The Builder Magazine

July 1928 - Volume XIV - Number 7

 

The Order of St. John of Jerusalem

A Historical Sketch By BRO. R. J. NEWTON, Texas

THE Order of St. John has a long and honorable history. It is said that a hospital for pilgrims had existed at Jerusalem from the third century on. Charlemagne seems to have founded and endowed a Latin hospice towards the end of the eighth century. This probably combined the functions of a hostel (or hotel) and that of a hospital. Jerusalem was in the hands of the Saracens from the time of its capture by Omar in 637, but he and his successors interfered but little with the affairs of the resident Christians and the pilgrims, with some exceptions. In the year 1010 Abu Ali alMansur, the Fatimite Caliph of Egypt (himself the son of a Christian mother, and reputed to have been insane), ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other Christian buildings in Jerusalem. Some years after his death in 1020 some merchants of Amalfi, a city of Campania in Italy, purchased the site of Charlemagne's institution and founded a new hospital which was put in charge of monks of the Benedictine Order, and this was later dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The master of this hospital in 1087 was a certain Gerard, of whom very little is known, but he gained the favor of the Crusaders under Godfrey de Bouillon, and was enabled after the capture of the city to enlarge the institution of which he was the head. At this time the "rule" was changed from the Benedictine to that of the Augustinian Friars.

 

The fame of the hospital spread throughout Europe and gifts were made to it, by princes, prelates and nobles, of lands and money. In 1113 the Pope took it under his especial protection, and Gerard was entitled, by the bull of Paschal II, as the "Institutor" of the Order of the Hospital of St. John.

 

The change from a purely charitable and religious institution to a military one probably came about under the successor of Gerard, Raymond de Puiz. This does not seem to have been deliberate, but to have been due to force of circumstances. The Saracens were renewing their efforts to win back the Holy City, and defenders were doubtless at a premium. With the example of the Templars before them, it was only natural that those brethren of the Order who had previously been soldiers should have taken their weapons again in the emergency. However, though it became military it did not at once take on that exclusively aristocratic character that marked it in later times. The rules enacted by Raymond provided that the brethren were to be bound by the usual three monastic vows, chastity, proverty and obedience. They were to claim nothing for themselves but bread and water and coarse raiment, "since our Lord's poor, whose servants we are, go naked and sordid, and it is a disgrace for the servant to be proud when his master is humble." They were to wear the cross on the breast of their "capes and mantles" and were not to bear arms except when "the standard of the Cross is displayed" in war against the infidel.

 

The clothing of the brethren is said to have been black in peace and red in war, and in each case the cross was white. This usage has continued to the present day.

 

There were nuns of the order also, doubtless to care for female pilgrims, and these also wore the white cross on a hooded mantle of black over a red robe.

 

From being a local institution it rapidly expanded, and it had houses at various places in the East and on the pilgrims' route, and all over Europe as well. Like the Order of the Temple it was made independent of the local ecclesiastical authorities by repeated papal bulls. Though its character to some extent was changed by this wealth and prosperity, yet it must be said that its original purpose was never forgotten. There were hospital wards as we would say in all their houses; the best physicians and surgeons of the day were retained in their service, and the rule that the sick were masters and the brethren their servants was never wholly lost sight of. Unlike the Templars the affiliation of women to the Order was encouraged, and these ladies engaged actively in nursing the sick.

 

This great increase in numbers, and the acquiring of property largely in the form of landed estates necessitated a much more elaborate organization than had been necessary for the original hospital at Jerusalem. The head of the Order, the Grand Master, had perforce to be an administrator as well as a soldier. In fact he was, under feudal conditions, to all intents and purposes an independent prince. The organization adopted, or evolved, followed the lines familiar at the time, of devolved responsibilities. The Grand Master was to the other chief officers as a king to his chief barons. Through them the hierarchy passed down to the provinces, the priories and so to the commanderies, which were the smallest unit. The chiefs of these administered the estates and endowments of the order in their locality. The division into "Languages" was a later development, but sprang naturally out of the Provincial administration. It is possible that this form of division was intended to obviate the suspicion and jealousy of the rulers of the different countries in Europe consequent on the rise of a new nationalism in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The example of the fate of the Templars doubtless helped them to see the danger.

 

The later history of the Crusades is far from being a wholly edifying one. The domination of the Holy Land by the "Franks" was, or largely became, a commercial, or at least an economic business. Without adequate support from Western Europe it was only a question of time before the growing power of the Saracens forced the intruders out of Syria. And as intruders they were regarded not only by the Mohammedans but by the Oriental Christians as well. It does seem, however, that with the decadence of the Crusaders generally, the Knights and Brethren of St. John kept on the whole to a higher level. As has been noted they never forgot the claims of the sick, nor did they forget the claims of the weak. They fought the rear guard action of the ebbing occidental invasion. While the other warriors returned home they resisted obstinately at every step, and first at Rhodes and later at Malta they formed a bulwark against the aggressive attacks of the oriental hordes that, but for them, might quite possibly have overwhelmed a divided Europe piece-meal.

 

It will be impossible in the limits of a brief sketch to do more than to mention the heroic defense of Rhodes against the enormous forces of Muhammed II in 1480, under the leadership of Peter d'Aubusson; or the still more heroic defeat under Grand Master de l'Isle Adam in 1522 by Suleiman the Magnificent. From Rhodes the Knights withdrew to Candia in Crete, where they remained for a few years till the Emperor Charles V gave them the Island of Malta, with Tripoli in Africa. The latter possession they lost in 1551. Eleven years later the Ottoman fleet under Dragut attacked them in great force. They were besieged for nearly four months, during which 25,000 Turks are supposed to have been killed, including their leader. The Knights of St. John were again fortunate in having another heroic Grand Master, Jean de la Valette, under whom they withstood the fiercest attacks, until long delayed relief appeared in sight. Whereupon the Turks raised the siege and departed. It was the last serious attempt of the latter to conquer their ancient enemies in their stronghold; and though the Knights saw much fighting through the following centuries they remained in secure possession of Malta till 1798, when the feeble von Hompesch surrendered to Napoleon without a struggle. This really ended the career of the Order as a sovereign independent entity, although it did not cease to exist.

 

At the time of the Reformation in England, the Knights refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy were deprived of their estates and other revenues, but the Order was not definitely suppressed for some reason. However, it naturally became extinct with the death of its members.

 

In Scotland the preceptor, Sir James Sandilands, surrendered the property of the Order to the Crown. This was in 1547. It seems to have been something of a bargain, for he was created Lord Torpichen, and a considerable part of the estates was returned to him as his own property. There has been a claim made that the Order was continued under his headship as a Protestant organization.

 

In the time of Queen Mary steps were taken to revive the Order in England, but though a Royal Charter was issued nothing was actually done owing to the death of the queen and the accession of her sister Elizabeth. However the charter was not revoked, and it remained in abeyance until 1834.

 

After the final collapse of the first Napoleon there was an effort on the part of the Order to obtain a new sovereignty. Malta was out of the question, as it was too valuable to England for her to relinquish it, but there was a hope that they might regain Rhodes or some other island in the Eastern Mediterranean. Doubtless largely with a view to securing the support of the British Government steps were taken to revive the English Langue. In 1826 the Commission that had been instituted by the French Knights as an emergency administrative body appointed Sir William Peat as Prior for England, and he qualified for office under Queen Mary's charter. Thus, though the English Order has not had a continuous existence, it does have a legitimate descent.

 

It has justified its existence by quiet but persistent work for the sick. The Ambulance Association was formed in 1877 under its leadership and in considerations of the value of this movement Queen Victoria granted a new charter to the Order eleven years later, under which its later work has been carried on. The following account of the later developments is taken from a pamphlet published by the Order:

 

What was done for field hospitals by Florence Nightingale has been done for ambulance work generally by the St. John Ambulance Association. For nearly forty-five years its powers and organization have been steadily developing, not only in the British Isles, but throughout the Empire, so that India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and all the other Dominions have now their own splendid organizations.

 

It was soon found that those who had received instruction in first aid and home nursing and had passed their examinations should be banded together to work in unison, and for this purpose the St. John Ambulance Brigade was formed as an offshoot of the St. John Ambulance Association. It may be said to have begun on the occasion of Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 1887 and has ever since steadily grown. The first war service of the St. John Ambulance was during the South African and Chinese Wars of 1899 and 1902, when upwards of 2,000 men went to the theatre of war and 70 of them laid down their lives in carrying on their work.

