this was not done, but a resolution was adopted instead condemning alterations made without the consent of Grand Lodge at its annual meeting first obtained.  I should perhaps say that the word "purporting" does not here have the meaning we would today attach to it; it has no sense of misrepresentation.  Anderson was present at this meeting, but naturally not a word of all this appears in the account he gives of it in 1738.

 

Regulation XIII, or one sentence in it rather, "Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow Craft only here, (i.e. in Grand Lodge) unless by a Dispensation," was at one time the battle ground of the Two Degree versus Three Degree schools; but it is generally admitted now, I believe, that only two degrees are referred to, namely the admission and the Master's Part.

 

 The order of the words is significant. In the Regulation they read "Masters and Fellow Craft." In the resolution of 27 November, 1725 by which the rule was annulled, the wording is "Master" in the official minutes, which is a strong indication that the original Regulation only referred to one degree.  In 1738 Anderson deliberately alters what is set out as the original wording and makes it read "Fellow Crafts and Masters," while in the new Regulation printed alongside of it the alteration of 27 November, 1725, is quoted as "Masters and Fellows" both being inaccurate; and he even gives the date wrongly.

 

The second Regulation enacts that the Master of a particular lodge has the right of congregating the members of his lodge into a chapter upon any emergency as well as to appoint the time and place of their usual forming.  But it would be quite unsafe to assume that this is another reference to the Royal Arch; it appears to deal with what we would now call an emergent meeting.

 

Payne's, or rather Anderson's, Regulations were the foundation on which the law of the Craft was based, it being developed by a continual process of emendation and addition, and their phraseology can still be traced in our English Constitutions today.

 

SUBSEQUENT ALTERATIONS

 

In America Franklin reprinted this work in 1734 apparently verbatim.  In 1738 Anderson brought out a second addition which was intended to replace the earlier one altogether, but it was a slovenly performance and the Regulations were printed in so confused a manner, being all mixed up with notes and amendments (many inaccurately stated), that it was difficult to make head or tail of them and to ascertain what was the law of the Craft.  He also re-wrote the history entirely and greatly expanded it, introducing so many absurdities that Gould has suggested that he was deliberately fooling the Grand Lodge, or in the alternative that he was himself in his dotage.  He died very shortly after.  But this same ridiculous history has done duty in all seriousness till comparatively recent years, being brought up to date by Preston and others who were apparently quite unconscious of its true value.  Unfortunately that portion of the history which professed to give an account of the proceedings of Grand Lodge and for which the official minutes were at Anderson's disposal is full of what one must consider wilful inaccuracies and misstatements.

 

In the next edition of the Constitutions, 1754, the Regulations were rewritten by Entick, but the history was preserved.  Entick also reverted to the Charges as drawn up in 1723 into which, especially the first, Anderson had introduced various modifications in 1738, and those Charges are the basis of the Ancient Charges to be found today in the Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England, the only differences, except as regards the first Charge, not amounting to more than verbal modifications.

 

OUR DEBT TO ANDERSON

 

While as students we are bound to receive any statement that Anderson makes with the utmost caution unless it can be tested from other sources, we must not be too ready to abuse the worthy Doctor on that account.  Our standards of historical and literary accuracy are higher than those of 1723, and his object was to glorify Montagu and the Craft and the new style of architecture introduced by Inigo Jones and others of his school; and this he did wholeheartedly, and if in the process he twisted a text or two or supplied suitable events to fill gaps in his narrative for which mere history as such had failed to record facts, no one at the time would think any the worse of him for that.  It was a far more serious matter that he was instrumental in removing from the literature of the Craft all definite religious allusions; but as we now see, the Craft in fact owes its universality today to its wide undenominationalism and in this respect he builded better than he knew.  The Constitutions of 1723 remains one of our most important texts and only awaits publication in full facsimile with suitable notes and introduction at the hands of some Society with the requisite funds.

 

----o----

 

Is Freemasonry a Religion?

 

By Bro.  H.L. HAYWOOD

 

"Do you believe that Freemasonry is a religion? If it is, can a Mason belong consistently to his lodge and to a church? If it is not, why does it have so much in its Ritual about the Bible, and why do some of the organized churches oppose it as though it were a dangerous rival?"

 

The seasons themselves do not recur with more certain regularity, than comes this inquiry to Ye Editor's desk, nor is there any one subject that receives more universal discussion in the Masonic press.  And neither, one may continue, is there any other inquiry that remains so unsatisfactorily answered, if one may judge from the reactions of the rank and file of Masons.  There is a difference of opinion on the subject as universal as it appears to be lasting, and it may well be that Freemasonry will go on until the last candidate is raised in the last lodge without the question ever having received a plain and final answer.

 

The reason for this lies very close at hand.  Religion itself is the subject about which men differ the most, both in theory and practice, and this confusion in the general mind inevitably makes its way into every discussion of the relation of Freemasonry to religion.  Until men at large become agreed as to what religion is, or what it should be, or how it is to be used and practised, we must expect a wide difference of opinion as to what may be the religion or lack of religion of our Craft.

 

If by a religion a man has in mind an organized church, with its official priesthood, its authorized doctrines, and its sacraments, then Freemasonry is not a religion, for it has none of these things; but if religion is made to mean any form of teaching concerning the soul and its adventure through this life, and concerning God, then it may well be that Freemasonry is a religion, because it most plainly has something to say about these matters.  But if, further, the word religion is not to be given either one of these definitions, but is made to stand for something special to an individual's view, then that individual must make up his mind about Freemasonry to suit his own theories.

