PART II

_THE PRESENT_

11

MODERN FREEMASONRY

In the foregoing portion of this book we have followed the history of

Freemasonry in the past and the various interpretations that have been

placed on its rites and ceremonies. The question now arises: what is the

role of Freemasonry to-day?

The fundamental error of most writers on this question, whether Masonic

or anti-Masonic, is to represent all Freemasons as holding a common

belief and animated by a common purpose. Thus on one hand the panegyrics

by Freemasons on their Order as a whole, and on the other hand the

sweeping condemnations of the Order by the Catholic Church, are equally

at fault.

The truth is that Freemasonry in a generic sense is simply a system of

binding men together for any given purpose, since it is obvious that

allegories and symbols, like the _x_ and _y_ of algebra, can be

interpreted in a hundred different manners. Two pillars may be said to

represent strength and stability, or man and woman, or light and

darkness, or any other two things we please. A triangle may signify the

Trinity, or Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, or any other triad. To

say that any of these symbols have an absolute meaning is absurd.

The allegories of Freemasonry are equally capable of various

interpretations. The building of the Temple of Solomon may signify the

progress of any undertaking and Hiram the victim of its opponents. So

also with regard to the "secret tradition" of Freemasonry concerning "a

loss which has befallen humanity"[658] and its ultimate recovery. Any

body of people working for an object may be said to have experienced a

loss and to aim at its recovery.

In the same way the whole organization of Freemasonry, the plan of

admitting candidates to successive degrees of initiation, of binding

them to secrecy by fearful oaths, is one that can be employed for any

purpose, social, political, philanthropic, or religious, for promoting

that which is good or for disseminating that which is evil. It may be

used to defend a throne or to overthrow it, to protect religion or to

destroy it, to maintain law and order or to create anarchy.

Now, there was, as we have seen, from the beginning, besides the written

charges, an _oral tradition_ in Masonry, after the manner of the Cabala,

on which the guidance of the society depended. The true character of any

form of Freemasonry is thus not to be judged only by its printed ritual,

but by the oral instruction of the initiates and the interpretations

placed on the symbols and ritual. Naturally these interpretations vary

in different countries and at different periods. Freemasonry is

described in its Ritual as "a peculiar system of morality, veiled in

allegory and illustrated by symbols." But what code of morality? In

studying the history of the Order we shall find that the same code was

by no means common to all masonic bodies, nor is it to-day. Some

maintain a very high standard of morals; others appear to possess no

standard at all. Mr. Waite observes that "the two doctrines of the unity

of God and the immortality of the soul constitute 'the philosophy of

Freemasonry.'"[659] But these doctrines are by no means essential to

the existence of Freemasonry; the Grand Orient has renounced both, but

it still ranks as Freemasonry.

M. Paul Nourrisson is therefore perfectly right in saying: "There are as

many Masonries as countries; there is no such thing as universal

Masonry."[660] Broadly, however, modern Freemasonry may be divided into

two kinds: the variety worked in the British Empire, in America,

Holland, Sweden, Denmark, etc., and Grand Orient Masonry, which prevails

in Catholic countries and of which the most important centre is the

Grand Orient of Paris.

Continental Masonry

The fact that Masonry in Protestant countries is neither revolutionary

nor anti-religious is frequently used by Catholic writers to show that

Protestantism identifies itself with the aims of Masonry, and by

Freemasons to prove that the tyranny of the Church of Rome has driven

Masonry into an attitude hostile to Church and State. The point

overlooked in both these contentions is the essential difference in the

character of the two kinds of Masonry. If the Grand Orient had adhered

to the fundamental principle of British Masonry not to concern itself

with religion or politics, there is no reason why it should have come

into conflict with the Church. But its duplicity on this point is

apparent. Thus in one of its earlier manuals it declares, like British

Masonry, that it "never interferes with questions of government or of

civil and religious legislation, and that whilst making its members

participate in the perfecting of all sciences, it positively excepts in

the lodges two of the most beautiful, _politics_ and _theology_, because

these two sciences divide men and nations which Masonry constantly tends

to unite."[661] But on a further page of the same manual from which

this quotation is taken we find it stated that Masonry is simply "the

political application of Christianity."[662] Indeed, during the last

fifty years the Grand Orient has thrown off the mask and openly declared

itself to be political in its aims. In October 1887 the Venerable Bro∴

Blanc said in a discourse which was printed for the lodges:

You recognise with me, my brothers, the necessity for Freemasonry

to become a vast and powerful political and social society having a

decisive influence on the resolutions of the Republican

government.[663]

And in 1890 the Freemason Fernand Maurice declared "that nothing should

happen in France without the hidden action of Freemasonry," and "if the

Masons choose to organize, in ten years' time no one in France will be

able to move outside us (_personne ne bougera plus en France en dehors

de nous_)."[664]

This is the despotic power which the Grand Orient has established in

opposition to both Church and Government.

Moreover, Grand Orient masonry is not only political but subversive in

its political aims. Instead of the peaceful trilogy of British masonry,

"Brotherly love, relief, and truth," it has throughout adhered to the

formula which originated in the Masonic lodges of France and became the

war-cry of the Revolution: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." "It is the

law of equality," says Ragon, "that has always endeared Masonry to the

French," and "as long as equality really exists only in the lodges,

Masonry will be preserved in France."[665] The aim of Grand Orient

Masonry is thus to bring about universal equality as formulated by

Robespierre and Babeuf. In the matter of liberty we read further that as

men are all by nature free--the old fallacy of Rousseau and of the

Declaration of the Rights of Man--therefore "no one is necessarily

subjected to another nor has the right to rule him."[666] The

revolutionary expresses the same idea in the phrase that "no man should

have a master." Finally, by fraternity Grand Orient Masonry denotes the

abolition of all national feeling.

It is to Masonry [Ragon says again] that we owe the affiliation of

all classes of society, it alone could bring about this fusion

which from its midst has passed into the life of the peoples. It

alone could promulgate that humanitarian law of which the rising

activity, tending to a great social uniformity, leads to the fusion

of races, of different classes, of morals, codes, customs,

languages, fashions, money, and measures. Its virtuous propaganda

will become the humanitarian law of all consciences.[667]

The policy of the Grand Orient is thus avowedly International Socialism.

Indeed in a further passage Ragon plainly indicates this fact:

Every generous reform, every social benefit derives from it, and if

these survive it is because Masonry lends them its support. This

phenomenon is due only to the power of its organization. The past

belongs to it and the future cannot escape from it. By its immense

lever of association it alone is able to realize by a productive

communion (_communion génératrice_) that great and beautiful social

unity conceived by Jaurez, Saint-Simon, Owen, Fourier. If Masons

wish it, the generous conceptions of these philanthropic thinkers

will cease to be vain Utopias.[668]

Who are the philanthropic thinkers enumerated here but the men

derisively described by Karl Marx as the "Utopian Socialists" of the

nineteenth century? Utopian Socialism is thus simply the open and

visible expression of Grand Orient Freemasonry. Moreover, these Utopian

Socialists were almost without exception Freemasons or members of other

secret societies.

The Freemason Clavel confirms the foregoing account by Ragon. Thus, like

Ragon, he quotes, the principle expressed in a ritual for the initiation

of a Master Mason:

It is expressly forbidden to Masons to discuss amongst themselves,

either in the lodge or outside it, religious and political matters,

these discussions having usually the effect of creating discord

where formerly peace, union, and fraternity reigned. This masonic

law admits of no exceptions.[669]

But Clavel also goes on to say:

To efface amongst men the distinctions of colour, rank, creed,

opinions, country; to annihilate fanaticism, and ... the scourge of

war; in a word, to make of the whole human race one and the same

family united by affection, by devotion, by work and knowledge:

that, my brother, is the great work which Freemasonry has

undertaken, etc.[670]

Up to a point many a British Freemason reading these passages will

declare himself completely in accord with the sentiments expressed.

Humanitarianism, the obliteration of class distinctions, fraternization

between men of all races, conditions, and religious creeds, enter of

course largely into the spirit of British Masonry, but form simply the

basis on which Masons meet together in the lodges and not a political

system to be imposed on the world in general.

British Masonry thus makes no attempt to interfere with the existing

social system or form of Government; the essence of its teaching is that

each member of the Fraternity should seek to reform himself and not

society. In a word, individual regeneration takes the place of the

social reorganization advocated by the Grand Orient under the influence

of Illuminism. The formula of the "United States of Europe" and of the

"Universal Republic" first proclaimed by the Illuminatus, Anacharsis

Clootz,[671] has long been the slogan of the French lodges.[672]

In the matter of religion, Grand Orient Masonry has entirely departed

from the principle laid down by the British lodges. If the Catholic

Church has shown itself hostile to Masonry, it must be remembered that

in Catholic countries Masonry has shown itself militantly anti-Catholic.

"Freemasonry," one of its modern orators declared, "is the anti-Church,

the anti-Catholicism, the Church of Heresy (_la contre Eglise, le contre

Catholicisme, l'Eglise de l'Hérésie_)."[673] The _Bulletin_ of the

Grand Orient in 1885 officially declared: "We Freemasons must pursue the

definite demolition of Catholicism."