 

This war proved the expediency of establishing regular reserves for the naval and military authorities, a step which was taken with their most cordial cooperation, and on the outbreak of war in 1914 these reserves were called up.

 

On the 1st August orders were received from the Admiralty to mobilize the Royal Naval Sick Berth Reserve, the peace establishment of which was 1,200, out of which 849 men reported at their respective naval depots within forty-eight hours of the receipt of orders for their mobilization. Orders were received on the 4th August to mobilize Military Home Hospital Reserves, 2,000 strong, and by the 10th all members of this reserve had reported at their respective hospitals. On the 6th August the War Office called for 450 men to proceed with the Expeditionary Force immediately and the call was promptly answered. Following these demands the recruiting in the Brigade was continued with greatly renewed zeal in order to meet the constant demand of the naval and military authorities, and at the close of the war no less than 21,986 members of the St. John Ambulance had served with the naval and military forces. Amongst the chief work of the Order should be mentioned the St. John Ambulance Brigade Hospital at Etaples. The hospital was originally situated at Etaples and was designed for 585 beds, with splendidly equipped operating theatres, X-ray room, laboratory, dental surgery and all other necessary adjuncts to a first-class hospital and so superior were its personnel and equipment that the hospital came to be regarded as the autotype of a military hospital. On the 19th and 31st May, 1918, the hospital suffered severely from hostile air raids which resulted in death of eleven patients and four members of the hospital's personnel and many more casualties. Material damage was so great that the hospital had to be closed and was moved to the heights above the village of Deauville, and re-opened shortly before the Armistice.

 

A most interesting and successful experiment was carried out at Southport where an open-air hospital of 500 beds was formed by the local units of the St. John Ambulance, guaranteed financially by headquarters. This hospital proved entirely successful and demonstrated the fact that even cases where the lungs were involved did best in a hospital constructed on the open-air principle.

 

The ladies of the Order were in no way behindhand, and immediately on the outbreak of war formed a committee which was engaged chiefly in the despatch of surgeons and nurses for service abroad and in establishing and maintaining a warehouse from which nursing and medical comforts of all sorts were despatched.

 

In time of peace the Order is ever at work instructing tens of thousands annually in first aid to the injured, nursing and the elements of hygiene, and at the time of writing no less than 1,447,095 certificates of proficiency have been awarded. It is from these certificated workers that the ranks of the Brigade have been recruited, and that body has been enabled to carry out its programme of help to the injured on public occasions and processions. This work, though most under the notice of the public eye, represents by no means the bulk of the work of the St. John Ambulance, for there are the innumerable eases of injuries, great and small, which occur in factories, mines, railways and other industrial occupations, and here, though not in the limelight, the ambulance men are at work.

 

The British Ophthalmic Hospital at Jerusalem is another important undertaking of the Orderfounded in 1882, it continued its work amongst the population of Palestine and the neighboring countries until it was forced to close owing to the hostility of the Turks. On the entry of the British Forces into Jerusalem the hospital, which had been used as an ammunition depot, was blown up by the retiring Turks. It has, however, now been rebuilt and is continuing its work as of old.

 

The spirit which inspires the Order of St. John has its roots in the earliest years of chivalry, when the Knights of St. John combined for the first time in the history of the world the art of healing with valor as soldiers of the Cross. Through the centuries the Order has continued with a history more full and stimulating than that of any royal dynasty.

 

In England, the Order of St. John includes among its officers and members the greatest and oldest names of the realm. The King himself is its Sovereign and Patron. The Duke of Connaught, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge, is the Grand Prior. The sub-Prior is the Earl of Scarbrough. The Prelate is the Archbishop of York, the King of Norway, the Prince of Wales and Prince Arthur of Connaught are Knights of the Order, and the list of the members of the Grand General contains many of those most notable for their services to their country as statesmen or as soldiers and sailors.

 

The Order of St. John in America plans to function along the same practical lines of humanitarian service which has distinguished the English Order above every other branch of the Hospital Order in other European countries. The record made in England shows what can be accomplished by a fraternal order existing for service only and the hundreds and thousands of Freemasons, and others, who have sought an opportunity and agency through which they can help their fellows will now find it in the Order of the Hospital of St. John.

 

----o----

 

A Grand Lodge Acts

 

PERHAPS it is the high privilege of the Grand Lodge of New Jersey to save a Lost Cause, or at least, a cause which many of those not actively engaged in the movement may have come to consider as lost.

 

From New Mexico come great tidings. Past Grand Master Herbert B. Holt, President of the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association, writes that Grand Master Samuel E. Wood of New Mexico has received a check in favor of the Tuberculosis Association in the sum of $21,878.90, which represents the total contribution of the Masons and members of the Order of the Eastern Star of New Jersey for the cause of Masonic tuberculosis relief. Of this total, $12,299.00 was contributed by members of Masonic Lodges, and $7,672.00 by members of the Eastern Star, the balance being represented by interest on the fund.

 

In forwarding the contribution the Grand Master of New Jersey wrote that it was sent "with the express request and distinct understanding that it is to be used exclusively for actual relief and hospitalization of Master Masons, their wives and children."

 

In commenting upon this generous donation, Bro. Holt writes:

 

This represents the most munificent contribution which our association has thus far received. It speaks more eloquently than words of the true spirit of Masonry which prevails among the brethren of the Grand Jurisdiction of New Jersey. Its receipt has given us new hope and courage. We shall now press forward toward our ultimate goal.

 

New Jersey's contribution comes at a time when apparently there was no more hope of securing any official action or assistance for Masonic tuberculosis relief, and it therefore has a value far in excess of the amount of money contributed, in that it will give the brethren of New Mexico new strength and courage to continue their self-imposed task.

 

New Jersey's action proves two things. First, that a cause that is right is never lost, and second, that Freemasons, anywhere and everywhere, will, when given the opportunity, always respond generously to the call to aid and assist their distressed brethren. The chief obstacle to the movement for relief has been the apathy and indifference of Masons in official positions, and their unwillingness to permit any appeal from the Southwest to be presented to the Masonic bodies under their supervision.

 

New Jersey's action is a challenge to every other Masonic Grand Jurisdiction in America. A precedent has been created, a tradition has been established, and a landmark has been founded, and those who worship at the shrine of this Masonic trinity may now, perhaps, be able to turn their gaze toward their brethren in need. Other Grand Lodges have voted small contributions paid out of Grand Lodge funds. A few have levied a small per capita tax. But New Jersey permitted an appeal direct to its constituent bodies, and to the Eastern Star, and this contribution is a voluntary free gift from individual Masons and their female relatives, for the succor of their suffering brethren. It is an evidence that Freemasonry, in America, can function to fulfill its obligations.

 

All honor to New Jersey. May its noble action help to arouse renewed interest and activity in every state for the help of our numerous brethren and the member, of their families, who are afflicted with tuberculosis. May it cause every Mason in official position to consider seriously whether he has been a stumbling block or not in the way of his brethren, in denying to them the opportunity and the privilege of serving their brethren in need.

 

----o----

 

The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History

 

By BROS. A. L. KRESS AND R. J. MEEKREN

(Continued from June)

 

IN dealing last month with the arguments of William James Hughan in support of the theory that our present second and third degrees were invented some time during the interval between the definite organization of the Grand Lodge in June, 1717, and the publication of the Book of Constitutions in 1728, we had noticed that the minutes of the old lodge at Alnwick, like the pre-Grand Lodge records of the old lodges in Scotland, spoke of entering apprentices and admitting fellows, without any indication of what the terms used implied in the way of ceremonial, esoteric or otherwise, and suggested that aside from some interpretation based on other considerations these references were indeterminate in their bearing upon the problem.

 

Hughan next refers (1) to the "admission into the fraternity" of six gentlemen at Scarborough in 1705, and the Rules and Minutes of the old lodge at York. The former, which bears the date of 1725, provide only for the "making of a Brother," or "to make a Mason," which proves, he thinks, "the simple and primitive character of the regulations." The minutes use only the formula "admitted and sworn" varied by "sworn and admitted." Yet, as he points out, Dr. Drake, in his famous speech made on St. John's Day, Dec. 27, 1726, referred to three degrees under the initials E.P., F.C. and M.M., though the minutes go on to 1730 recording the swearing and admission only of candidates (2). One point which Hughan did not seem to have considered was that these records make no reference to any grades, apprentices do not seem to be mentioned at all, nor yet fellows. The head of the lodge was a President, though some of the brethren presiding signed themselves "master," as in 1725, followed by the two wardens, bracketed together without further distinction.

