The Builder Magazine

August 1927 - Volume XIII - Number 8

 

Frederick and the Facts

By BRO. CYRUS FIELD WILLARD, California

THE recent reply of Bro. A. L. Kress, of Pennsylvania, in THE BUILDER for February to my setting forth of the facts that showed that Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, was the head of what is now the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, seems to me to be decidedly weak.

 

The fact that three of the subordinate bodies of this organization officially recognized that the official headquarters of their Order was in Berlin, Prussia, and that the Master of one of these Lodges of Perfection addressed Frederick as its head, by name, on official business of the Order to which his lodge belonged, does not seem to convince him.

 

It makes one think that people believe only what they want to believe, no matter what the evidence may be.

 

He does not deny these facts. He cannot. He does not try to do so, but seeks to minimize the weight of the evidence. He says that he does not know if Frederick was its head, but he suspects he was not.

 

In this, his suspicions are contrary to what Colonel Solomon Bush, the Master of Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection, knew when he said that Frederick was the head of the Order of which that Lodge of Perfection was a part.

 

Bro. Kress became unduly exercised because I said it made no difference whether there was a reply. Quite evidently he, like many others who seek to tear down traditions, did not consider the matter in all its bearings.

 

The letter which Col. Bush signed was not a personal letter, but one prepared by a committee of that lodge in 1785, about a year before Frederick died. It was made part of the official business of the lodge and was copied into the records and made a part of the official records of Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection.

 

Therein it is different from a personal letter which would seem to require an answer to show that it had been sent and received. These official records of the Lodge of Perfection are generally accepted as genuine by all Masonic writers, but Bro. Kress does not consider them evidence, although the lodge at the time was transmitting to its official head, Frederick II, King of Prussia, a list of its members, as the letter says, and as the rules require, as stated in the letter copied into the record-book, which is now in the possession of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.

 

What rules are referred to? It is evident to anyone acquainted with lodge work that it was the rules of the Order to which this Lodge of Perfection belonged, and the head of which was the one to whom the letter was addressed, that is, Frederick the Great.

 

It is not only Colonel Bush, who signed the letter, but the whole lodge itself asserted that Frederick II, King of Prussia, was the head of the Order to which the Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection belonged when it made this assertion a part of the official records of the lodge.

 

This written assertion on the part of the Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection, now in its records, that Frederick the Great was the head of the Order to which the lodge belonged, requires equally definite and positive evidence in writing to the contrary, to contradict it. Such are the rules of evidence. The negative evidence must be equally strong.

 

THE OPINION OF ALBERT PIKE

 

It would hardly seem that Bro. Kress is better qualified to judge as to the value of the evidence that Frederick was the head of the Order and signed the Constitutions of 1786 than Albert Pike, who was a great lawyer, admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States, where he won a big lawsuit with a $5,000,000 verdict in favor of his clients. In his "Historical Inquiry" Pike said, on page 127:

 

But we now believe that they were made at Berlin, under the auspices of Frederic in May, 1786, and that he was the Patron and Protector of the high degrees, and did approve these Grand Constitutions.

 

In his Preface, Pike also said:

 

As the authenticity of the Grand Constitutions of 1786 continues to be denied, upon the same old, untenable and exploded grounds, it is deemed advisable to print and publish this Inquiry for more general circulation.

 

It is because Lantoine denied the authenticity of these Constitutions in his recent history, on the "same old, untenable and exploded grounds," that this discussion started. Had this pamphlet, Pike's "Historical Inquiry," been reprinted and placed in the library of every Lodge of Perfection in the land, these attacks would not be made now, as the members of the Order would know their fallacy.

 

But this official written evidence in the records of the Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection is not considered proof by Bro. Kress, who will, however, accept that written assertion of Elias Ashmole, an individual, in his diary, that he was made a Mason in 1646. Yet no doubt he would not accept a similar entry in the diary of the Baron von Hund that he was given the higher degrees, now called Scottish, by the Earl of Kilmarnock, Grand Master of Scotland, about 1742, and which Scottish degrees he afterwards introduced into Germany as the Rite of Strict Observance.

 

The kind of research I object to is outlined in the above statement. Because one statement in a private diary is accepted by Gould and a few others who set themselves up as the last word in Masonic research, they are blindly accepted in America by those who, on the other hand, take delight in tearing down all traditions, instead of examining them with care to see if there is a reasonable possibility of their being true.

 

Troy (like Frederick's connection with this Order) was regarded as a fable by writers who admitted they knew it all (like some of the authorities of Bro. Kress) until Dr. Schliemann dug down into it and not only found one, but five other cities, one superimposed on the other, the same as we find successive deposits of thought and myth in our Blue Lodge ritual.

 

Before this, I have taken no exception to Bro. Kress' "brand of research," as he termed it, only poked a little fun at it, as not presenting any.

 

THE SHEEPWALKING SCHOOL OF RESEARCH

 

Enoch T. Carson, in the American edition of Gould's History of Freemasonry, wrote a chapter on the history of the Scottish Rite in which he calls some alleged Masonic historians "sheepwalkers," because they are like sheep, following their leader and repeating the same incorrect statements others have made. It is the fad nowadays to write a history with a number of figures referring to foot-notes which merely repeat statements made by others that sometimes have no foundation in fact. A celebrated English historian said his pages were unmarred by footnotes.

 

Bro. Kress has been prone to follow what Gould and others of his school have said, and thinks because they said it, that it must necessarily be true. That was the distinction that he seemed unable to get from my former articles.

 

But I am pleased to see that he is reforming in this respect, and even dares to question his authority, as witness the letter from him and reply of Lantoine in "Le Symbolisme" for February. But if the latter is no more accurate in his facts than he is in spelling the name of the writer, which he took from the printed page, too, and made it Vuillard for Willard, then Bro. Kress should seek some more confirmatory evidence.

 

Taking Bro. Kress' own line of argument as regards Frederick being the head of the Order, that was turned into the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite by the Constitutions of 1786, I might say that I do not know that Bro. Kress is a Mason. Until facts are presented to show that he is, the story must be rejected. Just as he says about Frederick: "It is clear that he must be held not to be unless positive proof is shown that he is." This is a reductio ad absurdain and shows up the fallacy of his argument.

 

While I am willing to joke and give and take in a discussion, always trying to conduct it in the pleasantest spirit possible, yet I would submit to Bro. Kress that it is not Masonic to put words in my mouth which I did not use, neither is it accurate.

 

FREDERICK'S PHYSICAL CONDITION IN 1786

 

On page 42 of THE BUILDER of February, he says: "Suppose we accept Bro. Willard's data that Frederick so far as his physical condition (sic) could have presided over a convention to prepare the 1786 Constitutions," etc. Will Bro. Kress kindly give page and line where I have ever said anything about Frederick presiding over a convention ?

 

One page 8, Vol. I, of Mirabeau's Histoire secrete de la cour de Berlin, under date of July 14, or about a month before Frederick's death, Mirabeau said:

 

Les partis sont tres en activite a Berlin-mais tout se tait devant le Roi; il est encore Roi, il le sera jusqu 'au bout.

 

This, in English, is:

 

Parties are very much in activity at Berlin--but all keep silent before the King: he is still King, he will be such until the end.

 

This is the best characterization of Frederick that could be made. He was the King at Berlin at all times, and when the lodges of America were ordered to send the list of their members to Berlin, he knew who they were. While he lived, he was the whole thing at Berlin.

 

It seems curious to see Bro. Kress calmly ignoring the facts of Masonic life by attempting to rule out competent and corroborative evidence on the ground that it is hearsay evidence when they are broad and definite statements, made by careful Masonic historians, of their own knowledge.

 

I refer to the statements made by Mackey and particularly those made of his own knowledge by Rev. John Dove who wrote a history of Masonry in Virginia and knew personally some of the Deputy Inspector Generals like Joseph Myers and Isaac Da Costa. Bro. Dove said they were educated men who were sent by Frederick of Prussia to spread the doctrines of the higher degrees, of which Dove was a member. If Bro. Kress will look again into the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts he will see that he was inaccurate in his quotation, for Isaac Da Costa was quoted long before the date he alleged (1760), as he will see on Oct. 13, 1759, on pages 439 and 440. Also he was the first named on the petition for the warrant of St. Andrew's Lodge, of Boston, in 1756. I only mention these things in the interest of accuracy.

 

I have Lantoine's History of French Freemasonry and have read it carefully. To my mind he is like Carlyle, a word-painter and not an historian. My assertion is that Lantoine is not impartial, and my assertion is as good as that of Bro. Kress to the contrary.

