Correspondence

progress of time inuoA'ations into the system , as originally laid down , have been allowed in various countries , is undeniable . Wo had a schism of our own in this country , and wo must not be surprised that differences should havo arisen elsewhere , or that in time there should have been more or less notable departures from tho original scopo of Freemasonry . But Avhilc wo in England have followed

pretty clearly the original lines of tho Masonic system , and , in particular , havo retained tho fundamental bases of religion and loyalty to constituted authority , other countries ha \ 'o materially altered the Constitutions of tho Craft . Aro wo then to blamo for protesting against such changes in tho letter as Avell as the spirit of Freomasonry ? Havo wo not rather a prescriptive right to resent such

changes , - seeing that tho Freemasonry of other countries is dednced from ours ? Bro . M . B . admits that tho Grand Orient " at all times bore the character of a mero philosophical and benevolent iustitntion , " and he adds " never free , however , from political influences , though they were never to bo openly avowed ; " but this is quite another aspect of Froemasonry than that AVO havo viewed Avith favour

in England . Wo say it is a morality , and our ancient charges sufficiently describe the basis of that morality when they affirm that a Mason , if ho rightly understand tho art , will never be a stupid atheist , or an irreligious libertine . Snroly thero is nothing sectarian , illiberal , or narrow-minded in upholding tho Masonic faith as it has been handed clown to ns through successive generations from its

founders , or in our Grand Lodgo saying iu one fashion Avhat Bro , M . B . has said in another fashion—namely , that French and English Freemasonry are differentlyconstituted , and that we cannot recognise certain membors holding under the French Grand Orient as truo and genuine brethreu . How cati we be more bigoted than French Masons , when both limit tho admission of candidates to just , upright , and

moral men , though thoir definition of morality is of one kind , and ours is of another kind ? In an English Lodgo , at a very early stago of the proceedings , the candidate for initiation is told that the Masonic obligation he is about to contract contains nothing incompatible with his social , moral , or religious duties , and this seems to mo to boa tolerably near approach to universality . Wo do not intrude on the

man ' s conscience , and ask him to defino the nature of those several duties . We quietly assnmo that ho recognises there are such duties for him , as a member of the great human family , to fulfil , and leave the manner of their fulfilment to him and his conscience . Thus the only peoplo whom Ave in England regard as ineligible to bo received into our Lodges aro those Avho do not recognise that there are social ,

moral , and religious duties for them to fulfil ; for it is only those to whom the Masonic vows could prove a stumbling block . The question is not whether French Freemasonry is what it was twenty , forty , sixty , or a hundred years ago , but whether in its principles it bears any resemblance to the Freemasonry of tho founders of the Speculative system , from Avhich it Avas in the first instance

derived , and Avhich is still retained by us . I have no right , nor should I bo so silly ns to quarrel with Bro . A . B . C . becauso ho and I think differently , but I am fully justified in protesting against his declaration that his system and mine aro tho same in principle , when they are vitally distinct ; or that mine which , in all its essential features , has remained unchanged ab origine , is wrong , while his ,

which was iu the first instance derived from mine , but has undergone a variety of changes and modifications , is tho right one . By all means let the Grand Orient of France retain its character as " a mere philosophical and bcuevoleut institution , " with or without political iufluence . I am satisfied that no true English Mason will wish ifc aught but success ; but it is expecting too much of us Avhen Ave

aro called upon to affirm that Masonry is this , and nothing more . But let me inquire more closely into tho statement " that the French records testify to the absence of all dogmatic affirmation whatever , in the Constitut ' was pi-tor to ISl' J . " On turning to page 210 of Rebold's " Histoire des trois Grand Loges dc Franc-Marons en France , I fiud that , on the 14 th January 18-18 , the Grand Orient received the Report of the Permanent Commission

on tho question , ' Comment rendre a la Maronncric le caractere religieux qui lui est propre ? '" and the Reporter , Bro . Planchet , submitted a certain proposition , the first and second clauses of tho Preamble of which are as follow : — " Considdrant que le caractere de la Maconnerie est essentiellement veligicux , en ce sens que la charile , commandite par toutes les religions , est le but principal de la Maconnerie ;