 

A number of other minutes and records of lodges subsequent to the formation of Grand Lodge are cited and discussed, the first being those of the lodge meeting at the Swan and Rummer, which was instituted Feb. 16, 1725-26, the two years being given because it was in the awkward period of transition between Old and New Style of dating. These minutes we unfortunately have not been able to consult. Hughan however definitely states that the degree of Fellow Craft (3) is never mentioned, but he says that this is not remarkable as the secretaries of lodges often ignored this ceremony even during the following decade when it is known from by-laws and other records that it was duly "sandwiched" between the first and third degrees. Consequently the omission in this case is not, in his opinion, conclusive that it was not being worked in this particular lodge. On the other hand it does not prove that it was.

 

According to the citation made by Hughan, at the meeting on June 8, 1726, Dr. Desaguliers and the Earl of Inchiquin being present as visitors, four gentlemen, including a lord and a baronet,

 

Were admitted Into the Society of Free Masonry and made by the Deputy Grand Master,

 

that is by Dr. Desaguliers. The terms "made" and "admitted" may be important.

 

The first reference in these minutes to the grade or degree of Master is under the date of April 29, 1727, and gives four names bracketed together with the brief note appended:

 

Were admitted Masters.

 

Hughan says that the first of these names, that of Jno. Dixon Hammond, Esq., appears "in the minutes of a remarkable meeting" in the previous month, March 26, with the remark

 

by Dispensation of the G. Master this Gent, was admitted.

 

What was remarkable about this meeting does not appear unless it was this entry. This is important as showing that the term "to admit" was not used in a specialized sense as applying to any particular grade or ceremony.

 

It may be noted also that this lodge was about a year old, if this year 1727 is reckoned New Style, as we presume it was. The next reference to Masters is under date of March 31, 1729, two years later, when in an entry headed

 

At a particular lodge held for passing of Masters . . .

 

we are told

 

The Masters Lodge was formed and the following brethren were admitted Masters .

 

followed by six names and this,

 

Brother John Emslie having been Recommended as a worthy and good Mason he was passed Master at the same time.

 

It appears that two of the six first mentioned brethren had been elected as Wardens of the lodge at a meeting on the 26th of the same month. There having been three meetings apparently between the 26th and the 29th, inclusive. It seems also that they were installed after being "admitted." But it may be better to quote what Hughan says in full, seeing we have not been able to refer to the original:

 

Two of the six who were thus made "Masters" or Master Masons, viz., Nelthorpe and Aynsworth, had been elected as Wardens at the previous Lodge held on the 26th of the same' month, and were so invested immediately after their becoming Masters, but certainly not because thereof, the third degree not being a qualification for office at that period (4).

 

The last statement refers to the first Book of Constitutions of 1723, where almost incidentally it is said

 

The most expert of the Fellow-Craftsmen shall be chosen or appointed the Master, or Overseer of the Lord's work,

 

which is adapted without very great change from the phraseology of the old MS. Charges or Constitutions (5).

 

As Hughan held that our three degrees were in existence in 1723, that is that the present F.C. and M.M. had been invented and super-posed upon the original simple initiation, he very naturally interpreted the reference to the "Master's Lodge" in the minute of Mar. 31, 1729, as indicating the working of a "third" degree at that date, or rather, of the third degree, as is indicated by the use of conjunction "or" between "Masters" and "Master Masons" in the quotation above. That this numerical designation is no more than his interpretation of these minutes is definitely indicated a little further on, where he says, in parenthesis,

 

The next entry respecting the third degree (though not so called) is dated, etc.

 

There seems to be nothing of special importance in the remaining quotations from the records of this lodge. The entry of April 14, 1731, uses the phrase "passed" instead of "admitted":

 

Bro. Roul and Bro. Shipton having a desire to be passed Masters, the Master's Lodge was formed and they were passed accordingly.

 

The new term is used in the other citations, but we cannot say if the older word was disused completely after the above date.

 

Two quotations from old by-laws are also given which are important, taken in conjunction. Lodge No. 71, meeting at the Barbican, constituted in January, 1730. required each new member

 

To pay two Pounds seven shillings at his Making, and received Double Cloathing. Also when this Lodge shall think Convenient to confer the Superior Degree of Masonry upon him, he shall pay five Shillings more.

 

The term "superior" being comparative seems to imply two grades only. Hughan does not discuss this at all, nor yet the following from the by-laws of Lodge No. 83 meeting at the Three Tuns constituted in December, 1731,

 

. . . for making the sum of Three Pounds three Shillings, And for their admittance the sum of five Shillings, and every Brother who shall pass the Degrees of F. C. and M. shall pay the further sum of seven shillings and sixpence.

 

Both these Codes were framed in 1732, so on the face of it one lodge worked two degrees and the other three. The notable point is not that No. 83 practiced our present system, for we know from Prichard's work that three degrees were in existence in 1730, but that there was still a lodge in London that apparently provided only for two. Possibly the clause was copied without alteration from some earlier set of by-laws. But then again, it may equally have represented the actual usage of the lodge.

 

A brief reference is also made to the records of other old lodges which

 

. . . illustrate the working of both the F.C. and M.M. Degrees; as those of the old Lodge at Bath (now No. 41) from 1733; whilst others, similar to a still older lodge at Lincoln, arrange for the Master Mason's Degree being worked (By-laws, A.D. 1732, and Records 1734, etc.), but do not provide for the Fellow Craft's ceremony. Doubtless the latter was known to and practiced in the Lodges, whose Secretaries are uncommunicative on the point, as in the others, whose Scribes inform us of all three being worked. It is probable that the term "making" often included the First two Ceremonies; the third being left to convenient opportunities when the Master's Lodge was convened, or in many instances never communicated at all, the brethren being content as Fellow Craft Freemasons.

 

We have quoted this at length because it seems a curious argument from one who so greatly objected to inferences and suppositions when made by others, and who so constantly exhorted them to keep strictly to the evidence. "Doubtless" the "Fellow Craft's ceremony" was "known to and practiced" though no mention was made of it. "It is probable" that the first degree and the second (that "doubtless" was worked) were often included in the term making. But none of this is here on record.

 

The curious minutes of the Philo-Musicae et Archtecturae Societas were also quoted. This Society was an early instance of an "appendant" organization, having been inaugurated in February, 1725. It required its members to be Masons, and considered it had the power to form a lodge to initiate those who wished to become members who had not the necessary Masonic qualification. On the old theory it would seem that its members had this "inherent right," but the Grand Lodge naturally did not like it. These minutes on their face seem to refer to our present three degrees, and Hughan took this view of them, but as this point will have to be mentioned later it may be passed over here.

 

The question also of the interpretation of the references in the first and second editions of the Book of Constitutions was also discussed, but this also may be more conveniently treated when we come to the views of R.F. Gould. We may just quote the following from the close of Hughan's paper:

 

As respects the "Book of Constitutions," I consider the regulations of 1723 and the alteration agreed to in 1725, concerning the "Making of Masters," are alone sufficient to prove that the three degrees were known to the English Craft of that period, the uniform silence as to the trio of an earlier date, suggesting that the Ceremonies were arranged subsequent to the inauguration of the premier Grand Lodge.

 

Hughan expressed his views elsewhere than in the discussions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge; in fact they were fully crystallized long before the lodge was founded. A great many volumes of old periodicals have been gone through without much result so far as discovering any further argument for his views. In 1873 he replied at length in the London Masonic Magazine (6) to a review of Lyon's History of the Old Lodge of Edinburgh by the Rev. A.F.A. Woodford, in which he argued for the antiquity of three degrees. In his reply to this review Hughan rather takes, as he undoubtedly had the right to do, the position of an expert giving his dogmatic conclusions from prolonged study of the evidence. He says that nowhere is there any record from the sixteenth century "to the first half of the second decade of the eighteenth" of any assembly of Masons working ceremonies or communicating "secrets" from which any portion of the fraternity was excluded, or denied participation. He admits the existence of three grades or ranks, those spoken of in the Old Charges as Masters, who had men working for or under them, Fellows and Apprentices, but says that

 

. . . so far as the records throw light on the customs of our early brethren the apprentices were as welcome at the election and reception of masters as the latter were required to participate in the initiation of the former.

 

He might have put it more strongly and said that not only were apprentices welcome, but that their presence was required by the Shaw Statutes, as we have already seen. He goes on to say:

 

We are quite willing to grant for the sake of argument that a word may have been whispered in the ear of the Master of the lodge (or of Master Masons) on their introduction or constitution in the lodge, but supposing that such were the case, and we think the position is at least probable, the three degrees are so far from being proved as before, especially as we have never traced any intimation ever so slight of a special ceremony at the "passing" of Fellow Crafts peculiar to that grade, and from which the apprentices were excluded.