 

According to the view of the present writer Freemasonry may be described as religious but not as a religion.  The religiousness which lies in it is not something that is to be set apart as a thing by itself to function as the rival of some organized church but is to be interpreted as that groundwork of faith which lies at the root of all the creeds together.  Just as a man must be a human being before he can become a citizen of the United States, so must a man have certain religious principles in his soul before he can become a Mason; and just as a citizen of the United States is free to live in any state in the Union, or even to live abroad, so may a Mason unite himself with any church he pleases.  The religion that is in Freemasonry is not something that can be made the rival of any religion but rather is what lies at the bottom of all religion whatever (except of the savage variety) so that one finds Masons consistently belonging to the Greek Orthodox Church, or to a Mohammedan communion, or an Episcopalian church, or a Methodist, or to Christian Science, or what not.  The teachings of the Craft are not such as can come into conflict with the doctrines peculiar to any one of these faiths but are such as all their communicants share in common.  When the framers of the good old paragraph in Anderson's Constitutions said that the religion of Freemasonry is that in which all good men agree, they probably came as close to a final statement of the subject as we shall ever have.

 

----o-----

 

Camp Roosevelt: A Boy Builder

 

By Bro. F. L. T., Illinois

 

Here is a beautiful account of how a Mason, Bro. F.L. Beals, Major, U.S.A., of Chicago, Ill., learned to apply his Masonry in a practical and constructive way. Like a true builder he has his eye to the future. He has taken to heart the great admonition left by George Meredith:

 

"Keep the young generations in hail;

Bequeath to them no tumbled house."

 

TRUE fraternalism means sharing alike one's joys and woes, means "feeling" for our brother man. Not in the detached sense which enables one man to say, "Oh, I'm sorry," when he hears of the misfortune of a neighbor, and then goes on his way to his party or dance, forgetting all about the misery in the heart of the man next door, but that genuine sorrow which makes him give of himself, which makes a man go out of his way to help his neighbor, which makes him dig in and help - that is the true fraternalism of man and man. The man who, when his brother advances in business, when high honors are bestowed upon him, can rejoice with him and let no mean thoughts of jealousy or envy fill his mind, has the truly fraternal spirit. But, while we speak of it on all sides, while we use the word, do we use the meaning of the word - do we act?

 

Fraternalism, then, is but another name for "good citizenship," - that term which has sprung up in recent years, and clamors more and more loudly to be heard, until now it is on the lips of every public-spirited man and woman, and every educator. The need for good citizenship is apparent. It is one of the crying needs of the day, in line with modern advancement and progress. But, educators contend, good citizenship cannot be a part of the man who has been untrained in good citizenship, any more than can a man who has never learned the French language speak it. It must be included in the training of the boy and girl, so that when they are grown to young manhood and young womanhood, they know whereof they speak when the subject comes up.

 

And so, while they deliberate about it, while they make plans for making "citizenship training" a part of the school program, the Chicago Board of Education, more progressive, has evolved a system of its own for introducing the subject in a manner which the past four years' trial has proven to be highly successful. To revise the regular school program, to change it about and cut it so as to include this big subject, would undoubtedly work havoc on the present system of education. And so in order not to endanger the existing plan, and. also, in order to utilize to better advantage the summer vacation months which so often afford opportunity for boys to learn obnoxious habits, the system of citizenship building evolved by the Chicago public school system is tried out during the summer vacation months.

 

On the shores of Silver Lake, Indiana, near LaPorte, sixty-five miles from Chicago on the New York Central Lines, is the site of what was once a private boarding school for boys. Here numerous buildings of log and frame construction afford splendid facilities for work, recreation and joyful out-door living for the hundreds of boys from all parts of the country who gather here each summer to derive the benefits of their stay at Camp Roosevelt, for so the camp is named. The War Department of the U. S. Government, eager to aid in this movement, lends complete camping equipment, and assigns officers and non-commissioned officers for purposes of instruction. The American Red Cross, the Y.M.C.A., and the Chicago Dental Society send their representatives and maintain their units at the camp. Here, under expert guidance in the great outdoors, boys from ten to eighteen years of age grow bronzed, robust, pleasing to the eye and agreeable to deal with - strong boys are made out of weak ones, democratic boys out of juvenile snobs, and studious, attentive boys of harum scarum scatterbrains.

 

To best promote such a program, the camp is divided into three sections: the summer schools division, which includes seventh and eighth grade and complete high school subjects, and whose credits are recognized on the same basis as those of other Chicago summer school credits; the R.O.T.C. or military division, which is primarily physical drill and setting-up exercises for the older lads, from 14 and up; and the Junior Camp. for the younger lads. Each program, while distinct, blends in harmoniously with the other, and Very afternoon program of athletics and recreation combines the three divisions. The evening entertainments are provided by the "Y." and afford a maximum of clean, wholesome fun for all in camp.

 

The "man on the job," the Commanding Officer, is Major F. L. Beals, U. S. A., Supervisor of Physical Education in the Chicago public high schools, who founded the Camp Roosevelt Idea. Major Beals is a man who has devoted the best years of his life to studying and working with boys. He has started hundreds of boys on the road to successful manhood. To his forethought, his unselfish devotion to the development of Camp Roosevelt, is due the measure of success which it has attained. Major Beals has surrounded himself with a large group of experts in boy training, who have aided and assisted him untiringly.

 

A committee of influential Chicago business and professional men, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Angus S. Hibbard, have formed the Camp Roosevelt Association, for the purpose of securing contributions each year to carry on the camping program. Thus Camp Roosevelt is maintained as a public institution, not a profit making enterprise, but with its financial soundness assured. Boys from all parts of the country who attend the camp are required to pay but a fraction of the usual cost for attendance at camps which include only a small part of the program so extensively carried on at Camp Roosevelt.

 

For this reason, the introduction of this, the first public "citizenship builder" in the country, may well be accounted a success, and its plan could with profit be emulated by public school systems throughout the country. Those of our readers who are looking ahead to the future of their growing sons would do well to study thoroughly the Camp Roosevelt Plan, and, if possible, give to their boys the opportunity of a period of training under such splendid supervision.

 

----o----

 

Some Notes on the Meaning of the Word "Freemason"

 

By Bro. H. L. HAYWOOD

 

THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD "MASON" has supplied amateur etymologists with endless opportunity for pursuing their favourite pastime of word catching, and with what results one may learn in the article on the question published in Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Volume II, page 471, where the most ingenious accounts are recorded of how the word came into existence, and what it meant when it did come into existence.  Some of these are as fanciful as a piece of embroidery, and about as substantial.

