Orthodox American Scotch R Iters And The Grand Orient Of France.

ORTHODOX AMERICAN SCOTCH RITERS AND THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE .

BY BROTHER JACOB NORTON .

IN a former paper I have shown thafc the hostility to the Grand Orient of France by American Grand Lodges originated first , because the Grand Orient

acknowledged the American negro Masons , and second , because it acknowledged Foulhouse of Louisiana as Sovereign of the Scotch Ritere . As the hatred for negroes is dying out , and Foulhouse has disappeared , the Scotch Biters are now

trying to make capital out of the alleged atheism of the Grand Orient of France . Briefly then , Bro . Gorgas ( not the old Gourgas of 1813 ) of Baltimore ( and others ) deserted or rebelled against Sovereign Albert Pike , of the Southern

Jurisdiction , and enrolled himself under fche banner of Bro . Peckham , the Seymourite Cerneauite Sovereign of all American Scotch Riters ; thafc is , of all who acknowledged his sway . Subsequently , the said Bro . Gorgas somehow

succeeded Bro . Peckham in that high office . About eighteen months ago the new Seymourite Sovereign visited Paris , and was there acknowledged in his dignity by a Scotch Rite concern which is subject to the Grand Orient of France . About five weeks ago the whole American Continent was startled with the news thafc , owing to tbe alleged atheism of the Grand Orient of France ,

Bro . Peckham was all at once conscience smitten against the sin committed by his successor in visiting in Paris the Grand Orient Scotch Rite concerns , and for receiving acknowledgment from the Grand Orient . It is rather

curious thafc it took Bro . Peckham eighteen months before he discovered the palpable sin committed by Bro . Gorgas . However , Bro . Peckham frankly acknowledged his error , bufc instead of receiving sympathy , he is attacked by all

parties , with sneers , sarcasms , & c . Tho Toronto Freemason published a number of those squibs ; thus , Bro . Millar , a Northern Jurisdiction Scotch Riter , says thafc the whole

affair of Seymourism was a money-making scheme , and that Bro . Barker , the leading spirit of the other Cerneauite faction , who was formerly a Seymourite , was now getting all the money , and therefore Peckham got tired of it . Bro . McOlanachan says :

" Seymonr would confer the degrees for httlo or nothing , and being a jeweller and regalia manufacturer , made money by selling bis regalia . Mr . Peckham kept up the work as longas ifc was worth while . "

Messrs . Gassefcte and Barnard also ridicule Peckham ' s resignation . The former says , " Peckham belongs to thc body which is nofc Masonic , and never has been , " and

Barnard says , thafc " ho ( Peckham ) has been simply a peddler of degrees until he sold out his interest to Gorgas of Baltimore , neither of the two are in good standing among Masons . "

Bro . John G . Barkirs , of the other Cerneauite faction , feels also joyful at the confusion occasioned by the desertion of Bro . Peckham from his rival Cerneauite concern .

Bufc my attention was especially directed to fche following remarks by Bro . Ehlers , Grand Secretary of New York , who said fco a newspaper reporter as follows : — " Mr . Peckham was wise in his day and generation . He has taken

time by the forelock . There are bnfc two things for fche members of the Cerueauan Rite to do ; either to ignore Gorgas , or to bo subject to a Masonio trial in a Blue Lodge . There can be no doubt of the power of the Blue Lodges to act in the matter . The law reads that no

person shall be recognised as a Freemason who doubts or ignores the existence of a Supreme Being . Certainly the recognition by Gorgas of the Grand Orient of France , where no snch a belief is required , is in direct violation of the law . "

Bro . Ehlers , who is doubtless a very able Grand Secre - tary , has , however , overshot his mark when advising about law . The question is , has not a Grand Lodge a right to alter the ritual or laws ? " No ! " exclaim the dogmatic

jurisprudence mongers , for Anderson said , " Provided the whole landmarks are carefully preserved . " Very well let us now see what Anderson said . In the firsfc place Anderson restricted the privileges of Masonry to men of

sound limb and to free lorn . But the Grand Lodge of England always discarded the sound limb condition , and for free born ifc substituted "free man . " Now , Mr . Jurisprudence monger , I want you to explain why the Grand Lodge of England may discard Anderson ' s laws , ancl why

the Grand Orient of France may not ? And now about religion . Anderson says : " A Mnson is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral law ; and if he rightly understands the art , he will never be a stupid atheist nor an