 

And further on he emphasizes this opinion:

 

We must reiterate our conviction that whatever the ceremonies may have been at the introduction of Fellow Crafts and Master Masons anterior to the last [the eighteenth] century, they were not such as to require the exclusion of apprentices from the lodge meetings . . . in other words we can only fairly advocate that to have existed of which we have evidence.

 

It must be borne in mind that in this earlier expression of his views he is arguing against the existence of three degrees of M.M., F.C., and E.A., while at the same time, it would seem, he believed that three grades existed, that is, that the Master was a grade or rank above that of Fellow, and not merely a Fellow holding an office in a lodge or acting as an employer or supervisor. The last sentence cuts both ways for it might be argued that there is no evidence in these old records (with one or two exceptions) for any initiatory ceremony at all.

 

In a letter to the Grand Lodge of Ohio (7) a few years later he asserted that

 

It is quite clear that the evidence submitted by Bro. Lyon proves that Modern Freemasonry was introduced into Scotland by Dr. Desaguliers in 1721. Before, however, the Past Grand Master was permitted to visit the Ancient Lodge of Edinburgh he was examined, and found to be "duly qualified in all points of Masonry," so that whatever differences (or additions) there might have been between Modern and Ancient Freemasonry they were not sufficient to obliterate the original character of the society or prevent visitation.

 

This is one more indication of how much Lyon's work was built upon. If the foundations fail the superstructure must fall. "Modern" and "Ancient" in this passage of course are to be understood generally, and not in their partisan sense during the schism between the senior and junior Grand Lodges in England.

 

We may now pass on to other exponents of the single initiation theory. In the discussions in Quatuor Coronati Lodge John Lane and Edward Macbean strongly supported Hughan's position, as did also Murray Lyon in a letter to him, but these brethren adduced no new evidence.

 

It will be noted that, so far, the discussion has been confined entirely to documentary records, statutes, bylaws and minutes, and early references to the Fraternity. Hughan was not inclined to place much weight on ritual evidence, though in criticizing the opinions of his opponents he referred to it. We now come to the American student, Albert Mackey, who did argue from this point of view. In his Encyclopedia, however, under the heading of Degrees (8) the conclusion is based chiefly on the external evidence. He says that "it is now [in 1874] the opinion of the best scholars, that the division" was the work

 

. . . of the revivalists of the beginning of the eighteenth century that before that period there was but one degree, or rather one common platform of ritualism; and that the division into Masters, Fellows and Apprentices was simply a division of ranks, there being but one initiation for all.

 

Then he continues with the startling assertion that

 

In 1717 the whole body of the Fraternity consisted only of Entered Apprentices, who were recognized by the thirty-nine Regulations, compiled in 1720, as among the law-givers of the Craft, no change in those Regulations being allowed unless first submitted "even to the youngest Apprentice."

 

We see what he means, of course, but it is very awkwardly, even inconsistently, stated. He then goes on to observe that in Anderson's Constitutions

 

.... the degree of Fellow Craft is introduced as being a necessary qualification for Grand Master, although the word degree is not used.

 

And he adds that in Regulation xiii

 

. . . the orders or degrees of Master and Fellow Craft are recognized in the following words: "Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow Crafts only in the Grand Lodge."

 

This quotation is not quite correct, and the passage will have to be considered later. But neither the 1723 or 1738 editions have the phrase "in the Grand Lodge" though that is undoubtedly the meaning of the actual words, "admitted . . . only here." He then points to the change made in the revised book of 1738 in the fourth article of the Charges which definitely states the progression of the Candidate through "Entered Prentice," or "Free Mason of the lowest degree" through that of Fellow Craft to Master Mason," which does not appear in the earlier version, and from all this he deduces that

 

The division of the Masonic system into three degrees must have grown up between 1717 and 1730, but in so gradual and imperceptible a manner that we are unable to fix the precise date of the introduction of each degree, a conclusion which seems to have been inspired by Findel.

 

Now there is reason in the suggestion that the new system was the result of a growth or evolution, seeing that it was propagated with no recorded objections or disputes; but the introduction of two new superposed inventions, as he apparently envisages the process, is neither growth nor evolution, and could hardly have been imperceptible.

 

THE PRINTED CONSTITUTIONS

 

A brief reference is made to the Grand Mystery first published in 1724 (though he says 1725) as being "the earliest ritual extant" and as making no reference to degrees. Actually another "ritual," the Mason's Examination, was published in 1723, and there was yet another, earlier still, of which no copy remains, but evidently he had not then heard of these, nor perhaps later we may presume, as he does not mention them in the fuller discussion embodied in Chapter xxxii of his History. But before considering this it may be as well to dispose of the arguments based on references in the first edition of Anderson's Constitutions and the changes made fifteen years later in the second. Mackey of course was not the first to point out their significance but he may have seen it independently. In the first book we are told the Apprentice is to look forward to being made a Fellow Craft, and then perhaps to being elected Warden or Master; the Fellow Craft thus appearing to be eligible to any office in the Craft. The Tyler of Grand Lodge was to be a Fellow Craft, the Committee to examine visitors at the annual feast were to be Fellow Crafts, as also the Treasurer and Secretary of Grand Lodge. Naturally these officers would have to be of the highest degree known in the lodge. In constituting a new lodge the Master and Wardens were "among the Fellow Crafts" before installation, and finally the ultimate secrets of Masonry were only to be obtained by the "key of a Fellow Craft." In the second book all these passages have been systematically amended to read "Master Mason" instead of Fellow Craft. These were not the only changes it may be mentioned. In the first edition there was a distinct tendency to call the annual gathering, or assembly and feast, a General Lodge, and to restrict the term Grand Lodge to the quarterly meetings of the Masters and Wardens of particular lodges. In the revised book the term General Lodge has been everywhere deleted and Grand Lodge substituted, doubtless to be in accord with the disuse of the other and earlier term among members of the Craft.

 

The fourth charge in the first edition (10) has a long and rather obscure sentence:

 

Only Candidates may know that no Master should take an Apprentice, unless he has sufficient Imployment for him, and unless he be a perfect Youth, having no Maim or Defect in his Body, that may render him uncapable of learning the Art, of serving his Master's Lord, and of being made a Brother, and then a Fellow Craft in due time, even after he has served such a Term of Years as the Custom of the country directs.

 

This is a cumbersome adaptation of the language of the Old Charges, and leaving out the intermediate clauses it states negatively, that:

 

No Master should take an apprentice . . . unless he [have no defect that would render him] uncapable . . . of being made a Brother, and then a Fellow Craft in due time.

 

In the second edition this passage has been much changed, and the clause of special interest in the present connection runs as follows:

 

....that, when of Age, and Expert, he [the apprentice] may become an Enter'd Prentice, or a Free Mason of the lowest degree, and upon his due improvements a Fellow-Craft and a Master-Mason, capable to undertake a Lord's work.

 

The fiction of operative usage is carefully retained, but the highest grade now appears to be Master Mason, although the meaning is not absolutely unequivocal, as Master Mason might still be taken to mean Master of a lodge. But the next paragraph bars this interpretation. for it runs:

 

The WARDENS are chosen from among the Master-Masons, and no Brother can be a Master of a Lodge till he has acted as Warden somewhere, except in extraordinary Cases.

 

Regulation xiii deals with the Quarterly Communications, and states that

 

.... all matters that concern the Fraternity in general, or particular Lodges or single Brethren, are quietly, sedately, and maturely to be discoursed of and transacted: Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow-Craft only here, unless by a dispensation. Here also all Differences, that cannot be made up and accommodated privately . . . are to be . . . decided:

 

and a right of appeal to the Annual Grand Lodge is provided for.

 

Mackey argues that the clause after the colon, about Apprentices being admitted Masters and Fellow Craft, is an interpolation. It certainly does seem to be an after thought, but it does not follow that we must conclude, as he would have us, that it was inserted after the manuscript had been submitted to the Grand Lodge for approval. Mackey supposes it to have been done surreptitiously by Anderson, at the instance of Dr. Desaguliers, to pave the way for the introduction of his newly invented degrees, and possibly connived at by some other members of the Grand Lodge. But the approbation and license to print give the impression that the manuscript was very fully considered; and in the second edition Anderson states, in the chronicle of events after 1717, that at the meeting of the Grand Lodge on March 7, 1722,

 

The said Committee of 14 reported that they had perused Brother Anderson's manuscript, viz., the History, Charges, Regulations and Master's Song, and after some Amendments had approved of it.