 

Dr. Murray's New English Dictionary, which is published by the English Philological Society, the court of last appeal on the etymology of English words, sets us all a good example by refusing to commit itself to any derivation.  "The ulterior etymology is obscure," it says, "possibly the word is from the root of Latin 'maceria' (a wall)." The same authority gives the every day modern use of the word "mason" as follows: "A builder and worker in stone; a workman who dresses and lays stone in building." A quotation I given of the date of 1205.  It is doubtful if in this country, and at the present time, very many persons think of a mason as a "builder in stone": most of them think of him as one who cuts stone to shape and who fits it into place with mortar, or who does the same thing with brick: the idea of a mason being a builder has about gone out of the popular mind.  The owner or architect is spoken of as the "builder."

 

But there was a time, it would appear from what meager records we possess, when a "mason" was all this and very much more beside; he was (or might be) one who could design a structure, superintend its erection, organize the workmen and manage them in their labours, and also carve, engrave, etc., etc. In short, he was a "builder," the very best possible definition of the word "mason," from our own point of view.  "Of the term 'architect,'" says Gould in his Concise History (Revised) page 71, "there was apparently no use (in the Middle Ages) and it seems to have been only introduced into English books about the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth."

 

"Builder" must be understood here in its most literal sense.  In the Middle Ages these men were doubtless organized into a fraternity, and had their secrets, their initiations, and their symbology, but all that was more or less secondary, and the principal thing was that churches, cathedrals, and similar structures should be erected.  All the symbolical, speculative, spiritualizing uses of the term came later: "'Mason' may be German or Latin," writes Lionel Vibert in his Freemasonry Before the Existence of Grand Lodge, page 12, "but the ulterior etymology is obscure.  At all events, when we first find it, it is purely and simply a trade name, and has no esoteric meaning of a brother or son of anything, or of anyone."

 

If an obscurity may be said to hang about the meaning of the word "mason" what shall we say of the cloud-banks that conceal the origins of the word freemason"! Of this term Gould writes, in his Essays on Freemasonry, page 180: "The earliest use of the English word 'freemason' (at present known to us) is associated with the freedom of a London Company (1376), and it is from a similar, (or in part identical) class of persons, and not from the persons who worked free stone, that I imagine the existing term freemason to have been inherited." Findel, in his famous Geschichte der Freimaurerei, gives the word as used in 1212.  Steinbrenner, in his origin, and Early History of Masonry, page 110, says the word occurs for the first time in a statute passed in 1350, which was in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Edward I. Leader Scott (see her Cathedral Builders) applies the term to the Magistri Comacini, but I haven't noted where she makes them ever use the word itself.  It is not safe to make any definite assertions, as writers sometimes mistakingly do, about the earliest uses of the word: for one thing, because at any time somebody may discover a new manuscript or record; for another, because, as one follows back the stream of etymological change toward the sources of the language, he can't tell whether or not certain long dead words may or may not have meant "freemason," and there is no telling when new light may be thrown on the matter.  Also, it is wise to be very careful about the "authorities" one makes use of; a number of Masonic writers have made assertions about the word born of nothing but a profound ignorance of philology.

 

About the meaning, or meanings, which may be more or less justly attached to this word there has been a vast deal of controversy and discussion.  It is difficult to find more than two or three writers to agree at any one time.  I shall give a list, in arbitrary order, of some five or six of the interpretations which have proved more or less satisfactory.

 

A LIST OF MEANINGS IS GIVEN

 

1. The Freemason was a superior kind of Mason.

 

"When we first meet with the word," writes Vibert in his Freemasonry Before the Existence of Grand Lodges, page 13, "it clearly means a superior workman: and he draws higher pay." On page 12 of the same work Vibert quotes Speth as follows: "There is abundant evidence that in the course of time the Freemasons came to be looked upon as a special class of men endowed with superior skill, executing a well-defined class of work, and that this class of work became known as Freemasonry." I don't know of any of the first-class writers who have accepted this as a satisfactory account of the matter. The possible exception would be Conder, the author of The Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masonry, one of the source-books of very much modern Masonic literature, and a work that gives a complete history of the Masons' Company of London.  To this work he added a brief chapter to show that the Masons came to be called "free" because the most skilled among them worked without plans: they were so adept in their art that they could dispense with mechanical aids, a "free-hand" artist does not need a set of tools as the ordinary draughtsman does.

 

2. Freemasons were Masons who had been made "free" in the ordinary medieval sense of that word.

 

There was little liberty in the Middle Ages the individual or for corporations: most of them were bound in some fashion or other to a lord or master, or a community, or to the church; those who were relieved from such obligations were "free." Stieglitz's History of Architecture is authority for the statement that the Byzantine builders of about the seventh century formed themselves into guilds and that on account of having received from the popes bulls giving them the privileges of living according to their own laws and ordinances they were called "free." Of the Magistri Comacini, Leader Scott writes: "They were Freemasons because they were builders of a privileged class absolved from; taxes and servitude, and free to travel about in times of feudal bondage." For this view Gould believes there is no evidence: "In Germany, as in England, a tradition prevailed from early times that the Masons were granted very exceptional privileges by the Popes; but whether in either instance it rested on any foundation of fact, must be left undecided." This is from page 36 of the 1903 edition of his Concise History.

 

3. A worker in "free stone."

 

Free stone was stone that had been brought from the quarry and made ready for the skilled workman: according to the theory here given Freemasons came to be thus called because they were skilled workmen who worked in free stone, in contradistinction to the "rough masons," (in Scotland they were called "cowans") who worked in the quarry.  The statute of Edward I mentioned above, seems to bear out this definition. It was once in almost universal acceptance. Dr Begemann, one of the most erudite of all Masonic scholars, seems, unless I mistake his meaning, to accept this interpretation.  Another learned scholar, Chetwode Crawley, says that,  "The word 'Free' which we first meet with, [was] employed to designate worker in freestone." He adds, however, that the term gradually assumes the significance of "free of the guild." These references are to the fifteenth century.