But the Grand Orient goes further than this and attacks all forms of

religion. Thus, as has been said, those "ancient landmarks" of British

Masonry, belief in the Great Architect of the Universe and in the

immortality of the soul, had never formed an integral part of its

system, and it was only in 1849 that for the first time "it was

distinctly formulated that the basis of Freemasonry is a belief in God

and in the immortality of the soul, and the solidarity of Humanity." But

in September 1877 the first part of this formula was deleted, all

allusions to the Great Architect were omitted, and the statute now

reads: "Its basis is absolute liberty of conscience and the solidarity

of Humanity."[674] British Freemasonry, which does not admit liberty of

conscience in the sense of Atheism, but demands that every Mason should

profess belief in some form of religion and which insists that the

Volume of the Sacred Law--in England the Bible, in Mohammedan countries

the Koran, and so on--should be placed on the table in its lodges,

thereupon broke off all relations with the Grand Orient. In March 1878

the following resolution was passed unanimously:

That the Grand Lodge, whilst always anxious to receive in the most

fraternal spirit the Brethren of any foreign Grand Lodge whose

proceedings are conducted according to the Ancient Landmarks of the

Order, of which a belief in T.G.A.O.T.U. is the first and most

important, cannot recognize as "true and genuine" Brethren any who

have been initiated in lodges which either deny or ignore that

belief.[675]

The Grand Orient, says M. Copin Albancelli, not content with renouncing

the Great Architect whose glory it had celebrated on every possible

occasion and whose praises had been incessantly sung in its lodges,

demanded of its initiates that they should declare themselves to be

absolutely convinced that the Great Architect was nothing but a

myth.[676] More than this, violent anti-religious tirades have been

permitted and even applauded in the lodges. Thus in 1902 the Freemason

Delpech in his discourse at a masonic banquet uttered these words:

The triumph of the Galilean has lasted twenty centuries; he is

dying in his turn. The mysterious voice which once on the mountains

of Epirus announced the death of Pan, to-day announces the death of

the deceiver God who had promised an era of justice and peace to

those who should believe in him. The illusion has lasted very long;

the lying God in his turn disappears; he goes to rejoin in the dust

of ages the other divinities of India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, who

saw so many deluded creatures throw themselves at the food of their

altars. Freemasons, we are pleased to state that we are not

unconcerned with this ruin of false prophets. The Roman Church,

founded on the Galilean myth, began to decline rapidly on the day

when the masonic association was constituted. From the political

point of view Freemasons have often varied. But in all times

Freemasonry has stood firm on this principle: war on all

superstitions, war on all fanaticism.[677]

How is it possible to reconcile this attitude towards religion in

general and Christianity in particular with the fact that the Grand

Orient still works the Rose-Croix degree? This degree--which, as we have

seen, was first devised (whether in Scotland or in France) to give a

Christian meaning to Masonry--was only incorporated into British

Freemasonry in 1846 and in our country has retained its original

character. Its ritual, centring around a lost word, signifies that the

Old Testament dispensation has come to an end with the Crucifixion, and

is so strongly Christian that no Jew, Mohammedan, or other non-Christian

can be admitted to it. Moreover, since this degree, known as the

eighteenth degree, forms in reality the first degree of the Ancient and

Accepted Rite, as worked in this country, non-Christians are excluded

from the whole of this Rite and can only take the degrees of Royal Arch,

Mark Mason, Royal Ark Mariner, and finally Royal Select and

Super-Excellent Master. Consequently the thirty-three Masons of the

thirty-third degree who compose the Supreme Council which directs the

Ancient and Accepted Rite are necessarily professing Christians. Exactly

the opposite is the case in France; the Rose-Croix, worked by professing

atheists and Jews, can only be parody of Christian mysteries.

Now, it is essential to realize that in France the anti-masonic camp is

divided into two parties. Whilst the majority of Catholic writers regard

Freemasonry itself as the source of all evil--"the Synagogue of

Satan"--more impartial investigators have pronounced the opinion that it

is not Freemasonry even of the Grand Orient variety but something

concealed behind Freemasonry which constitutes the principal danger.

This view is expressed by M. Copin Albancelli, whose book _Le Pouvoir

occulte contre la France_ is of the utmost importance to an

understanding of the masonic danger, for here there can be no question

of Catholic prejudice or of imaginary accusations made by a stranger to

Masonry. M. Copin Albancelli entered the Grand Orient as an agnostic and

has never returned to the bosom of the Church; yet as a Frenchman, a

patriot, and a believer in law, morality, and Christian ethics he found

himself obliged, after six years' experience in the lodges and after

attaining the degree of Rose-Croix, to leave Freemasonry and, further,

to denounce it. From what he himself heard and observed M. Copin

Albancelli declares the Grand Orient to be anti-patriotic, subversive of

all morality and religious belief, and an immense danger to France.

But further than this, M. Copin Albancelli declares the Grand Orient to

be a system of deception by which members are enlisted in a cause

unknown to themselves; even the initiates of the upper degrees are not

all aware of the real aim of the Order or of the power behind it. M.

Copin Albancelli thus arrives at the conclusion that there are three

Freemasonries one above the other: (i) Blue Masonry (i.e. the three

Craft Degrees), in which none of the real secrets are revealed to the

members and which serves merely as a sorting-ground for selecting likely

subjects; (2) the Upper Degrees, in which most of the members, whilst

imagining themselves to have been initiated into the whole secret of the

Order and "bursting with importance" over their imaginary rôle of

leaders, are only admitted to a partial knowledge of the goal to which

they are tending; and (3) the inner circle, "the true masters," those

who conceal themselves behind high-grade Masonry. Admission to this

inner circle may be, moreover, not a matter of degrees. "Whilst in the

lower Masonries the adepts are obliged to pass through all the degrees

of the established hierarchy, the upper and invisible Freemasonry is

certainly recruited not only amongst the thirty-three degrees but in all

the groups of upper-degree Masonry, and perhaps even in certain

exceptional cases outside these."[678] This inner and invisible

Freemasonry is to a large extent _international_.

The most illuminating passage in the whole of M. Copin Albancelli's book

is where he describes an experience that befell him after he had taken

the degree of Rose-Croix. It was then that one of his superiors took him

aside and addressed him in the following terms:

"You realize the power which Freemasonry has at its disposal. We

can say that we hold France. It is not because of our numbers,

since there are only 25,000 Freemasons in this country [this was in

1889]. Nor is it because we are the brains, for you have been able

to judge of the intellectual mediocrity of the greater number of

these 25,000 Freemasons. We hold France because we are organized

and the only people who are organized. But above all, we hold

France because we have an aim, this aim is unknown; as it is

unknown, no obstacle can be put in its way; and finally, as no

obstacle is put up, the way is wide open before us. This is

logical, is it not?"

"Absolutely."

"Good. But what would you say of an association which instead of

consisting of 25,000 nonentities as in Freemasonry, were composed

of, say, only a thousand individuals, but a thousand individuals

recruited in the manner that I will tell you."

And the Freemason went on to explain the way in which such individuals

were selected, the months and years of observation, of supervision, to

which they were subjected, so as to form a body of picked men inside

Freemasonry capable of directing its operations.

"You can imagine the power at the command of such an association?"

"An association thus selected would do anything it chose. It could

possess the world if it pleased."

Thereupon the higher adept, after asking for a further promise of

secrecy, declared:

"Well, in exchange for this promise, Brother Copin, I am authorized

to let you know that this association exists and that, further, I

am authorized to introduce you into it."[679]

It was then that Monsieur Copin Albancelli understood that the point to

which the conversation was leading up was not, as he had at first

supposed, an invitation to take the next step in Freemasonry--the

thirtieth degree of Knight Kadosch--but to enter through a side-door

into an association concealed within Freemasonry and for which the

visible organization of the latter served merely as a cover. A very

curious resemblance will here be noticed between the method of sounding

M. Copin Albancelli and that of the Illuminatus Cato in the matter of

Savioli, described in a passage already quoted:

Now that he is a Mason I have ... taken up the general plan of our

⊙, and as this pleased him I said that such a thing really existed,

whereat he gave me his word that he would enter it.

M. Copin Albancelli, however, did not give his word that he would enter

it, but, on the contrary, checked further revelations by declaring that

he would leave Freemasonry.

This experience had afforded him a glimpse of "a world existing behind

the masonic world, more secret than it, unsuspected by it as by the

outside world."[680] Freemasonry, then, "can only be the half-lit

antechamber of the real secret society. That is the truth."[681] "There

exists then necessarily a permanent directing Power. We cannot see that

Power, therefore it is occult."[682]

For some time M. Copin Albancelli concluded this Power to be "the Jewish

power," and elaborated the idea in a further work[683]; but the war has

led him to develop his theories in yet another book, which will shortly

appear.

That the lodges of the Grand Orient are largely controlled by Jews is,

however, certain, and that they are centres of political propaganda is

equally undeniable. We have only to glance at the following

extracts--some of which are reproduced on the opposite page--from the

programme of debates in the _Bulletin_ of the Grand Orient for June 5,

1922, to recognize that the ideas they propagate are simply those of

International Socialism:

Loge "Union et France": Lecture du Rapport de notre T∴ C∴ F∴

Chardard sur "L'Exploitation des richesses nationales au profit de

la collectivité."

Loge "Les Rénovateurs": "Exploitation des Richesses nationales et

des grosses Entreprises an profit de la collectivité." Conférence

de notre F∴ Goldschmidt, Orat∴ adjoint sur la même question.

[Illustration: News paper clippings]

Loge "Les Zélés Philanthropes": "La Transformation de la Société

Actuelle s'impose-t-elle?" Conférence par le T∴ C∴ F∴ Edmond

Cottin.

Loge "Paix-Travail-Solidarité": "Rôle de la Franc-Maçonnerie dans

la politique actuelle" par le F∴ F∴

Loge "Les Trinitaires": "Le Socialisme Français" par le T∴ Ill. F∴

Elie May.

Ten∴ Collective des L∴ "Emmanuel Arago" & "les Coeurs Unis

indivisibles": "Comment propager notre Idéal Maçonnique dans le

Monde profane." Conférence par le F∴ Jahia, de la R∴ L∴ Isis

Monthyon.

Loge "Isis Monthyon et Conscience et Volonté": "La Terreur et le

Péril Fasciste en Italie, le Fascisme et la F∴-Maç∴ Italienne,"

impressions de notre F∴ Mazzini, de retour, après un séjour

prolongé en Italie.

It will be seen by the last of these extracts that Grand Orient Masonry

is the enemy of Fascismo, which saved Italy in her hour of peril.

Indeed, the Italian Masons passed a resolution which was directly

opposed to Fascist views, especially with regard to the religious policy

of Mussolini, who has restored the crucifix to the schools and religious

teaching to the curriculum. The Fascist _Giornale di Roma_ declared that

the principles announced by the Masons in this resolution were those

which threatened to submerge the State and nation. Consequently

Mussolini declared that Fascisti must either leave their lodges or leave

Fascismo.[684]

In Belgium Freemasonry has taken the same political and anti-religious

course. In 1856 the directing committee of the Belgian Grand Orient

declared: "Not only is it the right but the duty of the lodges to

supervise the actions in public life of those amongst its members whom

it has placed in political posts, the right to demand

explanations...."[685] When in 1866 at a funeral ceremony in honour of

the deceased King Leopold I the Grand Orient of Belgium displayed the

maxim, "The soul which has emanated from God is immortal," the

Freemasons of Louvain entered a violent protest on the ground that

"Free-thinking had been admitted by the Belgian lodges in 1864 as its

fundamental principle," and that the Grand Orient had therefore violated

the convictions of its members.[686]

In Spain and Portugal Freemasonry has played not merely a subversive

but an actively revolutionary and sanguinary rôle. The anarchist Ferrer,

intimately concerned with a plot to murder the King of Spain, was at the

same moment entrusted with negotiations between the Grand Orient of

France and the Grand Lodge of Catalonia.[687] These murderous schemes,

frustrated in Spain, met, however, in Portugal with complete success.