 

The awkward clause may quite well be an interpolation, as Mackey suggested, and yet one made regularly and in order by this Committee, or else in Grand Lodge. There is no reason to doubt this statement of Anderson's, and amendments to motions and by-laws are frequently interpolations that are quite as awkward as this. We shall have to return to the consideration of this clause again, so here we will only note that in the second edition it was repealed and made to read, according to Anderson,

 

The Master of a Lodge, with his Wardens and a competent Number of the Lodge assembled in due form, can make Masters and Fellows at discretion.

 

But he also made a change in the wording of the "Old Regulation" itself, making it read:

 

Apprentices must be admitted Fellow Crafts and Masters only here unless by a Dispensation from the Grand Master.

 

Thus, by reversing the sequence of "Masters" and "Fellow Craft" he has made the original enactment fit the new three degree system.

 

All this is also "interpretation." Mackey here apparently followed Gould, though it may possibly be that he reached this conclusion independently. It depends on when this part of his work was written, and that seems impossible to determine exactly. At least Gould has priority of publication. This will have to be further discussed when we come to the consideration of the views of the latter authority, when Hughan's comments will also have to be taken up again. Mackey, though at one with him in regarding both the second and third degrees as inventions made after 1719 as he insists there was but the one simple admission till that year, yet agrees with Speth and Gould in holding that in 1723 a two degree system was in existence. The possible permutations are confusing to say the least !

 

We may now go back and consider Mackey's arguments for the hypothesis of an original single ceremony of admission with one set of esoteric secrets. He quoted the thirteenth article of the Regius MS. (under the title of the Halliwell MS.) which deals with the Master's duty to instruct his apprentice. Mackey interprets the last two lines

 

That he the crafte abelyche may conne Whersever he go undur the sonne

 

to refer to means of recognition, and says that it implies that

 

He was to be invested with the modes of recognition common to all, whereby a mutual intercourse might be had. It was not that he was to know just enough to prove himself to be an apprentice, but he was to have such knowledge as would enable him to recognize in a stranger a Fellow-Craft or Master in other words, he was to have all they had in the way of recognition.

 

Old English is not very easy to understand. These verses might be paraphrased;

 

That he the craft ably may know Wherever he may go under the sun.

 

Mackey has taken "craft" to mean "the Craft" in our modern sense of the word, the members of the Fraternity at large. Of course it means the craft or art of operative masonry. But in any case the argument is a curious one. What kind of secrets would enable an Apprentice to recognize a Master as such that would not make it possible for him to pass himself off as one?

 

In his next quotation he is on more solid ground. This is the "third point," and gives a metrical version of a rule that appears in all the Old Charges, that the Mason is

 

....to hele the counsel of his fellows in lodge and in chamber and wherever Masons meet,

 

as the Cooke MS. has it; or as it is said in the William Watson MS.

 

That every Mason keep true councell both of Lodge & Chamber all other Councells that ought to be kept by way of Masonrie.

 

But there is nothing that is necessarily to be taken as esoteric about these "councells," or the "secrets" of his Master or Dame, that in later versions of the MS. Constitutions the Apprentice is charged to keep. Aside from ritual tradition these could be best and most naturally interpreted as referring only to trade and business secrets, and domestic privacies.

 

NOTES

 

(1) In the paper read before Quatuor Coronati Lodge in 1897 A.Q.C., Vol. x, p. 130.

(2) Ibid, p. 131.

(3) Ib., p. 134.

(4) Ib. p. 135.

(5) "And that . . . they should ordain the wisest of them to be Master of the Lord's work;" which, with variations, appears in the "charges" that, according to the Legend of the Craft, were delivered by Euclid in Egypt.

(6) Masonic Magazine (London 1873-74), Vol. i, p. 108

(7) Ibid (1867-77), Vol. iv, p. 418.

(8)The article will be found unchanged in the Revised edition Vol. i, p. 203.

(9) Mackey; History of Freemasonry (1905), Vol. iv, p. 975 et seq (In the Revised edition, Vol. iv, p. 1030.)

(10) The citations from the 1723 Book of Constitutions have been taken from the reproduction in Vol. i of Kennings, Masonic Archaeological Library, edited by the Rev. A.F.A. Woodford; and for those from the New Book of 1738, the reprint in Quatuor Coronatorum Antigrapha, Vol. vii, edited by W. J. Hughan has been employed.

(11) Mackey: op. cit., Vol. iv, p. 949.

 

----o----

 

The Papacy and the State

 

By DR. JOANNES GALLICAN

 

IN the January and February numbers of THE BUILDER a splendid article by Dr. Leo Cadius appeared, which was very instructive and showed a great deal of thought. The matter of bringing about the reforms that he desiderates is one that presents very grave difficulties..

 

It is not my desire in the following article to arouse the animosity of any Christian organization, but rather to show the origin of the papacy as we now understand it, which means the Roman Catholic Church in action; and if, by arousing honest discussion of the facts involved, we can once and for all remove the cancer of the seemingly growing religious strife in this country so needless among real intelligent Christian people, such as the United States holds within its confines.

 

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE PAPACY

 

Christianity arose in the East, Greek being the language of the common people and also the language of the New Testament, the rites of the Church were conducted in Greek. Christianity was bitterly opposed by the Roman Empire until Constantine was converted to Christianity, when it became the official religion of the Empire.

 

He divided his provinces into dioceses and the Church adopted the same division. The Council of Nicaea, called by Constantine and held in 325 A.D., the first of the Ecumenical Councils, recognized three patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. To these were subsequently added Constantinople and Jerusalem. When the Empire was divided there was only one patriarch in the West, viz., at Rome, while in the East there were two, Alexandria and Antioch; Constantinople and Jerusalem were later added as shown above. Each of these patriarchs was sovereign within his own territory; the early Church was governed by an oligarchy of patriarchs; there was no thought of a despotic monarch nor of the papacy as at present organized. The bishop of Rome was only called upon to act as a referee when any differences arose between brother bishops; even then his decisions were not always put into execution, nor even respected, unless the dissenting patriarch was condemned for heresy, as was Honorius I, bishop of Rome in the seventh century, for maintaining "one will" in Christ.

 

After the power of the Roman Empire was concentrated upon the Italian peninsula with provinces extending all over the known world, the bishop of Rome occupied a position of great prestige and vast power. In 1054 A.D. the Western Church separated from the Eastern Church. There never had been complete harmony between them; the Eastern Church used the Greek language in its liturgy, the Western used the Latin; the former remained dependent upon the state, the latter was to a large extent independent.

 

The bishop of Rome was assuming unconferred powers; while Western Christians accused the Eastern patriarchs of being disloyal to the See of Rome. Then the Western Church introduced the words Filioque into Nicene Creed, causing a complete separation. At this period the patriarch and bishop of Rome assumed the title of pontifex maximus (the pope), and the Western Church became the Roman Catholic Church, while the Eastern Church was henceforth known as the Orthodox Church, consisting of the four patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. They remain so to this day (1).

 

THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE FIRST MASS WAS CELEBRATED

 

In the time of our Lord three particular languages were common throughout Judea. They were, in some sense of the word, the languages of the world in those days, viz., the Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The first, better known as the SyroChaldaic, or more properly the Syriac, was the language of the greater part of Judea, especially of Jerusalem itself and its environs, and without a doubt, was the vernacular of our Divine Lord and His Blessed Mother. This can be proved almost to a demonstration, both from the common consent of critics and from the numerous Syriac expressions that we find here and there in the New Testament yet in their original dress, such as "talitha cumi," "eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani," and "ephphetha," all of which are Syriac, with a few euphonic changes made to suit Greek ears.

 

The second, or the Greek, obtained a large sway in Palestine also, as St. Jerome testifies (2), and various records show. "And this glory," says Brerwood in his Languages and Religions, "the glory the Greek tongue held in the Apostles' time, and long after in the Eastern parts (3)."

 

The third, or the Latin, had obtained a far wider sway in the Holy Land in the time of our Lord and His Apostles than either of the other two, for it was the language of imperial Rome; and as Judea was a Roman province at that time, and for years previous, it was but natural to expect that the language of Rome would be forced on the conquered people. But as we shall have occasion to treat of these languages more fully a little further on, we dismiss them with these brief remarks, and take up the subject that heads our article, viz., in what language was the first Mass offered?

