The Builder Magazine 

March 1927 - Volume XIII - Number 3 


The New Atlantis and Freemasonry 

By BRO. A. J. B. Milbome, Canada 

AMONG the many theories of the origin of Freemasonry, is that which advances the 
hypothesis that: it was the outgrowth of the plan of Francis Bacon to accomplish a 
regeneration of mankind by the introduction of a state of civilization similar to that 
depicted in his The New Atlantis published in 1627. 


This theory was advanced by Christopher Frederick Nicolai, a learned German 
savant, in a work published in 1782 3 entitled, An Essay on the Accusations Made 
Against the Order of Knights Templar and Their Mystery; With an Appendix on the 
Origin of the Fraternity of Freemasons. It has never obtained any acceptance at the 
hands of Masonic students and critics, for the recognized existence, after subjection to 
every literary and critical test, of The Old Charges for two hundred years prior to the 
publication of Francis Bacon's romance is sufficient evidence to refute it. 


Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fact that many distinguished men of letters and 
science founded the Royal Society a few years after the death of Bacon with the 
object of disseminating scientific and philosophical truths on the basis of his 
suggestions and the further fact that members of the Royal Society were prominent in 
the revival of the Craft which culminated in the formation of the Grand Lodge in 
1717, the consideration of The New Atlantis from a Masonic standpoint is not to be 
neglected. 


THE ALLEGORY 



The New Atlantis is a narrative which deals with the fabled island of Bensalem in the 
Pacific Ocean and the culture and customs of its inhabitants. Its main feature, 
Solomon's House, is the embodiment of Bacon's life-long dream of finding some 
method or system by means of which scientific knowledge could be accumulated and 
used for the amelioration of mankind, for he writes "among all the benefits that could 
be conferred upon mankind, I find none so great as the discovery of new arts, 
endowments and commodities." 


The setting of the tale was suggested by Plato's myth of Atlantis, contained in the 
Timaeus, and the writer has also drawn on the Critias which contains a description of 
the origin and splendid civilization of this fabled country. The New Atlantis gives us 
very little information about the constitution of the country, its laws or the structure 
of its society, for Bacon laid down his pen when he had dealt with the many wonders 
of Solomon's House, not because the chief interest of the story was then exhausted, 
but, as Rawley writes in the Preface to the Latin version, "because he had many other 
matters which deserved to take precedence of them" (i.e., The New Atlantis and 
another unfinished work— the Dialogue Concerning an Holy War). The form of 
government may be taken, however, as being an ideal commonwealth though 
differing from the communistic conception of Plato. Here, then, we find an analogy 
with the Masonic Lodge which symbolically represents the universe and an ideal 
government based on the brotherhood of man, with the recognition of distinctions 
"necessary to preserve subordination." 


THE DISTRESSED VOYAGERS 


The romance opens with a description of the plight in which the company of a ship 
finds itself. The ship had sailed some months previously from Peru for China and 
Japan, and after five months of favorable winds had been driven off its course by 
adverse ones. The food supplies had become exhausted and sickness had broken out, 
when the voyagers come in sight of land. They approach it and enter a harbor, and are 
about to make a landing, when the inhabitants make signs to them not to do so. In the 
reception of the voyagers we find a ready compliance with the duty of rendering to 
our fellows those kind offices which justice or mercy require, for while the 
Bensalemites forbid them to land, they tell them to write down their wants and they 
would "haue that, which belongeth to mercy." 



The narrative goes on to relate the written answer given to the Bensalemites and that, 
three hours later "a Person (as it seemed) of place" approached them in a boat and 
desired that some of the visitors meet him upon the water, which was done, and the 
subsequent interrogation "Are yee Christians ?" and the humble confidence which it 
inspired bears a close analogy to our reception of a candidate. After giving an oath 
"by the Meritts of the Saviour" that they were not pirates and had not shed blood, 
lawfully or unlawfully "within fourtie daies past" they were informed that on the 
following day they would be brought to the "Strangers' House" which was an 
institution akin to our modern Quarantine Station, though not so irksome for the only 
limitation placed upon the newcomers was to remain within doors for three days, after 
which they might visit the city, though they were not to go more than a mile and a 
half from the city walls without special leave. 


On the expiration of the three days the voyagers were visited by a Christian Priest, 
who informed them that he was the Governor of the Strangers' House, and offered 
them his services "both as Strangers, and chiefly as Christians." He told them that the 
state had given them permission to remain for six weeks, but that an extension might 
be obtained, if desired, and that if they wished to trade they would be fairly dealt 
with. 


THE ARK CONTAINING THE SCRIPTURES 


The next day the Governor of the Strangers' House came to them and explains that by 
reason of their isolated position, the laws of secrecy by which they were bound, and 
their rare admission of strangers, the Bensalemites were well acquainted with the 
greater part of the habitable world, but were themselves unknown, and goes on to say, 
"Therefore because he that knoweth least, is fittest to aske Questions, it is more 
Reason, for the Entertainment of the time, that yee aske mee Questions, then I aske 
you." They then inquire who was the Apostle of the Nation, and how it was converted 
to the Christian faith, and the Governor, in reply, relates the reception of a "small 
Arke, or Chest of Cedar" containing "all the Canonicall Bookes of the Old and New 
Testament" and a letter written by Saint Bartholomew in which he states that he had 
been warned by an Angel to commit the Ark to the sea. This is probably based on the 



tradition recorded by Eusebius, "the Father of Church History," that Saint 
Bartholomew had left a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel with the Indians. 


The following day the Governor answers further questions as to how the 
Bensalemites were so well informed of the world's affairs while the world remained 
in ignorance of their existence, but he reserves some particulars "which it is not 
lawfull for mee to reueale." He tells of the great amount of navigation of the earlier 
days, the intercourse of the various nations and then of the destruction of the Great 
Atlantis. Proceeding, the Governor relates the difficulties of "the poore Remnant of 
Humane Seed" which survived the inundation, the history of King "Salamona" and 
the code of laws which he put into force. "Doubting Nouelties" King "Salamona" 
prescribed certain "Interdicts and Prohibitions" one of which concerns the admission 
of strangers. Those who laid the foundation of the Masonic Order have also given us 
certain regulations regarding the admission of strangers, and, "doubting novelties" 
have prohibited any change in our established usages and customs which has received 
universal recognition as a primary landmark of the order. 


SOLOMON S HOUSE 


The raison d'etre of the romance— the order or society of Solomon's House— is next 
outlined. The Governor refers to it as "The Noblest Foundation . . . that euer was upon 
the Earth" dedicated to the study of the works and creatures of God— ("the hidden 
mysteries of nature and science" )— and named by King Solomon "finding himselfe to 
Symbolize" after the King of the Hebrews. The method of obtaining information of 
the outer world by the sending of Missions of three of the fellows or brethren recalls 
to our mind the despatch of the trusty fellowcrafts by King Solomon, divided into 
three lodges, upon a certain mournful quest. The brethren of Solomon's House are 
termed "Merchants of Light," which has its parallel in the expression "Sons of Light" 
as applied to Freemasons. 


The voyagers now lived quite happily, and the narrator tells us that they went abroad 
seeing what was to be seen in the city and places adjacent "within our Tedder." 



"Tedder" is the middle English form of the word "tether" and we find a similitude in 
the Masonic cable-tow. 


The Feast of the Family, granted to any man who lived to see thirty descendants alive 
together "and all above 3 yeares old" is then minutely described. In the description of 
the room in which the feast is celebrated we find a symbolic emblem similar to one 
with which Master Masons are familiar in the decoration of the "state" of canopy over 
the chair in which the Tirsan as "the father of the family" is termed is seated. The 
concluding part of the ceremony attending the feast is the presentation to any of the 
Tirsan's sons of "eminent Merritt and Vertue" of a jewel "made in the figure of an 
Eare of Wheat" a symbol which we preserve in the Fellowcraft degree to remind us of 
those temporal blessings of life, support and nourishment which we receive from the 
Giver of all Good. 


The rest of the book is taken up with a description of the customs of the country and 
concludes with a full recital of the many wonders of Solomon's House, a remarkable 
forecast of the inventive genius of man. 


It is generally conceded that one of Bacon's principal achievements was the impetus 
given through this work to thought in England, which resulted in the formation of the 
Royal Society not many years after his death Glanville said that Solomon's House 
was a prophetic scheme of the organization that has done so much for the 
advancement of science, and Boyle, one of its earliest and most famous members, 
spoke of an "in visible college" in his letters, which probably referred to the 
beginnings of the Society before its formal constitution in 1660. The attempt has been 
made to definitely connect Bacon with the Speculative reorganization of 
Freemasonry; the fact that some of the founders of the Royal Society were Masons is 
certainly a curious coincidence, but whether we can ever go further than this is 
doubtful. 


— o — 



The Masonic Lodges in the 1 7th Leicestershire Regiment 


By BRO. R. V. HARRIS, Associate Editor, Nova Scotia 


One of the most interesting of all the Regiments of the British Army, from a Masonic 
viewpoint, is the 1 7th Leicestershire Regiment. 


This regiment was raised in the year 1688 and saw its first active service under 
William III in the Flanders Campaign, where it suffered heavy losses at Landen and 
the siege of Namur. In 1701 it served with Marlborough in the Low Countries, taking 
part in his earlier campaigns, including Huy, Liege and Venloo, after which it was 
sent to Portugal where it participated in the battle of Almanza, in which it was nearly 
destroyed. 


In 1710 it was in Scotland and from 1713-14 in Ireland. In 1715 it formed part of the 
forces sent to quell the rebellion in Scotland and it was stationed at Perth. 


From 1723-48 it served in the garrison at Minorca in the Mediterranean, a detachment 
being sent in 1727 to aid in the defence of Gibraltar. In 1748 the Regiment was 
transferred to Ireland. On June 24, 1748, the Masons in the Regiment were granted a 
Charter by the Grand Lodge of Ireland as No. 136, without any distinctive name. No 
returns seem to have been made to the Grand Lodge, probably owing to their being 
continually on active service outside Ireland. 


On the outbreak of the Seven Years' War the Regiment embarked (May 5, 1757) for 
Nova Scotia and formed part of the expedition of the Earl of Loudon against 
Louisburg. After the abandonment of that enterprise the Regiment wintered in Nova 
Scotia, and was quartered at Annapolis Royal. While there, one Pardon Sanders, an 
artificer in the Ordnance, who had resided at Annapolis since 1750, became a member 



of the lodge. On the departure of the Regiment to take part in the siege of Louisburg 
in 1758, the lodge granted a certificate or dimit to Sanders in the following terms (1): 


"Out of the Darkness Shineth Light and the Darkness comprehended it not." 


By the Worshipful Master and Wardens of a Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, 
No. 136. 


We do hereby certify that the Bearer our Brother Pardon Sanders, was by us lawfully 
admitted into the said Lodge and did there serve as an entered apprentice and 
afterwards as a Fellow Craft and as he behaved himself in these proper stations we 
gave unto him the sublime degree of a Master Mason, he served as a member and as a 
true and honest brother and Senior Deacon of our Lodge. We recommend him to all 
regular Lodges of our most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity. 


Given under our hands at Annapolis Royal, April 30th, Anno Domini, 1758, and in 
the year of Masonry, 5758. Joseph Westover Master. Secretary James Rutherford. 
Wm. Witcome Miles Prentis (2) Wardens. 


At Louisburg the Regiment was composed of 660 men and was under the command 
of Brig. Gen. John Forbes. At Louisburg in the fourteen British regiments engaged, 
there were ten Masonic Lodges and after the siege another was warranted, in the 28th 
Regiment, by the Grand Lodge at Boston. Among both the Americans and English 
forces were numerous Masons, several of very great distinction, such as Col. Richard 
Gridley, Capt. David Wooster, of the Americans, Alex. Lord Rollo, Gen. Charles 
Lawrence (Master of the First Lodge at Halifax), Admiral Lord Colville, Col. Simon 
Fraser of the 78th Foot, Adam Williamson (afterwards Sir Adam, Governor and P. G. 
M. of Jamaica), Col. Alex. Murray, and others. For its services on this occasion the 
Regiment bears upon its colors the name "Louisburg." 



After the capture of Louisburg the 17th was sent by way of Boston to winter quarters 
at Philadelphia, where the members of the lodge fraternized with the Masons of that 
place. 


In the spring the Regiment took part in the Crown Point Expedition, and later in the 
advance on Montreal, being present when that place capitulated in September, 1760. 
Under Lord Rollo the Regiment proceeded to New York and Staten Island, and from 
there in October to Barbadoes, participating in the capture of Martinique and later of 
Havana 1762. In 1763 the Regiment was sent back to North America for frontier 
service at Detroit and in the Lakes region. 


On returning to England in September, 1767, the Regiment applied for a warrant from 
the Grand Lodge of Scotland, the old warrant having been lost through the 
"Hazardous enterprises in which they had been engaged." The lodge was designated 
Unity Lodge in the 17th Regiment, and the Grand Lodge minutes of Nov. 22, 1771, 
record that it was "to be gratis." The Grand Lodge minutes of Leb. 3 and May 18, 
1772, note the attendance of Bro. Hanson of Lodge 168. While this appears to be the 
number by which the lodge was known in the Grand Lodge minutes in the Warrant 
itself the lodge's number was given as No. 169. 


This old Warrant is now in possession of Union Lodge, No. 5, at Middletown, 
Delaware, and because of its interest is quoted in full: 


To All and Sundry To whose Knowledge these presents shall Come Greeting In God 
Everlasting. Whereas upon Petition to the Grand Lodge of Tree and Accepted Masons 
for the Kingdom of Scotland By Brother John Slater, Alexander Aberdour, John Hill, 
Thomas Hanson, and James Scrimgeor all of the Seventeenth Regiment of Loot, 
presently in Edinburgh as the Setting Lorth That for a Considerable time there was 
Held a Regular Lodge in the said Regiment under the Authority of the Grand Lodge 
of Ireland That through the many hazardous Enterprises in which they had been 
Engaged in the Service of their King and Country, they had not only Lost their 
Charter, but their whole Records and Jewels, and being willing Still to Associate 
together for the True End of Masonry in a Regular Lodge Constituted by the Grand 



Lodge of Scotland, They Proposed the said Thomas Hanson for Master; John Slater 
and John Hill for Wardens, James Scrimgeor for Treasurer and Alexander Aberdour 
(3) for Secretary And Praying it might please the Grand Lodge to Grant them a 
Charter of Constitution and Erection in the usual form Which Petition Having been 
Considered by the Grand Lodge, And Ample Recommendation having been given of 
the Petition by Lieutenant Richard Aylmer, (4) Adjutant in the said Seventeenth 
Regiment They authorized the underwritten Patent of Constitution and Erection to be 
Expede in the Petitioners favours. Know ye therefore That the Most Worshipful The 
Grand Master of Scotland, and the Grand Lodge aforesaid Have Constituted Erected 
and Appointed And hereby Constitute Erect and Appoint the Worshipful Brethren 
above named and their Successors, in all time Coming to be a True and Regular 
Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons by the Stile and Title of Unity Lodge, in the 
Seventeenth Regiment of Foot, And Appoint and Ordain all Regular Lodges under 
the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, to Hold, Own and Respect them as 
Such Giving Granting and Committing to them and their Successors full Power and 
Authority to Meet, Assemble and Conveen as a Regular Lodge, And to Admit and 
Receive Apprentices, Pass Fellow Crafts, and Raise Master Masons upon Payment of 
such Composition for the Support of their Lodge as they shall see Convenient, And to 
Elect and Chuse Masters, Wardens and other officers Annually or other ways as they 
shall have Occasion Recommending to the Brethren aforesaid and their Successors to 
Reverence and Obey their Superiors in all things Lawfull and honest, as becomes the 
Honour and Harmony of Masonry The said Brethren by Accepting of this present 
Charter, Becoming faithfully Bound and Engaged not to Desert their said Lodge so 
Constituted nor upon any pretext whatsoever to make any Separate or Schismatical 
Meetings, without Consent of their Master and Wardens for the time. Nor to Collect 
Money or other Funds Separate from the Common Stock of their Lodge to the 
prejudice of the Poor thereof. They and their Successors in all time coming being also 
Obliged to Obey and Pay all due regard to the Acts, Statutes and Regulations of the 
Grand Lodge already made, or hereafter to be made, for the Utility, Welfare and 
Prosperity of Masonry in General, And to Pay and Perform whatever is Stipulated or 
Demanded of them for the Support of the Dignity of the Grand Lodge. And to Record 
in their Books, which they are hereby Appointed to keep this Present Charter of 
Constitution and Erection with their own Regulations and bye-Laws and their whole 
Procedure from time to time as they shall Occur, to the end the same may be the more 
easily Seen, and Observed by their Brethren, Subject always to the rules of the Grand 
Lodge, And also the Brethren aforesaid and their Successors are hereby Required 
punctually to Attend the whole General Meetings, and Quarterly Communications of 
the Grand Lodge by their Representatives being the Master and the Wardens for the 
time or by Lawful Proxies in their Names Provided Such Proxies be Master Masons 
or Fellow Crafts of some Established Lodge, holding of the Grand Lodge To the End 



they may Act and Vote in the Grand Lodge, and be duly Certiorated of the 
Proceedings thereof Declaring their Precedency in the Grand Lodge to Commence 
from the date hereof And to the End these presents may be the more effectually kept 
and Preserved, the same are hereby appointed to be Recorded in the Books of the 
Grand Lodge Given at the Grand Lodge Held in the City of Edinburgh upon the 
Twelfth day of November In the year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and 
Seventy-One, And of Light Five Thousand Seven hundred and Seventy- four years By 
The Most Worshipfull His Excellency Lieutenant General, James Adolphus Oughton, 
Grand Master of Scotland, The Right Worshipfull Sir William Erskine Deputy Grand 
Master, The Right Worshipfull And Honourable Collonel Napier Substitute Grand 
Master pro tempore, The Right Worshipfull Doctor James Lind and William Baillie 
Esquire Grand Wardens, James Hunter Esquire Grand Treasurer, And the Seal of the 
Grand Lodge is Appended hereunto. 


In Presence of Alexander McDougall Esquire Grand Secretary and David Bolt Grand 
Clerk ALEX. McDOUGALL, G. Secty. JAS. ADOLS. OUGHTON, G. M. DAVID 
BOLT. G. Clerk. Wm. NAPIER, S. G. Mr. p. t. JAMES LIND, S. G. W. WILL. 
BAILLIE, J. G. W. Composition Gratis Porder. A. McD., G. S. 


Number One hundred & Sixty-nine. Recorded in the Books of the Grand Lodge of 
Scotland by David Bolt G. Clerk. 


There is no record of the members of the Lodge Unity 168 (or 169) in the books of 
the Grand Lodge in Scotland. In 1771 the Regiment was in Scotland, transferring in 
the latter year to Ireland where it remained until the fall of 1775. 


On the outbreak of the American Revolution the Regiment was ordered to America, 
four companies arriving at Boston in November, 1775; the remaining six companies 
after a stormy voyage, not arriving until Jan. 1, 1776. Not being able to effect a 
landing because of unusually severe weather conditions, the latter proceeded to 
Halifax, Nova Scotia, arriving Jan. 11, 1776. Here this portion of the Regiment 
remained until June, a detachment being sent to Fort Cumberland. The Boston portion 
embarked for Halifax, March 17, 177 In the beginning of June, the 17th embarked 



along with the troops Gen. Lord Howe had brought from Boston on its evacuation, 
and sailed for New York arriving at Sandy Hook June 10, landing at Staten Island, 
proceeding to Long Island, where they too part in the battle of Aug. 27, 1776, in 
which the Americans were led by Generals Israel Putnam, Lord Stirling and Sullivan, 
all Freemasons, and in which more than twenty military lodges were represented in 
the various British units. 


The occupation of New York by the British forces in Sept. 15 followed an event 
which obliged St. John's Lodge to vacate the city. The 17th also took part in the 
engagement at White Plains, Oct. 28, and the reduction of Fort Washington Nov. 16. 
On Jan. 3, 1777, the British forces, which included the 17th, suffered disastrous 
defeat at Princeton. 


In this engagement, Bro. William Leslie, (5) Captain of the 17th Regiment of Foot, 
and Extra Major of Brigade, was mortally wounded. There is an interesting tradition 
connected with his death and burial. When, after the battle, Gen. Washington was 
riding over the field, he perceived some British soldiers supporting a wounded 
officer, and upon inquiring his name and rank, was answered, Captain Leslie. Dr. 
Benjamin Rush, who formed a part of the Commander's Staff, asked whether he was 
"a son of the Earl of Leven" being answered in the affirmative, he asked to have him 
placed under his care. He, however, died the same evening, and was buried with 
martial and Masonic honors by his American brethren in the graveyard at Pluckamin, 
where a monument marks his resting place. Two days after the battle, Washington 
sent his aide. Col. Fitzgerald, into the British camp, with a flag of truce, advising the 
British of the death of Capt. Leslie and of the honors with which he was interred. 


It has been stated that in the same Battle of Princeton the Delaware troops captured 
the Warrant No. 169 of the brethren of the 17th Regiment. (6) But the authority for 
this statement is not given. 


In the Archives of the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia has recently been discovered a 
letter in which it is stated 



. . . that in the year 1777 a ship loaded with the Baggage the Regiment (on her 
Passage from New York to Philadelphia) in which was our Lodge Box which 
contained our Warrant, Jewels, Fund and every Other Necessary Apparatus belonging 
to Our Lodge, was Captured by the Enemy. [This letter is quoted in full below.] 