 

The assertion of Bro. Kress that I have presented no new facts and shown no personal research, seems to be negatived by the hours I have spent examining charters, fac-similes, etc., and the fact that I have given more research to the early history of the Scottish Rite than he has ever done. But I will agree with him that my article shows no research, if he will point out anywhere in Masonic literature where these three official statements, each corroborating the other, that the headquarters of the Rite was at Berlin, Prussia, have been assembled together.

 

THE PRUSSIAN COMMISSIONERS

 

The fact that the Nine Commissioners are stated officially, by Stephen Morin, in the charter of the Kingston, Jamaica, Chapter of Princes of the Royal Secret, to be in charge in Prussia, does not seem to affect Bro. Kress. What are official documents compared to one's cherished beliefs? Like some attorneys who object to all evidence against them as "immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent," this does not seem to faze him.

 

After reading Mirabeau's Secret History of the Court of Berlin, in the original French, published in 1789, I am wondering how anyone could quote Mirabeau as Lantoine did in his history, the review of which started the original discussion. It is beyond me how Lantoine would dare to do so, and I can only think it was because he was "sleepwalking" and quoting what someone else had said. He probably never went to the original sources. It shows that all the statements of Lantoine need verifying, and I am glad to see that Bro. Kress is beginning to see the need of this, as his letter in "Le Symbolisme" tends to show.

 

These volumes of Mirabeau also show that up to 15 days before Frederick died, he could have signed these Constitutions had he not done so three months before. On page 75, Vol. I, Mirabeau said, on Aug. 2, 1786, "The king is sensibly better" (Le roi ist sensiblement mieux). At the end of the same letter he says: "For the rest the head is perfectly clear and he even works a great deal." Au reste, la tete est parfaitement libre, & l'on travaille meme beaucoup.)

 

On the day before he died Mirabeau says (page 91, Vol. I):

 

I know that the day before he had not spoken until midday to the secretaries who had been waiting since five o'clock in the morning, but nevertheless the despatches have been clear and precise; that he had again eaten excessively that day and notably a lobster! (Je savois--que la veille--qu'on n'avoit parle qu'a midi aux secretaires qui attendoient depuis cinq heures de matin, que cependant les depeches avoient ete nettes & precies; que l'on avoit encore excessivement mange ce jour-la & notamment un homard. )

 

This shows that he could even have signed these Constitutions of 1786 on Aug. 16, the day before he died, as he did the despatches which he dictated and which were "clear and precise." Pike gives many others who said practically the same thing.

 

It is apparent that, despite the assertion of Lantoine to the contrary, Frederick could have signed the Constitutions of 1786 on May 1.

 

The charter of the Kingston Chapter, P. R. S., says that the Nine Commissioners did prepare the Constitutions of 1762, although Gould makes the downright charge that they were forged in America. But this charter of the Kingston body, signed on April 30, 1770, only eight years later, by Stephen Morin himself, says that the Constitutions of 1762 were ratified in Prussia at a different date than that given by any Masonic historian. It says, in English:

 

Consequently by the deliberation dated the 7th of December, 1762, to be ratified and observed by the aforesaid Grand Chapter of Prussia and France, etc.

 

This Kingston charter is quoted as being in his collection by Enoch T. Carson. [See Gould, Vol. IV, page 634.] This collection was bought by Gen. Samuel Lawrence and by him presented to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

 

Efforts are being made by the writer to get a photostatic copy of this charter, bearing the signature of "S. Morin," because it is all in English and would thus show that "S. Morin" understood English and French, as would an American born in New York of a French Protestant family settled there since 1691.

 

The Constitutions of 1762, also in English, that Henry Andrew Francken gave to the Albany Lodge of Perfection, are also said to be in this collection and it is hoped that these treasures will be photographed before long.

 

THE QUESTION OF METHOD

 

After all it seems that Bro. Kress and I are not so far apart. We agree in principle but not in methods. We both want to see an American school of research established, and we want the facts. I cannot agree with him when he says: "Until facts are presented to prove Frederick's headship, the story must be rejected."

 

Why rejected?

 

It would seem to me that the fact that the Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection, making returns on its membership, did, through its Master, address a letter to Frederick as the head of the Order to which it belonged, must be accepted as positive evidence that Frederick was its head. If it had been an English lodge, whose records said he was the head of the Order to which it belonged, the assertion would be accepted without question.

 

If my Lodge of Perfection should address a letter, enclosing its list of members, to Captain John H. Cowles, head of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, it would seem to me that this would be accepted as evidence that Captain Cowles was the head of that Order, especially if the lodge went to the trouble of making it a part of its official records.

 

All Masons would naturally accept it as such, unless they had some preconceived opinions, as they would reason that the lodge would know better than any outsider who their superior officers were.

 

But this is the point that Bro. Kress does not want to concede. He thinks he knows better than the Philadelphia Lodge of Perfection who their superior officers were, although they were contemporary with Frederick and Bro. Kress is 150 years behind time. They know definitely that Frederick was the head of their Order and Bro. Kress now "suspects" that he was not. Guess again.

 

VON STEUBE A LINK

 

Furthermore, Baron von Steuben was in Philadelphia at the time the letter was written, settling his accounts with the Congress, as his life will show. He knew Frederick intimately, having been his Adjutant General, who sent him to Washington as the best present one Masonic general could make to another. von Steuben was a Mason, and Bro. Kress and Lantoine have not yet denied that Frederick and Washington were likewise.

 

If there had been the slightest doubt on the part of any Mason that Frederick was the head of the Order to which the Lodge of Perfection belonged, Colonel Bush, as a companion-in-arms of Baron von Steuben, would have known and the letter would never have been written. Certainly it would not have been made a part of the official records of the Lodge.

 

Bro. Kress made the statement that I quoted Gould in part "for my own purpose," which is rather an unkind way of putting it. The reason I did not continue quoting Gould was because I did not want to bring into the discussion the unreliability and prejudice of Gould in matters concerning the Scottish Rite. Notably where he says, "The Constitutions of 1786 were undoubtedly forged in America and probably those of 1762." I should be happy to take up this matter at some future time, but I think I have said enough now.

 

FREDERICK'S PURPOSE

 

It is my opinion and belief that Frederick had the Constitutions of 1786 drawn up to prevent the troubles that arose when the Duke of Sudermania, later King of Sweden, was elected head of the Strict Observance. It was a political reason that made Frederick put himself at the head of the Rite in Germany, that he afterwards turned into the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite by these same Constitutions of 1786, just as Albert Pike shrewdly asserted in his Historical Inquiry, which every Scottish Rite Mason should read.

 

I am confirmed in this belief by seeing a similar jealous political feeling on the part of the authorities in Denmark, as shown in a recent number of the Ars Quatuoi Coronatorum on "Lodges in the Danish West Indies," Vol. 37, page 147, part 2. After stating that the work was conducted in German, as the rituals were in German and were those of the Order of Strict Observance, of which the Baron von Hund was Grand Master until he died in 1776, it goes on to say:

 

Upon April 29th, King Christian VII signed a rescript to the leaders of the Freemasons in Denmark directing that never and nowhere in any Danish land or possession should the Freemasons recognize a foreign Prince of royal blood as Grand Master or give any such authority or influence over the Order. It was a known fact that Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick had a certain influence over lodges in the Danish lands and possessions (Duke Ferdinand succeeded von Hund as Grand Master in the System of the strict Observance) but when he retired no lodge was to be permitted to allow any foreigner to have an authority over any lodge without first having petitioned therefor and obtained royal permission.

 

Duke Ferdinand, of Brunswick, was one of Frederick's generals who won for him the great victory of the battle of Minden during the Seven Years' War. In fact, in view of all the circumstances, it might not be such a wild guess to hazard the belief that Frederick might have been the head of the Unknown Superiors to whom the Strict Observance members had to pledge themselves. Especially when we realize that the Three Globes Grand Lodge, which Frederick organized at Berlin, was for 20 years a member of the Strict Observance. At any rate, Duke Ferdinand became the real ruler of the Strict Observance after the Convention was held at Kohlo in 1772.

 

In 1778 the Duke of Sudermania, then G. M. of Sweden, was elected as its head and Gould says that it was probable that political motives were connected with his candidacy. The Danish Lodges opposed him as they feared the political influence of Sweden, which also had possessions in Germany. At that time Baron von Steuben had just come to America (1777) and as a Mason knew what was going on in Masonic circles in Germany.