 

Eckius, a learned German divine and antiquarian of the sixteenth century, was the first who broached the opinion that Mass was celebrated everywhere, in the beginning, in Hebrew. But this cannot be sustained for the ablest liturgical writers and linguists hold that in the days of the Apostles Mass was celebrated in the language that prevailed in those places whither the Apostles went to spread the light of the Gospel; hence, that at Jerusalem it was celebrated in Syriac; at Antioch, Alexandria and other Grecian cities, in Greek, and at Rome, and throughout the entire West, in Latin.

 

As the first Mass then was celebrated at Jerusalem, it is an opinion which it would be rash to differ from, that the language in which it was offered was the Syriac (4).

 

In the minds of many of the Roman Catholic people of the world the only official language used in the administration of their sacraments and of the Mass is the Latin. Many assume, also, that all priests of the Roman Church, and those in communion with Rome, are celibates. The following quotations from The History of the Mass by Father O'Brien prove conclusively that neither supposition is true.

 

THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH MASS IS CELEBRATED TODAY THROUGHOUT CHRISTENDOM

 

The Catholic Church of today celebrates the holy Sacrifice of the Mass in nine different languages, viz., in Latin, Greek, Syriac, Chaldaic, Sclavonic, Wallachian, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopic.

 

Latin This is the language of the Mass in the entire West and in a few places in the East, and has been so, without change from the beginning of Christianity. It may, in fact, be called the vernacular language of the Western Church.

 

Greek At the present day Mass is said in Greek by the Uniat or Melchite Catholics of the East. They are to be found in Syria, Jerusalem, Russia, in the kingdom of Greece, in Italy, and in several places of Europe; and they comprise the Mingrelians, Georgians, Bulgarians, Muscontefs and others. These Catholics are allowed by Rome to retain all their ancient rites such as consecrating the Holy Eucharist in the leavened bread, giving Communion in both kinds, saying the Creed without the "Filioque," and putting warm water into the chalice after Consecration. Nay, more, the Holy See even allows their clergy to marry. They have three patriarchs, residing respectively at Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem; and they use three different Liturgies for the celebration of the Mass.

 

It is true, however, that Father O'Brien adds:

 

When we say the Holy See allows the Eastern clergy in her Communion to marry, we must not be understood as implying that she allows those who are in Sacred Orders to do so. This would not be true. Her discipline in this matter is precisely as follows: Marriage is allowed all the inferior clergy from the subdeacon, exclusive, down. Should any member, then, of this inferior body be promoted to Sacred Orders, whether to be subdiaconate, diaconate, or priesthood, he is allowed to retain his wife and do for her as best he can from his living, but he can never marry again. Should he do so he would be degraded and forbidden to officiate. There is no such thing allowed or heard of as a clergyman getting married in Sacred Orders. If he is not married when a subdeacon he never can be afterwards. And as for bishops, patriarchs, metropolitans and the other great dignitaries of the Oriental hierarchy, the rule is that they must be single men. Hence it is that all, or nearly all the Oriental bishops, are taken from the monasteries; and this is the rule with the schismatics (5) also.

 

Besides these there are the "Old Roman Catholics," who in 1870 refused to accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility, represented in this country by one Archbishop, Henry Cornell Corfora, who resides at Chicago. It permits its clergy to marry, allows the Latin, English and other languages; mention is here also made of "The American Catholic Church," with Archbishop F. Lloyd, Primate, whose headquarters are in Chicago, at 64 West Randolph St. This Church has also retained valid Holy Orders, is thoroughly American in ideals, receiving Apostolic Succession from the Patriarch of Antioch, the very seat of Catholicity. They believe in absolute separation of Church and State, their clergy may marry, auricular confession is optional, the sacraments are administered in Latin or the vernacular of the country; their members can and do join Masonic and any secret orders so long as they profess a belief in a Supreme Being. The Roman Pontificale is rigorously followed in administering Holy Orders to its clergy.

 

The pope is a despotic monarch, has complete control of his subjects, both temporal and spiritual. This has always been so.

 

The popes have been responsible for eight crusades. Pope Innocent III preached a crusade against the Albigenses and placed Pierre de Castelnan at its head in 1204, and afterwards the legates Milon and Arnaud Amalric as well as Simon de Montfort and the crusaders in 1209 obtained possession of Beziers and there slew 60,000, among whom were some Catholics.

 

Carcassone also soon fell into their hands The legate ordered his troops to slaughter all in this city without distinction of age or sex. Thirty thousand persons, including women and children, perished in one day and when one of the crusading officers affected with carnage came to the legate to inquire by what signs he could distinguish heretics in the crowd, the legate replied, "Kill, kill. God will know which are His."

 

The principle of action in this war was identical with that of the crusades against the Turks. The pontiffs of those times thought it right to exterminate by the sword the unbelievers whom they could not convert whenever their presence became dangerous to the Church and to society, or was supposed to be so.

 

Heresy was then regarded as rebellion against the State no less than against the Church. It was a crime of the deepest dye and worthy of the severest punishment. It was impossible to exaggerate the note of the evil or to devise means too severe for its suppression.

 

Let us remember that the present reigning pope in his recent Bull or Encyclical on "Church Unity," speaking for his Church, said,

 

We have received the deposit of faith from the Holy Ghost and anyone who knowingly refuses to join our Church, if in his own mind he feels that our Church is the only true Church, for him there is no salvation.

 

Inasmuch as the papacy was not thought of until the conversion of Constantine, how and from whom was the deposit of faith received? It is regrettable that the mere mention of historical data at the present time arouses such a storm of protest from many well meaning persons. It is regrettable that there should be religious hatred in any country, and if the papacy is divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost it is a peculiar negation that its early history should be written in blood. The papacy has time and again killed thousands and tens of thousands because they called themselves heretics; time and again preached the righteousness of crusades, and if American Roman Catholics only understood the history of the papacy and compared it with the teachings and life of Christ they would perhaps then learn to know really what real religion is. Romanists in this country support a despotic monarch, a nobility that they know nothing of; pay tribute and blind obedience to an institution that is neither Catholic nor Apostolic, an Institution that is political first, last and all the time and has very little real religion, simply to perpetuate a hierarchy of princes of the Church, papal knights, ministers accredited to foreign governments under the names of papal delegates, legates, nuncios, and so on.

 

The papacy never presents a financial statement of its condition, and the laymen are never expected to ask any questions, they are assessed for the construction of churches, schools, academies here and abroad, subscribe to all the magazines, papers; every parish is taxed for the support of the different colleges and seminaries and for the education of students for the priesthood, while many of the clergy are living lives of luxury and have fortunes to leave to their immediate families.

 

In attending services in the different parishes in many parts of this country about five minutes are spent in reading Gospels of the Sunday and thirty minutes in begging, or rather hounding, the people for money; so much so that a friend of mine was very careful in purchasing his new home in a certain diocese to avoid certain sections where they were building new churches.

 

Dr. L. Cadius' remedy to ameliorate the conditions he so eloquently depicts, viz., through the Knights of Columbus, is a hopeless task. The Knights of Columbus would not even dare to allow a lecturer to present the history of the papacy from some of their own publications, and how can any reform be brought about when the pope can excommunicate at any time and for any reason he sees fit. There is not a Judge of one of our Supreme or higher Courts that will even dare hear a case in which the prelates or princes of the Roman Catholic Church are concerned, and this is in free America, not Soviet Russia. What is the remedy?

 

As free born Americans why not organize and support an American Catholic Apostolic Church, having the real Apostolic Catholic faith and the primitive sacraments acknowledging complete separation of Church and State, where all of the clergy are allowed their God created rights to marry, and where every incentive to live upright lives is held out, that thoroughly believes in a sound public school educational system; a Church that has no princes nor nobility, a Church thoroughly liberal in all countries and climes, a Church that permits its clergy and members to membership in the Masonic or any fraternal association as long as they profess a belief in a Supreme Being, a Church that does not "double cross" Masonry in America, only to wage war on it in France, Italy and foreign countries. Would to God we had such a Church in this country.

 

Not until we come right out and show on what false premises the Roman Catholic Church and papacy stand and how insulting the Encyclical of the pope on church unity is to the millions of educated, liberty-loving Americans, and letting the world really know where we stand on this question, will there be real peace and brotherhood. And if this were done, all religious strife would disappear. I doubt whether even the Ku Klux Klan would fight such a program.

 

The way to successfully fight the false position of the papacy is to refuse to open up our pocket-books directly or indirectly; then let them keep their Canon Law with their forged decretals, their papacy, their hierarchy, their nobility, and all the corruption that goes with it in the country that desires it, and this will bring them to their knees quicker than anything else.

