Special thanks to George Helmer FPS

MASONRY, JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 

THE MASONIC REVIEW - 1854

Part 1 of 2

[Report to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts]

The committee to whom was referred the petition of Jacob
Norton and others, professing the Jewish religion, praying
this Grand Lodge to cause such changes to be made in the
masonic usages and ritual, as will conform the work of the
Order to what they regard as ancient usage, beg leave to
present the following Report: -

The committee invited Bro. Norton to meet them and
express his views on this subject, which he did very fully,
candidly and ably. After due and careful consideration, your
committee unanimously recommend that the petitioners
have leave to withdraw. The committee make this
recommendation for reasons which they will endeavor to
state, as briefly as a respectful consideration of the subject
will admit of.

Your committee would observe in the first place, that the
petitioners desire that all reference to the fact or the
doctrines of the Christian religion, in the work or in the
lectures of Freemasonry, should be expunged. The
petitioners say in their petition, that "Masonry was intended
to unite men of every country, sect and opinion." This is not
so. All reasoning, therefore; upon such premises, is
erroneous. This society was not designed to" unite men of
every opinion." For example:- If a man believe that there is a
GOD, and yet holds, that He is not the object of divine
worship; is not a being to whom prayers are to be
addressed; that the Bible is not his inspired word; that an
oath is not binding; that there is no such thing as a moral
obligation to lead a pure life; he is not a person whom
Freemasonry would unite with her Institution; and why not?
We answer, because his opinions do not agree with her
principles.

The basis of this Fraternity is indeed broad, very broad, but
not so broad as "to unite all men of all opinions."

Freemasonry opens her doors to men of every country and
of every sect in religion:- to Jews and to Gentiles. She does
not close her portals against any man for his religion. In this
she is tolerant, in the fullest degree. The Jews in this country
are allowed to enter our Institution and enjoy all its
privileges, of whatever name or nature. No restrictions,
whatever, are placed upon them, because, of that religion,
which has drawn upon them the most terrible persecutions,
in almost every land but our own. In this Fraternity they are
admitted to an equality with all others, and no distinction
whatever is allowed to their prejudice. However the Jew may
be looked upon and treated in the world, in a Masonic
Lodge, he is recognized and treated as a brother.

In this sense our Institution is not exclusive, and embraces
men of all religions without invidious or prejudicial
distinctions. When the Lodge has done this, she has done all
that her professions require her to do. If we did not do thus,
our Jewish brethren would have good cause of complaint.

The petitioners do not pretend that they are oppressed in
this respect; that they are not admitted freely and fully to an
equal enjoyment of all the privileges and benefits of the
Institution. But they wish to have the ritual and usages of
Freemasonry, as it exists in this State, and as it has existed
here since its introduction into this country, so changed that
its ceremonial shall be perfectly agreeable to their religious
views.

It appears to your committee, that any alteration for such a
reason, would be to make Freemasonry do the very thing
which the petitioners say it should not do, viz. make the
society sectarian. For if a Jew have the right to require the
work of the Lodge to square with his peculiar views, so may
a Romanist or a Protestant make the same demand. A
Quaker may object to any obligation; the Deist may object to
all prayers; the Swedenborgian to all reference to the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body; the Papist to the use
of an English version of the Bible; the Mormon to the use of
any Bible at all. The Socialist may object to the rule of
obedience and the practice of preferment, and to all
distinctions whatever. When Freemasonry professes to
receive into her pale men of every religious sect, excluding
none on account of their religion, she does not mean to
stultify herself by pretending that all her lectures and
ceremonies are so constructed as to please every individual,
by exactly according with every shade of his religious views.
Such a pretension would be sheer folly, since no Institution
can do this, and no honest society would pretend to do it.

What this Institution does profess to do is, to exclude no man
from her pale because of his religion; to make no invidious
distinctions between men of different religious sentiments. If
she compelled a Jew to offer up a prayer, in the name of the
LORD JESUS CHRIST, or compelled a Christian to pray
differently from the mode of his faith, then there would be
oppression. If a Jew prays at all, she leaves him to pray as
he thinks most proper; and the liberty she allows to a Jew
she allows to a Christian. To permit a Jew to pray as he
pleases, and to compel a Christian to pray as a Jew does,
and only as the Jew does, would be wrong and oppressive.
An Israelite believes that he should pray to the Most High
alone; the Christian believes, as sincerely, that he should
offer up his prayers in the name of the LORD JESUS
CHRIST, and he cannot conscientiously pray in any other
way. The Jewish brother says, I cannot be compelled to pray
in a way which is contrary to my conscientious belief. Very
well; - in this Institution, nobody requires him to do so. But he
is not satisfied with this degree of liberty. He demands that
the Christian shall pray as he does, or else not pray at all.
The Christian replies, that it is as much against his
conscience to neglect to pray, in the name of Christ, as it is
against the conscience of the Jew to pray in His name.

If the Grand Lodge should pass an edict, requiring all
prayers to be in Jewish form, and in no other, then it would
be guilty of violating the assurance which the candidate
receives at his initiation. It would be making a distinction that
would be oppressive. The true and just course is the one,
which this Grand Lodge has ever pursued, and that is, to
leave this matter entirely without legislation. The Jew and the
Christian, of whatever creed, is allowed to offer prayer in the
form which he deems the most acceptable to the Most High.
No one can be, in this matter, aggrieved, who is neither
required to pray in a particular form, nor required to pray at
all, unless he is disposed to do so. Any absolute prescription
of a form, on the other hand, by the Grand Lodge, would be
an infraction of the principles of the Order.