 

FERDINAND, OF BRUNSWICK, GRAND MASTER

 

In April, 1781, the Duke of Sudermania resigned and Ferdinand of Brunswick was elected Grand Master in 1782, which office he held until his death, in 1792, at the age of 71, after which the Order disappeared. On Jan. 30, 1784, the Grand Lodge of the "Three Globes," of which Frederick had been Grand Master, after a membership of 20 years, withdrew from the Strict Observance "with its superstructure of hermeticism and Rosicrucianism," so Gould says (Vol. III, page 367), leaving that Order "moribund." A little more than two years after the withdrawal of the "Three Globes" and about six years after the rescript of King Christian, the proponents of the Constitutions of 1786 assert that Frederick II, King of Prussia, whose subordinate was the head of the Strict Observance, signed these Constitutions which gave to each country, after his death, a Supreme Council of nine members supreme in that country, with the exception of America, which was to have two such Councils. All this was done, as it states in these Constitutions, for the purpose of preventing discords (such as the election of the Duke of Sudermania had caused) and the spread of innovations such as had been going on in neighboring kingdoms.

 

These Constitutions also describe the manner in which the Rite of Perfection of 25 degrees, the Primitive Rite, the Ancient Rite and some others were combined by Frederick to form the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of 33 degrees. From that time the Strict Observance was indeed "moribund." (See Gould's History, Vol. III, page 367.)

 

The validity of the Constitutions of 1786 has been fiercely attacked, generally by those who had some motive for so doing. It would be well for Bro. Kress, and all others who have any doubts as to its validity, to read Pike's Historical Inquiry, in which that great lawyer analyzes the evidence and states his reason for believing them genuine.

 

CHARACTER OF THE FIRST SUPREME COUNCIL

 

The founders of the first Supreme Council in America have been proven to be men of the highest standing in the military and professional circles of South Carolina and real Southern gentlemen.

 

They were contemporary with the adoption of these Constitutions, and under them the first Supreme Council was formed in 1801, only fifteen years after they had been adopted. It is a fair presumption that Frederic Dalcho, then a doctor of medicine, 31 years old, and afterwards an Episcopal clergyman of the highest standing in Charleston, knew what he was talking about when he asserted that they were signed by Frederick II of Prussia and provided for Supreme Councils of nine members for each country. It is certain he would not lie about it, as he has openly or covertly been charged with doing. (See Lantoine's statement.)

 

Furthermore he was the son of a Prussian, who had been before von Steuben, the Adjutant General of Frederick the Great and on account of wounds received in the Seven Years' War was allowed to retire to London, England, where Frederick Dalcho was born and named after the King.

 

This information about the father of Frederick Dalcho I obtained from a pamphlet, The Lost Key, by Edwin A. Sherman, a California Masonic historian, who also asserts that Baron von Steuben was the agent of Frederick, King of Prussia, in introducing the new organization of 33 degrees into America. Bro. Sherman goes into this matter at great length, which I cannot go into now save to say that he asserts that Col. John Mitchell, the first Grand Commander, was a member of the same regiment with Baron von Steuben, which, of course, can be verified or disproved.

 

In the meantime I trust that Bro. Kress will realize that although I may write at times rather brusquely, there is still the same underlying thought in my mind that he has, and that is to go to the original records and let the word-painters alone. Our only difference is that I do not intend to discard all traditions until I have found them to be without palpable foundation.

 

----o----

 

A REJOINDER

 

By BRO. A. L. KRESS, Pennsylvania

 

AFTER reading Bro. Willard's reply, I cannot see that he has produced any further facts or strengthened his previous case sufficiently to justify further discussion, on my part at least. So far as Von Hund's diary goes, who has ever seen it? When Von Hund or anyone else implies that he received, in 1742, any "Scottish" degrees, or "Scottish Rite" degrees, or anything even remotely resembling them, they are wrong. I did not mean to imply Bro. Willard ever has said Frederick presided over the convention. This has been asserted by others. My point was that I was ready to accept his data that Frederick could have done anything he is supposed to have done about the Constitutions so far as his physical condition was concerned. Which proves nothing. I doubt if John Dove could have known Da Costa personally, though I have no facts as to dates. I might add also that I had read Pike's Historical Inquiry. Some years ago we had the pious myth going around about the sword Frederick was supposed to have sent Washington. Did Bro. Willard ever hear of that ? Now it seems he sent Baron von Steuben to Washington also.

 

The facts in the case we are agreed upon it seems. We differ in their interpretation. Until new facts are produced continued discussion will get us nowhere.

 

----o----

 

NEW LIGHT ON RAMSAY'S FAMOUS ORATION

 

IN his article FREDERICK AND THE FACTS Bro. Willard refers to the correspondence between Bro. Kress and Bro. Lantoine which was published in a recent number of LE SYMBOLISME. As the facts brought to light by Bro. Lantoine are interesting and important, Bro. Kress has translated the reply to his inquiries. It may also be of interest to members of the N.M.R.S. to learn that Bro. Lantoine is a member of the Supreme Council A.&A.S.R. for France. His position at least shows that he is hardly actuated by any prejudice or hostility against the Scottish Rite, even if he does attack what he regards as unfounded in its history.

 

TO ALBERT LANTOINE

 

I have read your History of French Freemasonry with a great deal of pleasure. I consider it a great work.

 

Will you do me the kindness of answering a few questions? On page 120 you reprint the two letters Ramsay wrote the Cardinal de Fleury.

 

1. Have you personally examined these original letters in the archives of the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

2. In the first letter if as you say "the date March 20, 1737, is not in the handwriting of Ramsay" how can the date of the oration be established from this letter?

3. Who do you think did write the date on this letter?

4. Daruty says the Cardinal de Fleury wrote on the margin "The King does not wish them to assemble." Is this correct?

5. Have you personally examined the work you cite on page 116 "Dans les Lettres de M. de V. etc." 1738 so that you know the oration appeared in this work?

 

Yours fraternally,

A. L. Kress.

 

TO A. L. KRESS

 

1. I have personally examined the letters addressed to Cardinal de Fleury by the Chevalier Ramsay.

2-3. All State papers bear a date marked by the archivist charged with their classification. I must admit that this date was not necessarily added in Ramsay's first letter immediately after its receipt, and that the file to which this letter belongs has perhaps been classified later. I do not believe-this, though, because, in the last case, the archivist would not have indicated the day of the month with so much precision. But even if I understand your doubts, I cannot admit it in the case of the second letter, which corroborates the first and in which the date 1737 seems to me not to be doubted--and here is the reason: This second letter in fact bears this date not only at the top (in the hand of the archivist) but below and so placed

 

A Paris, ce 22 Mars. [Ramsay's hand-writing] 1737.

 

M. Abel Rigault, Under Secretary of the service of archives for Foreign Affairs, who has kindly aided me with his expert knowledge of handwriting (he actually is an expert) inclines to believe that this 1737 which is placed below the day of the month is also in Ramsay's writing. He bases his opinion on these points:

 

a. that the figures do not in the least resemble those of the date written at the top by the archivist.

 

b. that this period placed after 1737 is a peculiarity not to be attributed to an archivist and one which Ramsay used.

 

This comment is of value. Let us note, in fact that neither of us for example would put a period following the date in a manuscript letter while Ramsay puts one after the 22nd of March. I will even say that it was this last period which made me believe that the 1737 placed below (in the first letter) did not belong to it, and that is why I did not add this date in the reproduction on page 120 of my Histoire de la Freemasonry Francaise.

 

But even at that have we the right to doubt the date of a letter which has this date recorded on it by two different hands? I add that the handwriting of both these dates is incontestably of the 18th century.

 

4. Daruty, after Lemontey's work Histoire de la Regence et de la Mirnorite de Louis XV . . ." (Paris 1832) makes us believe that "Cardinal de Fleury had written on the margin 'the King does not wish them to assemble'." Is this correct, you ask me?

 

I think if Daruty had taken the trouble to consult the document, he would not so readily have reported Lemontey's version. The seven lines in pencil which are found not on the margin but at the head of the letter are illegible. After tedious attempts, here is what I have been able to decipher with the kind aid of M. Rigault:

 

Rep . . . Iira . . . deja parle' . . . bien des gens . . . croit . . . le roy meme s'en est moque . . . mardy dine . . . ne veux college. (Reply read . . . already spoken . . . many persons . . . believed . . . The king himself makes fun of them . . . Monday dinner . . .)

 

And again I do not guarantee the correctness of this incoherent writing. The only line which seems clear to me is "the king himself makes fun of them." Can we render these sybilline words as "the king does not wish them to assemble?" It is an interpretation ventured which my mind eager for facts, cannot accept . . . The fact is that this pencilling has become illegible.