 

If America is to retain true freedom from all religious strife, several matters must be thoroughly understood and forever settled. There should be no room for any political interference of any religious sect or creed with the state or government and a church which must needs have the police powers to enact and enforce its creed of faith is neither Christian nor religious.

 

We have proven that the position of the Roman Catholic Church and papacy as expressed by the pope in his latest Encyclical is false, since Christ never founded the papacy nor the Roman Catholic Church; Christ founded an Apostolic Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics of America as citizens are the equal of any others, and those who claim America to be a Protestant country are as much in error as the Romanists. There is no room in America for a bigot, be he Romanist or Protestant, and anyone seeking office on such claims should be defeated continually and exposed to ridicule. It is regrettable that those of us who came from the Isle of Saints are prone to rancor and bigotry, and I must confess we are very quick to show it upon the slightest occasion. Our priests are continually preaching against the public schools as "Godless," as being responsible for loss of religion and morals. If this be true I would suggest that all Roman Catholic teachers be employed in Roman Catholic schools and institutions of learning and let Roman Catholics support them without any hope of taxpayers helping them out, because the atheist's and agnostic's child has the same equality according to our Constitution as the Romanists.

 

The pope is a despotic monarch as a temporal sovereign. As pope he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. These are the claims of his Church and while the Romanists of America may never attempt to rule as they have in European Catholic countries, it may also be true that our American Roman Catholic priests are different; but until the entire papacy as at present organized is overthrown it would be a sad day for free American institutions to put the balance of power into the Roman Catholics' hands, or any other sect.

 

If the Knights of Columbus are attempting to organize the young boys of Italy with Mussolini's help that is their affair; nor should it concern Americans as to their reasons for so doing. All liberty-loving Americans should stamp out the professional ex-nun, and any periodical or magazine that continually strives to stir up religious rancor or hatred. The personnel of the Roman Catholic clerical and religious ministry are morally as good as any of the learned professions in America.

 

It is to be regretted, however, that Roman Catholics, who in this country preach so much broadmindedness and tolerance regarding their Protestant neighbors and the large fraternal orders, as Masonry, Odd Fellows, etc., are very intolerant of these same organizations in Catholic countries. Go to Ireland or the Province of Quebec to organize a Lodge of Masonry and report back the welcomed Oh, yes, the Romanists tell us that the Freemasons of Italy, France, Austria and the European countries are not like those of America. I have made it a point to interview Masons in this country as to their views on evolution, belief in a Supreme Being, and find the ratio the same; and according to the Roman Catholic Church, not one Mason have I met would pass muster.

 

A Wall Street banker recently told me that all the solid business financial interests should encourage the Roman Catholics of this country to prevent the Soviet system of Russia from taking a foothold in America; he was a 33rd Degree Mason; personally admitted the falsity of the papacy as to its divine origin; admitted the Roman Catholic Church was simply a part and parcel of the old Apostolic Church, but that it was a good business arrangement to have a responsible head, as the pope is, of a highly centralized government, even if he was a despotic monarch; admitted our system of electing presidents hadn't proved successful nor beneficial, and that as a solid business proposition he encouraged the missionary labors of the Roman Catholic Church; and this evidently is the opinion of many business people of America.

 

I have no reliable method of finding out just what the Soviet Government means, much less what they are accomplishing. I do know about the Roman Catholic Church here and in Europe, and if we are to retain a free government, of, by and for the people, as founded by the framers of this Constitutional Government, let us one and all, at all times and in all places, demand a complete separation of Church and State and refuse to allow any sect or creed to lobby bills or enact laws to perpetuate the religious teachings of their peculiar sect or creed.

 

NOTES

 

(1) Strictly speaking the title of the Eastern Church is the "Holy Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Church." That of Rome is the "Holy Roman Church," also Catholic and Apostolic. The conception of the Roman Church as actually including the other churches of Western Europe did not reach its final evolution till the nineteenth century. The term Catholic, or Universal can in its full sense apply only to the Christian Church as a whole. A division of the Church can properly call itself Catholic as an integral part of the Church Universal, or it can do so controversially by unchurching all other churches.

 

(2) St. Jerome, Proem, 1, 2, Com. Eptst. ad Cabal

 

(3) Brerwood, Languaves and Religions, p. 9.

 

(4) Bona, Re. Liturg. 207; Gavantus, Thesaur, Saer. Rit. 16, 17; Kozma, Liturg. Sacr. Cathol., p. 111.

 

(5) The "Schismatics" are those of the Oriental Church who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the papal claims.

 

(6) [The writer seems to be somewhat misinformed here. In Quebec the comparatively few French Canadians who become Masons are subject to petty persecution in their own social circles, but there is no general opposition, nor can there be under the Constitutional safeguards, to the flourishing Grand Lodge of the Province. The same is true of Ireland. Ed.]

 

----o----

 

"The Religion of All Good Men"

 

Communicated by BRO. LOUIS BLOCK, Associate Editor, Iowa

 

THIS address was given by Rabbi Hirschberg in the auditorium of Medinah Temple at Chicago, on the occasion of the Feast of Atonement last year. It is a wonderful plea for religious charity and tolerance in the true sense of the word. The Rabbi is not a Mason, we understand, but he has, nevertheless, given utterance to the belief of all thinking Masons, that the essentials of true religion should draw men together and not separate them.

 

THESE holy days of ours, friends, and especially this solemn night, reveal as nothing else the philosophy of the Jewish religion. More than that of any other day, the ritual of Yom Kippur plainly indicates what is the ground-work and foundationstone of all Jewish belief and practice. Would we understand the real essence of Judaism, we need but consult those utterances of our Bible and prayer-book that are inseparably identified with the observance of this day. Whether it is the passionate declaration of an Isaiah, rebelling against the social abuses of his day, whether it is the flaming appeal of an Amos, crying out against the hypocritical pomp of the Temple service and the corruption of the priests, or whether it is the eloquent utterance of a Micah, phrasing in words that can never die his immortal definition of religion:

 

He hath told thee, oh man, what is good and what the Lord doth require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God:

 

there is, in reality, but one supreme theme to which they are all attuned: to win men back to God, to turn them away from evil thoughts and vain pursuits, to dedicate them to a life of loving service every day in the year, to foster a finer feeling of fellowship in the world, to free men's minds from the galling chains of prejudice, to bind their hearts with indissoluble bonds of brotherhood and love. This is the one melody, the one divine note, the supreme motif of the Kol Nidre anthem, the keynote of all the prayers of this holy night. All others are but minor chords that blend harmoniously with this major symphony.

 

Those who are still under the impression that this day is chiefly concerned with the mechanics of religion, prayer and fasting, ceremonial, creed and custom, may be surprised and shocked at such a revelation. They may consider me an iconoclast for making such a statement, but there is indisputable and incontrovertible evidence to support the contention. In fact, if we read the prophets with an open mind, dismissing all our inherited beliefs and traditions, there can be no doubt as to what religion meant to them and what they considered the prerequisites of a religious life, and the proper, the most fitting, observance of this day. Judaism, as they understood the term, was something more than a profession of faith or a declaration of principles. It was something more than a church or a synagogue, an elaborate ritual, an inspiring song-service or an eloquent sermon. It was life itself, the entire gamut of life, with all its play of light and shadow, comedy and tragedy, laughter and tears. Nothing was foreign to life. And so they interpreted religion in terms of human service and human brotherhood. What other interpretation than this can be given to such immortal utterances as:

 

Rend your hearts and not your garments. Cease to do evil, learn to do good. Let justice roll down as waters and righteousness as a mighty stream. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment. Ye shall not curse the deaf nor put a stumbling block before the blind. Just weights, just measures shall ye have. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

What are these and countless other inspired passages, if they are not the mighty preachments of liberal-minded men, wedded to the broadest kind of universalism, world-embracing in its scope, with no geographical bounds and no racial limitations whatsoever? No narrow-minded, hide-bound sectarians these, but ambassadors of God, champions of humanity, praying and working to make life more clean and decent, to usher in an era of peace and good-will that would spell out the betterment and the happiness of the race, not Israel alone, but the whole human family.

