The New Declaration Of Faith

THE NEW DECLARATION OF FAITH

LAST week we referred at some length to tho resolution of the Grand Lodge of Ireland forbidding all inter-BY THE G . 0 . OF FRANCE .

course between itself and its subordinate Lodges on the one hand , and the Grand Orient of France and its subordinate Lodges on the other . We expressed our firm belief that this resolution was perfectly justifiable , adding that under the circumstances in which the ruling Masonic bodies in

the two countries were placed , we did not see what other course it was possible for our Irish brethren to have adopted . We have since heard that at the next Quarterly Communication , in December , of our United Grand Lodge of England , notice will be taken of this flagrant departure by the French Grand Orient from the ancient landmarks of the Order .

There is yet ample time to consider the propriety of any step it may be proposed to take in this country on this question . We are not situated as is the Grand Lodge of Ireland , that is , there have been for some years past no official relations between the Grand Orient of France and

our Grand Lodge . We do not imagine , therefore , there will be any official communication made to the latter by the former . Still some notice will have to be taken of the conduct of the Grand Orient , but the time and the manner of doing this must , of necessity , be left to our governing authorities . That the omission from the new first article

of the Constitution of all reference to a belief in a Supreme Being is an eversion of the fundamental principles of Freemasonry we have already said is undeniable , and that some resolute condemnation of this new definition of Freemasonry will be necessary is beyond all doubt ; but , in the absence

of any official relations between the two Grand bodies , it may be desirable to pursue some other course than that which the Grand Lodge of Ireland has thought it wise to

adopt . However , it is not our intention at the present time to discuss what will have to be done , our purpose is to touch upon the general question at issue between our and French Freemasonry .

Let us first notice the sweeping character of the change introduced into the Constitution of the Grand Orient . Till this year the first article , after defining Freemasonry as an " Institution essentially philanthropic , philosophic , and progressive , " and as having in view "the search after

truth , the study of universal morality , the sciences , and the arts , and the exercise of beneficence , " went on to declare formally " Its fundamental principles are the existence of God , the Immortality of the soul , and the responsibility of man towards his

fellows . It regards liberty of conscience as a right proper to every one , and excludes no one on account of his religious faith ( croyances ) . Its device is—Liberty , Equality , and Fraternity . " Now , the first article , after defining

Freemasonry in almost exactly the same terms as before—the word " philosophic " is alone omitted—goes on thus : " Its principles are absolute liberty of conscience ancl the responsibility of man towards his fellows . It excludes no one for

his religious faith . Its device is—Liberty , Equality , and Fraternity . " The grounds on which the propriety of this material change in the Constitution will be found in le Monde Martinique to be that Freemasonry is not a

religion , and consequently that it is not its duty to affirm doctrines and dogmas in its Constitution—that is , of course to make any declaration of religious faith . On referring to the same journal , it will be seen that it was at the instance of Bro . de Saint Jean , President of the Council , that

The New Declaration Of Faith

the clause , " It excludes no one for his religious faith , " was added . So far , and looking at the matter calmly and judicially , these reasons appear to be sound enough . Freemasonry is not a religion , and therefore has no business to introduce any religious

declaration into its constitutions . But we must go a httlo farther , and examine the report of the Commission appointed to deal with the question . In that report , we find the following reasons given for the suppression of so much of the second paragraph of the old first article as

declared a belief in God and the immortality of the soul to be necessary . They are these : ( a ) Such portion of the paragraph in question is in direct contradiction with the paragraph next ensuing ; that is , a belief in God and the immortality of the soul is in antagonism with liberty of conscience .

( 6 ) It must often times cause great embarrassment to Venerables ( Worshipful Masters ) and Lodges who , in certain circumstances , must either evade or violate the law . ( c ) And not only this , but it must embarrass profanes who , when anxious to seek admission into the Society ,

find themselves suddenly arrested by this barrier of dogmatism which their conscience will not permit them to cross ( se voient tout a coup amies par cette barnbre dogmatigue cpie leur conscience ne leur permet pas de franchir . ) ( d ) Because such a declaration is useless and entirely

foreign to the purposes which Freemasonry has in view . A Society of Savants does not think it necessary to adopt some theological formula as the basis of its statutes ; it studies science independently of all religious dogmas , and why should it not be the same in the case of Freemasonry ,

whose field of operations is already large enough ? Now , the most important of these reasons , we may almost say the only one which is worth serious attention , is the third . We do not consider a declaration of faith in the existence of God as irreconcilable with entire liberty of conscience ,

because we cannot bring ourselves to believe that any just and upright man denies the existence of God . Liberty of conscience , according to our notions , implies freedom for every one to hold what religious views he pleases ; it excludes that licence which denies the existence of God . As

for the embarrassments which W . M . 's and Lodges may occasionally experience , when a candidate declines to swear his belief in God , we do not regard this as of serious moment . Our laws , like those of other societies , are made to suit ourselves , not those who do not belong to us . If

these latter are disinclined to accept the regulations of our Society as binding upon their conscience , let them remain outside our gates . At Rome we must do as Rome does—or stay away . Candidates must be prepared to abide by the laws of Freemasonry , or stay

without . So as to the fourth and last reason , no one has ever imagined it necessary to confound theology with science . On the contrary , in every kind of discussion conducted within our Lodges , be they formal , historical , scientific , or of any other description , the expression of anything like an

opinion on religious as on political topics is strictly forbidden . In a well-regulated Lodge of Freemasons there is not the slightest fear that any brother will have reason to feel hurt by the expression of any religious opinion io which he is conscientiously opposed . Therefore , there is not , there has not been at any time , the slightest danger ,

that the discussions of science would ever degenerate into a conflict of religious opinions . The real objection to the retention of the article as it was , will be found in the third reason ( c ) assigned for the amendment of the second paragraph of the article , namely , that men who do not believe in God are excluded , so long as a declaration of religious faith