" Conside ' rant , que , si depuis quelque temps ce caractere religieux a paru s ' ajfaiblir , cela tient sans doute & Vinvasion des passions profanes el par suite & I ' oubli des prescriptions rdglementaires . " Ifc is important the reader should note how , in tho first place , tho question which led to the Report is formulated . The words are " Comment RENDRE , " & C , that is , " How to RESTORE to Freemasonry

the religious character AA'hich belongs to it . ftow tho idea of restoring or giving back such character implies that Freemasonry had already been deprived of it . We cannot give back what has not been taken away ; Ave cannot restore a temple to its original condition Avhich has not lost some of its original features . I imply , therefore , that tho wording of this question suggests the idea that Freemasonry had at some

poriodofits career in France lost its religious character , and that a Committee had been charged with the duty of seeing how best this could be restored . Or , if I take " rendre" to mean simply " render , " as in the scntenco , " Render unto Coesar the things that are Cajsar ' s , " the clause " qui Ud est prop re , " is tantamount to a recognition of tho fact that Freemasonry ought to have , if ifc had not at the time , a religions

character . I prefer , however , the former interpretation of rendre , and I am strengthened in this preference by the words in the second paragraph of tho preamble as quoted above , " si drpuis quelque tennis ce caractere religion , ' : a porn s ' affaiblir , — if for some time past this religious character has seemingly been impaired . " What

Avas non-existent previously could not havo been impaired ; and the conclusion I arrive at is , that though as in tho case of our Constitutions there was no absolute statement of a belief iu God as tho essential principle of Freemasonry , there must have been at some period , more or lcs 3 remotely anterior to the

Correspondence

date of tho Report in question , some laAV in tho French Constitutions which implied such a belief on tho part of those who sought admission into tho French Lodges . Tho first paragraph of tho above preamble defines this religions character , and says , " Considering that tho character of Masonry is essentially religious , in tho senso that Charity , which is commanded by all religions , is tho

principal aim of Masonry , " and tho second paragraph , as I havo just shown , recognises its existence previous to the report of IS IS—from which sprang tho Constitutions of IS 19—by asserting that " for somo time past" ifc had been seomingly " impaired . " When , therefore , Bro . Thevenot declares that thero ha 3 been no chango in the practico of French Masonry in consequonco of tho alteration , last September ,

m the first article of tho Constitutions , I accept his statement , of course , as I am fraternally bound to do , but I confess I do not understand him . My difficulty is further increased by the slight knowledgo I havo of tho French Ritual . Of course , I can only indicate my meaning by ono or two guarded references to it . In the first degree , tho interpretation assigned to tho M . \ S . ' . implies belief in

God . In the second degree , tho mysterious G . \ has a second signification assigned as " V'initiate de Vim des noms du G :. A . \ del ' U . - . " Again , one of the ornaments cf tho Lodge in this decree—VEtoile Flamboyante—is thus in part described in a Dictionnaire Maconnique , published in Paris , " Chez . J . Brianchon , Librairo , Rue de la Harpe , No . 30 , 5825 : " " Elle est le symbole de ce feu sacrd , de cettefraction de

lumicre divine donb le G . * . A . ' , a forme" 110 s Ames , et cuts rayons de laquelle nous pouvons distinguer et connaitre la vertu , la pratiquer et Vaimer . La letlre G . ' . que vous voyez aic centre , vous priscnte deux grandes et sublimes ide ' es : Vune est le monogramme de I ' un des noms du Tres-Haut source de tonfe lumiure et de toute science . " Roughly interpreted , this means that the blazing star " is the symbol of that sacred