 

And we, who are the spiritual heirs of the prophets, their religious legatees, are unalterably committed to just such an interpretation of religion. That is why, on such a night as this, the real leaders, interpreters and spokesmen of Judaism, devote their sermons to an enunciation of twentieth century problems rather than to a plea for the conservation of all the ancient rites and practices. We do not believe that just because a thing is old, it is therefore sacred and inviolate. We would not make a fetich of the dead past while ignoring the living present. We do not feel that the ancients knew all that could possibly be known about God and man. We have a profound respect for their piety and zeal, but we are unwilling to admit that the very last word, the very last chapter has been written in the story of religion. We feel that the book of revelation is not closed, that God is speaking to the heart and soul and mind of man today as He spoke to the ancients and that new times and new conditions call for new interpretations and a new vocabulary in keeping with the trend of modern thought and scientific discovery. If we could only get men, who have been alienated from religion, because of their belief that it is fossilized and static, to understand this, if we could convince them that there is just as much liberal and progressive thinking in the domain of religion as there is in that of science, I am sure that their antagonism would quickly be destroyed. For they would soon discover that we are not afraid of the truth but rather welcome the search-light of investigation and knowledge. We want to open wide the windows of our minds and let in the light so that superstition may speedily disappear and error be no more. We want no blind alleys, no darkened rooms where ignorance festers and superstition breeds. And as we do not fear the truth, so de we not fear any honest exploration in the realms of knowledge. It is only the darkness of fanaticism and bigotry of which we are afraid. Into the laboratory of the scientist, into the study of the scholar and the archaeologist, we go undaunted and unafraid, confident that the more we learn, the more we discover, the more light that is thrown on what is now obscure, the greater, the profounder our reverence for the Supreme Power that rules the universe.

 

FREEDOM THE LIFE OF TRUE RELIGION

 

Our one aim, our sole desire is to strike off the shackles from the minds of men that they might be free to think for themselves and to decide for themselves, free to believe or not to believe, free to pray or not to pray. our only regret is that the day, envisioned by the prophets and for whose speedy coming we earnestly pray, "when every man might sit under his own roof-tree and none there will be to make him afraid," has not yet been realized. In this respect our system of education has been thus far a dismal failure; in spite of all our institutions of learning the vast majority of men are still victims of inherited fanaticisms and bigotries. And the saddest thing of all is the fact that their number is not confined merely to the ignorant and uneducated, but even college graduates and university professors are guilty of blind and unreasoning hatreds. Amongst all the varieties of the human species, amongst all the millions upon millions of people in the world, the rarest specimen of all is an absolutely unprejudiced man, without any preconceived opinions, whose judgments are based solely upon the facts, whose decisions and convictions are the result of inexorable logic and whose only concern is the naked and unvarnished truth. A modern Diogenes, lantern in hand, would have as difficult a time finding such a man in Chicago or New York in 1927 as did his ancient predecessor, the Greek philosopher, when searching for an honest man in the city of Athens twenty-three hundred years ago. We like to think of justice as the artist conceived her, blindfolded, holding in her hands evenly balanced scales. That is our democratic ideal, that is the principal upon which our republican form of government is founded, equal rights to all, special privileges to none. And yet, how many of us even faintly measure up to that ideal in practice. Who of us, in this congregation tonight, can honestly and sincerely say that he is free from the slightest taint of prejudice and that he approaches every question with an open and unbiased mind? How many of us even try to put ourselves in the other man's place and see any given question from his viewpoint ? How many of us are willing to admit that he may be right and we may be wrong?

 

And it is right here, I believe, that is to be found the crying fault of the present generation, its lack of gentleness and consideration, its brutal disregard of tender sensibilities. Our age is brilliantly intellectual. We are blessed with a wealth of genius. Sometimes I fear that we have too much brain and would be infinitely better off if we had a little less and a little more heart, a little more human sympathy and understanding. The world, unfortunately, has not yet rid itself of its encumbering ostracisms and taboos, its petty class distinctions, its superficial aristocracies of birth and fortune. Even in the church, within the sacred precincts of the House of God, the last place where it ought to exist, the very first place where we ought to find a spirit of absolute equality, there still exists the absurd, the ridiculous notion of a preferred class. Think of it, friends, men and women, pious members of the church, have yet to gain a broader and more liberal outlook upon life, a finer feeling of fellowship and tolerance. Tolerance, how I hate that word, how I wish it could be completely expunged from the dictionary and the thoughts of men! How it smacks of that snobbish superiority and arrogant condescension against which this day so passionately protests. Tolerance, how contrary to the challenge of this holy night, the challenge to meet together, not as master and slave, but as equals, children of the same Father, members of the same great human family, with equal rights, equal privileges and equal duties. "Have we not all One Father, has not One God created us all?"

 

RELIGION AND HUMANITY

 

It is the challenge, friends, that finds its noblest expression in the glorious vision of One God and one Humanity. Here is an aspiration whose sublimity the flight of time has not dimmed, whose nobility all the battering rams of scientific criticism has not destroyed. For untold ages, the Jew has cherished this lofty hope. It has always uplifted and inspired him, it has been his strength and stay even in the darkest years of persecution and oppression. He read it in his Bible, he recited it in his daily prayers, he taught it in his schools and over the doorways of his House of Worship in every age and in every clime, carved the inscription, which is vocal with this same noble aspiration: "My House Shall be Called a House of Prayer for All Peoples."

 

When all has been said, this is the one outstanding, distinguishing and dynamic principle of our religion. It is the only genuine test of real religion; not its theology, not its conception of the universe, not its speculation about a vague hereafter, but its power to fire the hearts and souls of its devotees with a consuming passion for humanity that transcends all the barriers and bounds of sectarian prejudice. Has modern science with all of its inventive genius, modern philosophy with its cold and mechanistic theory of the universe as a blind and ruthless machine, formulated any thought comparably as fine and ennobling and inspiring as this? Suppose the Bible is an intensively human document, suppose it is not the best or most authoritative history or treatise on the origin of man, grant that there are many imperfections and defects in it and, yet, may we not ask without the fear of contradiction is not its vision of a world-at-peace, the rude alarms of war stilled forever, swords beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning-hooks, is not the vision of a united family of man, all hatred and tolerance banished forever, and completely under the domination of a loving and universal Father, the sublimest conception that has ever dawned upon the mind of man?

 

LOVE AND GOOD WILL TO ALL MEN

 

And is not this the most urgent need of the present hour? I am only too ready to admit that it is highly important that we have a reasonable and enlightened faith to which a thinking man can readily subscribe. It is highly important that we be ever ready to welcome the truth no matter whence the revelation, that we be hospitable to the latest findings of careful scientific research and investigation and learn as much as we possibly can about the universe in which we live. God only knows that we need light, more and more light to illumine the stygian darkness of ignorance and chase away the shadows of superstition and blind credulity. I would be the last person in the world to oppose any honest effort to get at the truth, but let us not forget that, important as it is to break asunder the shackles that enslave the mind, even more important is it to sunder the chains that shackle the heart and soul. We need something more than science and logic and philosophy to satisfy the hungry heart and the starving soul of man. Life is something more than a mere cold abstraction or mathematical theorem and there is something more urgent and pressing today than the proof of the doctrine of evolution. There is need as there never has been need for the emancipation of men from every kind of hatred and intolerance. Above every other need of the present hour is the vital need for a recognition of the inalienable, the God-given right of every human being to live his own life, think his own thoughts, obey the dictates of his own conscience, be the captain of his own soul, the master of his own destiny. Call no man great, no matter what his fame, be he even the President of these United States, who has not done everything in his power to bring this about, to put an end to all the antagonisms that set man against man, nation against nation, religion against religion and bring about an era of good-will and better understanding that will stress instead the heritage that we all hold in common. "Have we not all One Father, has not One God created us all?"

 

Under the dome of God's temple of humanity God, who is the universal Father of all, who knows no favorites and will tolerate no distinctions, with whom there are no high and no low, no proud and no humble under that dome, wide and high and all-embracing as the overarching skies, there are no reserved seats for the high and mighty and powerful of the earth, but there is room for all His children, men of every creed, color and nationality, white, black or yellow, American or European, Jew or Christian, Protestant or Catholic, Fundamentalist or Modernist, believer or unbeliever. Such is the lesson that this day teaches above every other lesson. Such, indeed, is the fact that, according to the prophet Isaiah, the Lord hath chosen to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free. Such is the ministry to which we are asked to dedicate ourselves tonight. In it there is a defense of the down-trodden, a brief for the widow and the orphan, the sorrowing and the heavy laden. Oh! that we might begin that ministry this holy eve and see in the man struggling, toiling at our side not a hated adversary but a loving brother, with the same desires, hopes and dreams that we possess oh! that tonight we might hear this evening whisper of peace and goodwill, pardon, forgiveness and reconciliation and speed the coming of the day when "men will no longer hurt nor destroy in all God's holy mountain, when the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Oh ! that tonight we might attune our hearts to the music of the Kol Nidr