The Portuguese revolutions from 1910 to 1921 were organized under the

direction of Freemasonry and the secret society of Carbonarios. The

assassination of King Carlos and his elder son had been prepared by the

same secret organizations. In 1908 a pamphlet modelled on the libels

published against Marie Antoinette was directed against Queen Amélie and

her husband. A month later the assassination took place. Amongst the

leaders of the new Republic was Magalhaes Lima, Grand Master of the

Grand Orient of Portugal.[688]

The authorship of these disorders was, in fact, so clearly recognized

that honest Freemasons forsook the lodges. An English Mason, unaware of

the true character of Portuguese Freemasonry, when in Lisbon in August

1919, made himself known to several moderate Portuguese Masons, who,

while glad to welcome him as a brother, refused to take him to a lodge,

declaring that they had severed all connection with Masonry since it had

passed under the control of assassins. They also added that the

assassination of Señor Paes, the President in December 1918, was the

work of certain Portuguese lodges. A special meeting had previously been

held in Paris in conjunction with the Grand Orient of France, at which

it had been decided that Paes was to be removed. This decision reached,

the earliest opportunity of putting it into force was sought--with fatal

results. The assassin was imprisoned in the Penitentiary but liberated

by the revolution of 1921, and no attempt has been made to recapture

him. The murder of Dr. Antonio Granjo in October 1921 was traced to the

same agency. In the pocket of the murdered man was found a document from

the "Lodge of Liberty and Justice"(!) warning him of the decision taken

against him for having ordered the police to protect the British tramway

company.[689]

The present Portuguese Government, indeed, makes no secret of its

masonic character and prints the square and compass on its bank-notes.

But whilst in Spain and Portugal Freemasonry manifested itself in

Anarchist outrages, in the east of Europe the lodges, largely under the

control of Jews, followed the line of Marxian Socialism. After the fall

of the Bela Kun régime in Hungary a raid on the lodges brought to light

documents clearly revealing the fact that the ideas of Socialism had

been disseminated by the Freemasons. Thus in the minutes of meetings it

was recorded that on November 16, 1906, Dr. Kallos had addressed the

Gyor Lodge on Socialist ideals. "The ideal world which we call the

masonic world," he declared, "will be also a Socialist world and the

religion of Freemasonry is that of Socialism as well." Dr. Kallos then

proceeded to acquaint the members with the theories of Marx and Engels,

showing that no help was to be found in Utopias, as the interests of the

proletarians were in absolute conflict with those of other classes, and

these differences could only be settled by international class warfare.

Nevertheless with that fear of the proletariat which has always

characterized the democrats of revolutionary Freemasonry, Dr. Kallos

declared later that "the social revolution must take place without

bloodshed."[690] The Karolyi régime was the direct outcome of these

illusions, and as in all revolutions paved the way for the more violent

elements.

Still further east in Europe the lodges, though revolutionary, instead

of following the International Socialist line of Hungarian Freemasonry,

exhibited a political and nationalist character. The Young Turk movement

originated in the masonic lodges of Salonica under the direction of the

Grand Orient of Italy, which later contributed to the success of

Mustapha Kemal. Moreover, as we approach the Near East, cradle of the

masonic system, we find the Semitic influence not only of the Jews but

of other Semite races directing the lodges. In Turkey, in Egypt, in

Syria now, as a thousand years ago, the same secret societies which

inspired the Templars have never ceased to exist, and in this mingling

of the East and West it is possible that the Grand Orient may draw

reinforcement from those sources whence it drew its system and its name.

Amongst the strange survivals of early Eastern sects are the Druses of

Lebanon, who might indeed be described as the Freemasons of the East;

their outer organization closely resembles that of the Craft Degrees in

Western Masonry, yet such is their power of secrecy that few if any

Europeans have ever succeeded in discovering the secret doctrines. That

their tendency is largely political admits of little doubt; in fact men

intimately acquainted with the Near East have declared that the

influence they exercise over the politics of that region is as

far-reaching as that of the Grand Orient over the affairs of Europe and

that they form the breeding-ground of all political ideas and changes.

Though small in numbers this mysterious society is composed of past

masters in the game of intrigue, who, whilst playing apparently a minor

part at political meetings, secret or otherwise, or even remaining

completely silent, contrive to influence decisions with startling

results.

British Masonry

We shall now consider the further ways in which British Masonry differs

from the Grand Orient.

In the first place, whilst working the same degrees, its rituals,

formulas, and ceremonies, as also the interpretation it places on words

and symbols, are different in many essential points.

Secondly, British Masonry is essentially an honest institution. Whereas

in the Grand Orient the initiate is led through a maze of ceremonies

towards a goal unknown to him which he may discover too late to be other

than he supposed, the British initiate, although admitted by gradual

stages to the mysteries of the Craft, knows nevertheless from the

beginning the general aim of the Order.

Thirdly, British Masonry is primarily philanthropic and the sums it

devotes to charitable purposes are immense. Since the war the three

principal masonic charities have collected annually over £300,000.

But the point to be emphasized here is that British Masonry is strictly

non-political, not merely in theory but in practice, and that it

enforces this principle on every occasion. Thus before the recent

General Election, the Report of the Board of General Purposes, drawn up

by Grand Lodge on December 5, 1923, recalled to the notice of the Craft

that "'all subjects of a political nature are strictly excluded from

discussion in masonic meetings,' this being in accordance with

long-established masonic tradition ... it follows from this that Masonry

must not be used for any personal or party purpose in connexion with an

election." It further emphasized the distinct caution "that any attempt

to bring the Craft into the electioneering arena would be treated as a

serious masonic offence."

At the same time a fresh injunction was made with regard to the Grand

Orient of France:

As recognition was withdrawn from that body by the United Grand

Lodge of England in 1878, ... it is considered necessary to warn

all members of our lodges that they cannot visit any lodge under

the obedience of a jurisdiction unrecognized by the United Grand

Lodge of England; and further that under Rule 150 of the Book of

Constitutions, they cannot admit visitors therefrom.

For the reasons given at the beginning of this section British Masonry

stands rigidly aloof from all attempts to create an international system

of Masonry. The idea was first suggested at the Masonic Congress of

Paris in 1889, convened to celebrate the centenary of the first French

Revolution, but led to nothing very definite until the Congress of

Geneva in September 1902, at which the delegates of thirty-four lodges,

Grand Lodges, Grand Orients, and Supreme Councils were present, and a

proposal was unanimously adopted "tending towards the creation of an

International Bureau for Masonic Affairs," to which twenty Powers,

mostly Europeans, gave their adherence. Brother Desmons, of the Grand

Orient of France, in an after-dinner speech declared it to have been

always "the dream of his life" that "all democracies should meet and

understand one another in such a way as one day to form the Universal

Republic."[691]

According to the official report of the proceedings, "the

representatives of Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, England, Spain,

Italy, and Switzerland greeted with much feeling the dawn of this new

era." The same Report goes on to observe that--

It is altogether a mistake ... to believe that Freemasonry does not

attack the defects of such and such a State, and that consequently

it remains a stranger to party-strife and the tendencies of the

times.

And again:

Freemasonry has imposed upon itself a task--a mission. It is a

question of nothing less than the rebuilding of society on an

entirely new basis, which shall be more in accordance with the

present conditions of the means of communication, of situation, and

production, as well as of a reform of right, of a complete renewal

of the principle of existence, especially of the principle of

community and of the relations of men among one another.

The Report here quoted is, however, inaccurate in one important

particular. No English delegates were present at the Geneva Congress or

on any other occasion of the kind. There was a delegate from Adelaide

who spoke a good deal, but the Chairman specifically mentioned England

as taking no part in the movement. Later on, in a Report of the Board of

General Purposes to Grand Lodge on March 2, 1921, a letter from Lord

Ampthill, pro Grand Master, appears, declining an invitation from the

Swiss Grand Lodge Alpina to British Freemasons to attend an

International Masonic Congress in Geneva and quoting the following

letter from the Grand Secretary as an earlier precedent for this

refusal:

I am directed to state, in reply to the invitation to attend an

International Masonic Conference in Switzerland during the coming

autumn, that the United Grand Lodge of England will be unable to

send representatives on the occasion. It never participates in a

Masonic gathering in which are treated as an open question what it

has always held to be ancient and essential Landmarks of the Craft,

these being an express belief in the Great Architect of the

Universe, and an obligatory recognition of the Volume of the Sacred

Law. Its refusal to remain in fraternal association with such

Sovereign Jurisdictions as have repudiated or made light of these

Landmarks has long been upon record, and its resolve in this regard

remains unshaken.

Lord Ampthill then went on to say:

A further consequence of certain happenings of the war is to make

more firm our resolve to keep, as far as in us lies, Freemasonry

strictly away from participation in politics, either national or

international. This attitude of aloofness from necessarily

controversial affairs of State, on which Brethren can legitimately

and most properly differ, has ever been maintained by our Grand

Lodge since it was first convened in 1717. Because of this, it held

aloof from such international conferences as were summoned during

the war; and never more than now has the necessity for the

maintenance of this attitude been felt by British Freemasons....

For these reasons, the invitation to participate in the proposed

International Conference of Freemasons at Geneva cannot be

accepted. Such an assembly might be termed informal, but inevitably

it would be regarded as opening a door to compromise on those

things which this Grand Lodge has always held to be essentials.

Such a compromise English Freemasonry will never contemplate. On

these essentials we take the firm stand we have always done; we

cannot detract from full recognition of the Great Architect of the

Universe, and we shall continue to forbid the introduction of

political discussion into our Lodges.

British Masonry has thus taken a firm stand against the Grand Orient.

But it is regrettable that views so admirably expressed should be

confined to masonic correspondence and not made more apparent to the

world in general. On the Continent, outside masonic circles, the

difference between British Masonry and the Grand Orient variety is _not_

sufficiently known, and the reticence of leading British Masons on this

subject has not only played into the hands of the intractable

anti-Masons, who declare all Masonry to be harmful, but has strengthened

the position of the revolutionaries who use Masonry for a subversive

purpose. Thus in the Portuguese revolution of 1920 the Masons of that

country who were directing the movement sheltered themselves behind the

good name of England. "How can you accuse the lodges of being murder

clubs," they said to the people, "when Masonry is directed by England

and had King Edward for its Grand Master?"

However ludicrous all this may seem to the British public, yet for the

honour of our country such accusations should not remain unrefuted. A

witness of the disorders that took place in Portugal declared to the

present writer that if only Grand Lodge of England would have published

a notice in the Continental press disassociating itself from the Grand

Orient in general and from Portuguese Freemasonry in particular, the

power of the revolutionaries would have been immensely weakened and the

anti-British and pro-German propaganda then circulating in the country

defeated. But British Freemasonry preferred to maintain an attitude of

aloofness, contenting itself with issuing periodical warnings against

the Grand Orient privately to the lodges.