 

Another observation: what proof have we that these lines were written by Cardinal de Fleury? They might be his, evidently since his writing might be shakier (by reason of his age) but it could also have been made by one of his clerks charged with opening his correspondence or a note dictated by him. This note in my opinion is the scheme for the reply that a secretary has drawn up to Ramsay's petition. What a pity that this last may not be found among the Chevalier's papers . . . Who knows?

 

5. I have personally examined the work I cite on p. 116 "Lettres de M. de V.... avec plusieurs pieces de differens auteurs." The Hague, Pierre Popy, 1738. The oration of Ramsay is thus presented Discouse pronounced at the Reception of Freemasons by M. de Ramsay; Grand Orator of the Order. It is between pages 47 and 70. [M. Lantoine goes on to say this work is extremely licentious and that following the Oration are some so-called statutes which he gives in full.]

 

I take this occasion to thank you warmly for your appreciation in THE BUILDER of my Histoire de la Franc Maconnerie. My book has been made the subject of rather warm controversy in this excellent American journal. Bro. Willard in numerous pages has literally loaded me with abuse for having denied the part taken by Frederic II in the establishment of the 1786 Grand Constitutions. I see no need for pursuing the discussion. With him, it is a matter of belief or opinion and I can as a historian only argue from the texts. Without reason, I am accused of lack of respect for Albert Pike. I believe I am misunderstood. I do not ignore the great worth of your compatriot and I appreciate the fervent admiration with which the American brethren have consecrated him. But if from the ritualistic point of view his competency seems to me undoubted, I cannot blindly follow him in his historical ideas. His imagination which served him so well in the interpretation of symbols deserted him in his interpretation of facts. He depends on testimony [of others] while I, like Saint Thomas, believe only that which I see. I have read his Historical Inquiry and that has not in the least convinced me of Frederick the Second's participation. So far as Bro. Willard goes, Albert Pike has refuted my allegations beforehand. That is a point of view. I rest on my position: why does some one not show us the text signed by Frederick? Albert Pike saw it. That does not suffice for me. In history as in law the evidence of the most honest man in the world requires confirmation. Albert Pike invokes also the evidence of Baron de Marguerittes, saying on page 127: "The Baron de Marguerittes said . . . Know, M. Ill. Brethren, that a Scottish Knight has in his possession the original charter of 1786 signed with his own hand by the late Frederic the Great, King of Prussia...."

 

Why has not the Baron de Marguerittes given us the name of this "Scottish Knight"? And if in 1818 the thing was even then argued to the point where it was necessary in order to fortify the belief of the brothers to promise to show them the Constitutions, why did not this Scottish Knight bequeath this so precious document to his brothers so that today we should be able to verify its authenticity?

 

The famous Gerbier patent in France also has been thought a fact, and the Morin patent, and the patent of the Arras Chapter founded by Charles-Edward of which so many copies have been certified correct by personages of high rank. But when we ask to see the originals--as is our right and duty--these originals, of such leading importance for the History of Freemasonry, are not to be found. All these people who have examined them, and examined them to the point of guaranteeing their contents, have been so clumsy as not to keep them out of harm's way. Is it not perplexing?

 

Your desire to be correctly documented, Bro. Kress, fits in so well with my own method of work as not to leave me indifferent. I think that these interchanges are not useless and constitute a good Masonic work. If anyone proves to me I am wrong I shall be the first to thank my critic and to acknowledge my error--putting love of truth above a mean and absurd self-love as an author. 

 

Sincerely yours, Albert Lantoine.

 

NOTE Bro. Willard in his article (page 226) refers to the term "sleepwalkers," ascribing it to the late Bro. Enoch T. Carson. Bro. Carson in the chapter mentioned of the addenda to Gould's History of Freemasonry that is included in the American edition, speaks of "the 'sleepwalking' paths" followed by many Masonic writers in dealing with the so-called higher degrees. Actually it was Gould himself who hit upon this apt description, or at any rate gave it currency in Masonic circles, for he uses it in the History and elsewhere, and since then it has been frequently quoted and used by others.

 

There is one point that should be made in summing up this discussion, for as so often happens the arguments and counter arguments do not always meet fairly. The parties do not always properly understand the meaning of what their opponents have said. It does not seem that either Bro. Kress or Bro. Lantoine intended to imply that Frederick was not physically able to put his signature to a document during the last months of his life, not yet that he was mentally incapable of considering or even originating such a project as the organization of the Scottish Rite out of the various rites orders, and scattered ne plus ultra degrees of which the preceding fifty years had been so prolific, especially in France. The argument is apparently cumulative and psychological. Frederick had for years shown an indifference to the Craft; more than that he had expressed a positive antipathy to the high grades. Was it likely that at the end of his life, while ill and burdened with important affairs of state, he should have troubled to give time and attention to an organization he had come to regard as at the best trivial and puerile?

 

The right way to meet this argument, it would seem, would be to examine the evidence offered to show that Frederick had become indifferent to Masonry, and was antipathetic to the high degrees. This anyone interested may do by referring to Bro. Lantoine's work, or to the translation of the chapter on Frederick in THE BUILDER for June last year.

 

The subject has now had quite full discussion, the disputants seem to be largely in agreement as to the facts, and until new evidence is discovered there does not seem much chance of settling the question absolutely and beyond doubt. Let us hope Bro. Willard's efforts to this end may meet with success. [Ed.]

 

----o----

 

THE FREEMASONRY OF NORTHERN EUROPE

 

By Paul Duvignan (Translated from L'Acacia)

 

THIS article will have a double interest for those readers of The Builder interested in the ideal of Masonic universality. In the first place it gives some fresh and we believe trustworthy account of Scandinavia and Germany, and secondly it indirectly gives glimpses of the attitude and ideals of the Institution in France. From an esteemed correspondent in Denmark, Bro. P. A. Fenger, we learn that the recently deceased Master of his lodge, Dr. C. N. Starcke, assisted the author of the following article with information and suggestions.

 

IN connection with the rapprochement between France and Germany, a problem proposed last year by the Council of the Order for study by the individual lodges it has devolved upon us to arrange reports on the subject, some of which are insufficient while some are vitiated by mistakes; and this in spite of the evident good will of the reporters and even of their ability. It seems that we French limit our attention too much, contenting ourselves, or very nearly, with knowing only what happens in our own country. Exterior occurrences most often escape us, as we do not travel and we do not know foreign languages. So I am happy to be able to give the readers of L'Acacia the following information on the Masonry of Northern Europe, which is of a nature, I believe, to dissipate certain clouds, and to fix ideas that are hesitant and undecided.

 

DENMARK The most ancient lodge existing in Denmark, "Zorobabel," was founded in 1744 and received its letters patent [warrant] from Hamburg. The first lodge was founded in 1743 by a member of the lodge at Berlin. "Zorobabel" was formed by a number of dissident brethren who left this. A year and some months later it received another warrant from London. At the same time the Grand Lodge, "Les Trois Globes," of Berlin, also founded several new lodges in Denmark.

 

During the period of splendor of the Strict Observance, about the year 1755, Danish Masonry came under the influence of this rite. But a rivalry soon arose between the Danish lodges and the Grand Lodge of the Strict Observance, owing to the fact that the Swedish duke, Karl of Sudermania had been given the highest rank in the latter. From this moment the King of Denmark placed the lodges of his country under his own authority in order to withdraw them from foreign control.

 

The Duke of Brunswick, and later Karl of Hesse, ruled as Provincial Grand Masters the lodges of the rite of the "Knight of the Holy City." Thus these lodges had a tranquil existence during the reign of Christian VIII and in the first years of that of Frederick VII. But in 1852 Frederick was initiated in the Swedish rite. In spite of numerous protests made by the Danish lodges the Swedish rite was introduced into Denmark by a royal ordinance, which named this country as the eighth Province that drew its origin from the "Strict Observance." Following this the Grand Lodge of Denmark, under Frederick VIII and Christian X, kept the privilege of founding new lodges in their own territory. But, by reason of the special character--very Christian, exclusively Christian, in fact-of the Swedish rite, and of the particular philosophical tendencies which differentiated it sharply from the true Masonic ideal--the humanitarian ideal--a number of Danes, who were not Masons, united themselves in 1900 to found a separate lodge. They procured their initiation, not into the Swedish rite, but into the humanitarian Masonry of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg; and with letters patent from this Grand Lodge, which recognizes only the first three degrees, they formed an independent lodge. Later, that is, since 1900, two others were formed of the same rite and under the same obedience [Hamburg]. But between these three lodges and the Grand Lodge of Denmark, which follows the Swedish rite, there are no relations.