Whatever the reason for the loss of the Warrant, it eventually passed into the hands of 
the brethren of Lodge No. 5 at Cantwell's Bridge, Delaware, now Union Lodge No. 5, 
Middletown, Delaware. 


The 17th Regiment of Foot also took part in the expedition to Pennsylvania, and in 
the battle on the Brandywine, Sept. 11, where they led the attack on the American 
position, and in the following October saved the day for the British at the battle of 
Germantown, after which they were quartered in Philadelphia during the British 
occupation, from Sept. 27, 1777, to June 18, 1778. 


When the British took possession of the city there were three active Masonic Lodges, 
viz., Lodges 2, 3 and 4. No meetings were held of Lodge No. 2 while Philadelphia 
was in the hands of the British, for the reason that its jewels, regalia, books and 
papers were stolen or hidden on the arrival of the British. These jewels, etc., were 
afterwards recovered by Capt. Wm. Cunningham, the Provost Marshal of Gen. 
Howe's Army during the occupation, and lodged by him with Lodge No. 3 for safe 
keeping. In the records of Lodges 2 and 3 we find the attendance recorded of several 
of the members of the lodge in the 17th Regiment, including Daniel Webb, George 
Cockburn, and others. 


During this time the warrant of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which 
had not met for over three years, (7) was in the possession of Lodge No. 3. The Grand 
Master and his Deputy had both left the city. It would seem from recently discovered 
evidence that the brethren of the 17th Foot made application to the Grand Lodge of 
Pennsylvania, then working under the authority of a Warrant from the Grand Lodge 
of England (Ancients) dated 1764, and at a meeting evidently presided over by one of 
the Grand Wardens and attended by representatives of all the military lodges (to the 
number of nineteen) then in Philadelphia, the petitioners were granted a new Warrant, 



"Unity, No. 18," on the Provincial Registry. A copy of this Warrant was deposited in 
the Archives of the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia on Aug. 27, 1784, but has been 
mislaid. 


On June 18, 1778, the British occupation of the city terminated and the Regiment 
marched with the army through the Jerseys on its return to New York. 


During 1779 the 17th was at New York with a detachment of the Regiment quartered 
at Stoney Creek, a fortified post on the Hudson River. On the night of July 15, 16, the 
fort was suddenly attacked by a superior force of Americans under General Wayne, to 
which, after stubborn and gallant resistance, the survivors were obliged to surrender 
as prisoners of war. Along with their baggage the lodge Warrant and regalia fell into 
the hands of the American General, Samuel H. Parsons, who actuated by the genuine 
principles of Masonry, returned them to the British Commander at New York, with 
the following letter: 


West Jersey Highlands, July 23, 1779. Brethren: When the ambition of monarchs or 
jarring interest of contending States, call forth their subjects to war, as Masons we are 
disarmed of that resentment which stimulates to undistinguished desolation; and 
however our political sentiments may impel us in the public dispute, we are still 
Brethren, and (our professional duty apart) ought to promote the happiness and 
advance the weal of each other. Accept therefore, at the hands of a Brother, the 
Constitution of the Lodge Unity, No. 18, to be held in the 17th British Regiment 
which your late misfortunes have put in my power to restore to you. 


I am your Brother and obedient servant SAMUEL H. PARSONS. Addressed to 
Master and Wardens of Lodge Unity No. 18, upon the Registry of England, (sic) 


The Regiment was imprisoned in Philadelphia gaol until Christmas Day 1780, when 
it was exchanged and placed under the order of Col. Watson of the Loot Guards, and 
stationed in Virginia. Early in 1781 they joined the army under Lord Cornwallis in 
the south and gained a victory over the Americans at Guilford Court House; thence 



they were sent to Yorktown, where, on Oct. 17, 1781, the Regiment again became 
prisoners of war, along with the other forces of Lord Cornwallis, but on being again 
exchanged were stationed in Virginia and later at New York, where it remained until 
the withdrawal of the British from that place in November, 1783, then sent to Nova 
Scotia. 


NOTES 


(1) This certificate follows generally the earliest known form of lodge certificate, 
dated 1754, found in the Treasurer's book of St. John's Masonic Lodge, No. 134, 
Lurgan County, Armagh, which still meets under its original warrant dated May 20, 
1743. The only actual certificate of earlier date is that issued "From the Lodge House 
in Lodge Alley, Philadelphia, No. 2, the 6th of September, 1756" to James Harding. 
(See Old Masonic Lodges of Pennsylvania by Julius Sachse, 1892, page 59.) Also the 
History of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, by Lepper and Crossle, Vol. i, page 233-4. 


(2) Sergt. Miles Prentis accompanied the Regiment to Louisburg, Quebec and 
Montreal, where he evidently obtained his discharge. His name appears in a St. John's 
Day advertisement, June 24 1764; his address being "The Sun," in St. John's Street, 
and in 1775 he became the proprietor of the famous "Freemason's Tavern," Quebec, 
the rendezvous of the bonne societe in that city. He identified himself with the 
Merchant's Lodge. In March, 1770, we find him and others applying to the Grand 
Lodge of Massachusetts for a warrant, he being present; the application was denied. 

In 1776 he was W. M. of St. Patrick's Lodge, Quebec. See Robertson i, page 167, 1 
mass. 228-30 Graham pages 42, 45 and 47. 


(3) Alexander Aberdour, Secretary, he was at Ticonderoga in 1760 and received his 
discharge at Boston, 1775. 


(4) Lieutenant Richard Aylmer, Adjutant of the 17th Regiment who gave "ample 
recommendation" to the petition of the Brethren, was surgeon's mate in the Regiment 
in 1756, promoted ensign 1759; Lieutenant 1762; Adjutant 1768; Captain-Lieutenant 



1772, 2nd Captain 1772. Served at Louisburg 1758 Crown Point and Montreal 1759- 
60 Martinique, 1762. 


(5) Capt. Hon. Wm. Leslie, Ensign 42nd (Royal Highland Black Watch) Regiment 
1770; Lieutenant 17th Foot 1773; Captain 1776. 


(6) Old Masonic Lodges of Philadelphia, Vol. i, pages 363, 368. The statement is as 
follows: 


When the regiment was captured, during the attack at Stony Point, July 16, 1779, 
among their baggage was found the warrant and regalia of the Lodge; when this was 
brought to the notice of Gen. Samuel H. Parsons, an American Commander, and 
member of American Union Lodge, in the Continental army, he at once sent the 
warrant back to the British Regiment with the following fraternal letter: 


"West Jersey Highlands, July 23, 1779. 


"Brethren:— When the ambition of monarchs or jarring interest of contending States, 
call forth their subjects to war as Masons we are disarmed of that resentment which 
stimulates to undistinguished desolation, and however our political sentiments may 
impel us in the public dispute, we are still Brethren, and (our professional duty apart) 
ought to promote the happiness and advance the weal of each other. Accept therefore, 
at the hands of a Brother, the Constitution of the Lodge Unity No. 18, to be held in 
the 17th British Regiment which your late misfortunes have put in my power to 
restore to you. 


"I am your Brother and obedient servant "Samuel H. Parsons. 



Unfortunately Sachse gives no indication where this letter is to be found. 


(7) Op. cit. page 137. 


— o — 


The Initiation of Frederick the Great 


BY DR. H. BARTELMESS 


This article originally appeared in "The American Freemason's Magazine" for April, 
1860, nearly seventy years ago. This periodical has long been extinct, and is not at all 
easily accessible. The account here given is much more minutely detailed than those 
found in the standard histories, though in the main it is in accord with them. 


That Frederick was very much interested in the Craft is obvious, or he would not have 
taken such risks as he did in joining. It is quite possible that the risk added to the 
attraction. Also that during his reign Masonry had a favored and protected position in 
Prussia is quite certain. Whether Frederick, however, retained an active interest in the 
Institution after his accession to the throne seems to be still an open and somewhat 
vexed question. FREDERICK THE GREAT, then Prince Royal of Prussia, first 
resolved upon becoming a Freemason while in Holland, where he had accompanied 
his father, the king, who had gone there, after having reviewed some troops at Wesel, 
to pay a visit to the prince of Orange and to the princess, his niece. 


One day at dinner, in the castle of Eoo, in Geldem, the conversation turned on 
Freemasonry, and the king declaimed with much vehemence against the Order. Count 
Albert Wolfgang, of Schaumburg-Lippe, defended the Society, with which he openly 



avowed himself connected, with such frankness and eloquence, that the prince-royal 
felt disposed to request him, after dinner, to procure his admission into an Order 
which counted such candid and upright men among its members. 


The Count of Lippe, having been initiated in England, and therefore not well 
conversant with the state of Freemasonry in Germany, applied to the Baron of 
Albedyll, in Hanover, to whom he wrote, in a letter of the 19th of July, 1738, from 
Stadthagen, the following lines: 


I have been commissioned by a high person, who does not wish to be known at 
present, to cause a certain individual to be admitted as Freemason at Brunswick, 
which has been decreed upon as the place of rendezvous, during the fair of this 
summer. 


You are the only brother of the Order whom I know. As for me, though I have been 
declared a Master, I am not sufficiently instructed to undertake to preside in a lodge, 
supposing that we should be able to bring together the required number of members. I 
entreat you most earnestly to communicate to me what you will be able to accomplish 
in this respect. You can easily guess that it is a person of high rank and respectability 
who has applied to me, from the fact of my troubling you, and so urgent is the 
request, that 1 desire an answer that can be shown, in case you cannot comply with 
our wishes and come to Brunswick. 


To this place I would go myself provided you will come and point out there the 
sufficient number of Masons and a Master competent to preside at the initiation. 


Signed, V. SCHAUMBURG-FIPPE. 


The brother, von Albedyll, was a member of the lodge of Hamburg, which, of English 
origin, existed from the 6th of December, 1737, and afterwards, 1740, took the name 



of Absalon. To this lodge he directed from Hamburg, the 22nd of July, 1738, the 
following letter: 


Highly esteemed and beloved Brethren: 


To your wise consultation I submit the subject of the enclosed extract of a letter 
which the reigning Count of Schaumburg-Lippe, a highly respectable member of our 
Society and an old Master, wrote to me: 


The birth of the illustrious candidate, though he be yet unknown to us, requires of us, 
my brethren, to do all that we can do to make the reception as solemn as possible, and 
worthy of the person about to do us such an honor. 


It will be your business now to find out whether some officers of the lodge are 
disposed to go to Brunswick, in order to arrange the ceremony, to choose a Master to 
preside at the reception, and to make all the arrangements which will be necessary to 
make the proceedings as solemn and legal as our old statutes require. 


I expect your resolutions by return of post, to communicate them to the Count of 
Lippe, and I do not doubt you will select a Master well instructed and entirely 
conversant with the work of reception. 


As in this case the honor of the whole union and brotherhood is at stake, your wisdom 
will doubtless find means to satisfy the request of the illustrious candidate. 


With zeal and unalterable attachment, etc. Signed, F. C. ALBEDYLL. 



The extract above given of the letter of the Count of Lippe was adjoined to this letter. 


The lodge of Hamburg assembled on the 29th of July, 1738, the Most Worshipful 
Master, Bro. v. Oberg, presiding, and resolved, after careful deliberation, if the 
unknown candidate be a reigning prince, to send a deputation to Brunswick. Bro. v. 
Oberg was elected president of this delegation, and appointed the other officers: First 
Warden Bro. Loewen, Second Warden Bro. Stuven, and Secretary Bro. Bielfeld. 


The lodge immediately answered the Bro. v. Albedyll, thanked him in the most 
obliging terms for the zeal displayed by him to promote the honor and growth of the 
Order, and added besides: 


This affair of course engaged in the meeting of yesterday the attention of the whole 
brotherhood. It was sufficient for everyone that it was you who proposed to initiate 
the illustrious candidate at Brunswick by some brethren of our lodge. All members 
were anxious to give in their adherence. The Most Reverend Master, Bro. Oberg; the 
brethren, Loewen, Stuven and Bielfeld, will be ready to leave for Brunswick as soon 
as the lodge shall have the honor to know the illustrious candidate, whom we all 
already now revere. We do not doubt in the least that the rank and qualities of the 
high unknown will correspond with the idea which we have formed of him; we beg 
even to recommend our lodge to the protection of the illustrious candidate, etc. 


You know what Masonic discretion is, and therefore will not fear that we might 
divulge the honored name of a man who is about to honor our society by joining it. 

Be so kind as to ask the Count of Lippe about it. He will, with the permission of the 
illustrious candidate, let us know it, supposing no change of resolution having taken 
place. The importance of the matter in question, and the presence of the Count of 
Lippe as well as yours, oblige us to do all in our power to make this high reception as 
worthy as possible. You know, Most Reverend Brother, what number of brethren the 
ceremony requires; the Count of Lippe, yourself, the Bros. Oberg, Stuven and 
Bielfeld will form the lodge, the splendor of which will be the brighter if you would 
take advantage of the fair at Brunswick to find some more brother Masons who might 
be worthy of attending such an illustrious reception. Baron v. Oberg, whom we revere 



as our Most Worshipful Grand Master at Hamburg, is in every respect competent to 
preside at the reception, and the Wardens whom we will bring along will not fail to 
perform their duties, etc. 


The wish of the lodge to learn the name of the proposed must have been, although 
indirectly, complied with very soon, as appears from a letter of Bielfeld to Oberg, in 
which he says: 


You deal with me, not as a brother, but indeed as a father Freemason. I shall 
participate in the great honor to initiate the Prince Royal of Prussia. I am aware of the 
whole value of the favor, and am ready to accompany you to Brunswick. 


On the 10th of August, the above-named brethren, with the exception of Bro. v. Stein, 
who had an attack of fever, left Hamburg for Brunswick. The valet of the Bro. v. 
Oberg, named Rabon, accompanied them as servant-brother. A large box contained 
the necessary implements and tools. 


The baggage caused the brethren some embarrassment at the gate of Brunswick, for 
an exciseman prepared himself to search it. "But," says Bielfeld, "we were merely a 
little frightened, for, in consideration of a ducat which I slipped into the officer's 
hand, he declared us gentlemen of quality and incapable of fraud." 


The company put up at the Kron's Hotel, which had the sign and name of the Castle 
of Salzdahlum. This caused the pretty widely-spread rumor that Frederick II had been 
initiated as Freemason in the former ducal castle of this name, one mile from 
Brunswick. But this is not the case; the house, which then was a hotel, but is no 
longer a public house, is situated in Brunswick itself, in the "Breitestrasse," and has at 
present the insurance number of 722. 



The counts von der Lippe and von Kielmansegge, as well as the Baron of Albedyll, 
arrived almost at the same time as the Hamburgers, and the brethren met the same 
evening— 1 1th of August. 


On the following morning, the thunder of cannon from the ramparts announced the 
arrival of the King of Prussia and his suite in the city, then exceedingly lively on 
account of the fair. 


The brethren had agreed that none of them should appear at the court except the 
Count von der Lippe, who had been instructed to appoint with the prince the place 
and time of the reception. Bielfeld says: 


His Royal Highness appointed the night of the 14th of August and desired the 
reception to take place in our quarters. They were indeed spacious, and in every 
respect suitable. There was only one thing to be found fault with, namely, the 
neighborhood of Mr. v. W., who had a room next to our entry, separated only by deal 
boards, so that he had a good chance to hear and to divulge much. This idea made us 
feel uneasy; but as the brethren from Hanover knew Mr. v. W's happy talent of 
drowning his sorrows in the cup, we attacked him on this weak point. After dinner, 
we paid him, one after another, a visit, and took our turns alternately to fight him 
glass in hand. Towards evening he was in such a condition that, even sleeping in a 
hattery, he would not have been awakened. So the thyrsus of Bacchus has done us as 
great a service as the finger of Harpocrates had hardly been able to do us. 


The 14th was devoted entirely to the arrangement of the lodge and to preparations for 
the reception. Immediately after midnight the prince-royal appeared, accompanied by 
the Count of the Empire, von Wartensleben, captain in the king's giant regiment of 
Potsdam, whom the prince recommended as a candidate to be initiated directly after 
himself. 


As for himself, he asked not to omit any of the usual severe trials, nor to show him 
any favor, but to consider him as a mere private person. In short, he was received 



according to the usual forms, and we admired his intrepidity, his deportment, and the 
grace which accompanied him even in the most critical moments. 


I made a short speech, and after two receptions we passed over to an instruction. The 
prince seemed to be delighted with everything, and showed as much intelligence as 
dexterity. 


All who were present were delighted with the individuality of the new illustrious 
brother— his beauty, the richness of his mind and soul, and his tender regard for the 
presiding Master, Bro. v. Oherg. 


At four o'clock in the morning they had got through with everything, and parted, 
mutually pleased. 


Although it was kept strictly secret that the prince-royal had become a Freemason, he 
found means to familiarize himself with the Craft. The following year, in the month 
of March, the Colonel Count Truchses of Waldburg, for political purposes, was sent 
to the Danish court. He had joined the brotherhood in France, where he had 
accompanied the King Stanislaus of Poland, and was commissioned by the Prince 
Royal to invite, when passing through Hamburg, the brethren Oberg and Bielfeld to 
visit the king in his ordinary residence, Rheinsberg. 


Of all who had been present at his initiation in Brunswick, these two brethren, one in 
his function as president, the other as orator, had most attracted his attention. 


For fear of raising the suspicion of the king, they were asked to repair first to Berlin, 
and to make there their appearance as ordinary travelers. They did so, and when in 
Berlin immediately sent word to the Count Truchses who, having expected them, 
called on, and in the afternoon received them, in his lodgings. 



It is remarkable that the same property which then belonged to the Truchses, and was 
his usual residence, is now and has been for many years, the property and meeting 
place of the National Grand Lodge of the Three Globes and the lodges working under 
its charter. 


King Frederick William I had presented the count with this property, which formerly 
had belonged to the fortification of Berlin. The count had built there a dwelling house 
and laid out a pleasant garden. Here the two brethren, whose high duty it had become 
to shed first the light of the Order in the Prussian states, called on him. Both, but 
especially the sympathizing, amiable Bro. Bielfeld, felt quite charmed when they first 
saw the pleasant residence of Bro. Count Truchses. 


The Prince Royal having informed them from Rheinsberg that he wished, for good 
reasons, they might first go to Potsdam, they, provided with good recommendations, 
went there, were introduced to many persons, especially officers of the army, looked 
at all things worth seeing, and only then repaired to Rheinsberg, apparently nothing 
but ordinary travelers, curious to see also this place. 


They were received most cordially by the Prince Royal and stayed until November, 
1739, enjoying his hospitality. Bielfeld was even induced to promise to enter the 
Prussian service. While the brethren from Hamburg stayed in Rheinsberg, there was a 
great zeal and industry in works of the Craft, Bro. Oberg presiding at the receptions 
and promotions. 


Everything was done with the utmost secrecy, but in 1740, immediately after his 
accession to the throne, Frederick publicly declared he was a Freemason. Already, on 
the 2d of June, the fourth day of his reign, the king penned a few lines to his friend, 
Count Algarotti, who belonged to the Order, requesting him to come to Berlin. 
Keyserling, the young king's most intimate friend, added a postscript, in which he 
said: 



The King has declared himself a Freemason, and so do I, following my hero's 
example. Acknowledge me, therefore, as a Master Mason. 


Shortly after Prince William of Prussia and others were initiated at Charlottenburg in 
a lodge presided over by the King. 


— o — 


The Effects of Anti-Masonry on the Masonic Fraternity, 1826-1856 


By BRO. ERIK MCKINLEY ERIKSSON, Iowa 


(Continued) 


IN no state did the anti-Masons make a more determined effort to destroy Masonry 
than in Massachusetts. Though they seriously crippled the Institution they failed to 
accomplish their purpose, in spite of the fact that they numbered as one of their chief 
leaders John Quincy Adams, ex President of the United States. 


Prior to, and even for a short time after, the Morgan affair, numerous accessions to 
the Masonic ranks were reported. At the Grand Lodge meeting of Dec. 27, 1825, it 
was reported that there were 3727 members in the lodges in the jurisdiction. During 
the year ending Sept. 1, 1 825, there had been initiated a total of 874 persons. Seven 
charters for new lodges had been granted during the year. The fact that, on June 17, 
1825, the Grand Lodge, assisted by General Lafayette, who was then touring 
America, had laid the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill monument, had greatly 
enhanced the prestige of the Fraternity. In 1826 a net gain of 583 members was 
reported and five more lodges were chartered. 



In 1 827 the reports were not so flattering. Only one charter was granted, while eight 
lodges had made no returns, as compared with two lodges which had been reported in 
arrears in 1825 and seven so reported in 1826. Though political anti-Masonry had not 
yet touched the state, the excitement stirred up in New York was evidently already 
producing effect in Massachusetts. At each succeeding regular communication, held 
in Boston, the attendance declined until in 1835 the lowest point was reached, with 
only seven lodges represented. 


MASONRY ACTIVE IN BOSTON 


Despite the increasing fury of the anti-Masonic storm during the period, the Grand 
Lodge proceeded with plans for the erection of a Masonic Temple at Boston. On Oct. 
14, 1830, a Masonic procession was formed at Faneuil Hall and moved to the site of 
the new building where the cornerstone was laid, after which an address was 
delivered by Grand Master Joseph Jenkins. It was estimated that between 2000 and 
2500 Masons were present, including twenty-two clergymen and seven Revolutionary 
officers. The building was completed and was formally dedicated by the Grand Lodge 
on May 30, 1832. The address on the occasion was delivered by Rev. Bernard 
Whitman. It was described by "The Masonic Mirror," of Boston, "as one of the most 
ingenious and powerful arguments in defence of Masonry, ever pronounced." 