This policy has done much to damage not only the good name of England

but of British Masonry in the eyes of the outside world, and

particularly in those of Roman Catholics, which is the more regrettable

since Freemasonry and the Roman Catholic Church are the only two

organized bodies in this country which really exercise discipline over

their members and forbid them to belong to subversive secret societies;

hence they provide the two strongest bulwarks against the occult forces

of revolution. For this reason, as we shall see later, they are the two

bodies which are the most feared by the recruiting agents of these

societies.

But in the case of Freemasonry the fact is unfortunately too little

known to the world in general. As a singularly broad-minded Jesuit has

recently expressed it:

The anti-clerical and revolutionary activities of Continental

Freemasonry did not begin when the Grand Orient finally abolished

God. During a century and more these evil forces had been at work.

Nevertheless English Masons only shrugged their shoulders and

looked another way, though the true character of foreign Masonry

was brought to their notice in such books as that of John Robison,

_Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments

of Europe_....

No doubt [the same writer says again] there has been at times a

deplorable amount of exaggeration among Continental Catholics in

attributing all the moral and social evils of the world to the

insidious workings of Freemasonry.... But so long as English

Freemasons resolutely avert their gaze from the anti-religious and

anti-social activities of their Continental brethren there can be

no hope of any better understanding.[692]

It is impossible to deny the truth of these strictures. As has already

been pointed out in the course of this book, British Freemasons have

frequently not only ignored Robison's warning but vilified him as the

enemy of Masonry, although he never attacked their Order but only the

perverted systems of the Continent; too often also they have exonerated

the most dangerous secret societies, notably the Illuminati, because,

apparently from a mistaken sense of loyalty, they conceive it their duty

to defend any association of a masonic character. This is simply

suicidal. British Masonry has no bitterer enemies than the secret

societies working for subversion, which, from the Illuminati onwards,

have always regarded honest Masonry with contempt and used its doctrines

for an ulterior purpose.

It is easy to see how these doctrines may be perverted to an end

directly opposed to that which British Masons have in view. Thus, for

example, the idea of the brotherhood of man in the sense of love for all

humanity is the essence of Christianity--"Be kindly affectioned one to

another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another." In

adopting "brotherly love" as a part of their sacred trilogy British

Masons adopt an entirely Christian standpoint. But if by the brotherhood

of man is meant that men of every race are equally related and that

therefore one owes the same duty to foreigners as to one's

fellow-countrymen it is obvious that all national feeling must vanish.

The British Freemason does not, of course, interpret the theory in this

manner; he cannot seriously regard himself as the brother of the Bambute

pygmy or the Polynesian cannibal, thus he uses the term merely in a

vague and theoretical sense.

What indeed does the word "brother" literally mean? If we consult the

dictionary we shall see it defined as "a male born of the same parents;

anyone closely united with or resembling one another; associated in

common interests, occupation," etc. It is therefore obviously absurd to

say that men of such different races as those referred to are brothers;

they are not born of the same kind of parents, they are not united in

their aims, they do not remotely resemble one another, and they are not

associated in common interests and occupations. Though these happen to

be extreme cases, there are nevertheless essential differences between

men of the same zone and climate. The Englishman and the Frenchman are

not brothers because they do not see life from the same point of view,

but that is no reason why they should not be close allies.

The brotherhood of man, if taken literally, is therefore a misleading

term, nor is such a relationship necessary to the peace of the world.

Cain and Abel were not better friends, for being brothers. David and

Jonathan, on the other hand, were not brothers but devoted friends. In

striving after universal brotherhood in a literal sense, Freemasons are

therefore pursuing a chimera.

The most dangerous fallacy to which democracy, under the influence of

Illuminized Freemasonry, has succumbed is that peace between nations can

be brought about by means of Internationalism, that is to say, by the

destruction of national feeling. Yet a man is not more likely to live at

peace with his neighbours because he is devoid of natural affection; on

the contrary, the good brother, the devoted father, is most likely to

become the faithful friend. Permanent peace between nations will

probably never be ensured, but the only basis on which such a situation

can conceivably be established is the basis of sane Nationalism--an

understanding between the patriotic and virile elements in every

country which, because they value their own liberties and revere their

own traditions, are able to respect those of other nations.

Internationalism is an understanding between the decadent elements in

each country--the conscientious objectors, the drawing-room Socialists,

the visionaries--who shirk the realities of life and, as the Socialist

Karl Kautsky in a description of Idealists has admirably expressed it,

"see only differences of opinion and misapprehension where there are

actually irreconcilable antagonisms." This is why at times of crisis

Idealists are of all men the most dangerous and Pacifists the great

promoters of wars. Understanding between nations is wholly desirable,

but the destruction of the national spirit everywhere can only lead to

the weakening of all countries where this process takes place and the

triumph of the nations who refuse to accept the same principle.

It will perhaps be answered that Freemasons do not believe in the

doctrine of brotherhood between all men, but only between Masons of all

races. But this may lead no less to national disintegration if it

creates a nation within each nation, an international fraternity

independent of the countries to which its members belong. The logical

outcome of this may be that a man will refuse to fight for his country

against his brother Masons--it is what has happened in France. The Grand

Orient was before the recent war the great breeding-ground of

anti-patriotism, where all schemes for national defence were

discouraged. Before 1870 the same thing took place, and it was in the

masonic lodges that Germany found her most valuable allies.

In the same way the doctrine of the perfectibility of human nature lends

itself to perversion. Nothing could be more desirable than that man

should strive after perfection. Did not Christ enjoin His disciples: "Be

ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is

perfect"? Man is therefore acting in accordance with Christian

principles in seeking after divine perfection. But when he comes to

believe that he has already attained it he makes of himself a god. "If I

justify myself," said Job, "mine own mouth shall condemn me; if I say I

am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse." And St. John: "If we say

we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." More

than this, if we seek perfection in others we deceive ourselves equally

and make gods of men. This is precisely the conclusion at which

perverted Freemasonry and the forms of Socialism deriving from it

arrive. Human nature, they say, is itself divine; what need then for

other divinities? The Catholic Church is consequently quite right in

declaring that the doctrine of the perfectibility of human nature leads

to the deification of humanity in that it puts humanity in the place of

God. The Grand Orient, which definitely accepts this doctrine, has

therefore logically erased the name of the Great Architect of the

Universe from its ritual and has become an association of Freethinkers

and Atheists.

Is it necessary to point out the folly as well as the crime of this

delusion--the ludicrous inconsequence of men who divinize humanity yet

revile what they call "society"? All the evils of the world, they

declare, are not to be found in nature but in "man-made laws," in the

institutions of "society." Yet what is society but the outcome of human

wills, of human aspirations? Society may be, and no doubt is, in need of

reformation, but are not its imperfections the creation of imperfect

beings? It is true that to-day the world is in a state of chaos,

industrial chaos, political chaos, social chaos, religious chaos.

Everywhere men are losing faith in the causes they are supposed to

represent; authority questions its own right to govern, democracy is

rent with divisions, the ruling classes are abdicating in favour of

unscrupulous demagogues, the ministers of religion barter their faith

for popularity.

And what has brought the world to this pass? Humanity! Humanity, that

all-wise, all-virtuous abstraction that needs no light from Heaven.

Humanity that was to take the place of God! If ever there was a moment

in the history of the world when the futility of this pretension should

be apparent it is the present moment. All the ills, all the confusion,

what are they but the outcome of human error and of human passions? It

is not Capitalism that has failed, nor yet Democracy, nor yet even

Socialism as a principle, it is not monarchy that has broken down, nor

Republicanism, nor again religion; _it is humanity that has broken

down_. The ills of Capitalism arise from the egoism of individual

capitalists; Socialism has failed because, as Robert Owen discovered,

the idle, the quarrelsome, the selfish have prevented its success. If

men were perfect, Socialism might succeed, but so might any other

system. A perfect capitalist would love his employee as himself, just as

a perfect Socialist would be willing to work for the common good. It is

the imperfections of human nature that prevent, and will always prevent,

any system from being perfect. There will never be a Millennium of man's

making. Only the application of Christian principles to human conduct

can bring about a better order of things.

Grand Orient Masonry, in deifying human nature, thus not only builds

upon the sand, but by its rejection of all religion takes away the sole

hope of human progress. Meanwhile, by the support it lends to Socialism

it encourages the class war instead of the brotherhood between men of

all ranks and conditions which it professes to advocate. British

Freemasonry, on the other hand, whilst not interpreting brotherhood in a

political sense, nevertheless contributes to social peace. At the annual

conference of the Labour Party in 1923 a proposal was made by the

extreme section that "any person who is a Free mason should be excluded

from any kind of office," it being suggested that "in cases where an

understanding has been reached between Trade Union leaders and

employers, thus preventing or limiting industrial trouble, the secret

has been the bond of Freemasonry."[693] Whether this was the case or

not, British Masonry, by taking its stand on patriotism and respect for

religion, necessarily tends to unite men of all classes and therefore

offers a formidable bulwark against the forces of revolution. Any

attacks on British Masonry as at present constituted and directed are

therefore absolutely opposed to the interests of the country. But at the

same time it behoves Masons to beware of the insidious attempts that are

being made by irregular secret societies to infiltrate the Craft and

pervert its true principles. The present satisfactory condition of

Freemasonry in England is owing not only to its established statutes,

but to the character of the men who control it--men who are not, as in

eighteenth-century France, mere figureheads, but the real directors of

the Order. Should the control ever pass into the wrong hands and the

agents of secret societies succeed in capturing a number of the lodges,

this great stabilizing force might become a gigantic engine of

destruction. How insidiously these efforts are being made we shall see

in the next chapter.

12

SECRET SOCIETIES IN ENGLAND

We have seen that from the Illuminati onwards subversive societies have

always sought recruits amongst orthodox Freemasons. The reason for this

is obvious: not only do the doctrines of Freemasonry lend themselves to

perversion, but the training provided in the Lodges makes an admirable

preparation for initiation into other secret systems. The man who has

learnt to maintain silence even on what may appear to him as

trivialities, who is willing to submit to mystification, to ask no

questions, and to recognize the authority of superiors whom he is in no

way legally obliged to obey, who has, moreover, become imbued with the

_esprit de corps_ which binds him to his fellow-members in a common

cause, is naturally a better subject for the secret society adept than

the free lance who is liable to assert his independence at any moment.

Perhaps the most important factor, however, is the nature of the masonic

oaths. These terrible penalties, which many Freemasons themselves regret

as a survival of barbarism and which have in fact been abolished in the

higher degrees, have done much to create prejudice against Freemasonry,

whilst at the same time they provide an additional incentive to outside

intriguers. In the opinion of M. Copin Albancelli, the abolition of the

oath would go far to prevent penetration of British Masonry by the

secret societies.