fire , of that fraction of tho light divine , of which the G . \ A . * , has fashioned our souls , and by the rays of which we aro enabled to distinguish and acquiro a knowledge of virtue , to practise and to love it . Tho letter G . in its centre offers two grand and sublime ideas one is the monogram of one of the names of the Most High , source of all light and all knowledge . " This is part of a passage quoted from

some Masonic Avork , and I judge , therefore , that while prior to 182 o there may have been no mention of God in the Constitutions of the French Grand Orient , He was recognised in the Ritual . Rebold , again , at p . 37 of his history , in contrasting the forms of initiation into Freemasonry with thoso of initiation into tho ancient mysteries , says : " la- franc-Mar onncrie symboliquc est le re ' mme' de la sagesse divine et humaine , e ' est-d-dire de toutes les perfections

qui peuvent le plus rapprocher Vhomme de la divinite , " that is " Symbolical Freemasonry is the summary of human and divine wisdom , that is to say , of ali tho qualities Avhich are ablo to bring man in closer proximity to God . " Of course , I may be wroag , but I imagine these points I have referred to give a different illustration of French Freemasonry from that which Bros . Thevenot and M . B . havo presented to us . They also show that it has not always been " Godless" in tho sense in which we use tho word .

I am at a loss to understand tho grounds on which " A Free-Mason and P . M . " impugns tho conduct of tho Pro Grand Master at tho last Communication of Grand Lodge . I think Lord Carnarvon was qnite right in assuming that utider tho circumstances Grand Lodge would support him unanimously . We in England have always gone to tho utmost limit of liberty of conscience , but we have never

sanctioned av . ything like the licenso of view in which somo foreign brethren have thonght fit to indulge . Wo believo thero is a point bcj'ond which it is not permitted for us to go . We know what this point is , aud I hold that Lord Carnarvon Avas perfectly justified in assuming that Grand Lodgo would support tho views of the Committee of which he , by virtue of his office , Avas tho leading member .

It was a question of Avell-defincd Masonic principle , accepted of all true and genuine Freemasons , without the slightest demur , since the foundation of tho Speculative system of Freemasonry , and not of a moot point to which this or that objection might reasonably be raised . Tho right of assuming that Freemasonry i 3 what it has been defined to be rests with ns who retain tho old landmarks . The burden of

proving that it is something else rests Avith tho assailants . We have always strenuously held by tho original definition ; they , on the other hand , havo varied in their ideas . Moreover , we , in the main , are a united body ; they a divided one . We , too , are the founders of the system ; they only the borrowers or appropriators . Can there , under these circumstances , be tho slightest doubt ;

as to which of tho two Bfasonic bodies speaks with the greater authority ? I am not seeking to establish any comparison betiveen the respective virtues of English and French Freemasonry ; both , doubtless , are excellent of their kind . I am not pitting the ono against the other . I am not seeking to establish any undue rivalry between the two . I merely say to the Grand Orient , Your

ideas of I' reetnasonry involve a complete departure from its original definition as laid down by the founders of the system , and thoso founders Avere Englishmen . We are not mistaken in our ideas , for the simple reason that we have tho old charges and regulations as determined by them ; and AVO know , moreover , that what of Freemasonry exists amongst you owes its origin in the first instance to

the system as initiated iu this country . I cannot take upon my .-wlf to suggest—indeed , it would bo an act of impertinence on my part if I did so—what " A Free-Mnson and P . M . ' s" original ideas of Freemasonry may have been , but if they have turned out differently from what he anticipated , he has only himself to blame . Tho outside world , if it cares to trouble itself about the matter , knows . lerfectly well what manner of thing Freemasonry is , though it may

have no knowledge whatever of its mysteries ; aud I cannot picture ro myself a person seeking admission into the fraternity till he has iirst satisfied himself , in general terms , that it is a body worth joining . However , I will not further trespass upon yonr space at present ; and in the hope that you will kindly accord me room for some further observations on this highly important question , I remain , Dear Sir and Brother , Fraternally yours , " Q . "