One of the most interesting events produced by the anti-Masonic attacks was the 
publication of the famous "Declaration to the Public," issued in December, 1831, by 
the Masons of Boston and vicinity. At the time of its first publication it contained 
about 1200 signatures. Later this number was increased to over 1400. The 
"Declaration" was a brief document devoted to a denial of the charges against the 
Fraternity and to a statement of Masonic principles. The following passage is 
especially worthy of quotation: 


The obligations of the Institution require of its members a strict obedience to the laws 
of God and of man. So far from being bound by any engagements inconsistent with 



the happiness and prosperity of the Nation, every citizen, who becomes a Mason, is 
doubly bound to be true to his God, to his country and to his Fellow-Men. 


The authorship of the "Declaration" has been attributed to Charles W. Moore, who 
rendered yeoman service to the Fraternity during the excitement as editor of what was 
probably the most influential Masonic periodical in the United States, "The Masonic 
Mirror," and as Grand Secretary beginning in 1834. 


Another matter of importance illustrating the effects of anti-Masonry in 
Massachusetts was the surrender by the Grand Lodge in 1833 of its civil charter, or 
"Act of Incorporation," which had been granted by the legislature June 16, 1817. This 
action was taken because of the persistence of the anti-Masons in the state legislature 
in endeavoring to secure the passage of laws interfering in the internal affairs of the 
Fraternity. A committee to consider the matter was appointed by the Grand Lodge on 
Dec. 12, 1833. On Dec. 27 it reported a "Memorial to the Honorable Senate and 
House of Representatives in General Court Assembled," which report was 
unanimously adopted by the Grand Lodge. The memorial reviewed the history of the 
Grand Lodge and ascribed as the reason for surrendering the charter the continued 
hostility of the legislature. The memorial made it very clear that the Grand Lodge was 
merely giving up its "corporate powers," such as the power to hold real estate, but that 
it "relinquished none of its Masonic attributes or prerogatives." 


That there might be no misunderstanding of this action the Grand Lodge passed a 
supplementary resolution declaring that 


the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts exists only as a voluntary association having and 
possessing all and the same rights, powers, privileges and immunities, under its 
ancient charter, in relation to Freemasonry, which said Grand Lodge had and 
possessed before the aforesaid act of incorporation was granted. 


The chief result of the surrender of the civil charter was to force the Grand Lodge to 
relinquish possession of the new Masonic Temple. For a time it was in the possession 



of a private individual, but in 1835 a plan was devised whereby the building was 
repurchased and placed in the hands of a Board of Trustees, who were to hold and 
improve it for the benefit of the Grand Lodge. 


From that time on the condition of Masonry in Massachusetts began to improve. This 
is well illustrated by the fact that on Jan. 16, 1837, a public installation of the Grand 
officers was held, with the members of the Grand Encampment of Massachusetts and 
Rhode Island and of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of Massachusetts as 
invited guests. A procession was held and a gala occasion was made of the 
installation. Between 1200 and 1500 ladies and gentlemen attended the affair. It was 
not until 1 845 that the first restorations of defunct lodges took place, but thereafter 
Masonry's recovery in Massachusetts proceeded more rapidly. 


THE STATE OF THE CRAFT IN RHODE ISLAND 


It is interesting to note that, in 1825, there were about three-fourths as many Masons 
in Rhode Island as in the State of Massachusetts. The 3000 (approximately) Masons 
of Rhode Island, however, were included in only seventeen lodges, while the 3727 
members in the neighboring state were divided among 101 lodges. In 1826 two 
additional lodges were chartered in Rhode Island, raising the total to nineteen. It is 
apparent that one lodge (No. 14) had become defunct, so the number of active lodges 
at the time the Morgan affair occurred was only eighteen. Anti-Masonry made its 
appearance in the state in 1829, and soon gave tangible evidence of its presence. In 
1831 the anti-Masons secured a legislative investigation of Masonry which resulted in 
nothing. But in 1832 they succeeded in securing the passage of a law forbidding 
extra-judicial oaths. Meanwhile, on June 13, 1831, the Grand Lodge issued an address 
to the people of the state. The address admitted the right of their opponents to 
memorialize the legislature and it granted the right of that body to investigate. Yet it 
claimed the privilege for the Masons to appeal to the people in self-defense. It also 
denied the various charges made against the Fraternity. 


Later, on Aug. 7, 1 832, replying to a recommendation of the General Assembly, that 
the Masonic organization should be discontinued, the Grand Lodge declared that the 



duty of Masons was plain, and that was to adhere to the Institution. On March 1 1 , 
1833, at a quarterly communication, the Grand Lodge unanimously adopted, in 
substance, the Massachusetts "Declaration" of 1 83 1 . This they circulated in pamphlet 
form under the title, Declaration of the Free-Masons of Rhode Island. The names of 
634 Rhode Island Masons were signed to it. 


CIVIL CHARTERS OF LODGES REVOKED 


The anti-Masons in the state legislature were evidently determined to do all in their 
power to secure laws unfavorable to Masonry. In January, 1834, the legislature 
repealed the civil charters of six of the lodges. At the same time all incorporated 
Masonic bodies in the state were required to make annual returns to the General 
Assembly of their proceedings with a list of all their members. Rather than submit, 
the Grand Lodge, when it met on March 17, 1834, voted to surrender its civil charter 
and recommended that the remaining lodges do likewise. At the session on June 24, 
1834, this action was explained and it was made clear that the Masonic charter had 
not been given up, and that there was no intention of so doing. It was also pointed out 
that no local lodge had surrendered its Masonic charter since the excitement had 
begun. 


During the whole period of the excitement the Grand Lodge met regularly and 
preserved its organization in spite of the strong attacks against it. At the close of the 
period of the anti-Masonic excitement it still had the same lodges on the list as when 
the trouble began, but the membership had decreased to about 950 in 1840. It is 
evident that some of the lodges were dead by that time and were kept on the list only 
because no action had been taken to eliminate them. But on Dec. 28, 1840, a 
movement was begun which culminated on Sept. 25, 1843, in the forfeiture of the 
charters of eight lodges. Two of these were restored on March 25, 1844, and one 
more on June 24, 1844. The process of recovery, thus begun, proceeded so slowly 
that, by 1856, the Fraternity had not yet attained the strength that it had had in 1826. 


THE FRATERNITY RESISTS IN CONNECTICUT 



In no state where the political anti-Masons exhibited strength, did the Masons afford a 
stronger resistance to their enemies than in Connecticut. As in other states, Masonry 
was developing rapidly in this state before the anti-Masons developed strength. In 
1825 there were sixty-five lodges in Connecticut, while by the time of the annual 
communication at New Haven, on May 14 and 15, 1828, there were 75 lodges listed. 
In 1828 the same number of lodges were represented as in 1825 though there were ten 
more on the list, which is evidence that anti-Masonry was making itself felt. Further 
evidence of this is afforded by the fact that only one new lodge was chartered in 1828. 


By the time the Grand Lodge met at Hartford for its annual session, May 13, 1829, 
Freemasonry in the jurisdiction was bending under the full fury of the anti-Masonic 
storm. Though sixty-two lodges were represented, the Grand Secretary reported "a 
large and increasing delinquency in the returns from subordinate lodges, on account 
of the prevailing excitement and panic which was now existing on the subject of 
Masonry." On his suggestion it was ordered that the "meagre returns" should not be 
published until further notice. 


The next year saw fourteen fewer lodges represented at the Grand Lodge meeting 
than in 1829. A report on delinquent lodges was presented by the Grand Secretary, 
but the matter of inflicting penalties was postponed, pending correspondence with 
these lodges by the Grand Secretary. The "appeal" of the Vermont Masons was 
presented and a resolution was adopted tendering sympathy to the Masons in the state 
bordering on the north. Before adjourning, the Connecticut Masons resolved to hold 
firm, "confiding in God and the rectitude of our intentions, for consolation under the 
trials to which we may be exposed." 


THE MASSACHUSETTS DECLARATION ADOPTED 


The year 1831 marked the lowest point of Masonic decline in Connecticut during the 
excitement. The Early Records containing the proceedings of the annual 
communication at Hartford, May 11, 1 83 1 , do not list the number of lodges 
represented, but merely state that a quorum was present. The Grand officers refused 
to be candidates for re-election so a new set had to be elected, which was the only 



business transacted. By 1832 the situation was much improved, for forty-four lodges 
were represented. At the annual communication, May 9, 1832, at New Haven, there 
was adopted, in substance, the Massachusetts "Declaration." This was signed by 
about 1400 Connecticut Masons, after which it was published in the various 
newspapers and in the proceedings. 


In 1833 it was voted to remit "all fines and penalties now due for delinquencies," and 
the publication of returns was resumed. That Masonry in the state was well on the 
road to prosperity is indicated by the fact that, out of the thirty-five lodges which 
made returns, there had been initiations in eight. In the returns of each subsequent 
year "work" was reported by various lodges. During the period of the excitement a 
few lodges surrendered their charters. It was not until 1838 that the Grand Lodge took 
severe measures against those which had been delinquent for a long time. Fourteen 
such lodges were declared to have forfeited their charters. By 1839 there had been a 
net loss of twenty lodges since 1828, for only fifty-five remained on the list. The 
elimination of the dead timber had not yet been completed, for in 1 840 the charters of 
seven more lodges were revoked. However, four other lodges had removed the causes 
of their delinquency and so saved their charters. In 1841 the charters of three lodges 
were restored, but at the same time four other charters were revoked. Thereafter 
enough lodges were restored or newly chartered to make the institution stronger in 
Connecticut in 1856 than it had been three decades before. 


NEW JERSEY LITTLE AFFECTED 


There is little to be said concerning the effects of anti-Masonry in New Jersey. 
Political anti-Masonry did not develop enough strength in the state to cause any 
serious difficulties, but the general excitement had the effect of greatly decreasing the 
attendance at the Grand Lodge sessions. Between 1825 and 1828, inclusive, eight 
new lodges were created. As early as 1827 two charters were surrendered, but it is 
difficult to see how this could be attributed at that date to anti-Masonry. The 
surrender of one charter in 1829 and one in 1830 were all the additional losses 
reported during the anti-Masonic period. 



The low mark in Grand Lodge attendance was in 1832 and in 1834, in each of which 
years only four lodges were represented. It is interesting to note that in 1832 a new 
lodge was chartered. In 1839 there were still forty-one lodges on the list, but most of 
them were inactive. No action in regard to these was definitely taken, however, until 
1842. At the annual communication, Nov. 9, 1841, the Grand Secretary submitted a 
report showing that out of fifty-eight lodges which had been chartered during the 
history of the Grand Lodge, only eight were actively at work. Seven had been stricken 
off the list, nine had surrendered their warrants, while thirty-three had ceased to work 
but still retained their warrants. With the consent of the Grand Lodge two lodges had 
united to form one. (1) 


It was recommended that the dead lodges be eliminated and those remaining be 
renumbered. This recommendation was acted on at the meeting of the Grand Lodge at 
Trenton on Nov. 8, 1842. The thirtythree non-functioning lodges were stricken from 
the list, but two were immediately restored. These, with the eight previously active, 
were renumbered from 1 to 10. Thereafter, the Grand Lodge of New Jersey may be 
said to have been on the up-grade. By 1856 it had attained a strength greater than it 
had had thirty years before. 


THE RESULT IN DELAWARE 


Little information is available regarding the effects of anti-Masonry on the Masonic 
Fraternity in Delaware. Up to and including 1825 only fifteen lodges had been 
chartered in the state, and of these three were already extinct. In 1826 and 1827 there 
were three additional charters granted, but to partially offset this gain, one charter was 
forfeited in 1827. In the years 1825, 1826 and 1827, all the existent lodges were 
represented at the annual communications held at Wilmington— a unique record not 
equalled by any other jurisdiction except the District of Columbia. But in 1 829 the 
attendance fell to nine lodges, indicating that the anti-Masonic excitement was having 
effect. The best commentary on the effects of the excitement thereafter is afforded by 
the fact that no Grand Lodge proceedings were published from 1830 to 1844, 
inclusive. By 1856 it is apparent that Masonry in Delaware was stronger than it had 
been before the Morgan affair, at least insofar as the number of lodges on the list was 
concerned. 



BITTER ATTACK IN PENNSYLVANIA 


In view of the bitterness with which the anti-Masons in Pennsylvania, led by 
Thaddeus Stevens and Joseph Ritner, assailed the Masonic Fraternity, it is surprising 
that the Institution did not suffer a greater decline than it actually did. As was true of 
New York, so in the case of Pennsylvania it is edifying to take stock of Masonry in 
the state before the anti-Masonic excitement began in order to form a correct estimate 
of what happened during the excitement. 


It is interesting to note that, in 1825, the warrants of three lodges were "vacated for 
delinquency," ten other lodges were suspended, while twenty-six were declared "not 
at this time entitled to a representation in the Grand Lodge." A total of $17,240.08 
was reported as owed by the subordinate lodges to the Grand Lodge on Dec. 27, 
1824. The unhealthy condition then existing in Pennsylvania Masonry is further 
shown by the fact that, in 1825, there were reported sixty eight expulsions, ninety- 
eight suspensions, thirty-five rejections and eighteen reinstatements. Meanwhile six 
new warrants were reported as issued during the year. Though there were 103 lodges 
on the list, the highest number represented during the year was thirty seven, at the 
Quarterly Communication, Dec. 5, 1825. Similar figures might be given for 1826. 


PUBLIC ACTIVITY OF THE GRAND LODGE 


By the latter part of 1827 and early 1828, anti-Masonry had spread from New York 
and had made itself felt in the northern part of the state and in a few other places 
where prejudice against Masonry had been manifested earlier. That the state as a 
whole had not yet been affected is shown by the fact on May 3, 1828, the Grand 
Lodge laid the foundation stone of Washington Lock, No. 1, of the Pennsylvania 
Canal at Pittsburgh. It is noteworthy that the Grand Lodge attendance was not 
seriously affected by anti-Masonry until 1836. The political control of the state, for 
three years beginning in 1835, by the anti-Masonic- Whig coalition, featured by 
Stevens' fruitless legislative persecution of the Masons, was bound to have some 



effect. Yet, as the chart shows, the Grand Lodge representation did not decline 
greatly. 


It was during this most critical period of Masonry's existence in Pennsylvania that the 
first drastic action was taken towards delinquent lodges. Previously, attempts had 
been made, but with little success, to improve the internal conditions in the 
jurisdiction. To ease the burden of debt with which the Grand Lodge was weighted 
down, action was taken in 1835 to sell the Masonic Hall in Philadelphia to "Franklin 
Institute" and buy a smaller hall. Instead of improving matters, the Grand Lodge 
affairs were merely further complicated by this move, for, in 1 84 1 , it was necessary to 
take back the original hall from "Franklin Institute" which had failed to pay for it. In 
1836 the Grand Secretary was instructed to cancel the debts of subordinate lodges to 
the Grand Lodge to the end of 1834 on condition that they make returns and pay dues 
for 1835. This evidently failed to secure the desired results for, on Feb. 6, 1837, the 
Grand Lodge declared the warrants of fifty-five delinquent lodges "vacated." Nine 
other lodges were given additional time to remove their delinquency. 


GAINS TO OFFSET LOSSES 


While, apparently, Masonry in Pennsylvania was at a low ebb from 1836 to 1839, 
inclusive, the proceedings for those years reveal some surprising facts. For example, 
in the 24 lodges in the city and county of Philadelphia there were reported seventy- 
one initiations and thirty admissions. These gains, however, were offset by 102 who 
"ceased" their Masonic membership. The total number of members in these lodges 
was 705. In the lodges outside of Philadelphia County, numbering twenty-one "legal" 
lodges (including two restored in 1837), there were fifty-eight initiations and thirty- 
one admissions during 1837, which together exceeded by twenty-two the number who 
ceased their membership. The total number of Masons in these lodges was given as 
346, making the total lodge membership in the state 1051 at the time. In 1838 there 
were reported 151 initiations in the lodges of the city and county of Philadelphia and 
eighty-seven initiations in the other lodges. On Sept. 2, 1839, the Grand Secretary 
reported that three lodges had resumed their labors. Although the highest 
representation at any Grand Lodge meeting in 1839 was lower than in any previous 
year, there can be no question but that the Masonic Fraternity in Pennsylvania was on 



the up-grade. By 1856 it was far stronger than it had ever been and was expanding 
rapidly. 


THE LOSSES IN OHIO NOT DUE TO ANTI-MASONRY 


In considering the condition of Freemasonry in Ohio it becomes increasingly difficult 
to determine just what effects anti-Masonry had on the Fraternity. The decline in 
attendance, as shown by the chart, cannot all be attributed to anti-Masonry, for the 
proceedings give some indication that, at least in the early thirties, cholera was a 
factor in making some lodges dormant. 


Up to 1831, anti-Masonry evidently had had but little effect on the Fraternity in the 
state as a whole. Each year from 1826 to 1829 new lodges had been chartered, 
including eight in 1826, four in 1827, six in 1828, and two in 1829. In 1830 it is 
recorded in the proceedings that one dispensation was granted, but a list 
accompanying the proceedings for the year names seven lodges as being under 
dispensation. In 1831 two additional charters were granted. 


Then followed a few years of varying fortunes— a few lodges being reported as 
surrendering their charters, others being reported as resuming labor. In 1837 the 
Grand Lodge met at Lancaster instead of at Coumbus, and this change marked the 
beginning of a return to prosperity. At this annual communication, held in June 
instead of in January, as formerly, two new charters and one dispensation were 
granted. The next year two more charters and one dispensation were granted, while 
four lodges resumed work. One lodge was reported as surrendering its charter. At this 
1838 communication it was decided to forfeit, at the next annual communication, the 
charters of those lodges which had not been represented for three years. In 1839, this 
action does not seem to have taken place, for eighty-four lodges remained on the list. 
It was reported that only thirty-eight lodges were working and that forty-six had 
"ceased." At the 1839 communication three additional charters were granted and 
plans were made for the construction of a Grand Lodge building at Lancaster. 
Thereafter new charters and revivals of dormant lodges were reported in large 



numbers, with the result that, by 1856, the Grand Lodge of Ohio was numerically 
four times as strong as it had been in 1825. 


GAIN AND LOSS IN INDIANA 


During the period of the anti-Masonic excitement, the number of lodges in Indiana 
decreased considerably. Yet, an examination of the proceedings shows that the whole 
decline cannot be attributed to antiMasonry. In 1829, the charters of four lodges were 
"arrested" because of long standing delinquency, antedating the "excitement." From 
1 825 to 1831 the number of lodges was increased by the granting of thirteen new 
charters. By the latter date the anti-Masonic excitement was making itself felt. The 
Grand Secretary, in 1831, reported that there were only ten lodges which were not 
delinquent either because of non-payment of dues or on account of non-representation 
at the 1830 communication. 


In 1 832 there was a marked decrease in the Grand Lodge representation. As a result it 
was decided to divide the Grand Jurisdiction into five districts with a district agent in 
each to visit the lodges in order to stimulate them to greater interest and activity. The 
next year the plan was modified and seven "Visiting Districts" were created. At this 
1833 communication one dormant lodge was revived. In 1833, as previously in 1830, 
it was necessary, because of insufficient representation, to adjourn the Grand Lodge 
from October to December. The adoption of a new constitution in 1833 changed the 
quorum requirement so that future adjournments would not be necessary because of 
small representation of lodges. 


PROPOSAL TO KILL THE GRAND LODGE NEGATIVED 


The 1834 communication witnessed the disposal of a proposition to surrender the 
charter of the Grand Lodge. At this meeting one dispensation and one charter were 
granted. All delinquent lodges were cited to appear at the next annual communication 
to show cause why they should not be stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge. This 
had the effect of doubling the attendance in 1835. At this meeting one lodge was 



revived and one new lodge was chartered. Four delinquent lodges were ordered 
stricken from the list. 


No more lodges were revived or chartered until 1838. In that year one was chartered, 
and likewise one in 1839. By 1842 Freemasonry in Indiana may be safely said to have 
been on the up-grade. That year two lodges were chartered and there were five under 
dispensation. Nine reported that they had initiated members during the year. An era of 
prosperity was under way that was to result in the Grand Lodge of Indiana becoming 
almost seven times as large in 1856 as it was in 1825. 


MASONRY WEAK IN ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN 


Of the other two Grand Lodges which existed in the North before the Morgan affair, 
little needs to be said. It was not so much the strength of anti-Masonry as the 
weakness of the Grand Lodges themselves that caused the Grand Lodges of Illinois 
and Michigan to become defunct. The Grand Lodge of Illinois, organized by a 
convention at Vandalia in December, 1822, held its first annual communication at the 
same place a year later. The meagre records available concerning it show that it was 
never very firmly established. The fact that no communication was held in 1825 is 
evidence of this. Meetings in 1826 and 1827 were attended by only a few lodges, 
though there were fifteen "in the obedience of the Grand Lodge." A meeting was held 
in 1828 but no record of its proceedings is extant. Thereafter organized Freemasonry 
disappeared in the state, but just why is not clear. It is not reasonable to think that 
anti-Masonry was to blame entirely for this— in fact, there is little evidence ta show 
that the anti-Masons had any strength in the state. The instability of the Masonic 
organization coupled perhaps with fear aroused by exaggerated reports of happenings 
in New York, seem to offer a better explanation of why the Masons in Illinois gave 
up their organized existence so quickly. Had the anti-Masonry been strong in the 
state, it is not probable that nine lodges would have been chartered within its bound 
between 1835 and 1839 by the Grand Lodges of Kentucky and Missouri, thus making 
it possible to organize the second Grand Lodge of Illinois in 1840 which by 1856, 
was to have 185 lodges on the list. 