Now, by their obligations British Freemasons are forbidden to join these

irregular societies, not only because their principles are in conflict

with those of orthodox Masonry, but because in most cases they admit

women. According to the ruling of Grand Lodge, "any member working under

the English Jurisdiction ... violates his Obligation by being present at

or assisting in assemblies professing to be Masonic which are attended

by women." Warnings to this effect have been frequently given in the

Lodges; on September 3, 1919, the Board of General Purposes issued the

following report:

The Board's attention is being increasingly drawn to sedulous

endeavours which are being made by certain bodies unrecognized as

Masonic by the United Grand Lodge of England, to induce Freemasons

to join in their assemblies. As all such bodies which admit women

to membership are clandestine and irregular, it is necessary to

caution Brethren against being inadvertently led to violate their

Obligation by becoming members of them or attending their meetings.

Grand Lodge, nine years since, approved the action of the Board in

suspending from all Masonic rights and privileges two Brethren who

had contumaciously failed to explain the grave Masonic irregularity

to which attention is now again called; and it is earnestly hoped

that no occasion will arise for having again to institute

disciplinary proceedings of a like kind.

The idea of women Masons is, of course, not a new one. As early as 1730

lodges for women are said to have existed in France, and towards the end

of the century several excellent women, such as the Duchesse de Bourbon

and the Princesse de Lamballe, played a leading part in the Order. But

this _Maçonnerie d'Adoption_, as it was called, retained a purely

convivial character; a sham ceremonial, with symbols, pass words, and a

ritual, was devised as a consolation to the members for their exclusion

from the real lodges. These mummeries were, as Ragon observes, "only the

pretexts for assemblies; the real objects were the banquet and the ball,

which were their inevitable accompaniments."[694]

But this precedent, inaugurated as a society pastime and accompanied by

all the frivolity of the age, paved the way for Weishaupt's two classes

of women members, who, although never initiated into the secrets of the

Order, were to act as useful tools "directed by men without knowing it."

For this purpose they were to be divided into two classes, the

"virtuous" to play the part of figureheads or decoys, and the

"freer-hearted," who were to carry out the real designs of the Order.

The same plan was adopted nearly a hundred years later by Weishaupt's

disciple Bakunin, who, however, did admit women as actual initiates into

his secret society, the Alliance Sociale Démocratique, but, like

Weishaupt, divided them into classes. The sixth category of people to be

employed in the work of social revolution is thus described in his

programme:

The sixth category is very important. They are the women, who must

be divided into three classes: the first, frivolous women, without

mind or heart, which we must use in the same manner as the third

and fourth categories of men [i.e. by "getting hold of their dirty

secrets and making them our slaves"]; the second, the ardent,

devoted and capable women, but who are not ours because they have

not reached a practical revolutionary understanding, without

phrase--we must make use of these like the men of the fifth

category [i.e. by "drawing them incessantly into practical and

perilous manifestations, which will result in making the majority

of them disappear while making some of them genuine

revolutionaries"]; finally, the women who are entirely with us,

that is to say completely initiated and having accepted our

programme in its entirety. We ought to consider them as the most

precious of our treasures, without whose help we can do

nothing.[695]

The first and only woman to be admitted into real Masonry, if such a

term can be applied to so heterogeneous a system, was Maria Deraismes,

an ardent French Feminist celebrated for her political speeches and

electioneering campaigns in the district of Pontoise and for twenty-five

years the acknowledged leader of the anti-clerical and Feminist

party.[696] In 1882 Maria Deraismes was initiated into Freemasonry by

the members of the Lodge _Les Libres Penseurs_, deriving from the Grande

Loge Symbolique Écossaise and situated at Pecq in the Department of

Seine-et-Oise. The proceeding being, however, entirely unconstitutional,

Maria Deraismes's initiation was declared by the Grande Loge to be null

and void and the Lodge _Les Libres Penseurs_ was disgraced.[697] But

some years afterwards Dr. George Martin, an enthusiastic advocate of

votes for women, collaborated with Maria Deraismes in founding the

_Maçonnerie Mixte_ at the first lodge of the Order named "Le Droit

Humain." The _Suprême Conseil Universel Mixte_ was founded in 1899.

The Maçonnerie Mixte was political and in no way theosophical or occult,

and its programme, like that of the Grand Orient, was Utopian Socialism,

whilst by its insistence on the supremacy of reason it definitely

proclaimed its antagonism to all revealed religion. Thus in the involved

language of Dr. George Martin himself:

The Ordre Maçonnique Mixte Internationale is the first mixed,

philosophic, progressive, and philanthropic Masonic Power to be

organized and constituted in the world, placed above all the

prooccupations of the philosophical or religious ideas which may be

professed by those who ask to become members.... The Order wishes

to interest itself principally in the vital interests of the human

being on earth; it wishes above all to study in its Temples the

means for realizing Peace between all nations and social Justice

which will enable all human beings to enjoy during their lives the

greatest possible sum of moral felicity and of material

well-being.... Claiming no divine revelation and loudly affirming

that it is only an emanation of human reason, this fraternal

institution is not dogmatic, it is rationalist.[698]

Into this materialist and political club, erected under the guise of

Freemasonry, entered Annie Besant with all the strange conglomeration of

Eastern doctrines now known as Theosophy.

Theosophy

Before entering on this question it is necessary to make my own position

clear. Although I should much prefer not to introduce a personal note

into the discussion, I feel that nothing I say will carry any weight if

it appears to be an expression of opinion by one who has never

considered religious doctrines from anything but the orthodox Christian

point of view. I should explain, then, that I have known Theosophists

from my early youth, that I have travelled in India, Ceylon, Burma, and

Japan and seen much to admire in the great religions of the East. I do

not believe that God has revealed Himself to one portion of mankind

alone and that during only the last 1,900 years of the world's history;

I do not accept the doctrine that all the millions of human beings who

have never heard of Christ are plunged in spiritual darkness; I believe

that behind all religions founded on a law of righteousness there lies a

divine and central truth, that Ikhnaton, Moses and Isaiah, Socrates and

Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Mohammed were all

teachers who interpreted to men the aspect of the divine as it had been

vouchsafed to them and which in harmony with the supreme revelation

given to man by Jesus Christ.

This conception of an affinity between all great religious faiths was

beautifully expressed by an old Mohammedan to a friend of the present

writer with whom he stood watching a Hindu procession pass through an

Indian village. In answer to the Englishman's enquiry, "What do you

think of this?" the Mohammedan replied:

"Ah, sahib, we cannot tell. We know of three roads up the hill of

endeavour to the gates of Paradise--the way of Mousa [Moses], the

way of Issa [Jesus], and the way of Mahmoud, and there may be other

roads of which you and I know nothing. I was born in the way of

Mahmoud, and I believe it to be the best and the easiest to follow,

and you were born in the way of Issa. And of this I am very sure:

that if you will follow your guide on your road and I follow my

guide on my road, when we have climbed the hill of endeavour, we

shall salute one another again at the gates of Paradise."

If, then, in the following pages I attempt to show the errors of

Theosophy, it is not because I do not recognize that there is much that

is good and beautiful in the ancient religions from which it professes

to derive.

But what is Theosophy? The word, as we have already seen, was used in

the eighteenth century to denote the theory of the Martinists; it was

known two centuries earlier when Haselmeyer in 1612 wrote of "the

laudable Fraternity of the Theosophists of the Rosy Cross." According to

Colonel Olcott, who with Madame Blavatsky founded the modern

Theosophical Society in New York in 1875, the word was discovered by one

of the members "in turning over the leaves of a Dictionary" and

forthwith unanimously adopted.[699] Madame Blavatsky had arrived in

America two years earlier, before which date she professed to have been

initiated into certain esoteric doctrines in Thibet. Monsieur Guénon,

who writes with inside knowledge of the movement, indicates, however,

the existence of concealed superiors on the Continent of Europe by whom

she was in reality directed.

What is very significant ... is that Madame Blavatsky in 1875 wrote

this: "I have been sent from Paris to America in order to verify

phenomena and their reality and to show the deception of the

Spiritualist theory." Sent by whom? Later she will say: by the

"Mahatmas"; but then there was no question of them, and besides it

was in Paris that she received her mission, and not in India or in

Thibet.[700]

Elsewhere Monsieur Guénon observes that it is very doubtful whether

Madame Blavatsky was ever in Thibet at all. These obvious attempts at

concealment lead Monsieur Guénon therefore to the conclusion that in the

background of Theosophy there existed a mysterious centre of direction,

that Madame Blavatsky was simply "an instrument in the hands of

individuals or occult groups sheltering behind her personality," and

that "those who believe she invented everything, that she did everything

by herself and on her own initiative, are as much mistaken as those who,

on the contrary, believe her affirmations concerning her relations with

the pretended Mahatmas."[701]

There is some reason to believe that the people under whom Madame

Blavatsky was working at this date in Paris were Serapis Bey and Tuiti

Bey, who belonged to "the Egyptian Brothers." This might answer M.

Guénon's question: "By whom was she sent to America?" But another

passage from Madame Blavatsky's writings, on the person of Christ, that

M. Guénon quotes later, indicates a further source of inspiration: "For

me, Jesus Christ, that is to say the Man-God of the Christians, copy of

the Avatars of all countries, of the Hindu Chrishna as of the Egyptian

Horus, was never a _historical_ personage." Hence the story of His life

was merely an allegory founded on the existence of "a personage named

Jehoshua born at Lud." But elsewhere she asserted that Jesus may have

lived during the Christian era or a century earlier "_as the Sepher

Toldoth Jehoshua indicates_" (my italics). And Madame Blavatsky went on

to say of the savants who deny the historical value of this legend, that

they--

either lie or talk nonsense. _It is our Masters who affirm it_ [my

italics]. If the history of Jehoshua or Jesus Ben Pandera is false,

then the whole of the Talmud, the whole of the Jewish canon law, is

false. It was the disciple of Jehoshua Ben Parachia, the fifth

President of the Sanhedrim since Ezra, who re-wrote the Bible....

This story is much truer than that of the New Testament, of which

history does not say a word.[702]

Who were the Masters whose authority Madame Blavatsky here invokes?

Clearly not the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood to whom she habitually

refers by this term, and who can certainly not be suspected of affirming

the authenticity of the Toldoth Yeshu. It is evident, then, that there

were other "Masters" from whom Madame Blavatsky received this teaching,

and that those other masters were Cabalists.