 

4. Free in the sense of being free OF the guild.

 

A workman still under his indentures was not to go and come as he pleased: he was compelled to and work under the closest restrictions, and do what was laid before him, and when, and where he was told.  After becoming a master, however, he became free of the guild in the sense that he enjoyed in it all its privileges.  This definition accords well with the fact that among other groups of workmen were those called "free"; in a fifteenth century document certain tailors in Exeter are spoken of as "free tailors"; in a reference of 1666, carpenters are similarly designated; and there are many other records to the same effect in the histories of other guilds.  Also, this definition fits in with the original meaning of the word "cowan." A member of the guild had to be made free by formal action of the company; he who refused to recognize the authority of the guild, and who set himself up to work as he chose, was called a cowan, and bitter was the feeling of the regular Mason toward such a "scab."

 

THE EMANCIPATED WORKMAN CALLED "FREE"

 

5. The New English Dictionary seems to lend its authority to the theory that "free" in freemason came into use to describe those workmen who were emancipated and given liberty to go and come as they pleased, anywhere and at any time.  When skilled workmen were scarce, and there was not a man in the town who could do a certain bit of work, it was necessary to import one from an adjacent city.  In the course of time more and more skilled workmen were thus passed about until at last the custom arose of giving such men their "freedom" that they might work wherever opportunity offered.  This ingenious theory has plausibility in its favour but no facts, and it is a singular thing that all our Masonic scholars, after years of research, have never given countenance to such a notion: it goes to prove what Gould was always asserting, that speculation on things Masonic by men outside the craft are almost always worthless, be they scholars or not.  Here is the definition as given in the Dictionary: "Perhaps the best hypothesis is that the term refers to the medieval practice of emancipating skilled artisans in order that they might be able to travel and render their services wherever any great building was in process of construction."

 

6. Perhaps the most brilliant hypothesis of all is that presented by William Speth in his now famous essay which was printed in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, Volume X, page 10.  He contends that in medieval England there were two kinds of masons' guilds - stationary and travelling.  The former were circumscribed by the limits of the city in which they were incorporated; they could do any kind of architectural work inside those bounds, but none outside.  They were not free to go about, as a true trade union in our day would be free to do.  But alongside these were guilds of masons who made a speciality of cathedral and similar building: owing to the difficulties of such work, to the special skill and experience demanded by it, these guilds differed in very many ways from the ordinary town guilds: their members were more expert, they had traditions and customs of their own, and they were free to move about from town to town as building needs might require.  It was owing to the last named circumstance, so Speth asserts, that they were called "free," and he argues that modern Freemasonry descends from these itinerant guilds rather than from the better known and more numerous stationary, or town guilds.  Speth offered this as "a tentative inquiry" and to date it remains as such, but many incline toward it and believe that it perhaps comes nearer than most hypotheses to solving the mystery.  The reader who may care to go mole thoroughly into the matter may be referred to Gould's careful examination published in his Collected Essays on Freemasonry, page 171.  The conclusion to which he arrived is clearly indicated by the last sentence of his essay: "To those of my fellow students, therefore, who are interested in the problem of 'Free' and 'Freemason,' let me conclude by saying - in the words of the Genius to the Hermit of Bassora - 'If you wish for the solution, be patient, and wait.'"

 

 

MACKEY'S ARTICLE IS GIVEN

 

To those who have not access to Mackey's Encyclopedia it may be a service to reprint the article on the word "Mason" as contained on page 471, Volume II:-

 

"The search for the etymology or derivation of the word Mason has given rise to numerous theories, some of them ingenious, but many of them very absurd.  Thus, a writer in the European Magazine for February, 1792, who signs his name as 'George Drake,' lieutenant of marines, attempts to trace the Masons to the Druids, and derives Mason from 'May's on,' 'May's' being in reference to May-day, the great festival of the Druids, and 'on' meaning men, as in the French 'on dit,' for 'Homme dit.' According to this, 'May's on' therefore means the 'Men of May.' This idea is not original with Drake, since the same derivation was urged in 1766 by Cleland, in his essay on 'The Way to Things in Words, and on The Real Secret of Freemasons:

 

"Hutchinson, in his search for a derivation, seems to have been perplexed with the variety of roots that presented themselves, and, being inclined to believe that the name of Mason 'has its derivation from a language in which it implies some strong indication or distinction of the nature of the society, and that it has no relation to architects,' looks for the root in the Greek tongue.  Thus he thinks that Mason may come from 'Mao Soon,' 'I seek salvation,' or from 'Mystes,' 'an omotoate'; and that Masonry is only a corruption of 'Mesouraneo,' 'I am in the midst of heaven'; or from 'Mazourouth,' a constellation mentioned by Job, or from 'Mysterion,' 'a mystery.'

 

"Lessing says, in his Ernst and Falk, that 'Masa' in the Anglo-Saxon, signifies a table, and that Masonry, consequently, is a 'society of the table.'

 

"Nicolai thinks he finds the root in the Low Latin word of the Middle Ages 'Massonya,' or 'Masonia,' which signifies an exclusive society or club, such as that of the round table.

 

"Coming down to later times, we find Bro. C.W. Moore, in his Boston Magazine, of May, 1844, deriving Mason from 'Lithotomos,' 'a Stone-cutter.' But although fully aware of the elasticity of etymological rules, it surpasses our ingenuity to get Mason etymologically out of Lithotomos.

 

"Bro. Giles F. Yates sought for the derivation of Mason in the Greek word 'Mazones,' a festival of Dionysus, and he thought that this was another proof of the lineal descent of the Masonic order from the Dionysiae Artificers.

 

"The late William S. Rockwell, who was accustomed to find all his Masonry in the Egyptian mysteries, and who was a thorough student of the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, derives the word Mason from a combination of the two phonetic signs, the one being MAI and signifying 'to love', and the other being SON, which means 'a brother.' Hence, he says, 'this combination, MAISON, expresses exactly in sound our word MASON, and signifies literally loving brother, that is, philadelphus, brother of an association, and thus corresponds also in sense:

 

"But all of these fanciful etymologies, which would have terrified Bopp, Grimm, or Muller, or any other student of linguistic relations, forcibly remind us of the French epigrammatist, who admitted that alphina came from equas, but that, in so coming, it had very considerably changed its route.