Orthodox American Scotch R Iters And The Grand Orient Of France.

irreligious libertine . But though in r . ncienfc times Masons were charged in every country to be of the religion of that country or nation [ or ia other words , " to be true to the Church , " ] yet it is now thought more expedient to oblige them to that religion in which all men agree , leaving their particular opinions [ in which they disagree ] to

themselves . That is , to be good men and true , or men of hononr and honesty , by whatever denomination or persuasion they may be distinguished . Whereby Masonry becomes the centre of union and tho means of conciliating trne and sincere friendship among persons who must have remained at a perpetual distance . "

In the above paragraph there is no hint about believing in the Bible , in a future state , in resurrection , in salvation , nor in any other dogma about which good and true men disagree , and have always disagreed . Now the word

" landmark means that the mark should not be moved to one side of the line or to the other , or , in other words , you must ; neither diminish nor increase the line of demarcation , and you must neither add to it nor take anything from it . Such being the case , you had no right to impose belief in

tho inspiration of any sacred book or books on Masons , and sundry other dogmas besides ; and if you , Jurisprudence mongers , allow tho Anderaonian landmark to be removed on one side , why may nofc the Grand Orient of France bo

allowed to shift tho landmark on the other side ? Bnfc that is nofc all . The main object of the founders of our modern Masonry was for " conciliating true friendship among persons that must have remained afc a

perpetual distance , or , in other words , to unite " good and true men—men of honour and honesty by tvhatever denomination or persuasion they may be distinguished , " and theso are Anderson ' s own words . Now , ifc is well

known that tho Grand Lodge of Sweden , as well as a Grand Lodge in Berlin , exclude all from Masonry who do not believe in Christianity , and why do you , Jurisprudence mongers , allow Masons to visit Swedish and Berlin

Lodges—where tho main object of the founders of onr Masonry is discarded—while , at the same time , you prohibit Masons to visit French Lodges where the main object of the founders of our Masonry was merely extended ?

But , that is not all . Under the Grand Orient of Franco the candidate for Masonry is not questioned about his belief in God , but is that any reason for supposing thafc French Masons must necessarily be atheists ? Surely I

belong to several societies iu Boston , where no one is questioned about belief in God , yet I never heard thafc a member of tho said societies was ever suspected of being an atheist , and I venture to say that thore are no more

atheists in tho French Lodges under the Grand Orient than wo have in the above-named Boston societies . Bufc supposing even that the whole Grand Orient aro atheists , surely no one ever charged those atheists with

disobeying Bro . Anderson ' s injunction of keeping those opinions to themselves while in the Lodge . But how is it in our godly American Lodges ? Hore tho Worshipful Master does indeed make the same promises to candidates of all

persuasions aboutenjoymgall the Masonic privileges without violating his or their duty to God , & c . ; and this promise is given " on the word and honour of a gentleman and Mason . '" Bufc a Jewish Mason knows thafc the said pious American

Worshipful Masters are neither men of honour nor gentlemen ; because a man of honour and a gentleman never makes a promise which he does not intend to keep , but tho American pious W . Masters make promises which they

never mean to keep . Now , if a tree may be judged by its fruit , then the French atheists certainly act whilo they meet in Masonic Lodges more in accordance with the ideas of men of honour , gentlemen , and Masons than our pious Christian Masons do in American Lodges .

Assuming , however , that a Blue Lod ge may expel a member for having been inside of a Lodge chartered by tho Graud Orient of France , is thafc any reason for the Blue Lodge having a right to expel a member because ho

visited , in Paris , a Scotch Bite concern which belongs to the said Grand Orient ? Surely a Blue Lodgo has no more connection with Scotch Rite than it has with Mystic Shinery , and with fifty other Tom-fooleries thafc certain

classes of Masons indulge in . Suppose , now , I choose to visit a French Mystic Shrinery ; or suppose I choose to havo my life insured in a French Masonic Life Insurance Society , I ask , in the name of common sense , what right

my Lodge has fco expel me for it , or trouble itself about it at all ? Briefly , then , it is my firm belief thafc a Mason has a right to belong to any Society ( providing it is nofc

immoral ) he pleases , whether French Masons belong to ifc or not , and that a Mason has a right to buy his hat , clothe ?* , shoes , & c , of an atheist if ho pleases , and he has