The same Judaic influence appears more strongly in a book published by

the Theosophical Society in 1903, where the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu

are quoted at great length and the Christians are derided for resenting

the attacks on their faith contained in these books, whilst the Jews are

represented as innocent, persecuted victims. One passage will suffice to

give an idea of the author's point of view:

The Christ [said the mystics] was born "of a virgin"; the unwitting

believer in Jesus as _the_ historical Messiah in the exclusive

Jewish sense, and in his being _the_ Son of God, nay God Himself,

in course of time asserted that Mary was that virgin; whereupon

Rabbinical logic, which in this case was simple and common logic,

met this extravagance by the natural retort that, seeing that his

paternity was unacknowledged, Jesus was therefore illegitimate, a

bastard [_mamzer_].[703]

It is obviously, then, less from Thibetan Mahatmas, Hindu Swamis, Sikh

Gurus, or Egyptian Brothers than from Jewish Cabalists that these

leaders of Theosophy have borrowed their ideas on Jesus Christ. As the

Jewish writer Adolphe Franck has truly observed: "Dès qu'il est question

de théosophie, on est sûr de voir apparaître la Kabbale."[704] And he

goes on to show the direct influence of Cabalism on the modern

Theosophical Society.

Mrs. Besant, without endorsing the worst blasphemies of the Toledot

Yeshu, nevertheless reflected this and other Judaic traditions in her

book _Esoteric Christianity_, where she related that Jesus was brought

up amongst the Essenes, and that later He went to Egypt, where He became

an initiate of the great esoteric lodge--that is to say, the Great White

Lodge--from which all great religions derive. It will be seen that this

is only a version of the old story of the Talmudists and Cabalists,

perpetuated by the Gnostics, the Rosicrucians, and the

nineteenth-century _Ordre du Temple_.[705] But according to one of Mrs.

Besant's Theosophical antagonists, her doctrine "rests on a perpetual

equivocation," and whilst allowing the English public to believe that

when she spoke of the coming Christ she referred to the Christ of the

Gospels, she stated to her intimates what Mr. Leadbeater taught in his

book _The Inner Life_, namely, that the Christ of the Gospels never

existed, but was an invention of the monks of the second century.[706]

It should be understood, however, that in the language of the

Theosophists, led by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater, Jesus and "the

Christ" are two separate and distinct individualities, and that when

they now speak of "the Christ" they refer to someone living in a

bungalow in the Himalayas with whom Mr. Leadbeater has interviews to

arrange about his approaching advent.[707] Portraits of this person have

been distributed amongst the members of "The Star in the East," an Order

founded at Benares in 1911 by Mr. Leadbeater and J. Krishnamurti for the

purpose of preparing the world for the coming of the Great Teacher.

But it is time to return to the alliance between Theosophy and the

Maçonnerie Mixte. Whether Mrs. Besant, who had begun her career as a

Freethinker, retained some lingering belief in her earlier creed at the

time she entered into relations with the Order, or whether she saw in

this materialistic society a valuable concrete organization for the

dissemination of her new esoteric theories, it is impossible to know. At

any rate, she rose rapidly through the succeeding degrees and became

before long Vice President of the _Suprême Conseil_, which appointed her

its national delegate to Great Britain. It was in this capacity that she

founded the English branch of the Order under the name of Co-Masonry

(that is, admitting both sexes) at the Lodge "Human Duty" in London,

which was consecrated on September 26, 1902, and later founded another

lodge at Adyar in India, named "The Rising Sun." The number of lodges on

the Grand Roll of Co-Masonry, including those abroad, is now said to be

no less than 442.

Co-Masonry thus receives a two-fold direction, for whilst remaining in

constant correspondence with the _Suprême Conseil Universel Mixte_,

situated at 5 Rue Jules-Breton in Paris and presided over by the Grand

Master Piron, with Madame Amélie Gédalje, thirty-third degree, as Grand

Secretary-General, it receives further instructions from "the V∴ Ill∴

Bro∴ Annie Besant 33°" at Adyar. In order not to shock the

susceptibilities of English adepts who might be repelled by the

rationalist tendencies of the Maçonnerie Mixte, Mrs. Besant has,

however, borrowed the formulas of British Masonry together with its

custom of placing the V.S.L. on the table in the lodges. These

conflicting doctrines are blended in an amusing manner on the

certificates of the Order, where at the top we find the French motto and

initials:

Liberté Égalité Fraternité

À∴ L∴ G∴ D∴ L'H∴

(i.e. à la gloire de l'Humanité)

and below, for the benefit of English members, the initials of the

British masonic device, that does not of course appear on the diplomas

of the French Order, which, like the Grand Orient, has rejected the

Great Architect:

T∴ T∴ G∴ O∴ T∴ G∴ A∴ O∴ T∴ U∴

(To the glory of the Great Architect of the Universe).

Our Co-Masons therefore enjoy the advantage of being able to choose

whether they shall render glory to God or to Humanity. That the two

devices are somewhat incompatible does not appear to strike the English

initiates, nor do they probably realize the imposture practised on them

by the further wording of the certificate, which, after announcing in

imposing capitals "To all Masons dispersed over both Hemispheres,

Greeting," goes on to say "We therefore recommend him (_or_ her) as such

to all Freemasons of the Globe, requesting them to recognize him (_or_

her) in all the rights and privileges attached to this Degree, as we

will do to all presenting themselves under similar circumstances."

Now, any British Mason will see at a glance that all this is a false

pretension. No order of Masonry can recommend its members for rights and

privileges to "all the Freemasons of the world," for the simple reason

that, as has been said, there is no such thing as "Universal Masonry,"

so that even Grand Lodge of England--the most important Lodge in the

world--could not, if it would, accord the right of entry for its members

into Continental lodges. As an English Mason recently expressed it:

The impression among non-Masons generally appears to be that a

British or Irish member of the Craft is able to enter a masonic

lodge in any part of the world and take part in its deliberations

and proceedings. To this belief an unqualified denial may at once

be given. Nor may a member of a lodge under any Jurisdiction not

in communion with the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom be

received as a visitor or as a Joining Member in any subsidiary

lodge of the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland.[708]

But for Co-Masonry to make this claim is even more ridiculous, since at

the time when the above quoted diploma was drawn up Co-Masonry and its

parent, the Maçonnerie Mixte, were not recognized by any other order of

Masonry except the "Droit Humain," and it is not only unrecognized but

utterly repudiated by Grand Lodge of England. The British Mason, in

fact, does not recognize the Co-Mason as a Mason at all, and would

violate his obligations by discussing masonic secrets with him or her,

so that there is no manner in which the Co-Mason could be accorded

masonic rights and privileges by British Masons. In order, further, to

keep up the illusion in the minds of its members that they are genuine

Masons, Co-Masonry, in its quarterly organ, _The Co-Mason_, is careful

to include masonic news relating to British Masonry as if it formed one

and the same order.

With regard to the Grand Orient, an equally tortuous policy was pursued.

As we have already seen, the Grande Loge disgraced the lodge that had

admitted Maria Deraismes and did not officially recognize the Maçonnerie

Mixte. The ritual adopted by the latter Order was, however, not that of

British Masonry, and in most Co-Masonic Lodges the ritual employed

contains variations derived from the Grand Orient[709]; indeed the Grand

Orient character of Co-Masonry has always been generally recognized in

masonic circles. This being so, I pointed out in _World Revolution_ that

Co-Masonry derives from the Grand Orient, but I received the following

protest from a woman Co-Mason:

Are you aware that for twenty years the Grand Orient has refused to

recognize it [Co-Masonry] as a legitimate body, just as the English

Orthodox Masons do now? Also, we are distinctly told before joining

that we shall not be recognized by that body. Also, we have nothing

to do with Illuminati, or with Germany. As the Grand Orient have

eliminated the Deity, it is rather a dreadful thing to a Mason to

be connected in any way with that Order, and I cannot imagine a

worse thing could be said about us.

This letter was dated March 6, 1922, and on the 19th of the preceding

month of February an alliance between the Grand Orient and Co-Masonry

had been finally celebrated at the Grand Temple of the Droit Humain in

Paris! We find a report of this ceremony in the _Co-Mason_ for the

following April. It is evident, therefore, that members who were likely

to be repelled by the idea of connexion with the Grand Orient were

assured that no such connexion existed. But when this covert _liaison_

developed into official recognition--although this did not include the

right of entry to the lodges of the Grand Orient for women members--the

triumphant manner in which the great event was announced in the

_Co-Mason_ suggests that the majority of members were likely to feel

nothing but satisfaction at association with the Order that "had

eliminated the Deity." It is true that a few members protested, and by

this time Co-Masonry was too completely under the control of Mrs. Besant

for any faction to question her dictates. Moreover, the opposition had

been weakened by a schism which took place in the Order in 1908, when a

number of members who objected to the introduction of Eastern occultism

into Masonry and likewise disapproved of the Grand Orient, formed

themselves into a separate body under Mrs. Halsey and Dr. Geikie Cobb,

working only the Craft Degrees according to the Grand Lodge of England.

It has been shown by this brief résumé that Co-Masonry is a hybrid

system deriving from two conflicting sources--the political and

rationalist doctrines of the _Maçonnerie Mixte_ and the Eastern

occultism of Madame Blavatsky and Mrs. Besant.

As a professing Buddhist, Madame Blavatsky consistently dissociated

herself from any schemes of material welfare. Thus in the early

Constitution of the Theosophical Society it is stated:

"The Society repudiates all interference on its behalf with the

Governmental relations of any nation or community, confining its

attention exclusively to the matters set forth in the present

document."[710]

These matters relate to the study of Occult Sciences. Again Madame

Blavatsky herself wrote in the _Theosophist_:

Unconcerned about politics: hostile to the insane dreams of

Socialism and Communism, which it abhors--as both are but disguised

conspiracies of brutal force and selfishness against honest

labour; the Society cares but little about the outward human

management of the material world. The whole of its aspirations are

directed towards the occult truths of the visible and invisible

worlds.[711]

It will be seen that this declaration is diametrically opposed to that

of the Maçonnerie Mixte. Nevertheless, Madame Blavatsky so far departed

from her purely occult programme after her arrival in India in 1879 as

to reconstruct the society on the basis of "Universal Brotherhood." This

idea was completely absent from her first scheme; "the Brotherhood plank

in the Society's future platform," wrote her coadjutor Colonel Olcott,

"was not thought of."[712] It was over this plank, however, that Mrs.

Besant was able to walk to the Supreme Council of the Maçonnerie Mixte,

and adding Liberty and Equality to the principle of Fraternity to

establish Co-Masonry on a definitely political basis as a preparation

for the Socialist doctrines her teacher had "abhorred."