 

NORWAY

 

In Norway we do not find any independent development of Freemasonry until 1814. Up to this date Norway followed Denmark, being under the same king.

 

After 1814 Norway was reunited to Sweden and the Norwegian lodges accepted the Swedish rite. But the same causes which had operated in Denmark raised up opposition to the latter, and several brothers founded an independent lodge under the obedience of the Grand Lodge "of the Sun" at Bayreuth, in 1882. In the following year several other lodges were created under the same obedience [this is not quite exactly equivalent to our term jurisdiction. Tr.]: In 1893 they were united and recognized as a Provincial Grand Lodge under the name Polar Star, and, as before, under the Grand Lodge "Zur Sonne" of Bayreuth.

 

The Norwegian lodges of the Swedish rite broke away from the Grand Lodge of Sweden in 1891 and formed an independent Grand Lodge for the country of Norway, which became the tenth province, in the same way that Denmark formed the eighth and Sweden the ninth, but still following the Swedish rite.

 

Between the Provincial Grand Lodge "Polar Star" (of the Humanitarian rite of Bayreuth) and the Grand Lodge of Norway (Swedish rite) there existed friendly relations up till 1920. In this year the P. G. L. Polar Star was recognized as an independent Grand Lodge by the Grand Lodge of Bayreuth. From this time the Grand Lodge of Norway of the Swedish rite has broken off all relations with the new Grand Lodge of the Humanitarian rite (1).

 

SWEDEN

 

In Sweden the first lodge was founded in 1737 by letters patent from Lord Derwentwater. [In his capacity as Grand Master of France. Tr.] The formation of lodges was arbitrary and without any definite organization till the year 1756. At this time Karl Frederick Eckleff, Councillor of State, founded a "Scottish" lodge, which three years later organized itself into a "Grand Chapter." [Not in any way connected with the Royal Arch, of course. Tr.] The formation of lodges which constituted themselves after this was of the same nature as that of many other "rites" of "high" and mystical degrees, which emerged at this epoch (around 1759) all through Europe.

 

The most characteristic and most important of these rites during a considerable period was that of the Strict Observance, in Germany. The Swedish lodges attached themselves to this system and entered into communication with it, particularly when the King of Sweden, Gustave III, who was Grand Master of the Swedish Grand Lodge, gave, one year after he ascended the throne, the gavel of the Order into the hands of his brother, the Duke of Sudermania. The latter sought to collect and unite various Masonic materials drawn from the whole world. According to tradition most of these materials came from Florence, Geneva and Bohemia.

 

The Duke charged a commission with the task of studying the different rituals, and in the year 1800 the Swedish rite received its definitive form as an organized expression of the idea of absolute royalty. During this time the Strict Observance and the other more mystical rites of the "High Degrees" disappeared little by little on account of their having no coherent organization and their lack of any real philosophic foundation.

 

Now the Swedish rite maintains itself by force of its organization and by the support of ideas which serve as a base for absolute monarchy; but these ideas are not specifically Masonic, rather they are a drag on Masonic thought by their inflexible forms. The Swedish rite has cultivated friendly relations very little with the rest of the Masonic world. Nevertheless, in 1770, Zinnendorf founded the National Grand Lodge of Berlin, taking as a foundation the MSS. and other works of Eckleff; and in 1819, Nettelblad brought this Grand Lodge into accord with the rite that in the interval had been evolved in Sweden.

 

It follows from what has been said that the Swedish rite is followed in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Prussia. It numbers about 50,000 members.

 

ORGANIZATION

 

At the head of all the Grand Lodges of the different provinces is "the unknown Chief," a mythical successor to Solomon the Wise. Each of these Grand Lodges is governed by a "Deputy of Solomon the Wise" (who, in Denmark and Sweden, respectively, is the king of the country). The Deputy is elected for life by a Superior Council, and he governs the lodges with an absolute authority. At his side is placed the Council, which however has only a consultative voice in affairs, composed of nine civilian brethren and two ecclesiastical, all of whom must be Commanders of the Rose Croix (the highest degree).

 

The rite has five degrees of the Chapter, beneath which are three degrees of St. Andrew and below that again the three degrees of St. John's Masonry, which corresponds to our Apprentice, Companion and Master. [The E. A., F. C. and M. M. of English speaking Masonry. Tr.] In all there are eleven degrees. In Prussia there are only ten, as there are only two degrees of St. Andrew's Masonry.

 

The brethren of all the degrees owe implicit obedience to their superiors and obligate themselves expressly by oath never to propose any modification in the rite, and never to make any Masonic connections outside the rite.

 

The St. John's lodges (working the first three degrees) constitute in this rite merely a kind of antechamber to the high grades. In order to constitute a St. John's lodge it is necessary to have at least nine brethren who belong to the chapter. [The degrees of the Chapter in this rite are, 7d, Knights of the East or Prince of Jerusalem, equivalent to the 15d of the A.& A.S.R.; 8d, Confidant of King Solomon, or Knight of the West, a Templar degree; 9d, Knight of the South, or Confidant of St. Andrew or Perfect Templar; 10d, Knight Companion of the Red Cross. The 11d is Deputy of Solomon the Wise and is held only by the King. Whether the 10d is really a Rose Croix degree or not is not certain with the information at hand. The last three degrees are said to be purely honorary. Tr.] It is necessary that the Master should have attained at least the 8d [i.e., he too must belong to the Chapter. Tr.] He is designated by the "Deputy" of Solomon the Wise. [The actual head of the rite in each province. Tr.] In effect the supreme power gives to the lodge a choice between three brothers designated by him.

 

POWERS OF THE HIGH GRADES

 

The brethren of the five higher grades (the Chapter) are empowered to enter any lodge, to vote, to ballot, and in the last case they have the right to put in the ballot box a number of white or black balls which differ according to their rank. They thus exercise an absolute authority in the affairs of the lodges. [Of course the Master, and the other nine Chapter members necessary to the constitution of a lodge of St. John, also have the same right. Tr.] The lodges which disobey are dissolved and their members transferred to others.

 

The oath demanded of each candidate at initiation obligates him to absolute obedience, blind, and for life. And further than this it is not accompanied by any explanation of the obligation thus concentrated. It is, in general, to the decrees that have been issued by the "Deputy" in the past, and to the decrees that he may choose to make in the future, that this oath of obedience refers. Further than this the Swedish rite is based entirely on Christian dogma; it is not permitted to accept any candidate who belongs to any other than the Christian religion.

 

The ceremonial of the lodges, especially in the high degrees, is very stately, and it is based on the myths which have attached themselves to the Order of the Templars from its foundation to its end. This is an element exactly similar to that found in the Strict Observance and in the Grand Lodge of Berlin. These myths of the Templars however have been renounced since 1887, after the labors of Schottmuller, carried out by the order of the German Emperor, Frederick III, who was, so it is said, a perfect Mason. As this resume shows, the Swedish rite has acted in a manner to bring about a complete rupture with the rest of the Masonic world. It considers itself as something extraordinary, superior to all other rites. It does not desire to entertain friendly relations with them, and it does not recognize their rights as Masons. It has held relations only with the Grand Lodge of England. [And then only very distantly. Tr.]

 

Ardent Christians have often attacked the dogmatic teaching that is professed in the Swedish lodges, in which the myths of the "Essenes" play a considerable role. The Essenes were a Jewish sect, spoken of by Flavius Josephus in his history of the wars against the Romans. It was a fraternal association, whose members lived an ascetic and celibate life. It was strongly organized. The Swedish rite has intentionally confounded this sect with the primitive Christians. In this way it has established a connection between itself and the Jewish King, Solomon the Wise, who plays such a large part in universal Freemasonry. The Swedish rite is unable to pass beyond this, for it has cut itself off from all spiritual relationship with the rest of the Masonic world.

 

Actually the importance of these myths is very little. In spite of very commendable ideas, which in their time justified the absolute monarchy, this rite has preserved completely the character of intolerance, which by the side of the above ideas constitutes the hateful aspect of absolute power, a character that in the present epoch presents it in an aspect that is really shocking.

 

This is why, in the North, true Masonry has the greatest difficulties in establishing itself. Masonry has, however, a grand social mission, involved more and more in the troubled circumstances of our day. Although as yet, even in Germany, an organized Masonic movement for the propagation of humanitarian ideas and for world peace, and co-operation between the different peoples, has not yet been possible. [Since 1906 an Independent Grand Lodge "Masonic Union of the Rising Sun" has been working towards this end.] The Swedish rite, in its inflexibility and the rigor of its organization bears the greatest responsibility for this check to the true aims of Freemasonry.