A compliance therefore on the part of this Grand Lodge, with
the request of the petitioners, to instruct the Lodges under its
jurisdiction to permit only such prayers as will not conflict
with any person's religious opinions, "provided he has Faith
in GOD, Hope in immortality, and Charity with all men," -
would be to make Freemasonry proscriptive and sectarian,
which is the very thing against which our Hebrew brethren
profess to petition.

Furthermore, if this petition were to be granted, and the
changes made which are to be desired, where is this change
to stop? Can we have only Jewish prayers, and yet have a
Christian Bible upon our altar? Will not consistency require,
that we should have no longer the light of Masonry, as it has
shone ever since its benign ray struck upon this continent,
but only one part of it, viz., the old testament, and that in the
Hebrew tongue?

Again, if this request be complied with, how can we refuse to
receive and grant the petitions of others, who are neither
Jews nor Christians, who believe in GOD, but who do not
believe in the immortality of the soul? Must we not change
our lectures and charges? Must we not fling away the sprig
of acacia? Can we keep that precious emblem of
immortality, when it becomes offensive to the religious
notions of one who believes in God, but does not believe in
the immortality of the soul?

Where, we ask, is this thing to end? If we should commence
the work of change, that we might adapt our Order to the
conflicting opinions of all who may enter its pale, it requires
no great sagacity to see, that the result would be a complete
annihilation of this Institution?

Thus far, we have considered simply the expediency of
making some of the changes asked for by the petitioners.
We come now to the question, whether this Grand Lodge
has the power or the right to make these proposed
alterations? On this point your committee cannot hesitate, for
a single moment, to answer this question, most decidedly in
the negative.

We have received Freemasonry with its landmarks, with all
its landmarks, from England. Among these is the "dedication
to the holy Saints John." We have so received it, and we
have so imparted it. Our Jewish brethren request us to
change this dedication, and to make such other alterations
"as are consistent with their religious belief."

This Grand Lodge can do many things, but there are some
things which it cannot do, and to remove an "ancient land
mark" is one of the things that it cannot do. If it should pass a
vote changing the "dedication," it would not only transcend
its legitimate authority, but it would do an act, which the
obligations of the subordinate Lodges would compel them to
entirely discard. What they as Lodges and as individuals
have received, they must impart, and that too in the way in
which they have received it, and in no other way. Without
further discussion, we might rest the case here, as clearly
made out on the ground that the Grand Lodge have no
authority, whatever, to grant the request of the petitioners,
and if they should do so, it would avail nothing, since the
obligations of the members of the subordinate Lodges would
impel them to resist any such ordinance of the Grand Lodge.

But for the satisfaction of our Jewish brethren, whose
petition is couched in the most respectful terms, we are
willing to go a step behind this position, and briefly refer to
the historical aspect of this question.

In reply to what we have already said, our brethren might
inquire, if we should deem it our duty to adhere to our
practice, if it could be shown that we had not received the
correct work and lectures? In answer, we have only to say,
that we know no other Masonry than that which we have
received. And we have no reason to believe that what we
received, was any other than the true. So far as the subjects
of the petition before us are particularly involved, we believe
that :the history of Masonry will clearly prove that our
practice is strictly correct. The petitioners refer to the fact,
that since 1813, when the Grand Lodges of Ancient York
and England coalesced under the title of the "United Grand
Lodge of England," the same practice which they petition for,
was adopted. With the present practice of the Grand Lodge
of England; we have nothing to do. The question which
mainly concerns us on this point is, what was the practice of
those Grand Lodges from which we received Masonry, at the
time that we received it.

In 1733, R.W. Henry Price, of this city, received from
England, the first Charter ever received for any Lodge
whatever, on this continent. This Charter conferred Grand
Lodge powers. In the year 1752, St. Andrew's Lodge
received from Scotland a Charter, which resulted in the
establishment of another Grand Lodge, and so there were
here two rival Grand Lodges. In the year 1792, they united
and formed what is now our Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.
These facts take us at once to England before 1733, and to
Scotland before 1752. The practice which obtained at these
periods, in those Grand Lodges, was the practice which we
received, and which of course should constitute the
"Landmarks" at this day. What were these landmarks
touching the points referred to by the petitioners? In
answering this question we are very much indebted to the
Rev. Dr. Oliver of England, from whose work entitled "A
Mirror for the Johannite Masons," we have made liberal
extracts.

Dr. Anderson writes, under date 1679, (?) that many of the
fraternity's records of this and former reigns were burnt in the
next and at the revolution: and many of them were too
hastily burned in his own time, for a fear of making
discoveries; so that there is not so ample an account as
could be wished of the Grand Lodge. When in 1720, Dr.
Anderson compiled a book of constitutions, by order of the
Grand Lodge, he adds, "the Freemasons had always a book
in manuscript, called the book of Constitutions, containing
not only their charges and regulations, but the history of
architecture, but they had no book of constitutions in print
until his Grace the present Duke of Montague, when Grand
Master, ordered me to peruse the old manuscripts, and
digest the constitutions with a just chronology."

Dr. Anderson, together with others who were constituted his
associates, drew up a series of Lectures for the use of the
Lodges. These were widely disseminated, and constituted
an authentic digest of the pure and legitimate doctrines of
Masonry. These lectures formed the basis of all succeeding
ones; and, says Dr. Oliver, throughout the whole series, the
Saints John are named as the patrons of the Order. They
accompanied all the warrants which were sent to foreign
parts; and we accordingly find that at that early period, in
every country of Europe, where Masonry was planted under
the authority of the Grand Lodge of England, the Lodges
were called by the came of St. John.

When Masonry was revived in 1717, and these lectures
were authorized by the Grand Lodge of England, we have no
reason to doubt that the landmarks were then pure and
unchanged; as an illustration of what was then held touching
the subject under consideration, we quote the following
question, which occurs in their lectures:-

| top | back |