In the matter of esoteric doctrines Mrs. Besant again departed from the

path laid down by Madame Blavatsky, whose aim had been to rehabilitate

Buddhism in India, representing the teachings of Gautama Buddha as an

advance on Hinduism.[713] Mrs. Besant, however, came to regard the

doctrines of the Brahmins as the purer faith. Yet it was neither

Buddhism nor Hinduism in a pure form that she introduced to the

Co-Masons of the West, but an occult system of her own devising, wherein

Mahatmas, Swamis, and Gurus were incongruously mingled with the

charlatans of eighteenth-century France. Thus in the Co-Masonic lodges

we find "the King" inscribed over the Grand Master's chair in the East,

in the North the empty chair of "the Master"--to which, until recently,

all members were required to bow in passing--and over it a picture,

veiled in some lodges, of the same mysterious personage. Should the

neophyte enquire, "Who is the King?" he may be told that he is the King

who is to come from India--whether he is identical with the young Hindu

Krishnamurti adopted by Mrs. Besant in 1909 is not clear--whilst the

question "Who is the Master?" will probably be met with the reply that

he is "the Master of all true Freemasons throughout the world," which

the enquirer takes to mean the head of the religion to which he happens

to belong--Christ, Mohammed, or another. But in the third degree the

astonishing information is confided with an appearance of great secrecy

that he is no other than the famous Comte de Saint-Germain, who did not

really die in 1784, but is still alive to-day in Hungary under the name

of Ragocsky. In yet a higher degree, however, the initiate may be told

that the Master is in reality Prince Eugene of Austria.

It would be superfluous to describe in detail the wild nonsense that

composes the creed of Co-Masonry, since a long series of articles was

recently devoted to the subject in _The Patriot_ and can be consulted by

anyone who desires information concerning its ceremonies and the

personnel directing it.[714] Suffice it to say here that its course,

like that of most secret societies, has been marked by violent

dissensions amongst the members--the Blavatsky-ites passionately

denouncing the Besantites and the Besantites proclaiming the divine

infallibility of their leader--whilst at the same time scandals of a

peculiarly unsavoury kind have been brought to light. This fact has

indeed created a serious schism in the ranks of the Theosophists, which

shows that a number of perfectly harmless people are to be found amongst

them. Yet the peculiar recurrence of such scandals in the history of

secret societies leads one inevitably to wonder how far these are to be

regarded as merely deplorable accidents or as the results of

secret-society methods and of occult teaching. That the men against whom

charges of sexual perversion were brought were not isolated examples of

these tendencies is shown by a curious admission on the part of one of

Madame Blavatsky's "chelas," or disciples, who relates:

I was a pupil of H.P.B. before Mrs. Besant joined the T.S. and saw

her expel one of her most gifted and valued workers from the

Esoteric Section for offences against the occult and moral law,

similar to those with which Mr. Leadbeater's name has now been

associated for nearly twenty years. H.P.B. was always extremely

strict on this particular point, and _many_ [my itals.] would-be

aspirants for chelaship were refused on this one ground alone,

while others who had been accepted "on probation" failed almost

immediately afterwards.[715]

It would appear, then, that these deplorable proclivities are peculiarly

prevalent amongst aspirants to Theosophical knowledge.

It is unnecessary to enlarge at length on Mrs. Besant's connexion with

the seditious elements in this country and in India, since these have

frequently been referred to in the press. It is true that the

Theosophical Society, like the Grand Orient, disavows all political

intentions and professes to work only for spiritual development, but the

leaders appear to consider that a radical change must take place in the

existing social system before true spiritual development can be

attained. That this change would lie in the direction of Socialism is

suggested by the fact that a group of leading Theosophists, including

Mrs. Besant, were discovered in 1919 to be holding a large number of

shares in the Victoria House Printing Company, which was financing the

_Daily Herald_ at that date[716]; indeed, Mrs. Besant in her lectures on

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, at the Queen's Hall in October of the

same year, clearly indicated Socialism as the system of the coming New

Era.[717] Since then the "Action Lodge" has been founded with the object

of carrying "Theosophical ideals and conceptions into all fields of

human activity"[718]--from which the political field appears not to be

excluded, since this lodge has been known to co-operate with the

promoters of a political meeting on the Indian question.[719] It is

interesting to notice that a leading member of the "Action Lodge," and

also of the "Order of the Star in the East," was recently reported in

the press to have been long connected with the Labour Party and to have

notified her intention of standing for it in Parliament.

This is, of course, not to say that all Theosophists are Socialists. The

Theosophical Society of America, in an admirable series of articles[720]

discussing the theory of world-revolution set forth in my books, pointed

out that:

The pupils of the powers of evil work ... untiringly to thwart

every real advance of the human race, to pull down whatever

civilization painfully builds, that makes for light and true

development and spiritual growth.... It would not be difficult to

suggest reasons why these pupils and co-workers of the powers of

darkness choose the chief clauses of their creed: Internationalism,

Communism, the destruction of the higher class through the despotic

rule of the lowest class, the corruption of family life. The attack

on religion hardly needs comment.

It will be seen, then, that Socialism and Internationalism are not an

essential part of Theosophical teaching, and that the more enlightened

Theosophists recognize the danger of these destructive doctrines. At a

Special Convention in England on April 6 of this year, seven Lodges

entered a protest against recent departures from the original policy of

the Society. Amongst the resolutions put forward was one urging the

President (Mrs. Besant) to establish a tribunal "to investigate matters

affecting the good name of the Society, and the conduct of certain

members"; this was lost by "an overwhelming majority." Another

resolution regretted that "the Administration, the Magazine, and the

influence of the Society have been used for controversial political ends

and sectarian religious propaganda." Unhappily these resolutions were

not met in the fraternal spirit that might be expected from a Society

setting out to establish Universal Brotherhood and were stigmatized in a

proposed amendment as "destructive motions ... at variance with the

objects for which the Society stands." This clause in the amendment was

lost by a small majority, but a very large majority supported the

further clauses in which the Special Convention affirmed "its complete

confidence in the administration of the Society and its beloved and

revered President Dr. Annie Besant, the chosen leader of whom it is

justly proud," and sent "its cordial greetings to Bishop Leadbeater,

F.T.S.," thanking him "for his invaluable work and his unswerving

devotion to the cause of Theosophy and the service of the Theosophical

Society."

There are, then, a certain number of Theosophists in this country who

have the courage and public spirit to protest against the use of the

Society for political ends and against infractions of the moral code

which they believe certain members to have committed. But this party

unfortunately constitutes only a small minority; the rest are prepared

to render blind and unquestioning obedience to the dictates of Mrs.

Besant and Mr. Leadbeater. In this respect the Theosophical Society

follows the usual plan of secret societies. For although not nominally a

secret society it is one in effect, being composed of outer and inner

circles and absolutely controlled by supreme directors. The inner

circle, known as the Esoteric Section, or rather the Eastern School of

Theosophy--usually referred to as the E.S.--is in reality a secret

society, consisting in its turn of three further circles, the innermost

composed of the Mahatmas or Masters of the White Lodge, the second of

the Accepted Pupils or Initiates, and the third of the Learners or

ordinary members. The E.S. and Co-Masonry thus compose two secret

societies within the open order controlled by people who are frequently

members of both. Whether even these higher initiates are really in the

secret is another question. Dr. Weller van Hook who is said to have been

also a Rosicrucian and an important member of the Grand Orient once

cryptically observed that "Theosophy is not the hierarchy," implying

that it was only part of a world-organization, and darkly hinting that

if it did not carry out the work allotted to it, the Rosicrucians would

take control. That this is more than probable we shall see later.

The outer ranks of the Theosophical Society seem to be largely composed

of harmless enthusiasts who imagine that they are receiving genuine

instruction in the religions and occult doctrines of the East. That the

teaching of the E.S. would not be taken seriously by any real

Orientalist and that they could learn far more by studying the works of

recognized authorities on these subjects at a University or at the

British Museum does not occur to them for a moment. Nor would this

fulfil the purpose of the leaders. For the Theosophical Society is not a

study group, but essentially a propagandist society which aims at

substituting for the pure and simple teaching of Christianity the

amazing compound of Eastern superstition, Cabalism, and

eighteenth-century charlatanism which Mrs. Besant and her coadjutors

have devised. Yet even were the doctrines of Mrs. Besant those of true

Buddhism or of Brahmanism, to what extent are they likely to benefit

Western civilization? Setting the question of Christianity aside,

experience shows that the attempt to orientalize Occidentals may prove

no less disastrous than the attempt to occidentalize Orientals, and that

to transport Eastern mysticism to the West is to vulgarize it and to

produce a debased form of occultism that frequently ends in moral

deterioration or mental derangement.[721] I attribute the scandals that

have taken place amongst Theosophists directly to this cause.

But it is time to turn to another society in which this debased

occultism plays a still more important part.

Rosicrucianism

At the present time, as in the eighteenth century, the term

"Rosicrucianism" is used to cover a number of associations differing in

their aims and doctrines.

The first of these societies to be founded in England was the _Societas

Rosicruciana in Anglia_, founded in 1867 by Robert Wentworth Little on

instructions received from abroad. Only Master Masons are admitted--a

procedure not condemned by Grand Lodge of England, which regards the

S.R.I.A. as a perfectly innocuous body. Although neither polical nor

anti-Christian, but, on the contrary, containing distinctly Christian

elements and claiming to descend from Christian Rosenkreutz--a claim

which must be dismissed as an absurdity--the S.R.I.A. is nevertheless

largely Cabalistic,[722] dealing with the forces of Nature, alchemy,

etc. If its progenitors are really to be traced further back than the

Rosicrucians of the nineteenth century--Ragon, Eliphas Lévi, and Kenneth

Mackenzie--they must be sought amongst certain esoteric Masons in

Hungary and also amongst the French Martinistes, whose rituals doubtless

derived from a kindred source. It will be remembered that Marlines

Pasqually bequeathed to his disciples a large number of Jewish

manuscripts which were presumably preserved in the archives of the

Martiniste Lodge at Lyons. The Order of Martinistes has never ceased to

exist, and the President of the Suprême Conseil, Dr. Gérard Encausse,

well known as "Papus," an avowed Cabalist, only died in 1916. To these

archives another famous Cabalist, the renegade Abbé, Alphonse Louis

Constant, who assumed the name of Eliphas Lévi, may well have had

access. It is said that one of Eliphas Lévi's most distinguished

disciples, the occultist Baron Spedalieri of Marseilles, was a member of

the "Grand Lodge of Solitary Brethren of the Mountain," an "Illumined

Brother of the Ancient Restored Order of Manicheans," a high member of

the Grand Orient, and also a "High Illuminate of the Martinistes."