MICHIGAN GRAND LODGE SUSPENDED 


The situation in Michigan is equally inexplicable In 1826, less than two months 
before Morgan's disappearance, there was organized the Grand Lodge of the Territory 
of Michigan, with Lewis Cass as Grand Master. In 1827 it received the approval of 
the other Grand Lodges and appeared to be on the road to prosperity. In that year the 
sixth lodge in the jurisdiction was installed at Ann Arbor and a dispensation was 
granted for a lodge at Stony Creek. Little else can be said of this Grand Lodge except 
that it voted, in 1 829 to suspend Masonic work. It is true that in that year the political 
anti-Masons were strong enough to control the election of the territorial delegate to 
Congress but that should not have meant that Masonry could not continue to exist. Of 
course the Grand Lodge was newly established, but it should not have been destroyed 
by the first gust of anti-Masonry. The fact that Stony Creek Lodge continued to meet 
regularly during the whole period following to 1 840, proves that it was possible for 
Masonry to exist in the region. Probably no better explanation can be offered than the 
suggestion made by Jefferson S. Conover, the historian of Michigan Masonry, that 
Cass, putting politics above Masonry, used his influence to bring about the 
suspension of the Grand Lodge, though such a suspension could have been avoided. 


During the whole decade of the thirties Masonry was kept alive in Michigan by Stony 
Creek Lodge. In 1841 an attempt was made to revive the Grand Lodge of Michigan. 
Because of irregularities in the procedure, the other Grand Lodges refused to 
recognize it so it was necessary to form a new Grand Lodge in 1844. This 
organization embarked on a prosperous career and by 1856 numbered eighty-four 
lodges within its jurisdiction. 


NOTE 


(1) It should be noted that in 1825 there were already fourteen dead lodges, whose 
demise could not be blamed on anti-Masonry. If it be accepted that the two lodges 
which surrendered in 1827 did so for reasons other than this, it becomes evident that 
one third of the dead lodges became so from other causes than antiMasonry. 



(To Be Concluded) 


— o — 


The Conception of God 


By BRO. A. H. NORRIS, Pennsylvania 


The discussion on this subject in the pages of THE BUILDER has proved so far most 
interesting. The writer of the article in the February number, Fundamentals in 
Freemasonry, has, in my opinion, somewhat diverged from the main question, which 
as I understand it is this, "What conception of God" is required of a candidate when 
he makes the brief confession of faith demanded of him at his entrance into the 
Order? A "Lay Brother" defines as best he can his idea of God, and expresses a desire 
to know whether this is acceptable in the Masonic Order. M. W. Bro. Briggs says it is 
not acceptable because Freemasonry teaches a belief in the God of the Bible. He is 
not altogether fair because he does not define the God of the Bible before asserting 
that the God envisaged, by a "Lay Brother" is not to be accepted by the Fraternity. If 
then, we grant for the present, that the God of the Bible is the God of Freemasonry we 
are no nearer a solution than before. Bro. Briggs does not bring any evidence to 
support his contention except a report of a Masonic trial held in Missouri in 1888. 

The Grand Lodge of Missouri may be omnipotent in Missouri, but that does not help 
to solve the problem in Pennsylvania or New Mexico, when it is considered that the 
purpose of the discussion generally is to determine the question, "What is the limiting 
conception of God that the requirements of Anglo-Saxon Masonry imply?" 


Granting for argument's sake that the God of the Bible is the God of Freemasonry, it 
is obvious that we must first know what the God of the Bible is before we can come 
to any conclusion. The position of Bro. Briggs takes it for granted that everyone 
knows what this Deity is and what He is supposed to be. But, the Bible taken by itself 
is not so clear as seems to be assumed, since, according to Bro. Briggs, the Bible is 
inspired by God all its statements about the Supreme Being must be accurate. 



Let us consider the God that is pictured for us in the Old Testament, especially in 
Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua and Samuel. It is a tyrannical, capricious, jealous 
Deity that we find, continually threatening death and destruction and frequently 
bringing it to pass. A God who smites Miriam with leprosy to back Moses up in a 
family dispute, who is appeased by Phineas sticking a javelin through zimri the son of 
Salu and the Midianite woman he had taken. A God who punished with death the 
least infraction of ritual observance, such as that of Korah Abiram and Dathan, or the 
men of Beth-Shemesh, of whom fifty thousand men were slain because they looked 
into the Ark of the Covenant when it came back from Philistia, or the death of the 
well-meaning Uzzah who put his hand out to steady it when the oxen drawing the cart 
shook it. But these, perhaps, are trifling matters to the approval, nay, more, the 
definite injunction to attack cities and villages and kill unsparingly men, women and 
children, as at Jericho, and Ai, and later the Amalekites. Or even within the nation 
itself as in the civil war with Benjamin, when by definite command the other tribes 
twice attacked and were defeated with great loss, and then at the third engagement 
almost destroyed the Benjamites. A few brief references such as these in no way do 
justice to the monotonous history of indiscriminate and bloody massacre related in the 
narrative parts of the earlier books of the Old Testament from Exodus to the wars of 
David, which Jehovah seems to highly approve; the only way to appreciate it is to 
read these books through. 


Again, leaving out the strange appearances to Abraham and Jacob, what are we to 
think of the God who met Moses at the inn and tried to slay him, but who was 
appeased by the blood shed by his wife in circumcising their son, or the God whom 
Moses and Aaron and the elders saw in the mount standing, apparently, on a "paved 
work of a sapphire stone," or the God who showed Moses his "back parts" ? 


This is with no intent to appear irreverent, these things are there to be read by anyone 
who chooses in the inspired book. They are difficulties that have always been felt, 
and many have been the attempts to explain them, but none that are very satisfactory 
that do not allow for very wide' degrees in the amount of inspiration given to the 
different writers. These earlier pictures are wholly inconsistent with the later ideas of 
the prophets and some (not all) of the Psalms, as these again are immeasurably below 
the conception offered in the New Testament. Probably this latest conception is what 



Bro. Briggs refers to as the God of the Bible, but how does he explain or eliminate the 
other God who is equally of scriptural record? 


In the whole argument he defeats himself, particularly when he says: 


Each Freemason is left to his own interpretation of the teachings of the Bible 
concerning God, but when he rejects the authority of the Bible concerning God it is 
time ceor him to retire from the Order. 


And again: 


God is known only as he is revealed and Freemasonry finds in the Bible the 
revelation of God which each Freemason is left to interpret for himself. 


According to the first statement the man who accepts the jealous, vengeful, 
threatening and domineering God first illustrated is entitled to become a Freemason 
and to remain one, but the man who, like our "Fay Brother," rejects this picture and 
attempts by philosophical reasoning to build up a conception of God, not in human 
form perhaps, nor with inhuman passions, but nevertheless including the attributes of 
the God of the Ten Commandments and of the prophets, is to be rejected and 
expelled. It sounds rather absurd. 


As for the second assertion, if Freemasonry finds in the Bible the revelation of God, 
and this God is to be understood as the moral Being of the Ten Commandments, and 
the loving Father of the Gospels, then no Freemason is free to interpret the Bible for 
himself. He must accept the interpretation of the Fraternity. Sad, if true, but ridiculous 
because it is not true. 



This is neither the time nor the place for a disquisition upon the Bible and 
Freemasonry, and whether or not the Masonic Fraternity is obliged to consider the 
Bible to be divinely inspired in the Fundamentalist sense. But there must, however, be 
some explanation of this relationship if we are to come to any conclusions upon the 
latitude to be allowed a member of the Craft in conceiving God. There is, in the 
whole ritual, only one place where it may be taken as implying that the Bible is 
considered to be inspired in the sense that God alone is speaking, and that the thought 
of the writer does not enter into the sacred word. It is said that "the Holy Bible is His 
inestimable gift to man." The sentence in itself is ambiguous, and if the attitude of the 
Fundamentalists in the Order is the only correct one it should be modified. If not, it 
may well stand as it is unless those who might be called Modernists insist like their 
Fundamentalist brethren that there is no view allowable but their own. I think even 
our "Lay Brother" would be inclined to say that the Bible was inspired by God. I 
cannot speak with authority on this point of course, but I judge this to be the opinion 
from the general tone of his article. It was not, however, inspired in the sense that 
every word in the Bible is the literal word of God, but in the sense that every great 
and important undertaking is inspired. In this sense Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, 
Plato were inspired, and even Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus and hundreds of others 
who have opened fresh vistas to human thought and conquered new realms of 
knowledge. There is nothing in such a view which conflicts with the ritual phrase. 


The most important argument in support of the view of a "Lay Brother" lies in nearly 
the concluding paragraph of his article, where he says 


Since I was not asked to define in precise terms just what the God I trusted and 
believed in was, I can see no reason why anyone has any just cause for complaint 
because I happen to hold to an opinion which differs from his. I do not ask him to 
change his God and substitute mine in order to stay in the Fraternity. I respect the 
opinions of others, they are doubtless as near right as I am, and I leave them to enjoy 
such happiness as they may get from the contemplation of their God. I ask no more 
for myself. 


The candidate is not asked to define his conception of God, and the Fraternity has no 
right to ask him to define it. Since he has not been asked for a definition of this God 
in whom he puts his trust what right have we as members of the Masonic Fraternity to 



afterwards foist upon him dogmatic assertions that such and such a thing must be 
believed or one cannot remain a Freemason? If he accepts the Bible as only a sublime 
work of philosophy, history, literature, or all three together, it makes no difference as 
long as he is willing that the lessons he can derive from it for himself should 
constitute a rule and guide to his faith. 


We are distinctly told that Freemasonry is not a religion or a sect, unless it be that a 
belief in the One Living and True God, whatever that may mean exactly, makes it 
one. As long as a brother believes in something that, in a sense significant to himself, 
he is able honestly to call God, it makes no difference whether I or anyone else 
understand it in the same way or not. It is GOD to him, and that is the only thing 
important. I think there is need for tolerance, for less dogmatic criticism, for more 
appreciation of the views of others, and for more intelligent interpretation of the ritual 
than has hitherto been practiced. Some have understood it dogmatically and narrowly, 
others, and they are many, are too indifferent to try to understand or give it any 
meaning at all that affects themselves. Let the individual have his own understanding 
of God; the Supreme Architect of Freemasonry will then be a composite of the beliefs 
of all Freemasons and as such will be an all embracing symbolical designation. 
Certainly it is far better for a man to reject the view of inspiration held by the 
Fundamentalist and to believe in a Great and Good God, than it is for him to believe 
that every word, every phrase, every sentence of the Bible represents the utterance of 
the Almighty and thus be forced to accept that terrible God of vengeance and 
bloodshed which so much of the Bible presents to us. 


— o — 


St. Claudius, No. 21 


Communicated by Bro. R. I. CLEGG 


Transactions have been published during 1925-1926 for the first year of the French 
Lodge of Research, St. Claudius, No. 21, of the National, Independent and Regular 



Grand Lodge of France, recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England. The 
Transactions are in pamphlet form, 5 1/4 by 8 1/2 inches, 32 pages, with a 
frontispiece of Colonel N. S. H. Sitwell, the first Master. English is the native 
language of several of the members of the lodge and most of the contents of this 
pamphlet are therefore in that tongue. An account of the formation and progress of the 
lodge is given and there are the following readable contributions to the proceedings: 
La Legende D'Hiram, in French, by Colonel Sitwell, who also submitted two others, 
"An Attempt to Reply to a Common Question" (What Is Freemasonry?) and "The 
Preparation in the First Degree," a paper in French on "Martinisme," by Brother N. 
Choumitsky, "The Conception of God in Freemasonry and Fatalism," by Worshipful 
Brother F. M. Leslie, and another address by Brother Sitwell on the "Principles and 
Foundations of the Order." The Transactions may be obtained for fifteen francs from 
the Secretary of the lodge. Brother W. J. Coombes, 10 bis, Avenue Gambetta, St. 
Germain-en-Laye (S.-&-0.) Paris, France. The Lodge of St. Claudius is devoted 
exclusively to Masonic study and was organized in 1924, the name being that of the 
first in order of the Four Crowned Masonic Martyrs of Rome, or the Quatuor 
Coronati. At the constitution of the lodge several interesting and useful gifts were 
made to the brethren. The volume of the sacred law was presented to the lodge by 
Brother the Rev. W G. Allen, and is a copy of the Erasmus Gospels, printed at 
Nuremburg in 1648, and is in the original binding. A sword for the Director of 
Ceremonies was given by the Worshipful Master, Brother Sitwell, and is a claymore 
used at the Battle of Alma. The international character of this donation rendered it 
particularly suitable for the use of the lodge. The Ashlars were cut from a stone 
quarried at Jerusalem and were donated by Past Master Sharp. A medal or jewel for 
the lodge was designed for it by Brother W. Haywood, who also made the tracing 
boards from an old French pattern of 1745. The collars of the officers were the old 
ones of Centre des Amis Lodge, No. 1. Other lodges in Paris have vied with one 
another in furnishing additional articles for the service of this Lodge of Research in 
France. 


— o — 


The Syrian Moslem 


By BRO. JOHN W. SHUMAN, California 



It was in 1 922 and '23 that my first opportunity I came to know Syrian 
Mohammedans. During this time we had at the American University of Beirut, as 
students, assistants, confreres and friends, quite a number of "the Faithful," the usual 
name for the believers and followers of the Prophet Muhammed. The name Islam, 
which the latter used for his new faith, means submission (to the will of God implied) 
and "Moslem" is from the same root, meaning the one who submits. Incidentally the 
Moslem call Christians and Jews "unbelievers"; the rest of the world being 
"idolaters"; the distinction being that while it is admitted that the former worship true 
God, only in a heretical way, the latter follow after false gods. 


In sunny Syria religion is a very vital issue. Really it has about the same meaning as 
politics in Europe and America. This Bible Land, where many Americans send old 
clothes and good money to aid the numerous Western Christian missionary 
institutions, has a large number of Ishmaelities in it. About two-thirds of its fez-and- 
baggy-pantaloon wearers believe that "There is but one God, and Muhammed is his 
Prophet!" This phrase is shouted every morning and evening from the numerous 
minarets throughout the Orient to call the Faithful to prayer. 


The Koran is their Bible. Do not attempt to read that book as I did— in one continuous 
reading— it is entirely too heavy. As a result I do not remember very much of it. It 
says, however, that the Moslems believe in, honor and revere Jesus Christ, the Son of 
Mary, as one of their "Eighty Prophets." It is said also that they do not believe that so 
great a one was put to death by men, but that he escaped and another was substituted 
for him upon the Cross (most likely Simon of Cyrene who helped carry the cross 
along the Way of Sorrow), nevertheless they heartily curse the Jews for even trying to 
put Christ to death. 


The children are taught daily at school from the Koran by the Sheykh, who is the 
teacher. In the market places the shopkeepers can be seen and heard reading from The 
Book in a chanting sing-song manner. Those who can recite whole pages every day 
believe that Allah will specially bless them. Saint Paul was pretty hard on women; 
Muhammed was equally if not more severe on them. No wonder this is a man's 



world— when both the Christian and Mohammedan religions make woman subject to 
her lord and master, man ! 


Moslem ladies still wear the veil. Those in Constantinople wear thinner ones than 
those in Syria, and so do the pretty ones! These don't put down the black mask so 
quickly when passing a strange man, even in Damascus. Women are pretty much 
alike the world over in some respects. 


Many of our Moslem women hospital patients were over-modest according to our 
American customs. Some insisted on putting the hospital-bed-gown right on over 
their street clothes and then climbing into bed. A physical examination was 
sometimes almost an operation, necessitating the untying, unbuttoning, unhooking 
and unpinning by the nurses to get the patient's clothes off. Kindness usually won, 
although occasionally a patient refused to go to bed on account of this undressing. It 
does not pay to be too hard on folks, for if the individual's peace of mind is destroyed 
he or she is uncomfortable and unhappy, and not in a condition to benefit by 
treatment. 


Syrian customs belong to another part of the world to ours. If they are changed by our 
missionaries and so called Occidental influences, that country will be robbed of much 
which now makes it attractive to the stranger visiting it, and quite comfortable to the 
natives who have to live there. 


Spirituous drink and pig meat are forbidden to pass the lips of the "Believers." But the 
truth is that the Moslem is only a human being after all, and not at all perfect any 
more than ourselves. Jews have been known to call pork "fish" when they wanted to 
eat it; and Mohammedans will sometimes take alcohol as "medicine." Like the 
Christian, the Moslem is liable to err. Arak is the national spirituous drink of the 
country of the Vine and Fig, and it carries a terrific wallop ! Cigarettes, the narghileh, 
coffee and sweetmeats are indulged in by both sexes. 



The young Moslem is remaining true to "the Faith" in spite of Christian college and 
university training. To all outward appearances they are still Mohammedans. The 
modern educated Moslem, although seemingly convinced that Mohammedanism is 
not as great or satisfying a religion as Christianity, will remain true to the Mosque 
until the end of their days. We should appreciate just what it means in Mohammedan 
communities and countries for the "Believer" to change his religion. First, this 
Faithful one becomes Faithless and crushes his parents, especially his mother, with a 
deep sense of disgrace. She would much rather see him "a dead Moslem than a living 
Christian." We Westerners have little conception of the love and reverence that an 
Oriental has for his parents, especially his mother. 


Second, it makes him break with his tribe. This break means more than the average 
Christian imagines. To the tribe his position is secure if he stays true, even though he 
is the offspring of a polygamous marriage. He may be poor (it is an unfortunate thing 
to be) but the poor one's place in the tribe is assured. The servant, shepherd, 
hammaul, scribe, judge or sheykh all have their niche in the group. If one is sick he 
will get attention. If he dies he will get a funeral. If he is loyal to the Ishmaelites, the 
Ishmaelites will be loyal to him. 


But when he becomes disloyal to the Din (Religion) his tribe shuns him. He becomes 
an outcast— boycott and ostracism being used against him. If he goes out in the world 
of Gentiles he feels the finger of scorn pointed at him because he was a Moslem, 
perhaps a polygamous child. At best he is doubtful of just how the Christian will 
receive him, unless he comes to the Land of the Brave and the Free— there is a 
Mosque in Detroit. We in this country know how society receives an ex-criminal. He 
is invited to "move along," and he usually does move— back to his former associates. 
It is only the rare one, if he be lucky, who stays straight. 


It takes a vast amount of courage to face the consequences of renouncing one's 
religion, especially if that religion be Mohammedanism. The convert pays a heavy 
price. Should we judge him too harshly for not paying it ? The question quite 
naturally follows: should Christians strive to sell him a religion which costs so much? 
We should remember that many of our forefathers underwent tortures, lingering and 
fatal, because they would not change their religion; and we praise, honor and revere 
them, and have made saints out of many of them. 



We personally had so much in common with our Moslem friends that we had no time 
to fight about our few religious differences. It didn't frighten us much to have an 
American missionary, who had been born in Syria, say of one of our Moslem friends, 
"Don't forget this fact, that if a religious uprising between Moslems and Christians 
were to take place today Doctor So and So would try to kill you!" I replied, "All is 
fair in love and war." This American friend had his throat cut a year ago by his 
Armenian servant— a Christian ! 


Our next door neighbors in Beirut were Moslems. Their children and ours enjoyed 
playing together in our spacious garden. Madame was sat down on by one or two of 
the stiff conservative old-time missionaries, who said, "Don't let your children play 
with these pagan natives, they will contaminate yours." Not much "brotherly love" in 
that remark; the thing Christianity strives to teach mankind. 


The peaceful rest of a tired traveler in an Ishmaelite Bedouin Sheykh's home and his 
hospitality is, I assure you, not surpassed elsewhere. 


It is said that a Christian Medical Missionary who had lived and practiced medicine in 
Syria for many years died. (He is one of the three men who translated the English 
Bible into Arabic). When his "will was read" it was discovered that he had appointed 
a Moslem Cadi (Judge) as administrator of his worldly goods. Surely there were 
plenty of his fellow missionaries to have chosen from; but none evidently compared, 
in his opinion, with this Cadi. This judge's son is a graduate of the Medical 
Department of the A.U.B., and is the Moslem friend referred to in the above 
paragraph. He is a credit to his sire. A missionary recently wrote me, "The Moslems 
of L— are more honest in their dealings with us than the Christians!" 


This land of Syria is a land of great faith, from Abraham unto the present time. 
However the people do not have to exert much faith in reference to the feeding of 
Elijah by the ravens. They say that raven was the name of a nomad tribe that lived 
near the Jordan and carried cakes and water to Elijah, the prophet, when he was in 



hiding. I had thought, like many others, that he was served by the large black birds by 
that name, which are so numerous there; the kind that Poe "quoth" about. 


Many think "the locusts and wild honey" diet of John the Baptist contained the flying 
(orthopterous) insects, which still come in swarms in some years, as in Pharoh's and 
Moses' time. But we learned the locust is a long pod with two or three beans in it 
which grows on a tree! From this bean-pod the natives make a syrup called "dibs," 
which our kiddies enjoyed eating on their bread. 


All women have much in common. However, our Western women as a rule do not 
prefer a fourth of a husband, as did one intelligent Moslem woman, a wife of a very 
prominent Sheykh. She had her own children, house and servants, etc., and seemed 
quite happy. When asked, "Is such an arrangement (meaning being one of four wives) 
satisfactory?" she replied with the question, "Would you rather own the fourth of a 
good stallion or all of a poor one ?" Strangely enough, exactly the same reply was 
made by a cultivated Chinese lady in answer to the inquiries of an American woman 
curious about intimate domestic arrangements. 