 

"What, then, is the true derivation of the word Mason? Let us see what the orthoepists, who had no Masonic theories, have said upon the subject.

 

"Webster, seeing that in Spanish 'Masa' means 'mortar,' is inclined to derive Mason, as denoting one that works in mortar from the root of "mass,' which of course gave birth to the Spanish word.

 

"In Low or Medieval Latin, Mason was 'machio' or 'macio,' and this Du Cangee derives from the Latin maceria,' 'a long wall.' Others find a derivation in 'machines,' because the builders stood upon machines to raise their walls.  But Richardson takes a commonsense view of the subject.  He says, It appears to be obviously the same word as maison, a house or mansion, applied to the person who builds, instead of the thing built.  The French 'Maisoner' is to build houses; 'Masonrier,' to build of stone.  The word Mason is applied by usage to a builder in stone, and Masonry to work in stone.'

 

"Carpenter gives 'Massom,' used in 1225, for a building of stone and 'Massonus,' used in 1304 for a Mason; and the Benedictine editors of Du Cange define 'Massoneria' 'a building, the French Maconnene, and Massonerius,' as 'Latomus' or a Mason, both words in manuscripts of 1385.

 

"As a practical question, we are compelled to reject all those fanciful derivations which connect the Masons etymologically and historically with the Greeks, the Egyptians, or the Druids, and to take to word Mason in its ordinary signification of a worker in stone, and thus indicate the origin of the order from a society or association of practical and operative builders.  We need no better root than the Medieval Latin 'Macconer,' to build, or 'Maconetus,' 'a builder."'

 

BROWN GIVES A VERY FANCIFUL DEFINITION

 

To all this may be added a paragraph from Stellar Theology, by Robert Brown: "Masonic tradition is but one of the numerous ancient allegories of the yearly passage of the personified sun among the twelve constellations of the zodiac, being founded on a system of astronomical symbols and emblems, employed to teach the great truths of omnipotent God and immortality." The writer goes on to explain that the names of the Masonic degrees and officers all refer to the sun or moon.

 

William Tyler Olcott offers the following in his Sun Lore of All Ages, an interesting but uncritical book, where, on page 304, we may read: "The word 'Masonry is said to be derived from a Greek word which signifies 'I am in the midst of heaven,' alluding to the sun.  Others derive it from the ancient Egyptian 'Phre,' the sun, and 'Mas,' a child, Phre-mas, i.e., children of the sun, or sons of light.  From this we get our word 'Freemason."'

 

The excellent Cyclopedia of Fraternities, compiled and edited by Albert C. Stevens, prefers to define the term by means of a description, a wise method.  Freemasonry, so we read, "is a secret fraternity, founded upon man's religious aspirations, which, by forms, ceremonies, and elaborate symbolism, seeks to create a universal brotherhood, to relieve suffering, cultivate the virtues, and join in the endless search for truth." (Page 17.)

 

It is manifest that we can never agree on a definition of "freemason" until we have agreed on some theory as to the origin of the Craft, and it is this fact that attaches so much importance to the word itself, and lifts the search for an adequate definition above levels of a mere learned pedantry.  In the article on Freemasonry which appears in the opening pages of the Cyclopedia quoted above we find this paragraph:

 

"Among various theories as to the origin of modern Freemasonry, the following have had many advocates: (1) That which carries it back through the medieval stone masons to the Ancient Mysteries, or to King Solomon's Temple; (2) not satisfied with the foregoing, that which traces it to Noah, to Enoch, and to Adam; (3) the theory that the cradle of Freemasonry is to be found in the Roman Colleges or Artificers of the earlier centuries of the Christian era; (4) that it was brought into Europe by the returning Crusaders; (5) that it was an emanation from the Templars after the suppression of the Order in 1312; (6) that it formed a virtual continuation of the Rosicrucians; (7) that it grew out of the secret society creations of the partisans of the Stuarts in their efforts to regain the throne of England; (8) that it was derived from the Essenes, and (9) from the Culdees."

 

Alas and alack! when the doctors so disagree what are we poor laymen to do! Speaking for myself I may say that I am not a partisan of any one of these theories because I do not believe that we now know, and I am in doubt if we can ever know, the real facts about the origin of "freemasonry": know them, that is, with such certainty and definiteness as will enable us to be sure of a definition of the word.  As things now stand I am more inclined towards Speth's theory than any other, but I feel that it is very possible that some two or three of the theories (among those that I have numbered) may be true at the same time.

 

----o----

 

The Story of Philippine Masonry

 

By Bro. G.J. MARIANO, Philippine Islands

 

The following story, for all its directness and simplicity, moves before a background of dramatic struggle, of suffering, and passion.  Our Filipino brethren were always confronted by two great difficulties in their endeavors to establish Masonry in the earlier days; the opposition of the authorities, and their unfamiliarity with a Craft that had its inception in, and derived its form from, English speaking people.  One is grateful to Bro. Mariano for so straight-forward a narrative.

 

 CONSIDERING THAT the Filipinos were under the Spanish rule for more than three hundred years and knowing that Spain was once and is still one of the most Catholic nations and the strongest supporter of the Inquisition during its life, the most natural and logical presumption would be that Freemasonry, in the Philippines could not flourish very well.  However, this is not the case.  In spite of the difficulties and sufferings encountered by Filipino masons in spreading, the light of truth, these self-sacrificing pioneers went ahead with the strongest determination towards the road of progress, slowly and secretly at first, then openly and vigorously afterwards.

 

Among the Spanish liberals who were sent to these Islands were Admiral Malcampo and, later, Admiral Mendez-Nunez, who showed their valour in fighting and stopping the Moro piracy; they were the organizers of the first lodge in the Philippines, established in Cavite in 1856 and called the "Primera Luz Filipino," under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Portugal.  This lodge, however, was composed of Spaniards only.  Later on, the foreigners in the Islands other than Spaniards organized another lodge to which Filipinos were admitted.  The Spanish Masons soon discovered this and organized another lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grande Oriente de Espanol to which Filipinos were admitted in order to win their confidence and help.  This may be called the Spanish participation in Freemasonry in the Philippines.