Before his death in 1875 Eliphas Lévi announced that in 1879 a new

political and religious "universal Kingdom" would be established, and

that it would be possessed by "him who would have the keys of the East."

The manuscript containing this prophecy was passed on by Baron

Spedalieri to Edward Maitland, who in his turn gave it to a leading

member of S.R.I.A., by whom it was published in English.[723]

But, as we have already seen, the principal centre of Cabalism was in

Eastern Europe, whilst Germany was the principal home of Rosicrucianism,

and it was from these directions that, a few years later, a new

Rosicrucian Order in England derived its inspiration. It is curious to

notice that the eighties of the last century were marked by a

simultaneous recrudescence of secret societies and of Socialist

organizations. In 1880 Leopold Engel reorganized Weishaupt's Order of

Illuminati, which, according to M. Guénon, played thenceforth "an

extremely suspect political rôle," and soon after this in 1884 it is

said that a strange incident took place in London. The Rev. A.F.A.

Woodford, a F∴ M∴, happened to be turning over the contents of a

second-hand bookstall in Farringdon Street when he came upon some cypher

MSS., attached to which was a letter in German saying that if the finder

were to communicate with Sapiens Dominabatur Astris, c/o Fraulein Anna

Sprengel, in Germany, he would receive further interesting information.

This, at any rate, is the story told to initiates of the Order which

came to be founded according to the instructions given in the cypher.

But when we remember that precisely the same story was told by

Cagliostro concerning his discovery of a MS. in London by the mysterious

George Cofton on which he had founded his Egyptian rite, we begin to

wonder whether the placing of a MS. in a spot where it is certain to be

discovered by precisely the people qualified to decipher it forms one of

the traditional methods of secret-society adepts for extending their

sphere of influence without betraying their identity or revealing the

centre of direction.

In this case it certainly succeeded admirably, for by a fortunate

coincidence the clergyman who found the cypher MSS. was acquainted with

two prominent members of the S.I.R.A., Dr. Wynn Westcott and Dr.

Woodman, to whom he took the documents, and by a further fortunate

coincidence one of them happened to be the very person to whom Eliphas

Lévi's prophecy had been given; These two men who now assumed the

pseudonyms of S.A. (Sapere Aude) and M.E.V. (Magnus est Veritas), were

able partially to decipher the manuscript; S.A., with the assistance of

a German, then wrote to S.D.A. c/o Fraulein Anna Sprengel, saying that

he and a friend had finished the deciphering and that they desired

further information. In reply they were told to elaborate the notes, and

that if diligent they would be allowed to form an elementary branch of

the Rosicrucian Order in England. Finally S.D.A. wrote to S.A.

authorising him to sign her (or his?) name to any warrant or document

necessary for the constitution of an Order, and promising later on

further rituals and advanced teachings if the preliminary Order proved

successful. S.A. and M.E.V. now called in the aid of a third member of

the S.I.R.A., Macgregor Mathers, henceforth known as D.D.C.F. (Deo Duce

Comite Ferro), who, having more time at his disposal, was able, by means

of long and arduous labour, to elaborate the rituals in Masonic style.

On March 8, 1888, a warrant was then drawn up according to the design

given in the cypher MSS. and was signed by S.A. for S.D.A., by M.E.V.

and D.D.C.F., all three having received the honorary grade of 7-4 from

S.D.A. so as to enable them to act as Chief of the New Temple. It is

interesting to note that whilst the instructions in the cypher MSS. were

in English and German, the name now given to the new Order "The Golden

Dawn," was accompanied by its equivalent in Hebrew "Chebreth Zerech aur

Bokher" that is to say "The Companions of the Rising Light of the

Morning." Amongst the instructions we find: "Avoid Roman Catholics but

with pity"; also these directions concerning the Obligation:

The candidate asking for Light is taken to the Altar and forced to

take an Obligation to secrecy under penalty of expulsion and death

or palsy from hostile current of will.

From the subsequent correspondence of the Order it is seen that this

so-called "punitive current" was actually directed by the Chiefs against

those who rebelled.

Although the members of the Golden Dawn later became linked up with the

"Esoteric Masons" in Germany, neither the organization nor the ritual of

the Order are masonic, but rather Martiniste and Cabalistic. For amidst

all the confused phraseology of the Order, the phrases and symbols

borrowed from Egyptian, Greek, or Hindu mythology, one detects the real

basis of the whole system--the Jewish Cabala, in which all the three

Chiefs were, or became, experts. Mathers in fact translated the famous

book of Abraham the Jew from French into English with explanatory notes,

and Wynn Westcott translated the Sepher Yetzirah from Hebrew. Lectures

were given to the society on such subjects as the Tarot Cards, Geomantic

Talismans, and the Schemhamphorasch or Tetragrammaton.

The Order was at first absolutely governed by the three Chiefs, but

after a time--owing to the death of Woodman and the resignation of Wynn

Westcott--Mathers became the Sole Chief and professed to have obtained

further instructions from the Hidden Chiefs through his wife--a sister

of Bergson--by means of clairvoyance and clairaudience. But the real

directors of the Order were in Germany and known as the "Hidden and

Secret Chiefs of the Third Order." A curious resemblance will here be

noted with the "Concealed Superiors" by whom members of the _Stricte

Observance_ in the eighteenth century declared themselves to be

controlled.

Who these men were at the time the Order was founded remains a mystery

not only to the outside world but even to the English initiates

themselves. The identity of Sapiens Dominabatur Astris appears never to

have been established, nor was anything more heard about the still more

mysterious Anna Sprengel until her death in an obscure German village

was reported in 1893. Indeed, one of the most active members of the

Order, Dr. Robert Felkin, M.D., known as F.R. (Finem Respice), later

declared that, although he had visited five temples of the Order in

Germany and Austria, he had been unable to get into touch with the

Hidden Chiefs, or to discover how the original MSS. came into the hands

of the clergyman who handed them to Wynn Westcott and Woodman. According

to Felkin's statement, all that he had been able to find out was that

the MSS. were the notes of ceremonies made by a man who had been

initiated into a Lodge in Germany, and that the temple from which they

originated was "a special temple" working on the Cabala tree like the

English branch of the Order. Further, he was told that none of the "big

Three" who founded the Golden Dawn in England were real Rosicrucians at

all.

The confusion of ideas which must inevitably result when, as in secret

societies or revolutionary organizations, a number of people are being

blindly led by hidden directors, naturally brought about dissensions

amongst the members, who mutually accused each other of ignorance of the

real aims of the Order. Thus the London Lodge ended by breaking with

Mathers, who was in Paris, on account of his arrogance in claiming

supreme power through the mystery of the Hidden Chiefs, and after two

years of unsettled government, in 1902 elected three new chiefs--Dr.

Felkin (F.R. = Finem Respice), Bullock, a solicitor (L.O. = Levavi

Oculos) who resigned at the end of the year, and Brodie Innes (S.S.--Sub

Spe). But although Mathers had been repudiated, his teachings were

retained as emanating from the Hidden Chiefs.

Two years earlier a dramatic incident had occurred. In a very sinister

personage, Aleister Crowley, had been introduced into the Order on

the recommendation of A. E. Waite (S.R. = Sacramentum Regis) the

well-known mystical writer. A man of many aliases, Crowley followed the

precedent of the "Comte de Saint-Germain," the "Comte de Cagliostro,"

and the "Baron von Offenbach" by ennobling himself and masquerading

under various titles in turn, such as "Count Svareff," "Lord Boleskine,"

"Baron Rosenkreutz," but usually known in the Order as "P" for

"Perdurabo."

Crowley, who was a Cabalist, had written a book on Goetic Magic and soon

after becoming a member of the "Golden Dawn" set to work with another

"Frater" on magical experiments, including evocations, the consecration

and use of talismans, divination, alchemy, etc. In 1900 Crowley had

joined Mathers in Paris where the latter and his wife were living under

the assumed names of the "Comte and Comtesse of Glenstrae" and engaged

in reviving the mysteries of Isis at the Bodinière Theatre. In this task

they were joined by an extraordinary lady, the notorious Madame Horos

(alias the Swami) who claimed to be the real and authentic Sapiens

Dominabatur Astris. Crowley described her as "a very stout woman and

very fair" and "a vampire of remarkable power;" Mathers declared her to

be "probably the most powerful medium living," but later, in a letter to

another member of the "Golden Dawn" observed: "I believe her and her

accomplices to be emissaries of a very powerful _secret occult order_

who have been trying for years to break up other Orders and especially

my work." Incidentally this lady, who proved to be a false S.D.A., ended

by starting an Order in collaboration with her husband, in which it was

said that certain rituals of the Golden Dawn were adapted to an immoral

purpose, with the result that the couple were brought to trial and

finally condemned to penal servitude.

Whether owing to this disturbing experience, or because, as Crowley

declared, he had "imprudently attracted to himself forces of evil too

great and terrible for him to withstand, presumably Abramelin demons,"

Mathers' reason began to totter. This then was the situation at the time

of his rupture with the Order, and the dramatic incident referred to was

the sudden appearance of Crowley in London, who, whether acting as

Mathers' envoy or on his own initiative, broke into the premises of the

Order, with a black mask over his face, a plaid shawl thrown over his

shoulders, an enormous gold (or gilt) cross on his breast, and a dagger

at his side, for the purpose of taking over possession. This attempt was

baffled with the prosaic aid of the police and Crowley was expelled from

the Order. Eventually, however, he succeeded in obtaining possession of

some of the rituals and other documents of the Golden Dawn, which he

proceeded to publish in the organ of a new Order of his own. This

magazine, containing a mixture of debased Cabalism and vulgar

blasphemies, interspersed with panegyrics on haschish--for Crowley

combined with sexual perversion an addiction to drugs--which might

appear to express only the ravings of a maniac. But eccentricity has

often provided the best cloak for dark designs, and the outbreak of war

proved that there was a method in the madness of the man whom the

authorities persisted in regarding merely as an irresponsible degenerate

of a non-political kind. To quote the press report of his exploits after

this date:

In November 1914 Crowley went to the United States, where he

entered into close relations with the pro-German propagandists. He

edited the New York _International_, a German propagandist paper

run by the notorious George Silvester Viereck, and published, among

other things, an obscene attack on the King and a glorification of

the Kaiser. Crowley ran occultism as a side-line, and seems to have

been known as the "Purple Priest." Later on he publicly destroyed

his British passport before the Statute of Liberty, declared in

favour of the Irish Republican cause, and made a theatrical

declaration of "war" on England.... During his stay in America

Crowley was associated with a body known as the "Secret

Revolutionary Committee" which was working for the establishment of

an Irish Republic. He is known also as the writer of a defeatest

manifesto circulated in France in 1915.