Few of our Western women would care to carry burdens on their heads as do the 
women of Asia Minor and elsewhere in the East, or to trudge along in the dust of the 
ass her lordly master rides upon. These women, however, are not of the upper class. 
Our United states women prefer to have men look at their faces and not through a 
black veil unless they have scarred and wrinkled features. Our own women prefer to 
think and act for themselves so that they will keep fit for fifty, sixty or more years, 
instead of growing old and fat at forty, and giving place to a "favorite Fatima." 


Oriental women love jewelry, use dyes, stains, paint and powder as makeup. They 
and their men use lots of loud perfume, as registered by our Occidental sense of 
smell. The stick for daubing black grease (kohl, or powder of antimony) along the 
margin of the eyelids is used very much. It is falsely thought that this will keep away 
eye diseases, especially chronic follicular conjunctivitis (trachoma) which is so 
common in Asia. 



One woman in our women's medical ward gave every sign and symptom of lead 
poisoning as a cause for her sickness. Positive proof of its source was lacking until a 
lock of her hair was tested in a test tube with the proper chemical re-agent, which 
showed the presence of lead. Her hair dye had lead in it, which had poisoned her! 


The Ramadan is the time of the Moslem's yearly fast and lasts from new moon to new 
moon during their ninth month, which compares to our May. They have a different 
calendar from ours. This is their thirteenth century whilst it is our twentieth. It is a 
period similar to our Lent, set aside for fasting, almsgiving and self-denial. Most 
observe this rite by neither eating nor drinking from 3 a. m. to sundown. Those who 
are more faithful refuse to swallow their saliva during these hours. After this fast 
comes the feast, at which time the fatted calf or sheep is killed and lively celebrations 
are in order. 


It is the life ambition of Allah's devout ones to visit Mecca, the capital of Hejaz in 
West Arabia, Muhammed's birthplace. Whilst we were in Beirut a mighty pilgrimage 
was on, those coming from Cairo came by boats to Beirut and went on East by 
automobile caravans. It is a question if the Prophet would advise his pilgrims such 
ease and luxury in travel. Time changes all things. No doubt but that in a few years 
Mecca will be made by air travel and these "Shriners" can visit their Holy of Holies 
yearly instead of but once in a lifetime. 


— o — 


— o — 


EDITORIAL 


R.J. MEEKREN, Editor in Charge 



BOARD OF EDITORS 


LOUIS BLOCK, Iowa 
ROBERT I. CLEGG, Illinois 
GILBERT W. DAYNES, England 
RAY V. DENSLOW, Missouri 
GEORGE H. DERN, Utah 
N.W.J. HAYDON, Canada 
R.V. HARRIS, Canada 
C. C. HUNT, Iowa 
CHARLES F. IRWIN, Pennsylvania 
A. L. KRESS, Pennsylvania 
F. H. LITTLEFIELD, Missouri 
JOSEPH E. MORCOMBE, California 
ARTHUR C. PARKER, New York 
J. HUGO TATSCH, Iowa 
JESSE M. WHITED, California 
DAVID E. W WILLIAMSON Nevada 


THE SYLLABUS 



THE response to the announcement of the new course for study groups and 
individuals has shown that there is a real and widespread desire for more light among 
the members of the Craft, and a need for advice and guidance in seeking it. The 
typewritten copies of the Syllabus were exhausted long before the printed ones were 
ready, and this fact, plus the confusion of moving, has caused some unavoidable 
delay in dealing with applications, for which we here offer a general apology, and we 
hope that impatient members who are all "ready to go" will exercise the virtue of 
patience, and throw over our temporary shortcomings in this matter the cloak of 
fraternal charity. The printed copies are now ready and should be duly sent out to 
applicants before this appears. 


* * * 


NEW QUARTERS 


THIS number of THE BUILDER has gone to press amid the confusion of moving. 
Fortunately the major part of the work was done while the shadow only of this 
catastrophic event hung over us. The moving of an office and its equipment is 
problem enough, but when to this is added an extensive library and an enormous mass 
of clippings, pamphlets and other like material it becomes very complex indeed, if 
there is not to be a complete cessation of work. At the moment we are in the very 
thick of it, and hope springs perennial in the breast because it is difficult to imagine 
that "the worst is yet to come," seeing how bad things are! 


Seriously, the move will be very advantageous in many ways. Our old quarters were 
becoming very cramped and no more space was available in the building. Our new 
offices are not only more commodious, but also have the great advantage that we are 
now under the same roof as our printers, which will save much time and energy and 
going to and fro. To out-of-town visitors it should also be more convenient as we are 
now within a short walk of the Union Railway Station; and members of the Society 
passing through St. Louis, with an hour or two to spare, will be able to come in and 
call on us. Previously we were, in Biblical phrase, living under our own olive tree 
(there is no Fig street in St. Louis), now we are shaded by a Locust. As it was the fruit 



of this shrub that is supposed to have formed a large part of the diet of St. John the 
Baptist, we offer the suggestion to our symbolists that here is a chance for them to 
make out some mystical or occult connection. Lest this attempt at pleasantry seem too 
obscure it may be as well to add as a clue to the mystery that our present address is 
1627 Locust street. 


* * * 


A MILESTONE IN VIEW 


IT would seem as if the time had at last come to really do something about the 
Tuberculosis situation. We have had investigations and surveys until it begins to 
remind us of the incident in Dickens' novel Bleak House, where a man wished to 
assist a destitute woman without her knowing whence came the relief, and left a 
considerable sum of money with a charitable organization for this purpose. When he 
inquired about it later he was informed that the money had been spent in investigating 
the case, while the woman was starving. 


We believe that the majority of the Craft are ready to help, the obstacles and delays 
have largely arisen through official red tape. Questions of jurisprudence, precedents, 
jurisdiction and so on seem to bulk very largely in the eyes of some good brethren; 
further information is demanded, safeguards of various kinds, lest some sovereign 
body should be contributing money without controlling its disbursement, fears that 
some might receive more benefit than others. There is nothing to say against this, 
laws and constitutions are meant to be obeyed, precedents should be followed when 
possible, action should not be taken without information-but in the meantime 
hundreds of our brethren are dying-slowly, and in great anguish of mind. Were any 
one of these pitiful cases actually brought before their eyes there is not one of these 
objectors but would do far more individually than is asked of the Craft at large, for if 
every Mason in the country responded the price of just one meal would be sufficient. 



The trouble is, the great difficulty to be overcome, is the lack of imagination, the 
power to visualize the absent case which comes at second-hand through the cold 
medium of words and figures. During the course of any one year there are thousands 
of people who are killed by some accident; it causes no stir whatever. But let a theater 
bum, or a train be wrecked or a ship lost at sea, and at once everyone is filled with 
horror and sympathy. What is the difference between a hundred or so people suffering 
at once in the same place, or thousands in different places at different times? There 
was last year a great catastrophe in Florida. Because disaster came suddenly to a great 
number of people at once, the country was thrilled with horror, the Masonic Fraternity 
among the rest. The different jurisdictions under the spur of sympathy contributed 
large sums for relief. Why should it have been so easy to do this at a moment's notice, 
and so hard to get anything done for the greater need? So far as can be seen it is 
merely that the lesser emergency was more spectacular, and so had greater appeal to 
the hearts of the brethren. 


But there are significant indications that at last things are beginning to move. 
Everywhere influential Masons are thinking about the problem, it is beginning to be 
realized that something must be done. The Grand Commander has recommended to 
the Supreme Council of the Southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite that a 
sanatorium should be established. Most Worshipful Bro. E. R. Bryan in his address to 
the Grand Lodge of Texas devoted considerable time to the question. He quoted 
correspondence with the Executive Secretary of the Masonic Service Association. 
Everyone intimate with the development and progress of the Tuberculosis Campaign 
knows what the Masonic Service Association has done in the matter, but it will 
interest them to learn what the Executive Secretary had to say. He wrote to the Grand 
Master of Texas: 


"I am tremendously interested in Tubercular Relief, and the Masonic Service 
Association is squarely behind the movement. Enclosed is a copy of the report made 
to the Association by the Executive Commission at the last annual meeting in 
Chicago, on the back of which is printed the report of the special committee of the 
Association which was unanimously and enthusiastically adopted." 


Unfortunately in spite of the enthusiasm and unanimity at Chicago, and elsewhere 
where the problem has been discussed, no definite practical progress was made; for 



which reason New Mexico organized the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria 
Association on a most carefully devised plan to make it a truly national body. Since it 
has been at work a great deal has been accomplished. First and foremost the more 
pressing and urgent cases have received emergency relief, which though it makes no 
such showing as a building in brick and stone, has been nevertheless a truly Masonic 
structure. 


But the opportunity has now come to do something more definite, more tangible. The 
Tuberculosis Association has the option of buying outright a Sanatarium put up as a 
private venture which is to be sold to pay a mortgage. The sum required is much less 
than it would cost now to erect equivalent buildings, and they are in excellent repair. 

It is almost a providential chance, and the Association is seeking to obtain the funds 
necessary to make the purchase. We hope, therefore, that all members of the Society 
will exert their influence in their own circle to the utmost to obtain support for 
this-and the necessary funds. Lodges or Study Clubs might do well to bring the matter 
up, to have papers prepared to give the facts and figures that demonstrate the need. 
Material enough for this has already appeared in the pages of THE BUILDER, but if 
more be needed Bro. R. J. Newton will gladly furnish it. This is a real opportunity for 
Masonic Service of the truest kind; let us not meet it with merely passive 
approbation-action is what is needed now. 


— o — 


Government arrogates to itself that it alone forms men. . . . Everybody knows that 
government never began anything. It is the whole world that thinks and governs. - 
Wendell Phillips. 


* * * 


Governments exist to protect the rights of minorities. The loved and the rich need no 
protection - they have many friends and few enemies. - Wendell Phillips. 



o 


o 

THE NORTHEAST CORNER 

Bulletin of the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria Association 

Incorporated by Authority of the Grand Lodge of New Mexico, A. F. & A.M. 

MASONIC TEMPLE, ALBUQUERQUE, N. M. 

OFFICERS AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

HERBERT B. HOLT, Grand Master, President 
RICHARD H. HANNA, Vice-President 
JAFFA MILLER, Vice-President 
ALPHEUS A. KEEN, Secretary 
JOHN W. TURNER, Treasurer 

FRANCIS E. LESTER, Executive Secretary, Las Cruces, New Mexico 



ARIZONA - Lloyd C. Henning, Holbrook. 

ARKANSAS - Claude L. Hill, Grand Master, Booneville. 

CONNECTICUT - Fred A. Verplanck, Past Grand Master, South Manchester. 
FLORIDA - Cary B. Fish, Grand Master, Sarasota. 

GEORGIA - Dr. J. P. Bowdoin, Past Grand Master. 

IDAHO - Will H. Gibson, Grand Master, Boise. 

KENTUCKY - G. Allison Holland, Grand Master, Lexington. 

MINNESOTA - Albert F. Pray, Grand Master, Minneapolis. 

Mississippi - John R. Tally, Grand Master, Hattiesburg. 

Missouri - Wm. W. Martin, Grand Master, Doniphan. 

MONTANA - Dr. W. J. Marshall, Missoula. 

NEW JERSEY - Benjamin F. Havens, Junior Grand Warden, Trenton. 

NEW MEXICO - Herbert B. Holt, Grand Master, Las Cruces. 

NORTH CAROLINA - Dr. J. C. Braswell, Past Grand Master, Whitakers. 
NORTH DAKOTA - Dr. J. S. Lamont, Dunseith. 

OKLAHOMA - Gilbert B. Bristow, Past Grand Master, Roosevelt. 

RHODE ISLAND - Howard Knight, Past Grand Master, Providence. 

SOUTH CAROLINA - Charlton DuRant, Grand Master, Manning. 

SOUTH DAKOTA - L. M. Simons, Grand Master, Bellefourche. 
TENNESSEE - Andrew E. McCullagh, Grand Master, Maryville. 

TEXAS - Dr. Felix P. Miller, El Paso. 

UTAH - Fred M. Nye, Ogden. 



VERMONT - Christie B. Crowell, Past Grand Master, Brattleboro. 
WASHINGTON - Morton Gregory, Grand Master, Tacoma. 

WISCON - Fred L. Wright, Past Senior Grand Warden, Milwaukee. 

WYOMING - Frank S. Knittle, Grand Master, Casper. 

ORDER OF THE EASTERN STAR, GENERAL GRAND CHAPTER Mrs. Clara 
Henrich, Most Worthy Grand Matron, Newport, Ky. 

ROBERT j. NEWTON, Editor, Publicity Director N. M. T. S. A., Las Cruces, New 
Mexico 


The Working Plan 


At the meeting of the Board of Governors of the National Masonic Tuberculosis 
Sanatoria Association, held in Chicago Nov. 19, 1926, a resolution was adopted 
instructing the Association's officers to "begin the work of relief and hospitalization 
at the earliest possible moment." The Board authorized an appeal for the necessary 
funds for "immediate emergency relief end hospitalization." 


The first moneys received in response to this appeal for aid and assistance for sick 
Freemasons and members of their families, will be expended for their relief in homes 
and to pay for their care and treatment in existing hospitals. In some cases the entire 
support of the patient and of the family may have to be assumed. In others it will 
mean only partial support. In some instances the cooperation of Masonic lodges and 
other Masonic bodies to which tuberculous Masons belong will be secured, to pay all 
or part of the cost of care. On the other band, we shall solicit cooperation in the 
administration of relief by Masonic lodges and Masonic bodies and Masonic Boards 
of Relief in the cities and towns where the patients reside. Similar cooperation by 
tuberculosis societies, charity societies and from health and hospital authorities will 
also be solicited. Such assistance will reduce to the minimum the overhead expense of 
handling these cases. 



In addition to the physical examination of the patient to ascertain his condition and 
his needs, for medical and hospital .care, every member of the patient's family, and 
especially 'the children, living in the home of the consumptive, must be examined by 
a competent physician to ascertain if they are tuberculous or in danger of contracting 
the disease. In many cases hospital care, if given in time, may prevent the 
consumptive's wife and children developing into active cases. 


In many cases, either the patient, or his children, will have to be removed from the 
home for the protection of the children. In such cases it is usually to the best interest 
of both patient and the family to remove the patient to the hospital even though there 
be no hope of saving his life. 


The advice and assistance of experienced tuberculosis and charity workers, and 
organizations, and of medical specialists in the treatment of tuberculosis, will be 
available to the Sanatoria Association and will be secured in handling this work of 
relief and hospitalization. 


EDUCATIONAL WORK FOR PREVENTION 


The Board of Governors also instructed the officers to continue the educational and 
publicity campaign: 


"To disseminate among the Freemasons of America, and their families, and others, 
scientific knowledge and useful information as to the causes and methods of 
treatment for the prevention, relief and cure of tuberculosis; and as to the purposes 
and objects of this corporation." 



Tuberculosis educational work is carried on by 'Means of news items and special 
articles in the Masonic and daily press; by the distribution of literature; by lectures in 
"open meetings" of Masonic bodies, which lectures are usually illustrated by 
stereopticon and moving pictures; by visiting nurses and by other methods which will 
be developed. The cooperation of tuberculosis workers and organizations will be 
available and will be secured in all of this work. 


The National Tuberculosis Association, and its affiliated state and local societies, 
give much credit for the great decrease in the mortality and morbidity from 
tuberculosis during the last twenty years, to the great national, popular educational 
campaign which has been conducted by these organizations and by public health 
authorities. 


NATIONAL MASONIC TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIUM 


The Board of Governors of the Sanatoria Association also directed the officers to 
"have prepared, as soon as possible, definite data for the construction of a Masonic 
Tuberculosis Sanatorium to be erected by this Association, the same to be submitted 
to the governing Board at a later meeting." 


This information is now being secured for this purpose. From information given us by 
the National Tuberculosis Association and others who have studied the subject, it 
appears that the cost of tuberculosis hospital construction varies from $2,500 to 
$5,000 a bed. This latter figure applies in the handling of the more advanced cases, 
who are in need of the character of treatment given in general medical and surgical 
hospitals. The housing of the ambulant and semi-ambulant cases is not so expensive. 
In the inspection of recently built tuberculosis sanatoria by the officers of the 
Association, several have been found which are considered good examples of the type 
of institution which the Association should provide for Freemasons, and which have 
cost not to exceed $2,500 a bed. 



In the planning of a public tuberculosis sanatorium it is customary to design the 
institution so that it may be enlarged at a later date. This should be done in the 
planning of the first Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium. The necessary funds for the 
construction of a hospital of 100 to 150 beds can be secured in less time than for a 
larger institution. The work of salvage can therefore be started in a shorter period of 
time if a sanatorium of that size is determined upon. A hospital of 100 to 150 beds 
would cost from $250,000 to $375,000. 


In the planning of such an institution there should be a main building, in which men 
patients will be cared for, and which may also contain the business and medical 
offices, dining rooms and kitchen, club and social rooms, library, etc. At a later date 
separate buildings may be provided for these departments of the institution's 
activities. The heating plant may also be installed in or adjacent to the main building, 
until such time as larger quarters are required. 


The main building may also house women and children patients, medical officers, 
nurses and employees, until separate buildings can be provided for their needs and 
use. 


The first, or men's building, should provide for the care of at least 100 patients. The 
building for care of women and children, which will be built later, should provide for 
at least 50 patients. 


All buildings should be of fireproof construction. Patient's rooms should be equipped 
with baths, or connecting baths, and with sleeping porches. The building should 
contain the latest modern facilities that are found in the highest type of private pay 
hospitals for care of the tuberculous, but no extravagance should enter into the details 
of construction. The grounds of the Masonic Sanatorium should be beautifully 
landscaped and made attractive to both patients and visitors. A playground for the 
children should also be provided. 


DISCRIMINATION IN CASES 



A Masonic Sanatorium cannot discriminate in the admission of patients. Some public 
and private hospitals refuse admission to the advanced and hopeless cases because of 
the unfortunate effect their presence has upon the more hopeful and possibly curable 
cases. Masonic obligations will compel us to accept and care for Masons in the 
advanced and hopeless stage of the disease. Their removal from homes is also 
necessary for the protection of their families, especially the children of tender years. 
However, it is unfair to the first and second stage cases, for whom there is every hope 
for "arrest" of their disease, to have them in close contact with the men and women 
who are near to death. As soon as possible, therefore, an infirmary, a separate hospital 
building, must be provided to permit the segregation of the advanced cases from the 
ambulant and semi-ambulant patients. 


CARE OF MASONIC CHILDREN 


Provision must also be made for the care of tuberculous children. Many of the little 
ones who are afflicted with bone tuberculosis are also suffering from pulmonary 
tuberculosis. It has been found difficult, on that account, to secure admission to 
Shrine and other hospitals for children with tuberculous spines, or with hip or joint 
disease. The officials of Shrine Hospitals very properly take the position that they 
must operate these institutions on the principle of the greatest good to the greatest 
number. A child with a tuberculous spine, or with a tuberculous hip or knee joint, 
requires months and even years of care. His occupancy of a bed in a Shrine Hospital 
during that time will prevent a number of other crippled children, whose deformities 
may easily be corrected in a very short time by medical and surgical treatment, from 
securing such treatment. It is, there fore, unfair to them to admit the tuberculous child. 
But these children must be cared for and the number of hospitals for their care and 
treatment is all too few in America. Inasmuch as their condition is due, very often, to 
close association with a tuberculous father or mother, and as the Masonic Fraternity 
has failed in the past to protect them by hospitalization of their sick parents, it would 
seem to be the Fraternity's duty to provide for their care in Masonic Tuberculosis 
Sanatoria, as is the duty of the Fraternity to care for their sick fathers and mothers. 
These children will have to be cared for in the main building until the women's and 
children's building is constructed. After that building is in operation, if their numbers 
justify it, a separate children's building should be built. 



In making the ground plan, and in planning the buildings of the First National 
Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium, all of the foregoing must be taken into 
consideration and provision made for the enlargement of the institution adequately to 
provide for the care and treatment of all cases, and for a sufficient number of hospital 
buildings and beds for their care. It is not expected, and it may not be necessary in the 
beginning of this work, to build an institution of great size, but provision must be 
made for its development to meet the demands which will be made upon it within the 
next few years, and until such time as the need will require the construction of 
another Masonic Sanatorium. 


The expert advice and assistance of the National Tuberculosis Association will be 
secured in the planning of this Sanatorium. 


No site has been selected for the location of the First National Masonic Tuberculosis 
Sanatorium. Doubtless many cities will offer sites, and some cities will offer a cash 
bonus, to secure the location of this hospital. Such offers must not be allowed to 
influence the selection of a location, but it must be determined solely from the 
standpoint of the best interests of the patients to be cared for in the institution. The 
advice and assistance of the National Tuberculosis Association will also be secured in 
this important matter. 


If it is possible to find a "going" institution, an existing Sanatorium of adequate size, 
and capable of enlargement as outlined above, and properly located, such an 
institution may be purchased in order to enable the Association "to begin the work of 
relief and hospitalization at the earliest possible moment." 


HOW TO FINANCE THE WORK 


The construction of the First National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium may be 
financed by "selling" various units, or parts of the institution, buildings, service 



rooms, patients' wards, bed rooms and sleeping porches to Masonic bodies, and to 
organizations affiliated with Freemasonry, or whose membership is based upon 
Freemasonry, and to individual Freemasons and members of Masonic families. 