 

In foreign countries leading Filipinos, among whom were Dr. Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Antonio Luna, Mariano Ponce, Dominador, Juan Luna and others, were initiated in the Order.

 

The first lodge which was composed wholly of Filipinos was organized in Madrid and called "Solidaridad Lodge No. 53" under the jurisdiction of the Grande Oriente Espanol. To Dr. Rizal and del Pilar belong the honor of conceiving the idea of organizing Philippine Freemasonry.  Through the efforts of del Pilar the necessary authority was secured from the then Grand Master, Dr. Miguel Morayta, of the Grande Oriente Espanol, to organize lodges in the Philippines. Antonio Luna and Pedron Serrano were designated to come to the Philippines to organize Philippine Freemasonry.  However, Antonio Luna was unable to come to the Philippines with Pedron Serrano.

 

THE FIRST FILIPINO LODGE IS ORGANIZED

 

It was in January 16, 1891, that the first Filipino Lodge was organized in the Philippines and was called Nilad Lodge No. 144, under the jurisdiction of the Grande Oriente Espanol, but it was not constituted until March 12, 1892.  Soon after the constitution of the Nilad Lodge No. 144 applicants poured to her doors incessantly and the initiates in the Order were rapidly increasing in numbers.  It was deemed advisable to take the necessary precautions in order that its existence might not be discovered by the enemies of the Craft, namely, the Roman Catholic Church supported by the Spanish Government.  The State and the Church were united and went hand in hand in running the affairs of the Islands.  The Church was considered as the safest foundation of the Spanish Government in the Islands.

 

The growth of the Craft was rapidly spreading to the four corners of the Philippines.  The soil was, then, fertile but circumstances were against the open organization and labour in behalf of the ideals and principles of the Craft, much less its rapid growth.  It must be remembered that to be a Mason in those days in the Philippines meant to be a traitor to his country, bad Christian, heretic, and was punished with deportation to the distant parts of the Islands or the facing of a firing squad.  Torn from those nearest and dearest to him, such was his punishment for daring to aspire to see the light, to perform the duties he owed God, his country, his neighbour and himself, in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience! To be caught at a meeting clandestinely held meant a term of imprisonment, physical or mental torture, and in endeavors to extort from him, by force or otherwise, the most excellent tenets of Freemasonry, brotherly love, relief and truth.

 

AGUINALDO IS MADE A MASON

 

During the most trying and bloody last seven years of Spanish rule in the Islands, when Freemasonry was very active, its discovery caused nearly all its members to be executed or deported and very few escaped the wild methods of Spanish repression of the then breeding Philippine Revolution. The lodges were all temporarily shattered and the members persecuted like outlaws.  At this critical period of the Philippine history the Filipino patriots and heroes of the Philippine Revolution, viz., Andras Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Emilio Aguinaldo, Apolinario Mabini, General Vicente Lukban, one of the two last generals to surrender to the Americans, and others, were initiated in the mysteries of the Craft.

 

With the transfer of sovereignty circumstances also changed and a new era opened in Philippine Freemasonry, because its work has been made open and protected, where before it was kept hidden and was persecuted.

 

Brother Ambrosio Flores and others, soon after the downfall of the Spanish rule, immediately started the movement of reorganizing the lodges shattered by the destructive blows of tyranny.  The first lodge to be organized was the Modestia Lodge No. 119; it was followed by the Dalisay Lodge No. 117; Sinukuan Lodge to. 272; Nilad Lodge No. 114; Walana Lodge No. 158; and Lusong Lodge No. 185.  These lodges were under the jurisdiction of the Grande Oriente Espanol

 

The Gran Logia Regional was organized and installed on September 14, 1907, as the local supreme Masonic body over the lodges installed under the jurisdiction of the Grande Oriente Espanol until February 13, 1917, when she automatically ceased to exist as the twenty-seven lodges under her went to the Union of Freemasonry in the Philippines.

 

The first American lodge in the Islands began its work on August 21, 1898, and was authorized by a letter of dispensation issued by Brother Robert M. Carother, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of North Dakota.  However, this military lodge existed only for a year because on the following year when the North Dakota Regiment of Volunteers left the Islands for the United States the lodge with its letter of dispensation was taken by them.   The Manila Lodge No. 1 (formerly No. 342) is the first American permanent lodge in the Islands and was organized in November 14, 1901, in the house of Brother H. E. Stafford, who later on became the first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands.

 

GRAND LODGE OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS IS ESTABLISHED

 

Eleven years afterwards December 18-19, 1912) the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands was duly and properly established.  The Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands was composed then by the Manila Lodge No. 342, Cavite Lodge No. 350 and Corregidor Lodge No. 386, under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of California.

 

At the establishment of the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands two grand Masonic Bodies were then established: the Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas, under the Grande Oriente Espanol, made up by the Filipino lodges, with supreme authority over its subordinate lodges; and the other was the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands, made up by the three first American lodges, also with supreme authority over the above mentioned American lodges.  Each Grand Lodge worked for its own progress and prosperity in spite of the existence of the other in the same territory.

 

Undoubtedly the Gran Logia Regional de Filipinas truly represented Philippine Freemasonry as it was composed wholly by Filipino lodges, was older in the Philippines and its origin may be traced back to the glorious days of Rizal and del Pilar in their fights in Spain for liberal reforms; and to the days of Bonifacio, Jacinto, Aguinaldo, Mabini, Luna, and the heroes and martyr victims of Spanish tyranny, in their fights for the freedom of Filipinos.  But the only thing lacking her and which she was working very hard for when the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands was constituted, was sovereign, supreme and exclusive territorial Jurisdiction in the Philippine Islands.

 

Lodges under the jurisdiction of other Supreme Councils were organized and installed in the Philippines but they all disappeared by Joining the Gran Logia Regional, except the La Perla de Oriente Lodge No. 1034, S.C., which is still working.