 

GERMANY

 

Now, in a few words, let us look at the present situation in Germany. The position is as follows:

 

1. The Grand Lodges of the Swedish rite, which accept only men of the Christian faith and of pure German blood. These are the three Grand Lodges of Prussia--"The Three Globes," "The Royal York" [this name has been changed to "Friendship" since the war] and the "National Grand Lodge of Germany" at Berlin. These Grand Lodges are fiercely anti-semitic, intolerant, and they brutally repudiate any idea of universal fraternity. They count about two-thirds of German Freemasons in their membership, about 40,000. These Freemasons compose in the minds of the Germans, even of the profane, an elite circle, of men of reputation and weight, possessing an incontestable prestige among their countrymen.

 

2. The lodges connected with the Humanitarian rite. That is, the Grand Lodges of Hamburg, "Of the Sun" at Bayreuth, of Saxony, of Frankfort, "Of Brotherly Union" and of "Concord" at Darmstadt. These accept members of all religions, professing in this respect a tolerance quite unknown to the Swedish rite. This indicates quite plainly a broader spirit, more under the influence of reason, and more accessible to the ideal of universality. Two characters differentiate it from us Masons of the Grand Orient (of France). We systematically refuse to espouse any philosophic doctrine, enjoying in this regard a complete independence, an independence which, it was inevitable furthermore, should be established little by little by reason of the supple Latin mentality, which possesses in the supreme degree the gift of adaptation to its surroundings. This opposes itself--by a fatality --to the stiffness of the northern mind, too often frozen in the perpetual and rigorous observations of ritual and symbols which to us appear obsolete and archaic.

 

The lodges of the Humanitarian rite are pacifist, in spite of their refusal to take up again the contacts broken through the war. Before that, this rite had relations with the Grand Orient. It is necessary, however, to take count of the psychologic situation created by the German defeat. I am convinced that this situation is only accidental, and that with tact we will be able to put an end to it in time.

 

The Constitutions of the Humanitarian rite forbid all discussions on politics and religion in official meetings. Their membership in Germany is about 20,000, approximately one-third of the number of German Masons. [There is also the "Free Union of the Five Independent German Lodges which are "Minerva" at Leipsig, "Archimedes" at Altenburg, "Balduin" at Leipsig, "Charles of the Crown of Rue" at Hildburghausen, and "Archimedes" at Gera. These five lodges are in fraternal relationship with the eight German Grand Lodges, with the Grand Lodge Alpina of Switzerland and others (2).]

 

NOTES

 

(1) Most American Masons are entirely unaware that the principles upon which Masonic Jurisdiction is determined are quite peculiar to this country and are not Landmarks. The American system has, however, the merit of clarity and simplicity. The case of the Polar Star Lodge is curious. The body that we should regard as the regular and supreme Masonic authority in Norway was quite content to have a provincial Grand Lodge holding from another country, and lived in amicable and fraternal intercourse with it. But it objects to its becoming an independent Grand Lodge. We might make a rule out of this, but when we go to Germany or France we find independent Grand Lodges and independent lodges living happily together in fraternal intercourse, and our rule is overturned. But though there is no consistent rule about governing bodies there is agreement about lodges. Lodges are free to accept anyone who applies if they find him worthy, no matter where he lives or where he comes from.

 

(2) This "Union" is not a Grand Lodge, so far as we can find out it has no legislative or executive functions. The lodges are independent and sovereign, but they are in friendly alliance.

 

----o----

 

The Vatican Mistaken

 

By DR. LEO CADIUS

 

IN his encyclical letter To the Princes and Peoples of the Universe, June 20, 1894, Leo XIII addresses himself to the Eastern or Orthodox churches, inviting them to join the Roman Church and to place themselves under the authority of the Holy See:

 

You have no reason to fear, as a consequence of your return to Catholic Unity, any curtailment of your rights, of the privileges of your patriarchs, or of the rites and customs of your respective churches. For it has always been and will ever be the intention of the Holy See, as it has been her most constant tradition, to treat all nations with a noble spirit of condescension and to show the greatest consideration for their origin and customs.

 

Note the expression: "with a noble spirit of condescension."

 

When the world war broke out, the Allies were anxious to secure the aid of Italy. Let us suppose now that the French government addressed an appeal for that purpose to the Italian government and the said appeal contained the passage: "We Frenchmen, Latins like yourselves, have always treated you Italians with a noble spirit of condescension." If such an appeal had been published in the Italian press, what would have been the effect? Indignation meetings and demonstrations would have been held throughout the whole peninsula and many of the infuriated Italians would have clamored for the entrance into the world war on the side of the Central Empires. But then, what government would have been capable of such a stunt?

 

The Czar of Russia exercised a sort of protectorate over the adherents of the Eastern Church. He was the pope of those within the Russian Empire. He ruled also over a round twenty millions of Roman Catholic subjects, mostly Poles and Lithuanians. He never looked upon them with any too great a favor. He frequently persecuted them. It is not probable that the Pope's letter, with its "noble spirit of condescension" tended to ameliorate their unenviable lot.

 

Where was our Catholic press when the Holy Father, the White Shepherd, handed that "condescending" amenity to the Eastern churches ? The sheep bleat when there is something amiss with their shepherd; for instance, when he fails to feed them at the accustomed hour. But not our Catholic flock. It is too well disciplined.

 

Mr. Charles C. Marshall, in his famous Open Letter to Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York, quotes from the encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII on The Christian Constitution of States:

 

The Almighty has appointed the charge of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine and the other over human things.... Over the mighty multitude of mankind, God has set rulers with power to govern, and He has willed that one of them (the Pope) should be the head of all.

 

From the encyclical letter on The Reunion of Christendom Mr. Marshall quotes: "We who hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." In a limited sense, all those in authority hold the place of God towards their subjects; the parents over the children; the teachers over the pupils; the ministers over their congregations. Still, if President Coolidge asserted in a speech that in the United States he holds the place of God Almighty, his claim would be greeted with an outburst of hilarity.

 

There is such a thing as a sense of fitness of things. Hence it caused no small amount of amusement in Germany when about two decades ago Kaiser Wilhelm II, of happy memory, while addressing a regiment of soldiers, mostly socialists, impressed it upon them that they must regard their hated drillmasters, the noncommissioned officers (unter-offiziere), as "the representatives of God."

 

The Kaiser talked, and the German people laughed and sneered, and wondered if there was no way of muzzling him. He has never been muzzled, but he is in Holland now.

 

The Pope talked and his Catholic flock imbibed his wisdom with a reverence as if it was taking the Lord's Supper. As w e have observed, the Catholic press admired in Pope Leo XIII principally his altogether extraordinary diplomatic acumen.

 

Question: What kind of encyclical letters would he have issued, if he had not been gifted with such prodigious diplomatic skill? PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

 

The promulgation of the Syllabus of Pius IX was shortly followed by the Vatican Council, the first ecumenical council of the Roman Church since that of Trent (1545-1565). The outstanding issue at this Vatican Council was the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility. It created among non-Catholics a most unfavorable impression. It stirred up fresh distrust and hatred of the papacy, and of the Catholic Church in general. Like the unfortunate Syllabus it has conjured up petty persecutions, discriminations against Catholics in business, in their academic and government career. In reality, the dogma of papal infallibility is a harmless doctrine. It has not conferred any new powers on the papacy. The right of the Holy See to act as the supreme tribunal in religious controversies has been accepted by the Catholic world all along. Roma locuta causa finita, "Rome has spoken, the controversy is ended," was the recognized Catholic principle.

 

Papal infallibility means that the Pope is inerrant in matters of religion and morals when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, officially as the head of the Church. As a private theologian he can err. But against his ex cathedra decision there is no higher appeal.

 

Since the proclamation of that dogma, the question has risen to the front: When is a papal pronouncement strictly ex cathedra? The theologians have not as yet reached an agreement on that point. For instance, they are divided in their opinion whether the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX is an infallible dictum. The majority seem to favor its non-infallible character.

 

In the American Church Monthly (Episcopalian, New York) of February, 1927, the Reverend Alan Whittemore, in an article of unusual merit on Church Unity, asserts that according to many recognized Roman Catholic authorities the Holy Father has made but two infallible pronouncements during the whole course of the Church's history.