Such organizations, or individuals, may "buy" buildings, service units, wards, beds, 
rooms and sleeping porches by paying the proportionate part of the cost of their 
construction. Such organizations, or individuals, may also pay for the furnishing or 
equipment of same. 


Suitable tablets, or signs, will be placed upon all buildings and rooms in 
acknowledgment of the contribution which paid for their construction, naming the 
donor, or donors of such buildings, service units, wards, rooms, sleeping porches and 
beds, or they may be named as memorials for some departed loved one, either a 
member of the Masonic body making the contribution, or of some member of a 
Masonic family. Contributions will also be accepted for memorials of non-Masons. 


Following is a list of Sanatorium Buildings, service rooms or units, patients' wards, 
bed rooms and sleeping porches, with an estimate of their proportionate part of the 
total cost of construction: 


MASONIC TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIUM BUILDINGS 


The first buildings required, named in the order in which they should be constructed: 


Main Building (or Men's Building) $250,000 
Women's and Children's Building 125,000 
Nurses' Building 25,000 



Service Rooms, Main Building 


Sanatorium offices, business and medical $ 5,000 

Kitchen, pantries, etc 7,500 

Dining rooms 7,500 

Social and club rooms 7,500 

Library and reading rooms 5,000 

Reception hall 7,500 

X-ray room 5,000 

Frigidaire and cold storage 5,000 


The Sanatorium offices, business and medical; the X-ray room, the social and club 
rooms, the library and reading rooms could be combined in an Administration 
Building. The kitchen, pantries, storage rooms, frigidaire and cold storage and dining 
rooms could be combined in a Subsistence Building. There are many advantages in 
having these departments of the institution's activities divorced from the building in 
which the patients are housed. 


Patients' Wards and Rooms 


Two wards, Main Building, each $ 15,000 
Four wards, Main Building, each 10,000 


Four wards, Women's and Children's Building, each 


10,000 



1,250 


Patients' rooms, Men's Building, each 1,500 
Patients' rooms, Women's and Children's Building, each 
Sleeping Porches, Men's Building, each 750 
Sleeping Porches, Women's and Children's Building, each 500 
Patients' Beds, each 260 


$2,500 will pay for a patient's room, sleeping porch and bed in the Men's Building; 
$2,000 will pay for room, sleeping porch and bed in the Women's and Children's 
Building. 


Furniture and Equipment 


X-ray room equipment $5,000 

Kitchen equipment 2,500 
Frigidaire plant 2,500 
Library 2,500 

Medical and business offices 2,000 
Club and social rooms 1,500 

Diningroom 1,500 
Reception hall 1,000 


Furniture for bedrooms, each 150 



Suitable tablets, or signs, will be placed in each room acknowledging the gift and 
naming the contributor. 


COST OF OPERATING THE SANATORIUM 


It will require at least one year of time to secure the necessary funds and to construct 
the first buildings. There will be no expense of operation of the hospital during that 
period. In the meantime sick Masons and members of their families must be cared for 
in existing institutions. 


While the average cost of operating a tuberculosis sanatorium is given as $ 1 ,000 per 
annum, in order to assure the best of care and treatment at $ 1 ,200 a year, or $ 1 00 per 
month is a safer estimate for the first year of operation. This amount will also secure 
treatment for our patients in private institutions while the sanatorium is building. 
Contributions of $25, $50 and $100 and more are asked to pay expenses of hospital 
care for one or more weeks or months of hospital treatment. 


Contributions of any amount, no matter how small, will be welcome, and will help to 
"carry on" this work of salvaging sick men, women and children. 


FIFTEEN CENTS, OR MORE, FROM EACH MEMBER 


An average contribution of at least fifteen cents ($.15) per member from all Masonic 
bodies, and from all organizations affiliated with Freemasonry, or whose membership 
is based upon Freemasonry, will finance the construction of the First National 
Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium, and the work of the Sanatoria Association. 



Because some bodies may not respond to the appeal, at least during this year, it is 
hoped that many will contribute more than the average of fifteen cents per capita. 


An appeal is made to all such organizations to contribute, or pledge a contribution, in 
an amount sufficient to pay the proportionate cost of some unit of the Tuberculosis 
Sanatorium, and to do so at once. 


An appeal is also made to individual Freemasons, and to members of Masonic 
families, to make contributions for the same purpose. The construction of this first 
tuberculosis hospital presents a great opportunity to perpetuate the memory of some 
loved one. 


In the event that the total sum of contributions made by Masonic bodies average 
fifteen cents per capita of the total number of American Freemasons, 3,2;50,000, a 
grand total of $487,500 would be available for Masonic tuberculosis relief. 


This sum could be expended as follows: 


Construction of a 100-bed Sanatorium $250,000 
Operation of Sanatorium for one year 100,000 
Home relief and hospitalization in existing sanatoria 100,000 
Educational work for prevention - Administration 37,500 


After the great hurricane which devastated only a small part of the State of Florida, an 
appeal was made for contributions of ten cents per capita for Masonic relief work. 
This appeal met with generous response from the Fraternity. 



Few, if any, Masonic lives were lost in the hurricane. Few, if any, died as a result of 
it. Many Masonic families were made homeless and received the aid and comfort of 
the Craft. 


The Florida disaster cannot compare with the loss of Masonic lives and destruction of 
Masonic homes caused by tuberculosis. Death is a welcome relief to the average 
victim of tuberculosis, worn out by a year or more of suffering, mental, as well as 
physical, for he knows that his continued presence in the home endangers the lives of 
his loved ones. He also knows that the money expended to prolong his life, deprives 
them of necessities and even food. Many families are impoverished before the patient 
dies. Before or after the patient's death the home, often, is broken up. Tuberculosis is, 
therefore, a great, continuing daily disaster, worse than fire, flood, earthquake or 
hurricane. 


Does it require some such disaster, replete with drama, even though the loss of life is 
insignificant, to arouse the Masonic Fraternity to a sense of its duty? Can we not 
visualize the loss of human lives, the wreckage of Masonic homes, the depths of 
women's sorrow, the end of children's happiness, caused by tuberculosis? Can we not 
realize the bitterness of a dying Mason's belief that his brethren have failed him in his 
hour of greatest need? 


NATIONAL MASONIC TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIA ASSOCIATION 


Herbert B. Holt, President, Grand Master Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M., Las Cruces, 
New Mexico. 


Alpheus A. Keen, Secretary, Masonic Temple, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Grand 
Secretary, Grand Lodge, A. F. & A. M.). 



Please send contributions direct to the Secretary, Alpheus A. Keen, Masonic Temple, 
Albuquerque, N. M. 


* * * 


THE T. B. CAMPAIGN 


Too much praise cannot be given to the Grand Lodge of New Mexico for 
inaugurating and promulgating the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatoria 
Association. 


The ravages of the most dreaded known disease - the white plague - can be best 
combatted and mastered by the wonderful climate of southern New Mexico, Arizona 
and extreme southwest Texas. 


This statement I base on personal knowledge and observation during twenty-seven 
years' constant traveling in that section as a traveling salesman. 


I can bear testimony that the lives of many good men and women have been 
prolonged and they have been restored to their loved ones because they were 
fortunate enough to have the opportunity of spending a few years in that section, so 
graciously blessed by the Almighty with a climate that has proclaimed to the world its 
wonderful powers as a conqueror of the dreaded tuberculosis. 


More power to this wonderful organization, the National Masonic Tuberculosis 
Sanatoria Association, for bringing this to, the attention of every Mason in our 
beloved country and God speed their work. 



As an old Missouri Mason permit me to add that nothing would be more pleasing to 
me, and I think in so stating I voice the sentiment of thousands of Missouri Masons, 
than to see the Grand Lodge of Missouri erect a memorial building in connection with 
the National Masonic Tuberculosis Sanatorium to commemorate the life and works of 
that noble, self-sacrificing, whole-souled man and Mason, a former Past Grand 
Master and Governor of Missouri - Alexander M. Dockery. 


Frank H. Wielandy, 


Director Masonic Home Board, Missouri. 


* * * 


Mr. Victor Aaron, Past Master Fidelity Lodge, No. 120, San Francisco, Cal., writes as 
follows: 


We have in our Fraternity 2,500,000 members. Let each Grand Lodge promulgate 
legislation to the effect that the dues of each member are increased $2.00 per year; the 
extra $2.00 to be forwarded to a central committee to be used for the building of 
hospitals, etc., and the maintenance of all brethren so afflicted, not only who may 
apply voluntarily but who may be found to be in want of proper attention and can be 
induced to be moved to the proper place. 


— o — 


The Precious Jewels 



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


(Continued. All rights reserved) 


In the Study Club for last month we discussed the working tools of the Operative 
Masons of the Middle Ages and in especial the probable, or at least possible methods 
employed in making and testing them, with a view to obtaining a clearer 
understanding of the use of some kind of standard or test block in the working lodges, 
and to explain how their nonoperative successors misunderstood and misapplied 
statements that to a working Mason would be perfectly clear. 


Thus we have seen that in the version of the Old Catechisms that Prichard has 
preserved for us it is said that the "rough" ashlar was "for the Fellow Crafts to try 
their Jewels upon" and that the Confession said that the "Dinted" ashlar was "to adjust 
the square and make the gages by." Now from France we get another version, (1) 
published in 1744, which also connects a special stone with the working tools the 
Craft, though in exceedingly absurd fashion. The passage runs: 


D. Quels sont les trois immobiles [bijoux] ? R. La Pierre brute pour les Apprentifs; la 
Pierre cubique a point pour aiguiser les outils des Compagnons; et la Planche a tracer 
sur laquelle les Maitres font leurs Desseins. 


which may be rendered: 


Q. What are the three immoveable [jewels] ? 



A. The rough stone for the Apprentices; the pointed cubical stones for the 
Companions [Fellows] to sharpen their tools; and the tracing [or drawing] board on 
which the Masters make their designs. 


The accompanying illustration (2) is taken from a design that was reproduced in all 
the various reprints and editions of this work that we have examined. There were a 
great many, and they appeared under many different titles, though the substance 
remained very much the same. It is said to be a "Plan of the Lodge." 


At the top, on the left, is la pierre brute, on the right the pointed cubic stone. The axe 
resting on it is presumably one of the tools to be sharpened ! This bright idea, 
however, was evolved by somebody absolutely ignorant of the craft of the stone shed. 
Masons' tools of course are not sharpened like those of wood workers. They are 
tempered much harder, and the angles of the cutting edges are so obtuse that grinding 
would be an exceedingly slow and tedious process. The method is to heat them in a 
forge and draw them out on the anvil. The edge may be filed while still hot, after 
which the tool is heated again, hardened and retempered. It sounds somewhat 
complicated, but a blacksmith does it very quickly-a forge is a necessary adjunct to 
every stone-yard or quarry. 


In this French version several changes will be noticed, which will be discussed later, 
at present it is to be noted that the account in this work, the origin of which is really 
as uncertain as that of Prichard or of the Confession, is not a translation of either, nor 
of any of the other known documents; yet it in many respects parallels them. We may 
assume that it is derived from an otherwise unknown variant tradition— much 
sophisticated and edited in the process. It bears manifest traces of being a very literal 
translation into French from an English original, and the translator seems to have 
been hard put to it to give any intelligible rendering of the obscure passages. 


At first sight it would seem that this explanation of the use of the wrought stone as 
intended to sharpen tools on was merely a wild guess thrown in for the purpose of 
explanation, but against such a supposition is the fact that there is no 



attempt to explain the "brute" stone. A somewhat later version of the catechisms in 
much better French, it appeared in 1745, omits the clause altogether and merely says 
that it is assigned to the Fellowcrafts; and one may guess that perhaps the omission 
was due to a realization of the absurdity of the statement as it stood. This fact also 
tends to confirm a suspicion that it may have been a last, faint, entirely misunderstood 
echo of a real Operative tradition. The closer these old documents are examined the 
more the student comes to realize the astonishing vitality that phrases and odds and 
ends of tradition seem to have. They are displaced, modified, reinterpreted and 
misapplied, and yet in spite of all recognizably retain their identity. In any case this 
1745 French account confirms the others in connecting a specially worked stone with 
the tools of the Craft. It is doubtless altogether too hazardous to suppose that in this 
idea of its being a glorified whetstone on which edge tools were rubbed to sharpen 
them we may have a very faint reflection of the method spoken of earlier of truing a 
wooden rule or straight edge by rubbing it on the surface of a squared stone. 

However, seeing that we are trying to explore every possibility the suggestion is 
thrown out for whatever it may be worth. 


We have said that this account is an independent version; it agrees nevertheless with 
Prichard in dividing the jewels into two sets of three, and in regard to those 
designated "moveable" there is complete agreement as to what they are, and their 
order; although instead of their uses being explained we are merely told that they are 
carried respectively by the Master and the "First" and "Second" Wardens. 


REASON FOR THE TERMS MOVEABLE AND IMMOVEABLE 


Before going further it may be as well to discuss this division and the descriptions of 
the two classes. Mention was made of the fact that these designations were reversed 
for some reason, not very apparent, by the Baltimore Convention in 1843, (3) so that 
the moveable became the immoveable and vice versa. The best account that we have 
so far been able to discover of what was done is that of Chas. W. Moore, which was 
reproduced in THE BUILDER for September, on page 283. One gathers from this 
statement that there were differences existing, and the best way to account for the 
decision reached is to suppose that the members of the Convention had no other light 
on the subject than that of unaided reason or imagination— both, in such matters, very 
fallacious guides. In all probability the original division of the two groups, and the 



names applied to them, were due to very simple and matter of fact reasons. The 
square, level and plumb, as "collar" jewels of the three officers of the lodge, were 
concere objects and obviously and literally moveable in the ordinary sense of the 
word. The other three were originally representations drawn inside the square 
diagram on the floor and were equally obviously and literally immoveable. When 
later the floor diagram went out of use, and it became in many places customary to 
have real stones to represent the ashlars, the original straight forward distinction no 
longer in fact applied, hut it was nevertheless retained by natural conservatism, and 
eventually became the subject of symbolical speculations, resulting finally, so far as 
America is concerned, in an exchange of the epithets. Though, as we have noted, the 
rest of the Masonic world retains the older usage. 


In regard, then, to the immoveable jewels, properly so designated, the order is, it will 
be observed, reversed in the French version. The "brute" or unworked stone is named 
first, the "tracing board" last; nevertheless there seems to be substantial agreement. 
The rough stone is for the apprentice, the drawing board for the master, the wrought 
stone for the Fellows, and it has some connection with their tools. But in spite of this 
general agreement there appears to have been an underlying confusion, for it would 
seem as if la pierre cubique a pointe was not a translation oce either the "dinted" or the 
"square" ashlar, but rather an attempt to render "broached thumel" into French; while 
we can only suppose that la pierre brute came from something equivalent to 
Prichard's "rough" ashlar, which, as we have tried to show, was probably a wrought 
stone. 


In other words, it would seem that while the things themselves were correctly 
remembered and properly assigned to the three grades, the names of two of them had 
been transposed; a change that has led to much subsequent misapprehension and 
error. We may now ask how the original confusion arose. It is possible to suppose 
that the translator knew that there were two stones, one partly worked or rough, and 
one finished for the purposes of a standard. If his original was something 
corresponding to Prichard's version he might very naturally take the so-called "rough" 
ashlar to be the first of these two, and this, by elimination, would lead him to suppose 
that the broached domal, or thurnel, was the stone squared for the purpose of serving 
as a standard, as Mackey much later seems to have done also; for under "Ashlar" in 
his Encyclopaedia he says that the place of the Perfect Ashlar "was supplied by the 
Broached Thurnel," which was, of course, only his interpretation of the facts as 



known to him. This, then, would account for the description cubique. But what was 
the translator to make of the term "broached"? 


THE ORIGIN OF THE BROACHED THURNEL 


Now it has been pointed out, notably by Mackey, and also by others since he wrote, 
that in parts of England the word "broche" is still used as a term for a certain type of 
church steeple. In France the word is in common use with the meaning of spit, 
spindle, pin, skewer, knitting needle, awl and so on, any object or implement, in 
short, that is long, narrow and pointed. It is therefore not impossible that it might have 
been translated a pointe. The objection to this is that one might rather have expected 
the translator to have rendered it by d broche, or even, perhaps, brochee, seeing that 
the verb brocher, though usually meaning to work with a needle as in embroidery, is 
used of shoeing horses (possibly because of the long, slender head of a farrier's 
hammer) and so might conceivably have been transferred to the use of a sharp 
mason's hammer or pick in working stone. The point is, it seems very curious that he 
should have interpreted it by a local English usage when he could have used a more 
literal rendering on the basis of the French language. It is therefore possible that his 
original did not read "broached," but that some attempt had already been made to 
explain it in England, or even that it was some variant operative technical term that he 
had before him. Had it been, for instance, "the pointed ornal," or more likely "the 
pointed stone," this rendering would have been almost inevitable supposing the 
translator did not know exactly what it meant. Because such a term would not mean 
to a working mason anything in the least like the interpretation a non-operative would 
be apt to give to it. The latter would very naturally take the epithet to refer to the 
shape of the stone, and would thus be led, if he supposed it to be a worked stone, to 
picture it in something like the form we find in the old French designs. An operative, 
on the other hand, would take the term to refer to the method of working, i. e., that it 
had been done with a "point." Prichard himself says the "broached" stone was for the 
apprentices "to learn to work upon," but the Confession quite unmistakably uses the 
technical term and says "to broach," showing that this was a method or process of 
working stone; and indeed the word is to be found in the New English Dictionary 
with this meaning given to it. As this anonymous account, the Confession, bears all 
through it patent evidence of being in close touch with operative usages we may feel 
safe in giving it the preference. Working masons could not possibly be guilty of the 
blunder Prichard's version makes in this place regarding the testing block. We are 
therefore, on the whole, inclined to think that the misconception, and the resulting 



transposition to correct a supposed mistake, had been made before this tradition was 
carried across the English Channel. 


Dr. Oliver seems to have been puzzled by it, and in his Dictionary of Symbolical 
Masonry remarks that the Broached Thurnel 


. . . was one of the original immoveable jewels, and was used for the E. A. P. to leam 
to work upon. It was subsequently called the Brute Stone or Rough Ashlar. 


Mackey in his Encyclopedia undertakes to correct this, and under the same head tells 
us that 


Dr. Oliver, most probably deceived by the use to which it was assigned, says that it 
[the Broached Thurnel] was subsequently called the Rough Ashlar. This is evidently 
incorrect, because a distinction is made in the original lecture between it and the 
Rough Ashlar, the former being for the Apprentice and the latter for the Fellowcraft. 


TARSEL OR TRASEL BOARD 


By the "original lectures," or "Anderson's lectures," as he elsewhere calls them, 
Mackey means Prichard's Catechism, which by the way he apparently knew only in 
one of the many later reprints, as he gives the form "Tarsel Board" instead of "Trasel 
Board." This uncorrected misprint (as it undoubtedly is) has been another fertile 
source of confusion, and has led a number of Masonic writers into fanciful 
speculations. There has been another curious mistake made too, due presumably to 
the extreme rarity of the early editions of Prichard and the consequent difficulty in 
examining them. For instance, the late G. W. Speth, a good many years ago, (4) made 
some notes on the subject of the Broached Thurnel, in which, by the way, he 
mentioned that it appeared in the lectures of an obsolete degree called "Geometrical 



Master Mason" (as we believe it is also in the ritual of the Royal Order of Scotland) 
and he went on to say: 


Prichard's Masonry Dissected of about 1777 (and possibly earlier, but not in 1730) 
gives as the three jewels "Tarsel Board, Rough Ashlar and Broached Thurnel." 


The italics in the parenthesis are ours. Much later Bro. Dring, in his most important 
paper on The Evolution and Development of the Tracing or Lodge Board (5) makes a 
similar statement: 


In the later editions of Masonry dissected ( such as that of 1774), i. e., after the 
publications of the translations of the French Rituals, the catechism is amplified thus . 


and he goes on to quote the questions and answers we have already given relative to 
the Furniture and Jewels. He refers here to a number of works published under 
various titles after 1760, which were poor translations back into English of the French 
versions already spoken of, and he supposes that later publishers of Prichard's work 
improved it by borrowing from these. 


Now there were four editions of Prichard put out in 1730. (6) They were all sold out 
very rapidly and the interval between them is to be measured in days rather than 
months. They are also all very scarce. The first was very carefully reproduced with all 
its typographical peculiarities by Enoch T. Carson, the well-known American 
Masonic student and bibliophile. It is evident that Bros. Speth and Dring were 
familiar with the contents of the original edition, either directly or through the 
medium of this reprint, and that they also respectively knew some later edition, Speth 
apparently one of 1777 and Dring a somewhat earlier one of 1774. They apparently 
also took it for granted that all the intervening reprints up to 1760 or 1770 were the 
same as the original edition. This, however, was not the case. 



An examination of the text of the first edition shows a number of obvious mistakes, 
mostly very unimportant in themselves, yet that cumulatively give the impression that 
it was a very hasty production, and that very little time had been given to the proof 
reading. In the second edition the greater part of these were corrected, and besides 
this eleven questions and answers were also inserted in the first part. This inserted 
material includes precisely the items we are discussing. It thus appears that these two 
eminent authorities were misled through not having seen the second and third 
editions. Whether Prichard was responsible for this revision or someone else is a 
matter of no moment, for, after all, he is only a name to us. The important point is that 
this matter about the Furniture and Jewels, which Bro. Dring supposed to be 
borrowed from other works published after 1760, did actually appear in 1730 within a 
few weeks of the original publication. In the second and third editions we have the 
form "Trasel Board." Not having had the opportunity to compare a sufficient number 
of later reprints we are unable to say when the "r" and "a" were transposed, but 
probably much later than 1730; and the transposition is obviously a printer's error and 
of no significance whatever. Thus we find the first mention of moveable and 
immoveable jewels is actually in one of the earliest printed accounts that have come 
down to us. 