 

 PHILIPPINE MASONRY IS UNIFIED

 

The greatest Masonic event during the American administration was the UNIFICATION OF FREEMASONRY IN THE PHILIPPINES on February 14, 1917.

 

This memorial event was reported by Brother Charles S. Lobingier, Deputy of the Supreme Council, to the Sovereign Grand Commander and the Supreme Council, in part as follows: "Within the past year a divided house has been joined together.  Where there was diversity there is now unity; where there was weakness there is potential strength.  In short, it is my privilege, to announce the unification of our rite in the Philippines.  Not that there has ever been dissension among the bodies of our obedience here, but, as you will note from previous reports of mine, Scottish Rite bodies, acknowledging allegiance to other Supreme Councils, have continued to exist there alongside our own.  The reasons for this were mainly historical and call for brief review.  In the Philippines, Masonry considerably antedates American occupation.  As long ago as 1856 the Spanish Admiral Malcampo, later Governor-General, organized a lodge at Cavite, under the Grand Oriente of Portugal."

 

Brother Teodoro M. Kalaw, the last Grand Master of the Gran Regional Lodge, at the inauguration of the Salomon Temple, Manila, ten days after the unification, in the course of his address commented on the event in this wise: "It is well to say it here that we, the Freemasons of the Old Grande Oriente Espanol, did not go to the union without titles nor name. We brought to it our heroic and historic past.  We had our own glories, our own traditions, and a beautiful and magnificent history full of heroism and blood.  That is the richness we brought .... We went to the union for this sole consideration, only and exclusively, because we do not wish to see Freemasonry divided in the Philippines .... We went decidedly to the union to save the most principle: the UNITY OF FREEMASONRY."

 

At the present writing there are seventy-seven chartered Lodges and one under dispensation in the Philippine Islands under the jurisdiction of the Grand lodge of the Philippine Islands, F. & A. M. and several are on the way of formation.  These lodges are located all over the Islands.  In the farthest north province of Cagayan there is located the Mabini Lodge No. 39 named in honour of Brother Apolinario Mabini Filipino patriot and brain of the Philippine Revolution in the farthest south province of Davac, there is located the Sarangani Lodge No. 50 named after a mountain in the Island of Mindanao; in the east there is located in the Province of Leyte the Makabugwas Lodge No. 47, named after the morning star or "makabug- was" in Visayan dialect.

 

It can be safely affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that any brethren can go to any province in the Islands and surely meet other brethren.  At present there are approximately six thousand Master Masons in the Islands.

 

MASONRY FLOURISHES IN MANILA

 

There are two concrete and one semi-permanent Masonic buildings in Manila, viz., the Masonic Temple, located in the Escolta, the business center in the Philippines; the Plaridel Temple named after the symbolic name of Brother Marcelo H. del Pilar, is located at Calle San Marcelino; and the Salomon Temple located at Calle Bilbao, Tondo, its main door facing the Manila Bay, one of the biggest and finest in the Orient and part of its foundations is being kissed by the rolling waves of the Manila Bay where the Spanish fleet, representing the sceptre and power of Spanish oppression, was destroyed by the American fleet under Admiral Dewey, representing democracy and the good-will of America by helping the Filipinos to establish their own free and independent government.  In Cebu, the second largest city in the Philippines, there is another concrete Masonic building.  Most of the Philippine Lodges own magnificent buildings.

 

The first book published about Freemasonry in the Philippines was printed in 1920 and written by Brother Teodoro M. Kalaw and this is the first attempt that real Freemasonry was brought to light and exposed to the Filipino public.  I said real because the Freemasonry known to the majority of the people was the Freemasonry described and made known to the people by the friars to suit their purposes.  The mere initiation to the mysteries of the Order involved the greatest personal sacrifice and therefore it was very risky to expose, explain and fight openly for the highest ideals and principles of the Craft.  It meant as if between fire and powder, or having and the other out.  All possible and imaginable means were exerted by the enemies of the Craft to discover the members in order to deport or to destroy the lodges, and by these tyrannical means the enemies of the Craft believed themselves to have succeeded in eradicating from its roots, at least in the Philippine Island, the triple and imperishable rights of men - Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality: Liberty to do right within the bounds of the law under which the rights of the individual and minority is protected as well as those of the majority; Fraternity, in the sober sense which regards that men are children of a common Father; and Equality in the eyes of the law, in political rights and in the rights of conscience.

 

There are three Masonic publications now in the Philippines, viz., "Hojas Sueltas," a monthly publication; and the "Far Eastern Freemason," a monthly publication; and the "Acacia," published fortnightly, Besides these, there are many bulletins issued by the various lodges.

 

FILIPINO MASONS ACTIVE PATRIOTS

 

In the fights of the Filipinos for their liberties the Filipino Freemasons have taken a leading and active part.

 

Dr. Jose Rizal, called the father of the Philippines, attorney Marcelo H. del Pilar, 33 degree, the founder and the first leader of Philippine Freemasonry, Graciano Lopez Jaena, patriot and founder of the "La Solidaridad," a fortnightly publication, were the leaders of the Filipino people in their fights for liberal reforms during the Spanish rule.  Andres Bonifacio, the Father of the Katipunan, Emilio Jacinto, the brain of the Katipunan; Emilio Aguinaldo, 32 degree, President of the erstwhile Philippine Republic, Apolinario Mabini, the brain of the Philippine Revolution; Antonio Luna, Commander-in-Chief of the army of the Philippine Republic, were the leaders in the fight for freedom against Spain and afterwards against America. During the present but peaceful fight for the final redemption of the Islands there stands, conspicuous, Hon. Manuel L. Quezon, 32 degree, Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands, President of the Senate, and Ex-resident Filipino Commissioner in Washington and the Filipino who has done more than any of his countrymen for the passage in the American Congress of the Jones Law, the preamble of which in part, is as follows:

 

"WHEREAS it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein, etc.

