Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/831

 MA80IIBY

775

MA80M&Y

of England, only in 1815 and that the same text says: " A Biason therdore \a particularly bound never to act against the dictates ot his conscience'', whereby the Grand Lddge of England seems to acknowledge that liberty of conscience is the sovereign principle of Free- masonry prevailing over all others when in conflict with them. The same supremacy of the liberty of conscience is implied also in the unsectarian character, which Anglo-American Masons recoj^ize as the inner- most essence of Masonry. * ' Two prmciples ", said the German Emperor Frederick III, in a solenm address to Masons at Strasburg on 12 September, 1886, "char- acterize above all our piuposes, viz., liberty of con- science and tolerance; and the Handbuch" (3rd ed., II, 200) justly observes that hberty of conscience ana tolerance were thereby proclaimed the foundation of Masonry by the highest Masonic authority in Ger- many.

Thus the Grand Orient of France is right from the Masonic point of viewas tothe substance of thequestion; but it ha& deviated from tradition by discardmg sym- bols and symbolical formulae, which, if rightly under- stood, in no way imply dogmatic assertions and which cannot be rejected without injuring the work of Ma- sonry, since this has need of ambiguous religious for- mulae adaptable to every sort of belief and every phase of moral development. From this point of view the symbol of the Grand Architect of the Uni- verse and of the Bible are indeed of the utmost im- portance for Masonry. Hence, several Grand Lodges which at first were supposed to imitate the radicalism of the French, eventually retained these symbols. A representative of the Grand Lodge of France writes in this sense to Findel: " We entirel}r agree with you in considering all dogmas, either positive or negative, as radically contradictory to Masonry, the teaching of which must only be propagated by symbols. And the symbols may and must be explamed by each one ac- cording to his own imderstanding; thereby they serve to maintain concord. Hence our G. L. facultatively retains the Symbol of the Gr. Arch, of the Univerae, because every one can conceive it in conformity with his personal convictions, [Lodges are allowed to re- tain the s^nnbols, but there is no obligation at all of doing so, and many do not.] To excommunicate each other on account of metaphysical questions, appears to us the most unworthy thing Masons can do " (bign., 1905, 27). The official organ of Italian Masonry even emphasizes: "The formula of the Grand Architect, which is^ reproached to Masonry as ambiguous ana absurd, is the most large-minded and righteous affir- mation of the immense princile of existence and ma}r represent as well the (revolutionary) God of Mazzini as the Satan of Giosue Carducci (in his celebrated hymn to Satan); God, as the fountain of love, not of hatred. Satan, as the genius of the good, not of the bad" (Rivista, 1909,44). In both interpretations it is in reality the principle of Revolution that is adored by Italian Masonry.

rV. Propagation and Evolution of Masonky. — The members of the Grand Lodge formed in 1717 by the union of four old lodges, were till 1721 few in number and inferior in quality. The entrance of sev- eral members of the Royal Societv and of the nobility changed the situation. Since 17^1 it has spread over Europe (Gould, "History", II, 284 sq.). This rapid propagation was diiefly due to the spirit of the age which, tiring of religious quarrels, restive under eccle- siastical authority and discontented with existing social conditions, turned for enlightenment and relief to the ancient mysteries and sought, by umting men of kindred tendencies, to reconstruct society on a purely human basis. In this situation Freemasonry with its vagueness and elasticity, seemed to many an excellent remedy. To meet the needs of different countries and classes of society, the original system (17X7-23) underwent more or less profound modifica-

tions. In 1717, contrary to Gould (Condse History^ 309), only one simple ceremony of admission or one degree seems to have been in use (A. Q. C., X, 127 sqq.; XI, 47 soa.; XVI, 27 sqq.): in 1723 two appear as recognized by the Grand Lodge of England: '^Entered Apprentice" and "Fellow Craft or Master". The tm^ degree eryrstem, first practised about 1725, became universal and official only after 1730 ([Gould^ "Cone. Hist., 272; 310-17). The symbols and ritualistic forms, as they were practised from 1717 till the introduction of further degrees after 1738, together with the " Old Charges" of 1723 or 1738, are considered as the orig- inal pure Freemasonry. A fourth, the " Royal Arch " degree (ibid., 280) in use at least since 1740, is first mentioned in 1743. and though extraneous to the system of pure ana ancient Masonry (ibid., 318) is most characteristic of the later Anglo^axon Masonry. In 1751 a rival Grand Lodge of En^nd " according to the Old Institutions" was established, and through the activity of its Grand Secretary, Lawrence Der- mott, soon surpassed the Grand Lodge of 1717. The members of this Grand Lodge are known by the desig- nation of "Ancient Masons". They are also call^ "York Masons" with reference, not to the ephemeral Grand Lodge of all England in York, mentioned in 1726 and revived in 1761, but to the pretended first Grand Lodge of England assembled in 926 at York THandbuch, 3rd ed., I, 24 sqq.; II, 559 sqq.). They nnally obtained control, the United Grand Lodge of England adopting in 1813 their ritualistic forms. In its religious spirit Anglo-Saxon Masonrv after

1730 undoubtedlv retrograded towards biblical Chris- tian orthodoxy (Chr., 1906, II, 19 so.; 1884, II, 306).

the rituals and by the popularity of the works of Hutchinson, Preston^ and Oliver with Anglo-American Masons. It is principally due to the conservatism of English-speaking society in religious matters, to the influence of ecclesiastical members and to the insti- tution of "lodge chaplains" mentioned in English records since 1733 (A. Q. C, XI, 43). The reform brought by the articles of union between the two Grand Ixxiges of England (1 December, 1813) con- sisted above all in the restoration of the unsectarian character, in accordance with which all allusions to a particular (Christian) religion must be omitted in lodge proceedings. It was further decreed " there shall be the most perfect unity of obligation of discipline, or working . . . according to the genuine landmarks, laws and traditions . . . throughout the masonic world, from the day and date of the said union (1 December, 1813) until time shall be no more" (Pres- ton, ''Illustrations", 296 seq.). In taking this ac- tion the United Grand Lodge overrated its authority. Its decree was complied with, to a certain extent, m the United States, where Masonry, first introduced about 1730, followed in general the stages of Masonic evolution in the mother country.
 * This movement is attested by the Cnnstianization of

The title of Mother-Grand Lodge of the United States was the object of a long and ardent contro- versy between the Grand Lodges of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The prevailing opinion at present is, that from time immemorial, i.e., prior to Grand Lodge warrants (Chr., 1887, 11^ 313), there existed in Philadelphia a regular lodge with records dating from

1731 (Drummond, ''Chr.", 1884, II, 227; 1887, 1, 163; II, 178; Gould, "Concise History^', 413). In 1734 Benjamin Franklin published an edition of the En- glish " Book of Constitutions ". The principal agents of the modern Grand Lodge of England in the United States were Coxe and Price. Several lodges were chartered by the Grand Lodge of Scotland. After 1758, especially during the War of Independence, 1773-83, most of the lodges passed over to the "An- cients". The union of the two systems in England (1813) was followed by a similar union in America. The actual form of the American rite since then prao-