 

Though a papal pronouncement, like the Syllabus, need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, it carries, nevertheless, great force. A Catholic is forbidden to defend a thesis that has been proscribed by the Syllabus. If a priest would, for example, still uphold the theory that the papacy is vastly better off without the secular power--Central Italy--he is liable to be found guilty of contumacy and to be removed from office. This shows to what extent freedom of speech is restricted in the Roman Church. While the proclamation of the new dogma has practically neither augmented nor diminished the powers of the papacy and produced no visible benefits for the Church, it has had annoying consequences. It has cast a fresh stumbling block in the path of the non-Catholics by whom it is still utterly misunderstood. It has released a deluge of ridicule on the Church, ridicule mixed with hatred and disgust. And perhaps 90 per cent of the Catholics themselves misinterpret it. Our religious teachers have been explaining all along what it means and what it does not mean. They will have to keep up explaining till dooms day. And all because a powerful group of theologians, rigorists of the old school, love to multiply dogmas. They are bent upon restricting the freedom of thought and of speech. Their hobby must be gratified no matter at what loss to the peace and welfare of the Church.

 

Bishop Ketteler of Mayence, the father of socio-economic welfare work in Germany, Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, the eminent historian, and other leading churchmen had vigorously declared themselves against the advisability of proclaiming the trouble breeding dogma, and had voted against it. John Ignace von Doellinger, the foremost scholar in the Church, bolted the Council. The revolt he inaugurated proved abortive. But it was by a close margin that a great schism was averted.

 

The Vatican Council was interrupted by the Franco-German war of 1870-1871. It is to reconvene in the near future. If I am informed correctly, a tentative program has been mailed to the bishops throughout the world. Its contents have so far been kept from the public. The suspicion seems justified that something will be "slipped over" on the Catholic people. Probably a new dogma, or several dogmata, will be hatched out that will irritate the world, be misunderstood by 99 per cent of the people, and bring annoyance, mortification, and, perhaps, even persecutions on millions of the faithful. The priests will have a few more additional doctrines to explain.

 

The recent crisis in Mexico has revealed one thing: the American Protestants are almost solidly in sympathy with the Calles government. Does that straw not indicate which way the wind is blowing?

 

In view of the sad experience we have had with the Syllabus and Papal Infallibility, it would seen a timely move, if the Knights of Columbus petitioned the Pope that he publish sufficiently in advance the tentative program of the coming Council. Feeble as Catholic public opinion is in the Vatican-ridden American Church-feeble towards the Vatican--it may nevertheless risk a faint whisper intimating to the Holy Father that he warn the irrepressible restrictionists and dogma sponsors to use a little caution. Given free reign, they will again start to dance and jig around their idol whose name is Excessive Restriction. It is our good, well meaning, patient Catholic people, that will have to pay the fiddler.

 

But why should it be up to the Knights to present such matters to the Vatican? Could not our American bishops and priests attend to it? They could, but they will not do so. They are tongue-tied. They dare not utter a wish that might displease the Holy Father. Not only their career, their prospects of advancement, but their very livelihood is at his mercy. Moreover, many of our bishops, including our most influential dignitaries, are themselves restrictionists, particularly in the question of church government. While those who are inclined towards latitudinarianism will for other reasons prefer to observe a judicious silence. They know that the restrictionists are sitting in the saddle at the Vatican.

 

As regards the common clergy, you could not induce a group of priests to draw up such a petition. If you succeeded, it would be of no avail. The Vatican would frown upon such a move. It would scent a spirit of unrest and insurgency to be promptly crushed. Such matters, like demanding for the common clergy and for the laity a voice in the government of the Church, cannot be presented to the Vatican without implying a criticism of its past policies and, perhaps, of its present policy. Such criticism will not be countenanced. The Vatican is accustomed to be fed adulation and wants nothing but adulation and servility.

 

An individual priest who presumes to criticize the Vatican is laughed at as a joke. He could not make himself heard. And if he should succeed in making himself heard, he will be regarded by our good conservative Catholic masses an impudent rebel, a scabby sheep, a weed in the garden of the Church. He is liable to be denounced by the loyal Catholic press as a wretch who, inflated by insane conceit, has been shipwrecked in faith. At best, he is pitied as a hopeless fool who has thrown himself in the path of the most powerful steam roller on the face of the earth. He is a ridiculous mouse who attempted to bell the cat. Many of the bishops, most of the best educated priests and laymen and, in short, the greater part of the American Catholic intelligentsia, may secretly approve of his stand, but it is doubtful whether even one person will dare to side with him openly. He will need a strong sense of humor and an imperturbable mental poise to bear his stigma with equanimity. For if he has any common sense at all, he cannot help asking himself: Can I be possibly right when so many good people condemn me and nobody defends me ? On the other hand, the restrictionists and dogma spouters who bring needlessly odium and even persecutions on the Church are applauded as the pious loyalists, as the courageous champions of the faith. They are in the inner counsels of the Lord and on terms of familiarity with the Holy Ghost. In fact, they are the mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost. Their wisdom and virtue is extolled during their life time, they are granted the papal blessing on their deathbed and they die with the sweetest and happiest smile on their face, conscious of having kept their faith, and confident that St. Peter will receive them with a brass band at the gates of paradise. And as most of them are really good and virtuous people, we allow them cheerfully to be entitled to all that. They mean well and we bear them no grudge.

 

Maybe my pessimism is unwarranted. The Marshall Smith correspondence has furnished us a pleasant surprise. The valiant Governor of New York, the most popular Catholic layman in the United States, has, after consulting a highly esteemed priest, virtually repudiated the papal doctrine of the superiority of the Church over the State. He has done so amid the applause of almost the entire nation, the Catholics emphatically included.

 

WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

 

Mr. Marshall has induced the Governor to make that "declaration of independence," as the Literary Digest has characterized his summary of political principles. There is a ray of hope that the American Catholics may still further emancipate themselves from the Italian Autocracy in the Vatican. They may yet succeed in being placed on a footing of equality with the Italians in the Catholic world church.

 

Both Mr. Marshall and Governor Smith are entitled to congratulations. They have advanced us a step towards clearing up the Vatican problem. But that problem is far from being disposed of. I venture the following statements:

 

First. The American Catholics are, without exception, loyally devoted to their country and to its Constitution.

 

Second. The Vatican has no ambition whatsoever of supplanting the government of the United States, or for that matter, of any government in the world.

 

Third. However, if Roman Catholicism in the United States keeps up the rate of increase it has maintained in the last half century, then, owing to a certain peculiarity in the hierarchic organization of the American Church, in fifty years from now the Vatican will be the super-government hovering over the federal government. The latter will be at the mercy of the Italian Autocracy. The Autocracy will, perhaps, make no use of its tremendous latent power. Or, what seems more probable, it will make only a very moderate, a very broadminded and a very beneficent use of it. But that is not the issue. The question is: Does the American people want to be at the mercy of the great foreign Autocracy--of any foreign power?

 

Perhaps I have made a rash, irresponsible statement. In my work The Shadow of the Vatican, which will shortly appear serially in these pages, I endeavor to prove my contention. I will be glad to be corrected and to be shown that I have essayed to give a false alarm.

 

There are millions of American non-Catholics today who, devoid of all religious prejudice, view the form of government of the Roman Church with a certain uneasiness. Why not discuss the problem openly and candidly and try to dispose of it one way or the other? At any rate, such a discussion may tend to clear the atmosphere.

 

----o----

 

The Divine Attributes

 

By BRO. S. J. CARTER, New York

 

A THEOLOGIAN of our own day, the Rev. Dr. Robert MacIntosh, in a discussion of theistic belief, has said that attention has been confined almost entirely to the question: "Does God exist ?" and to advancing proofs of the affirmative, while the further question: "What is God?" is slurred over, if not ignored "as if there could be no two opinions regarding that; whereas in truth there is two hundred opinions," and as many more, it might be added, as there are believers who think as well as believe.

 

The older divines allotted long chapters in their ponderous tomes to the discussion of the "attributes of God," but they were not so much concerned with proofs of His existence. Not that they omitted them, for being systematists they covered every part of the field, but in their day God and the devil and heaven and hell were taken for granted by everyone. Even so late as 1750 Hume did not formally deny the existence of God; he was called atheistic because his philosophy left no place for a Deity.

 

The Deism of two hundred years ago undertook to account for everything by reason, and to prove God's existence by a "natural" theology. In this, the early Rationalists attempted nothing really new, but their "orthodox" opponents felt that they tended in effect to belittle revelation and to exalt human reason. The controversy is of little interest today, for the descendants of the orthodox stand in positions far more advanced (did they but know it) than the Deists and Rationalists of the past.