ALBERT MACKEY AND DR. OLIVER 


Returning now to Mackey's attempt to set Dr. Oliver right, we see that he was himself 
mistaken. Inevitably so, we must say, with the information he had at hand. 
Nevertheless Dr. Oliver had in reality correctly stated the sequence of events, which 
was all he attempted to do; the "Broached Thumel" or "roughed" stone for (or of) the 
Apprentices had become in French the "Brute Stone," and this subsequently 
reappeared in English as a "Rough Ashlar," which, however, was not really the same 
thing as that spoken of by Prichard under the same term. The transposition of names it 
was that caused all the confusion. Dr. Oliver assumes a change of names, which we 
have seen reason to believe to be what really happened. Mackey supposes a mistake 
in ascription— that the wrong objects were assigned to the two grades in the French 
versions, which, curiously, was also done in later versions. [See Note 1.] The whole 
matter is very complicated and we only hope that our attempt to elucidate it has not 
led to confusion being worse confounded. It is a good example, however, of the way 
in which errors have arsien, that later have had far-reaching results. 



The original mistake, it would appear, was in Prichard, or rather the tradition he 
represents; of which, we as have suggested above, there have been other variants now 
lost, or known to us only through the French. The key to the puzzle is, we think, to be 
found in the Confession. This describes the standard test block as a "dinted ashalr." 

On account of the strongly operative character of this account, we are practically 
forced tot he conclusion that in the terminology of Scottish working masons of the 
time the term "dinted" would be equivalent to "worked" or "finished." Stone is finally 
brought to a smooth surface by the use of a tool now known in some places as a "bush 
hammer" or "dressing hammer." In this the face, or more often both faces, of the head 
is cut into a number of grooves of triangular section, thus making a series of sharp 
parallel edges. It appears to be the same implement that has been called the "claw 
tool" by a number of English writers, on what authority we do not know. It is spoken 
of as first coming into general use at the beginning of the Gothic period of 
architecture, when it replaced the rougher work done with the "axe" or "common 
gavel." This last is now generally known as a stone mason's hammer, one in which 
the "pene," or thin end of the head, is drawn out to a sharp edge parallel with the 
handle. Both implements are shown in the thirteenth century window at Chartres, a 
drawing of which was reproduced in the December number last year on page 375. 
Next month we will endeavor to show how the finished test block came to be 
erroneously described as a "rough ashlar." 


NOTES 


(1) This is Travenol's Catechisme des Frances Macons, the earliest French expose 
extant, though there may been another somewhat earlier. It was followed in 1745 by 
Le Sceau Rompu (The Seal Broken) in which the order of the immoveable jewels is 
reversed, beginning with the Tracing Board and ending with the "Brute Stone" which 
is ascribed to the Apprentices, the "Pointed cubical stone" is assigned to the 
Companions as before, but there is no explanation of purpose in either case. A second 
work of Travemol under a new title repeats this two years later, but a third edition 
under yet another title, Le Nouveau Catechisme, changes the earlier ascription, giving 
the Brute Stone to the Companions to work on, and the pointed stone for the 
Apprentices to sharpen tools. This was published in 1749. It is obvious that the 
tradition was strong in spite of attempts to rationalize it. 



(2) This design appeared in THE BUILDER for May, 1925, page 152, as an 
illustration to the article by Bro. W.W. Covey-Crump on the "Evolution of English 
Lodge Boards." 

(3) THE BUILDER, October, 1926, page 313. 

(4) A.Q.C. xii, page 205 

(5) Ibid, xxix, page 257 

(6) Masonic Reprints, No. 1 by John T. Thorp, page 10. 


— o — 


RECORDS OF THE LODGE OF ANTIQUITY 


I have a letter from Captain Firebrace, formerly Prestonian Lecturer of the Grand 
Lodge of England and a Past Master of Antiquity Lodge. He has just written me in 
regard to a new volume of the records of this famous organization. 


This is now the second lodge on the register of the United Grand Lodge of England 
and one of the four that combined to form the first Grand Lodge in 1717. It only lost 
its numerical pre-eminence by chance at the Union at London in 1813 of the two 
Grand Lodges, There being many such pairs of numbers on the two lists of lodges, 
the famous Lodge of Antiquity lost its premier place by the accident of drawing lots 
for the future positions on the roster. Bro. W. H. Rylands, notable for his able labors 
in Quatuor Coronati Lodge, and equally enthusiastic in the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 2, 
wrote volume one of a history of the latter body. His death prevented Bro. Rylands 
from continuing the work which has been taken up by Bro. C. W. Firebrace, Past 
Master of Antiquity Lodge and formerly the Prestonian Lecturer of the Grand Lodge 
of England. Bro. Firebrace has completed a limited edition of the second volume 
which commences with the year 1777 and contains the largest part of the Masonic 
career of William Preston whose Illustrations of Freemasonry inspired Thomas Smith 
Webb and other early ritualists in the United States in the formulation of our 



well-known Masonic Monitors. A copy of Bro. Preston's will is in the text and this 
has especial significance and value to the members of the Craft. There are also many 
other interesting details recorded of Bro. Preston that are new to Masonic students. 
There is also an account of the Union of the English Grand Lodges in 1813. Other 
points of consequence in Masonic history are recorded. The Lodge of Antiquity offers 
the opportunity to the brethren of obtaining this second volume for two guineas a 
copy, say $10.30. Those interested may address Capt. C. W. Lirebrace, St. Stephen's 
House, Westminster, London, S. W. 1, England. 


Robert I. Clegg, Illinois. 


— o — 


BRO. ERNEST E. THIEMEYER 


IT is an ancient tradition that every active member of THE BUILDER Staff must pass 
through the ordeal of having his portrait presented to the members of the Society with 
some account of his life history in the Craft. It was not without difficulty that this 
photograph of Bro. Thiemeyer was secured, he having some absurd idea that he ought 
to be an exception to this wholesome rule. We also extorted the following facts 
concerning him: His father was a Mason before him, which naturally led him to seek 
initiation in due time. He joined Tuscan Lodge, No. 360, one of the principal lodges 
in St. Louis, in 1924, and was raised June 10 of that year. That his first preparation to 
be made a Mason was thorough is attested by his eager pursuit of Masonic light. He 
very rapidly perfected himself in the ritual and took almost from the first an active 
part in the instruction of candidates for the several degrees. This was not enough to 
satisfy him, however, and he began an earnest attempt to make himself familiar with 
the symbolism, history and theories of origin of the Order, and made such progress 
that within a very short time he came to be regarded as an authority, not only by the 
members of his lodge, but also by the Craft generally in St. Louis. He was active in 
the formation of the Study Club of Tuscan Lodge which was begun in 1925, and 
which has accomplished much, and promises to do a great deal more. He took under 



his charge the library of the lodge, and under his management it promises to become 
one of the best equipped in the State of Missouri. 


In 1926 he joined Cabany Chapter, No. 140, of the Royal Arch. This being at present 
the limit of his attainment in Masonic grades. 


He is an alumnus of the University of Missouri, where he specialized in chemistry 
and geology. But beyond this he had a wide range of interests in history and general 
literature. THE BUILDER, and in especial the Editor in charge, is happy to have the 
services of such an able coadjutor. His official title is Research Editor, but he has 
taken a multifarious and miscellaneous lot of duties upon himself and bids fair to 
leave the Editor little or nothing to do but to occupy the mythical easy chair and look 
as ornamental as possible. 


— o — 


THE LIBRARY 


The books reviewed in these pages can be procured through the Rook Department of 
the N.M.R.S. at the prices given, which always include postage. These prices are 
subject (as a matter of precaution) to change without notice; though occasion for this 
will very seldom arise. Occasionally it may happen, where books are privately 
printed, that there is no supply available, but some indication of this will be given in 
the review. The Book Department is equipped to procure any books in print on any 
subject, and will make inquiries for second-hand works and books out of print. 


JOAN OF ARC, MAID OF FRANCE. By Albert Bigelow Paine. Published by 
Macmillan Co. Two volumes, cloth, table of contents, illustrated, plates and maps, 
index, 867 and 379 pages. Price $1 1.00. 



ONE result of the ultra-scientific trend of modem thought has been the conception 
that history must be impartial, and the historian a cool and detached recorder of the 
great personalities and events of human story. That was not the idea of most of the 
great historians of the past; and a moment's reflection will show that such cold 
impartiality is practically impossible. No human being who has studied a period until 
its characters have come to life and its politics become living issues for him - and 
such study and such feeling of the past as vitally alive are essential for the true 
historian - can avoid forming likes and dislikes, loves and hatreds, or fail to take one 
side or the other in the great conflicts he studies and records. Burning enthusiasm for 
a heroic character and a noble cause give force and energy to Motley's Rise of the 
Dutch Republic, and it is largely because Macaulay writes as a Whig that his history 
makes its readers feel that they are living in the time of the "Glorious Revolution." To 
say, therefore, that the chief merit of Albert Bigelow Paine's Joan of Arc, Maid of 
France, is its partiality, is not paradoxical. Mr. Paine is whole-heartedly on the side of 
the pope who canonized, and against the bishop who condemned Saint Joan; and it is 
his enthusiastic admiration for the Maid of Orleans which has fired him to delve into 
the documents which record her doings and sayings, to spend what must have been 
delightful months following the footsteps of the Maid from Domremy to Rouen, 
visiting every place in which his heroine stayed or by which she may have passed, 
and, after exhaustive preparation, to give such a picture of the peasant-maiden who 
crowned a king, that his readers can hardly fail to feel that they too are living in the 
fifteenth century, members of the devoted band inspired by the cry, "Forward with 
God," to storm the English bastilles and free the beleagured city of Orleans. 


Saint Joan lends herself to this reverential and enthusiastic treatment, for she is one of 
the most striking examples of that rare but inspiring type of character, the soul with a 
mission. Her battle-cry, "Forward with God," reminds one of Cromwell's fervent, 

"Sir, this was none other but the hand of God" and with such personalities a cool and 
wary attitude is a mistake. One must believe in the mission as the gallant Jean de 
Metz and the hard- swearing, hard-plundering Fa Hire believed, or reject the 
missionary as an impostor with Cauchon. Mr. Paine has done wisely in following de 
Metz and Fa Hire, for it is belief that makes the world go round, and that gives force 
and fire to the pen. 



Preoccupied with the character and fortunes of his heroine, with the desire to present 
us with a living portraiture of personalities and events, Mr. Paine devotes little or no 
direct attention to the character of her mission. But as he draws for us her double role 
of heroine and martyr, the inspiring leader of the relief of Orleans and the march on 
Reims, and the solitary figure fronting the fire of questions from the forty to sixty 
black-robed priests at Rouen, we appreciate the accuracy of the estimate of the Maid 
in a very different work - Bernard Shaw's Saint Joan. In the scene between Warwick 
and Cauchon (Scene IV), Joan is described as standing for Nationality and 
Protestantism, and the description seems amply justified as one reads Mr. Paine's 
book. But Joan herself was not apparently aware of the two-fold character of her 
attitude. The national aspect of her mission, the call to drive out the English invaders 
and restore France to her king and people, to unite the hostile factions and localities, 
to reconcile the dukes of Brittany and Burgundy to their sovereign and create a 
national unity, this was abundantly clear to her, and she is inspired and successful 
until Orleans is relieved and the crown duly placed on the brow of Charles. Her other 
aspect as a Protestant, the peer of Wyclif and Huss as Cauchon points out in the play, 
as standing for the direct relation of the individual to God and the Church 
Triumphant, without reference to the Church Militant, she does not seem to have 
grasped. She felt that she herself, lay- woman as she was, had been in direct relation 
with the heavenly powers, but she did not appreciate in the slightest how this fact and 
her refusal to submit these relations to the constituted authorities of the church made 
her a heretic in the eyes of the ecclesiastics of her day. In all probability she could 
much better understand the position of the English soldiers who clamored to have her 
burned as a witch than that of the priests who strove to convict and convince her of 
heresy. It is here that the true pathos of Joan's fate is to be found. A loving and 
devoted daughter of the church, assiduous to a degree in the performance of her 
religious duties, she was yet accused and condemned on the charge of heresy, and 
technically the verdict was just. 


Vividly as it depicts the character of its heroine and the scenes and events of her 
metoric career, Mr. Paine's book suffers slightly from the defects of its qualities. 
Essential for the production of a feeling of life and reality in the presentation of a 
character of five centuries ago, enthusiastic admiration can yet be carried too far and 
weaken the effect at which it aims. When the author, for example, declares of her 
uncle, Durand Laxart, who took her to Vaucouleurs and helped to equip her, that "No 
king ever did so much for France," the recollection of such names as those of Philip 
Augustus and Henry IV makes the reader feel a lack of balance in the admiration and 
tend to adopt a critical attitude fatal to the full enjoyment of Mr. Paine's otherwise 
delightful work. Nor can hero-worship fail to be in some measure unjust. It must look 



upon the other side as composed mainly of fools or scoundrels. That the defeated 
English, with the memories of Crecy and Poictiers and Agincourt fresh in their minds; 
not realizing the nature of the new inspiration with which Joan had fired their 
adversaries; seeing war-hardened captains like Talbot defeated by a "simple village 
lass," and living, be it remembered in the 15th not the 20th century, should ascribe 
their defeats to witch-craft, was inevitable; and in view of contemporary thought they 
might well believe that in burning the witch they were only doing their duty to 
mankind and that which was "well-pleasing in the sight of the Lord." When we read 
in such a modern work as Margaret Murray's Witch-Cult in Western Europe, a 
scholarly argument in favor of the view that Joan actually was a witch (i. e., 
according to Miss Murray, a follower of a survival of the pre-Christian religion of 
Western Europe), we may feel that Warwick and Cauchon had some justification for 
their actions. 


These defects are, perhaps, an inevitable result of the real and great merits of the 
book, and it is more just to the author, and certainly much more pleasant for the 
reader, to pass them over and dwell again on the great value and charm of the work: 

Its vivid portrayal of one of the most fascinating personalities in history; its 
restoration of a great episode of the past in such life - like fashion that the reader feels 
actually present at many of the scenes described, and above all the inspiration 
afforded by its generous and whole-souled admiration of a great and noble character. 


Joan's public career was a whirlwind one of "a year - or little more," and Mr. Paine's 
account of it carries one along in a fittingly speedy fashion, aided by the form in 
which the two volumes have been published. The clear, uncrowded type favors the 
rapidity of reading necessary for a full appreciation of the , (movement of the times," 
and the abundant and excellent illustrations assist the imaginative reconstruction of 
the past by the author. Amid the host of cheap, if necessary, publications of this mass- 
production age, it is delightful to meet so excellently published a work. 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF 1926; Being the Official Journal of the Knights of St. John. 
By Col. E. J. King, C.M.G., F.S.A., Knight of Justice of the Order. With an 
introduction by Maj.-Gen. the Earl of Scarborough, G.B.E., K.C.B., F.S.A., Knight of 
Justice and Sub-Prior. Privately printed for the Order 


IT is rather a pity that only four hundred copies of this exceedingly interesting book 
were printed, for though the Knights of St. John, called at various times in their 
history Hospitallers, Knights of Rhodes and Knights of Malta, have no connection 
whatever with the Masonic degree or order of the same name as the last mentioned, 
there is no doubt that many Masonic Knights Templar would have been glad of an 
opportunity to purchase the work for the sake of the information it contains, which 
would have brought some extra funds to the charitable coffers of the English tongue 
of the ancient order. Under the circumstances it will perhaps be best to summarize as 
far as possible the facts more or less incidentally recorded by the author that will most 
interest Masons and Masonic Knights of Malta. 


As is well known the order was founded in Jerusalem in or about the year 10123 by 
certain merchants of Amalfi, who purchased the site of the hospice that had been 
established by Charlemagne, and destroyed in 1010 by order of the then Caliph. On 
this site they founded a hospital for pilgrims to the Holy City, which was in charge of 
monks of the Benedictine Order, and which was dedicated to St. John the Baptist. The 
head of the hospital, known erroneously as Gerard Tune, in some way or other 
assisted the Crusaders when they besieged and took Jerusalem. The tales told about 
this are rather mythical, but the influence thus acquired he used to enlarge the hospital 
under the Christian regime. Land was granted by Godfrey de Bouillon and donations 
were received from many other quarters. In 1113 the Pope took the new order, which 
had now adopted the rule of the Augustinians, under his special and immediate 
protection. It was Raymond de Puy who seems to have added to the purely charitable 
functions of the order that also of defending and convoying parties of pilgrims. The 
members of the order were monks, and vowed to poverty especially as well as 
chastity and obedience. It was later than this that its aristocratic character came into 
evidence. 


In the full flower of its organization, in the 14th century, when it held lands all over 
Europe as well as in the East, it was divided into Langues, or Tongues, which 



approximately coincided with national divisions. The Langues were divided into 
Provinces under Grand Commanders, these into Commanderies under Grand Priors, 
and these again into, smaller groups of manors under Preceptors. At the head was the 
Grand Master, elected from the ranks of the Knights of Justice. The latter were those 
qualified by birth; Knights of Grace were those who had attained the rank by special 
merit. 


In 1291 the Mohammedans stormed Acre, the last place left to the Christians, and the 
Grand Master withdrew to Cyprus, and in 1306 the Knights, in confederation with 
Genoese pirates, descended on Rhodes and took it from the forces of the Greek 
Emperor, and held it thereafter for about two hundred years. In 1453 the Turks took 
Constantinople and about thirty years later started seriously to drive the Christians 
from Rhodes. After several failures, Suleiman, the Magnificent, besieged the island, 
and after a long defense the Knights capitulated and withdrew with the honors of war 
to Crete. Five years later they established themselves at Malta, this being in 1530. At 
this time the Reformation was well under way in Germany and the master and 
Knights of the bailiwick of Brandenburg accepted the reformed religion without, 
curious as it seems, breaking off connection with the order. In England the refusal of 
the Grand Prior and the Knights to accept the Supremacy of the Crown over the 
Church led to its practical suppression by Henry VIII. Their property was confiscated 
and the members of the order were scattered. 


In 1565 a tremendous attack was made on Malta by the Turks, and under the 
leadership of LaValette, Grand Master, it was defeated. From then on the Knights 
maintained a virtual supremacy over the Mediterranean sea, and were the chief 
bulwark of Christian Europe against the constant raids and attacks of the 
Mohammedans. In 1798 von Hompesch surrendered to Napoleon and retired to 
Trieste. Many of the Knights however took refuge in Russia. In 1814 the French 
Knights summoned a Chapter General and elected a Permanent Commission for the 
government of the order, which was recognized by the Italian and Spanish Langues, 
by the Pope and by Louis XVIII. In 1826 this Commission suggested the restoration 
of the English Langue, with the idea of obtaining the assistance of England in 
obtaining possession of some one of the islands in the Mediterranean to be a new 
headquarters for the order. This was carried out and the Rev. William Peat, Chaplain 
to George IV, was chosen as Prior in 183 1. It appears that Queen Mary of England 
and her husband, Phillip of Spain, had granted a charter for the revival of the English 
Langue which, as has been noted, was suppressed by her father, Henry VIII, but this 



had never been acted on, and in consequence had never been revoked. Sir William 
Peat was thus able to qualify himself for the post according to law by taking the oath 
de fideli administratione in the Court of King's Bench. In 1888 Queen Victoria 
granted a new charter, and a year later the Prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VII, 
was elected and installed Grand Prior. However, though this restoration was made by 
the authority of the recognized governing body of the Sovereign Order, it was 
afterwards repudiated, and the English Langue remains unrecognized by the other 
branches of the order. On what grounds, real or alleged, is not clear, but doubtless 
difference of religious faith is at the bottom of it, although the Lutheran Knights of 
Brandenburg are still recognized. 


Candidates are required to show sixteen quarterings before being accepted as Knights 
of Justice. That is, all their great-great-grandparents, both male and female, must have 
been entitled to bear arms. Nowadays it is rather a stiff qualification one would 
imagine, and there must be a much larger proportion of Knights of Grace than in the 
days of the Order's Sovereign power. Still, its essentially, and we may perhaps say 
intensely, aristocratic character evidently remains in full force. Yet, though this will 
seem so strange and foreign to Americans, there can be no denying that in itself pride 
in family is not a bad thing, and though liable to grave abuse, is yet the nurse of many 
virtues. More than one of the Knights, we gather, bears today the same family name 
as some predecessor who joined the order centuries ago. The pride of such men in 
their race no one can well condemn, so long as it leads, as in this case it does, to 
charity and good works. 


The English branch of the order evidently regards itself as a custodian of the 
memories of the past, but it has used these memories as an inspiration for a really 
great and devoted service in the present. No longer a military order, they have 
returned to the work of their first founder Gerard, and have done a tremendous 
amount of good work in the establishment of hospitals and the encouragement of Red 
Cross and ambulance work. 