 

Hon. Rafael Palma, 32 degree, Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Philippine Islands, Senator and Ex-Secretary of the Interior; Hon.  Teodoro M. Kalaw, 32 degree, Ex-Grand Master of the Regional Grand Lodge, Past Master of the Nilad Lodge No. 12 and Secretary of the Interior; Hon. Isauro Gabaldon, 32 degree, Filipino Resident Commissioner; Hon.  Teodoro P,.  Yangoo, 32 degree, Ex-resident Commissioner; Hon. Manuel Earnshaw, 32 degree, Ex-resident Commissioner, and many other leading Filipinos, have played an active part in Philippine affairs.

 

-----o----

 

“Masonry requires of Masons fraternal confidence, sympathy and love. Masons are taught to confide in each other. And in this world, where there is so much cold suspicion and jealously and distrust, is it not cheering to feel that there are faithful hearts into which we can pour our sorrows and griefs and wrongs, and be assured that they will be met by no sneering repulse, by no frigid exhortation to take care of yourself, and to manage your own affairs better; but rather by a warm brotherly sympathy, that is at once interested fro you, ready to soothe and counsel and aid.” Burroughs.

 

----o----

 

The Green Dragon Tavern, or Freemasons' Arms

 

By Bro.  CHARLES W. MOORE, Massachusetts

 

What the Goose and Gridiron Tavern is in the ancient annals of London Freemasonry The Green Dragon Tavern is to the memories of the Free-mason, of Boston and New England.  In it and about it revolved many of the most exciting activities of the Boston Revolutionary times, not the least of which were the patriotic caucuses and plottings of the brethren who in those days held their lodge in that historic building.  But there is no need here to expatiate upon that subject: the whole story is told at length and in colourful detail in the article printed below, which is an extract beginning on page 155 of "The Lodge of St. Andrew, and the Massachusetts Grand Lodge," printed in Boston, 1870, "by vote of the Lodge of St. Andrew."

 

FREEMASONS' ARMS

 

NOTED LANDMARKS, which call to mind associations with the early history of a nation, always possess a peculiar interest to all lovers of their country, and the story belonging to them is awakening, as  well as instructive.  Among the famous places of Boston, in past days, was a widely known and celebrated building called The Green Dragon Tavern, situated on the border of a mill pond, in what is now Union street, and near the corner of Hanover street; "in its day," it was the best hostelry, of the town.  The celebrity of the "Green Dragon" however, is not now due to any remembered excellence of hospitable entertainment, but for the social and political public and private gatherings of the people, - with other interesting local incident, - for three fourths of a century, antecedent to the American Revolution; and above all, for the stirring, patriotic, no less than timely consequential measures determined under its roof by the historic men of '76, who brought to pass that memorable Epoch.  It was indeed the cradle of "Rebellion"; the chosen asylum, where the Revolutionary master spirits,  -who organized successful resistance to British aggression on the liberties of the colonies, - took grave counsel together.

 

To the Masonic Fraternity of Massachusetts, the old "Green Dragon," - which, a century ago, began to be called also "Freemasons' Arms," - presents associations of especial significance.  It was here within its walls, that the Freemasonry of this commonwealth was preserved in Grand Lodge jurisdiction, bright and vigorous; where its charities, its hospitalities, and its good tidings were kept up between the years 1775 and 1792, a period which witnessed the disruption, by reason of the war for Independence, of important branches of the Order in Massachusetts.  Still further, this was the scene of Warren's most intimate political and Masonic associations, with the patriots and Masons of his time.

 

To the members of the Lodge of St. Andrew, this estate, - their own magnificent possession for more than a hundred years, - is endeared by ties which run over a still longer period.

 

No picture of the Green Dragon Tavern of any description, is known to be in existence save the on now presented in this "Memorial." This was engraved recently for the Lodge of St. Andrew, from a model which the Hon. N.B. Shurtleff prepared some years since, with his usual accurate and thorough knowledge of ancient noted Boston houses.  From this model in wood, with much painstaking on the part of the "Lodge," in the way of exhibiting it for criticism to old inhabitants who were familiar with the look and details of this ancient structure - which was removed forty-two years ago, - the present picture has been made.  It is believed to be a faithful representation and it may also be affirmed that it is unanimously recognized as such by every one who is competent to judge.

 

FROM THE RECORDS OF THE LODGE

 

At a Quarterly Communication, March 24, 1864 the Worshipful Master, Edward Stearns, called the attention of the Lodge to the fact that the Green Dragon Tavern was purchased by this Lodge, March 31, 1764, and that Thursday next, the 31st instant, would complete a period of one hundred years from the date of the deed of that estate.  Whereupon, on motion of Brother Wellington, it was

 

Voted, That a committee of five be appointed, with full power to make arrangements for celebrating the Centennial Anniversary of the purchase of the Green Dragon Tavern.

 

The following brethren were appointed: A. A. Wellington, Charles W. Moore, J.R. Bradford, Samuel P.Oliver, and Isaac Cary.

 

On motion of Brother Palmer, it was

 

Voted, That the above committee be increased to eight, that being the number of the original committee appointed January 12, 1764, "to purchase a house for the benefit of the Lodge of St. Andrew."

 

The Worshipful Master, Brother Wm. F. Davis, Senior Warden, and Brother John P. Ober, were thereupon added to the committee.

 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE LODGE RECORD OF THE CELEBRATION

 

A special meeting of the Lodge of St. Andrew was held in the new building on the "Green Dragon" estate, Union street, on Thursday evening, March 31, 1864, at 6 1/2 o'clock, for the purpose of celebrating the Centennial Anniversary of the purchase of the Green Dragon Tavern.

 

An apartment in the building was suitably decorated for the festival, and a bountiful dinner provided.

 

The Worshipful Master presided, and in a dignified, appropriate address, invoked the attention of the brethren to the ceremonies of the evening, and to the remarks of members whom he should call upon to speak upon the pleasant Masonic memories suggested by the spot whereon the Lodge was then assembled, and to the historical incidents connected with the "ancient Inn." After a proper allusion to the distinguished men who had held Masonic intercourse together in times past in the hall of the "Green Dragon," the Worshipful Master called up M.W.Brother Wm. Parkman:

 

Who stated that on the 1