 

WHAT IS ATHEISM

 

When a man calls himself an atheist the first thought of the present writer is to inquire what he means exactly, for curious as it may seem to those who have not examined closely--and, it may be added, fearlessly --what their own beliefs imply, this is neither obvious, nor in general easily defined. The atheist, even within the memory of those who do not yet care to think of themselves as old, was once regarded as something monstrous, inhuman, beyond the pale. Indeed as something essentially and wilfully diabolical, partaking of the character (and destined to the fate) of the spirits of evil. He was a pariah, a moral leper, a thing apart, amazing, inexplicable, repulsive, and yet an object of intense interest, horrible and fascinating, like a drowned man, a hanging, a fatal accident, or one the like things that draw a crowd and excite the so-called morbid curiosity that is normal to 85 per cent of the race, and probably suppressed in most of the remainder.

 

Just as sex novels now, two generations ago writers were putting out stories about heroes and heroines who came through storm and stress to the haven of faith, or through storm and stress made shipwreck of it; of clergymen who were forced by an irresistible passion for truth to give up their religious beliefs, or infidels who, following the same guide, came back to the fold. These novels were incomparably better written than their counterparts today, it took more ability and more courage to do it well, yet they are completely forgotten. Chiefly it would appear because the whole mental atmosphere has so changed that the questions thus dealt with now seem fantastic and unreal to the generality of the reading public, and leave us wondering at what the world was like in those days. Even our most fundamentally minded religious reactionaries have built themselves mental and moral houses and planted metaphorical vineyards on the very ground that was then being torn up by the front-line fighting--if a military metaphor may be permitted--and poisoned by mephitic clouds of abuse.

 

THE CHARACTER OF DEISM

 

It is true that the eighteenth century was characterized, at least among the cultured and intellectual, by an essential infidelity; but it was a superficial attitude, more than willing to conform to custom and convention. To go to church was fashionable, to profess plain disbelief was bad form. Instead of doing this men invented Deism. God made the world, as a clockmaker makes a clock, he wound it up, and went away and left it. Up to this time science was still in the descriptive stage--what happened when an acid was put with an alkali, or copper and zinc in salt water. Botany and zoology were still only classifying orders and species. In history and letters criticism was becoming methodized in the matter of texts and documentation, and in the mass of the elementary work that called to be done before further advance could be made, while the more crucial questions had not even emerged--the questions of how and why.

 

Sooner or later, if men went on, there was bound to be a conflict-the conflict loosely and inaccurately, though conveniently, called that of science and religion, really that between scientific hypotheses and traditional religious formulas. The first great battle (there had been preliminary skirmishes) was fought over Darwin's theory of evolution--not, it should be noted, over evolution itself, for that was no new idea--but its cause and mode of operation. The eighteenth century had been an age of polite and shallow philosophical doubt, the nineteenth was one of an earnest but materialistic passion for truth. So much had been achieved by slow patient gathering of tested facts, that by reaction and contrast any conclusion not reached in this way was held to be inadmissible, to be put on the docket as suspect if not sentenced out of hand to rejection. It depended on temperament which procedure was followed, but the tendency of the period was to deny all that could not be proved by scientific methods, that is subjected to repeated and controlled experiment and producing results measurable with scale and balance. Today, what with theories of relativity that dismiss time and space as mere abstractions without essential reality, and physical hypotheses that picture the atom, the ultimate unit of matter, as an indefinitely minute but very complex solar system consisting of still smaller, very much smaller ions, or particles of negative electricity (if a particle of electricity is conceivable) revolving at inconceivable velocities about a proton or particle of positive electricity, the solid material universe that seemed so ultimate to the preceding generation is well on the way to dissolving into the substance of which dreams are made.

 

THE SUBSTANCE OF ATHEISM

 

It was said above that it is not really clear what atheism means. It is quite true that most self-styled atheists think they know, as do their theological opponents, nevertheless it is one of those conceptions that the closer it is examined the more and more indefinite and vague it becomes. There is the fool who has said in his heart that there is no God, who is the same person, presumably, barred by Freemasonry as a "stupid atheist." But this atheism is not to be dignified as a mental attitude, it is merely an expression of the wishes and desires of the pure materialist, who sees nothing in life but selfish advancement and sensual enjoyment. So far as Freemasonry is concerned his character bans him in any case, he is not worth argument, but merely of classification.

 

What then is atheism from an intellectual standpoint ? We must remember that through the ages many men have been so stigmatized because they rejected conceptions of the Deity that were degraded or mistaken; it is an easy way to get rid of an opponent whose arguments are hard to answer, and whose conclusions are disturbing. These men are not properly to be classed with those who profess atheism, and it may be well to consider what these last are trying to do. Only the half-hearted and those of little faith will fear them.

 

An illuminating example is before us today. Certain good people have been much exercised and horrified at the spread of an organization among students in our universities for the propagation of this creed--for this atheism is held with all the fervor of a religious belief. Questioned as to what they seek to do the reply is that they want to get rid of the idea of "a big man up above in Heaven." One wonders what kind of religious instruction they have come in contact with, but if that is what they are attacking in this day and age, one can only say "In God's name let them get on with it." Again, take Robert Ingersoll, once a name to conjure with (both for blessing and cursing) but now almost forgotten. A winning orator and a pleasing writer, his arguments were shallow, and in truth effective only against the futilities and finalities that had formed as excrescencies about the orthodoxies of the day. One can believe that in the divine Providence he had his place and his work. But again, with such as he we need not concern ourselves.

 

SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE

 

A much more weighty opponent to religion was Ernst Haeckle, whose achievements in biology and whose weighty reasoning put him in an altogether different class. He did not call himself an atheist, but a monist. A monist is not necessarily an atheist, but a materialistic monist is practically the same thing, so far as the position of either can be made clear. It must be remembered that when Haeckle wrote the books that have been translated and read in so many languages, the newer physics had not come into being. The atom was still the ultimate unit of matter, and it was still regarded as an exceedingly minute body, impenetrable, indestructible, having, so it was uncritically assumed, all the properties of larger bodies. With these atoms alone he tried to account for the universe, and life and generation, and will and desire, and love and hate and thought and moral good and evil. It was a great attempt, and convinced many and apparently satisfied himself; but in reality it was a failure. For without telling his readers, apparently, indeed, quite unknown to himself, he in the course of his argument, here a little and there a little, imported into his bare material atoms all the potentialities of life. Had he only gone a step or two further his monism would have ended at least in pantheism if not theism. Incidentally, from sundry incidental glimpses he gives into his own spiritual history it is fairly clear that his passionate enmity to religion was due to the utterly impossible teaching he received in its name as a child.

 

Herbert Spencer took, in his own way, the step at which Haeckle stopped short. He may be labeled as agnostic--a conception, by the way, no more clear on examination, than atheist. To him God was the Absolute--the unknowable origin of all things, agreeing thus far with the theologians, and here he stopped short and parted company, of no practical concern to mankind. For Spencer could not conceive the Absolute being interested in ephemeral beings of time and space. Space is here wanting to discuss his position, if not time also, but with the same materials he showed it was logical to go on to postulate the existence of some kind of Deity which the biologist Haeckle had failed to see.

 

But we need concern ourselves no further with either writer, influential as both have deservedly been, for the scientific conceptions on which their systems were based have crumbled and in their place we have the new physics. It is true that there is a clinging to the past, and that present day scientists, as a class, seem as alien from religion as ever, but the battleground is a new one, and the strategy and tactics of both sides are changing accordingly. Scientists as such still see no place in the universe for God, but their ideas of the ultimate constitution of matter are far more spiritual in truth than the spiritual conceptions of many who pride themselves on their religious orthodoxy. But it must be remembered (scientists themselves do not always remember though more inclined to do so than in the past) that the scientific field of investigation is a strictly limited one, and inevitably the results are limited, too.

 

THE WAY TO THEISM

 

The common sense of mankind insists that a cause must be found for everything, and eventually a final first cause. The scientist is apt to reply that to seek for a final cause is a meaningless problem. It is, from the purely scientific point of view--but there are wider prospects than that--there is life and human relationships, for example, and like matters. From such standpoints the question does have meaning, meaning of the utmost importance. Scientists profess great contempt for metaphysics, but it might be better for them if they knew more of philosophy, for they are now beginning, rather crudely, to tackle particular cases of some of the problems that metaphysicians have been discussing generally for centuries, and on which they have reached at least as much agreement as physicists have in their theories.