The recent pilgrimage indeed sprang out of a visit of inspection of the new Opthalmic 
Hospital instituted at Jerusalem. It was suggested that a ship might be chartered and 
that all the places connected with the history of the order might be visited. The idea 
met with such a ready response that the sub-Prior (who we judge is to the Grand 



Priory very much what the pro-Grand Master is to the United Grand Lodge of 
England, that is, the working executive head) decided to recommend to the Prince of 
Wales, who holds the office of Grand Prior, that an official pilgrimage be made. So 
recommended and so decided, The Chapter General approved, an Executive 
Committee appointed and the thing was done. Before starting the Chapter General 
gave to the sub-Prior, at his request, full authority to summon those members of the 
governing body who would be in the party to form special chapters during the 
pilgrimage in order to admit new members of the order, such admissions to be 
confirmed by the Chapter General, and also for authority to take the Processional 
Cross, Sword of State and the Standard of the Order. Advantage was taken of these 
powers granted to the sub-Prior to call special chapters at Jerusalem, where a 
considerable number were admitted to different grades of the order. At Rhodes 
another chapter was held and the Governor of the island and two more were admitted 
as honorary members with the sanction of the Kings of England and of Italy, 
respectively. This ceremony took place in the great hall of the ancient hospital of the 
order at Rhodes. And at Malta again yet another chapter was held and the Governor, 
General Congreve, V. C., and others were invested. Everywhere they went they were 
received and honored by the authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. At Jerusalem 
representatives of three churches did them honor. The old chapel of St. John, in the 
Muristan, was placed at their disposal by the Orthodox Patriarch for the celebration of 
a special Eucharist, the building now being in the possession of the Greek Church. 
Later there was a parade service in the English Cathedral of St. George the Martyr, at 
which the Patriarch was himself present, being seated in the sanctuary to the north of 
the altar, upon which the Standard, Cross and Sword of the order were laid during the 
service. 


At the chapter held in Jerusalem, when the English Bishop, Dr. Maclnnes, and others 
were invested, the Armenian Patriarch was present in person, and the Latin Patriarch 
by proxy. 


All the various sacred places were, of course, visited, but especially those connected 
with the Crusades and the early history of the Knights of St. John. The Muristan, 
which is the ground originally held by the order, and on which stood their great 
hospital, is now partly in possession of the Greek Monastery land partly in that of the 
German Knights. This part was given to Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia by the 
Sultan in 1869, on account of his being then the head of the Bailiwick of 
Brandenburg. The German Knights have built a Lutheran Church and an Evangelical 



Hospice. The Opthalmic Hospital of the English order is not apparently built on any 
traditional site. 


From Jerusalem the Pilgrims went to Acre and from thence to Cyprus, Rhodes and 
Malta. Unfortunately it is impossible to give in detail any account of what was done 
and seen. Much that is referred to can be found in histories, but much that the casual 
visitor can never hope to see was opened to the Pilgrims. The account is illustrated by 
many exceedingly interesting photographs and we must repeat again our regret that a 
larger edition was not printed so that the information could be made more generally 
available. 


* * * 


THE GEOGRAPHICAL LORE OF THE TIME OF THE CRUSADES. By John 
Kirtland. Published by the American Geographical Society. Cloth, table of contents, 
illustrated, bibliography, index, 150 pages. 


ALTHOUGH geography seems to most (with memories in their minds of dreary lists 
of countries, states, cities, rivers and mountains to be learned by heart) to be a most 
uninteresting subject, yet it has a romance of its own, and even if this were not so, yet 
it has an importance not to be neglected as a background of general knowledge. What 
men think and know of the world they live in must have its reaction in the 
arrangement, the pattern of their ideas of the things nearer to them. A tribe living in 
an isolated archipelago of the Pacific regarded that group of islands as the whole 
world, and when the first European voyagers arrived they were supposed to have 
come from the world of the dead where the sun went every night. 


In the time of the Crusades our own ancesters had very similar ideas, their world it is 
true, consisted of continents instead of islands, but it was surrounded by Ocean and 
beyond that was the verge, the drop-off into the abyss. Still to the south was the place 
of fire, too hot for any inhabitants but salamanders. The earthly Paradise was still 
placed "Eastward in Eden" while in the gray, stormy western ocean was the 



wonderful island of Hy Brasil, where living voyagers by good luck might come, but 
whose proper inhabitants were the blessed dead. 


But though the natural hypothesis that the earth was flat, and disc-shaped, over which 
the sun rose and passed in the day time, and under which it returned to the east at 
night, had general acceptance, yet the theory that it was a sphere, first propounded it 
would seem by Pythagoras, was never entirely forgotten. Even it was believed by the 
earlier astronomers that the earth moved, though the more general theory was that it 
was the center of the universe and that various spheres bearing the planets and the 
stars revolved about it - a theory by the way quite sufficient to account for the known 
facts, and justified by results in predicting celestial events such as eclipses, 
conjunctions and so on. But the breakdown of the Roman Empire, and the intrusion of 
the barbarians of the north and west naturally lowered the general level of scientific 
knowledge. At the time of the Crusades, outside of a few cloistered students, probably 
every one took for granted the general flatness of the earth. The use of diagrammatic 
maps such as the common T-0 maps, which consisted of a circle with two straight 
lines at right angles inside it, dividing the space into three parts which were labeled 
Europe, Africa and Asia, tended naturally to confirm this naive idea. Nevertheless, 
within these limits there was much more extended practical knowledge than might be 
supposed. In spite of lack of mariners' compass and navigating instruments of any 
accuracy, hardy seamen made long voyages by rule of them and personal knowledge 
of the appearance of coasts headlands and harbors. Pilgrimages were common, and 
the journeys made were remarkable, considering that mostly they were made on foot, 
and with (as we should think) most inadequate provision. Indeed it was the 
pilgrimages to the holy places of Palestine that caused the Crusades. They were 
almost as much a part of Mediaeval Christian life as the pilgrimage to Mecca is to 
that of Islam. And the warlike incursion of the west into the Orient was as natural as 
would be the preaching of a Jihad or holy war among Mohammedans, were a 
Christian power to seize Arabia and subject pilgrims to abuse, extortio and other ill- 
treatment. The Crusaders failed eventually for two reasons. One that the Christian 
lords of Palestine came to regard it as their own private domain, and the other that the 
center of interest of the Western Church was shifting from Palestine to Rome. 


In the present work Dr. Wright has collected all the available information and 
arranged it in a most compendious form. The method employed makes it very 
convenient for reference, but rather detracts from its interest for continuous reading. 



But it is certainly a work that every student interested in the Crusades, or Mediaeval 
history, should have upon his shelves. 


* * * 


AN ESSAY ON THE KNIGHTS OF ST. JOHN OF JERU SALEM, RHODES AND 
MALTA. By Bro. John H. Chalmers Paper, 31 pages. Privately printed. 


THIS interesting account of the Order of the real Knights of Malta contains in very 
brief compass the salient features of the history of the Order with some account 
incidentally of their fellow crusaders and rivals, the Knights Templar. Bro. Chalmers 
is, or was at the time of writing, the head of Melita Preceptory No. 37, of Malta, and 
Past Provincial Registrar and Chancellor of the Mediterranean District under the 
Great Priory of England and Wales. The essay was written at the instance of his 
friend, Bro. W.H.A. Eckhardt, who is Grand Chancellor of the Sovereign Great Priory 
of Canada. For members of the Templar Order, with which the Order of Masonic 
Knights of Malta is now (from the historical point of view, rather incongruously) 
connected, it should prove a very useful and handy work of reference for the salient 
dates and facts in the history of the two Orders. It is very well written and an 
extraordinary amount of material has been compressed into very little compass. 


— o — 


THE QUESTION BOX 
and CORRESPONDENCE 


MASONIC EDUCATION IN OHIO 



I have just read the article you have on pages 46 and 47 of the February issue of THE 
BUILDER, and I am very much gratified by the kindly way in which Bro. Littlefield 
has mentioned my name. What you have undertaken to say will undoubtedly excite a 
great deal of interest, and is certainly well worth the saying. We are apt to forget, in 
the work of initiation, that "initiation" itself really means "education," and that in the 
former days when candidates were fewer much more attention was given to the 
subject of continuing the instruction of the older members. Today there is very little 
time for this sort of work. 


It is interesting to find that in the case of Ohio, my own Grand Lodge, we have a 
section, No. 82, in our Masonic Laws which reads as follows: 


When convenient, the several subordinate lodges should be supplied with libraries of 
useful and practical books; and it is enjoined upon them, as often as it is feasible, to 
introduce into their meetings lectures and essays upon Masonic polity, and the 
various arts and sciences connected therewith. 


On page 39 of the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Ohio for 1923, Grand Master 
Harry S. Johnson had the following things to say in his annual address: 


Bro. Robert I. Clegg makes this very prudent comment: "Section 82 of our Code was, 
I am confident, the result of the most careful consideration on the part of those who 
first made it prominent in our system of Masonic government. They unquestionably 
and primarily had in mind that a Masonic lodge was a school, that Masonic textbooks 
were essential to Masonic knowledge, and that essays and lectures at the lodge upon 
the Masonic system should be encouraged. 


"Nothing could be more evident than that such a salutary purpose loomed large to our 
prudent predecessors, the Fathers of the Craft. They saw plainly that there is ever the 
possibility of a single item of diet palling stale upon the palate. They saw the 
refreshing exhilaration of variety and realized that ritual alone might lead to a satiated 



taste. Hence the literary urge received from them a hearty endorsement, and they gave 
Masonic studies the active protection and vigorous promotion of their jurisprudence." 


There is a greater necessity now perhaps than at any time in our history to lay stress 
upon the need of heeding the provisions of this section. Our membership has grown 
most rapidly, having increased 90 per cent in the past ten years and 40 per cent in the 
past five. There is a woeful lack of knowledge as to the intentions and purposes of 
Masonry. If the true meaning of Masonry is instilled into the minds and hearts of 
these newly-obligated brethren, and the older members rejuvenated, the principles 
taught in Masonry will make for a higher type of manhood and the stabilizing of 
civilization, and our faith in the great future of Masonry will be firmly established. 


There is an abundance of material that can be utilized for this purpose. The annual 
address of many Grand Masters contain dissertations on Masonry founded on 
practical experience and apart from the myths and fancies of tradition. The address of 
Grand Master W. B. Hubbard, delivered Oct. 23, 1851, is commended to the Masons 
of Ohio as most applicable to present-day conditions, and will, if its excellent 
precepts are followed, protect Masonry from the insidious practices and philosophies 
of modern time. 


In the reports of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence of this Grand Lodge are 
to be found most interesting reviews of the opinions and comments of Masonic 
authorities, real treasure houses of information and many masterpieces of current 
Masonic literature. I recommend that all lodges be strongly urged to adopt an 
educational program. - G. L. Proceedings, 1923. 


Robt. I. Clegg, Illinois. 



ANCIENTS AND MODERNS IN VIRGINIA 


The Grand Lodge of England, "Modems," chartered Botetourt Lodge, No. 458, in 
Boutetourt Town, Va., on November, 1773; the Royal Exchange Lodge, No. 236, in 
the Borough of Norfolk, Va., Dec. 22, 1753; Williamsburg Lodge, No. 457, 
Williamsburg, Va. (where the Grand Lodge of Virginia was formed in 1778), Nov. 6, 
1773; York Town Lodge, No. 205, at Swan Tavern, York Town, Va., Aug. 1, 1775, 
and others. These lodges were given different numbers from time to time, for 
instance, Botetourt was numbered 365 in 1780, etc.; the Royal Exchange was 
numbered 173 in 1775, and several other numbers at later dates, and the other lodges 
above were numbered differently in succeeding years. What was the idea of changing 
their numbers so frequently? All of these lodges were erased from the English 
Register in 1813, the date of the formation of the United Grand Lodge of England, 
what is the significance attached to this? 


Was it in 1738 or 1743 that the dissension arose in the Grand Lodge of England 
which resulted in the organization of the "Ancients" and the "Moderns"? 


I notice that all of the lodges in Virginia were chartered by the "Modem" Grand 
Lodge of England, with possibly one exception. The exception was chartered by the 
Ancients as "Antient York Masons"; I think this was along about 1761. Did the 
"Antients" issue all their charters as "Antient York Masons" ? 


I have before me an original copy of the by-laws "of Morgantown Union Lodge, No. 
93, of Ancient York Masons, constituted by the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of 
Virginia, and held in Morgantown, Monongalia County, Va." This lodge is the one to 
which I belong and is now numbered 4, Morgantown, West Virginia. Where does that 
"Ancient York Masons" come from? We are not now known as "Ancient York 
Masons." Why "York" in the first place and why changed? 


C. W. C„ West Virginia. 



The changes in the numbering of old lodges is a complication very vexatious to the 
historian. From the very first the senior Grand Lodge (called "Modem") occasionally 
rearranged the numbers of its constituent bodies when too many gaps appeared on its 
rolls, due to erasures of lodges that had ceased to exist or had had their warrants 
revoked or else had transferred their allegiance to another jurisdiction, as in the case 
of the American lodges after the Revolution. 


The "Antients" followed the plan adopted by the Grand Lodges of Ireland, which was 
to assign the numbers of defunct lodges to new ones, so that the numerical order came 
to have no relation whatever to the age of the particular lodge. Often enough too a 
lodge with a high number, on learning that a lower one was vacant, would return their 
charter and petition for the older one, paying the registration and other fees in order to 
gain higher precedence. At the time of the union of the two Grand Lodges in England, 
there were two sets of numbers to be amalgamated, and a compromise solution of the 
problem was adopted. The two organizations cast lots as to which should take number 
one, and this fell to the Ancients. Thus the senior lodge on the roll of the Moderns, 
Antiquity, now carries the number two. Number two of the Ancients became three 
and number two of the Modems, four, and so on. At the same time all the gaps in 
both rolls were closed up, and the last of the lodges chartered in America erased; not 
from any hostility but simply because they had formed their own governing bodies. In 
this connection we gather that at the present time there are a large number of vacant 
numbers in the roll of the United Grand Lodge of England, and a writer in a recent 
issue of the scholarly English periodical "The Record" strongly advocated another 
renumbering, the last time this was done being more than sixty years ago apparently. 


In regard to the origin of the "Antienf ' Grand Lodge the statements of older 
authorities must be taken with great caution. The late Bros. Sadler and Chetwode- 
Crawley, by their researches, put the matter in an entirely new light. There was 
dissatisfaction and even dissension in the senior Grand Lodge as early as 1738 and 
even before, and though the matter is very obscure, many lodges and individuals for 
this or other reasons dropped out of the organization. The earliest records of the 
"Antients" however being July, 1751, though some kind of loose confederation of 
independent lodges seems to have been in existence for some time previously, two or 
three years possibly. Some of the members of these lodges, at least, were Irish 
Masons, others were '"St. John's men," which seems to have meant Masons made in 



lodges that had persisted in independence. A few were converts (or secessionists) 
from the Modems, but these were a negligible minority. The organization was thus in 
no proper sense of the word a schism from the senior Grand Lodge, though the two 
bodies were hostile in their attitude towards each other from the beginning. 


In the earliest records of the "Antients" they speak of their system as Ancient and 
Most Ancient, and it was not for some years that they added "York" to their style. 

Bro. Sadler was of the opinion that this was an after-thought; and one might guess it 
was due to the influence of a copy of the Old Charges that Laurence Dermott got hold 
of, and read and expounded to his Grand Lodge in 1752. In any case the purpose of 
the addition was to emphasize their claim to continuity with the Masonry of the Craft 
Assembly at York under Prince Edwin with which the old legend of the Craft 
concludes. The "Antients" claimed that they retained the original customs and usages 
of the Craft which the "Moderns" had (so they alleged) changed both by omissions, 
transpositions and innovations. The Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland, by their 
action in recognizing the Antients and ignoring the Moderns, seem to have been of 
the opinion that this claim was just. It is, however, still somewhat uncertain what 
innovations, if any, the senior body had made. 


Why the term "York" has been dropped in the case of Union Lodge, No. 4, is a 
question of the history of Masonry in Virginia. It would seem plausible to suppose 
that it was done for the sake of conformity with the majority. In other jurisdictions in 
this country, where the "Antient" heritage predominated, the reverse was the case. 


The best work to refer to on this matter is Bro. Daynes' new book, The Birth and 
Growth of the Grand Lodge of England. If you can obtain Masonic Facts and Fictions 
and Masonic Reprints and Revelations, by Henry Sadler, they will be of great 
assistance. Unfortunately both are out of print and very scarce. 


* * * 


RULES GOVERNING MASONIC FUNERALS 



Is there any law regarding Masonic funerals, held jointly with other organizations, if 
so where can it be found? 


I have always been under the impression that where civic and other orders were to 
take part at a funeral of a Mason that the Masonic Order reserved the right to come 
last in the funeral procession and to perform their ceremony last. 


However, I notice that this rule is not being observed in this part of the country of late 
years. 


Any light that you can give me on this subject will be highly appreciated. 


W. E. Carruth, Oklahoma. 


There is nothing that can properly be called a law in the sense of actual written 
enactment; but a series of Grand Masters' decisions could be collected on the point 
that you raise. And such decisions very frequently have something of the force of law. 


There is no doubt that it is a general rule, and in some jurisdictions an absolute rule, 
that a Masonic lodge shall not take part in the funeral of a Mason unless they have the 
chief part in the ceremonies, and this implies that their place in the procession is the 
last. 


The thing for a lodge to do when it is found that other arrangements are being made is 
simply to refuse to take any part in the proceedings as a body, unless matters are 
brought into conformity with our traditions. 



BACK NUMBERS WANTED BY NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY 


Some time ago we wrote to you in regard to securing for our file the issues which are 
noted below of THE BUILDER, and you replied saying that it would not be possible 
for you to send us copies, as they were no longer available. 


We do not wish to annoy you, but as it is our intention to preserve the file 
permanently, we feel that no effort should be spared to complete it. Do you thi nk that 
an appeal through the columns of THE BUILDER to your readers might be 
successful in bringing us these numbers? Many people who subscribe for magazines 
and papers save their copies until for lack of space, or for other reasons, they are glad 
to dispose of them, particularly if they can find a depository where they will be useful 
and appreciated. As a result of this habit of saving publication, many old files come to 
the Library as gifts, both solicited and unsolicited, and it is seldom that publishers 
make an appeal for us to their readers without satisfactory results. Anything further 
you may do towards supplying us with the missing issues of THE BUILDER Will, I 
assure you, be highly appreciated. 


E. H. Anderson, Director. 


The Library needs the following: THE BUILDER, Vols. 4 to 6, all issues (1918- 
1920). Vol. 7, Nos. 1, 3 to 12 (January, March to December, 1921). Vol. 8, No. 2 
(January, 1922). Also the American Freemason, Vol. 1, No. 1 to Vol. 8, No. 7, 
inclusive (all issues before June, 1917), and the National Trestleboard, Vol. 1, No. 1, 
to Vol. 34, No. 6 (all issues before January, 1921). 



THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA 


In my article in the September, 1926, number of THE BUILDER on the Rite of Strict 
Observance, I mentioned the Roman Catholic branch of the Knights of Malta. This 
seems to have surprised some of your readers and probably is not understood by most 
Masons. As the Pope has recently established a branch of the Knights of St. John in 
the United States, a little information about the present-day order may be welcomed. 


When Napoleon, in 1793, destroyed the Knights as a sovereign power, they tried to 
continue on under Paul, Emperor of Russia. But in this they were unsuccessful and 
the parent body finally settled in Rome under the protection of the Pope. The Pope 
appointed a Lieutenant-Commander for them, but in 1879 revived the office of Grand 
Master. The present Grand Master is Count Gian Galeazzo de Hohenstein. In 
December of last year a United States group of the Knights was formed by the 
making of ten Knights of Malta with full power to create other Knights. Six live in 
New York City: Marquis Nicholas Brady, President New York Edison Co.; John D. 
Ryan, Chairman Anaconda Copper Co.; P. E. Crowley, President N. Y. Central R. R.; 
M. J. O'Brien, Lawyer; J. A. Farrell, President U. S. Steel Corporation; J. A. Fayne, 
investments. Two live in Chicago: Edward F. Carry, President Pullman Co., and 
Edward N. Hurley, manufacturer. Of the other two, Col. J. J. Phelan, a banker, lives 
in Boston, and John J. Raskob, Vice-President Du Pont Powder Co. and Vice- 
President General Motors, lives at Claymont, Del. It is reported that ex-Senator James 
D. Phelan, of San Francisco, who donated $1,000,000 to the earthquake relief, 
Thomas F. Ryan, mining and street railways, and Charles A. Whelan, President 
United Cigar Stores, all millionaires, together with other prominent political, social 
and financial leaders of the United States, are also to be elected to the Order of the 
Knights of Malta. 


That those only considered equal to the nobility of Europe will be made Knights is 
certain, because there only those who are of the nobility are eligible Knights and then 



only if they have the requisite number of quarterings. This excludes there even the 
new nobility. 


There are four living branches of the Knights of Malta: one in England, of which the 
King is Grand Master and the Prince of Wales is Grand Prior; one in Germany, of 
which the late Crown Prince is acting Grand Master; one in Austria, now somewhat 
dormant but very active during the great way, and one in Italy. The one in Rome is 
the continuation of the parent stem and the others are branches of it. 


The Knights of Malta form one of the oldest, proudest and most distinguished 
knightly orders in the world. None but those of long and high descent are ever made 
Knights. It is by far the greatest of Roman Catholic organizations. Only Roman 
Catholics can join that branch whose head is at Rome or Vienna; only Protestants can 
join the one at Berlin, but both Protestants and Catholics can join the one at London. 


The branch from the Roman Catholic stem that has just been organized in the United 
States with the election of ten millionaires will further the common purpose, which is 
to aid charities at Rome. 


Burton E. Bennett