,
And on the Scale of Love
,
I remain, Most Honored General
,
Your very sincere friend
,
And Masonic Brother
,
M.L. Weems
18 Mackey, The Encyclopedia of Free Masonry, p. 182 has an article entitled, “the Christianization of Freemasonry.” It states that wherever Christianity is strong, it often brings its faith directly into the Masonic Order.
The interpretation of the symbols of Freemasonry from a Christian point of view is a theory adopted by some of the most distinguished Masonic writers of England and this country, but one of which I think does not belong to the ancient system. Hutchinson, and after him Oliver, - profoundly philosophical as are the Masonic speculations of both, -have, I am constrained to believe, fallen into a great error in calling the Master Mason’s degree a Christian institution. It is true that it embraces within its scheme the great truths of Christianity upon the subject of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body; but this was to be presumed, because Freemasonry is truth, and all truth must be identical. But the origin of each is different; their histories are dissimilar. The principles of Freemasonry preceded the advent of Christianity. Its symbols and its legends are derived from the Solomonic Temple and the people even anterior to that. Its religion comes from the ancient priesthood; its faith was that primitive one of Noah and his immediate descendents. If Masonry were simply a Christian institution, the Jew and the Moslem, the Brahman and the Buddhist, could not conscientiously partake of its illumination. But its universality is its boast. In its language citizens of every nation may converse; at its altar men of all religions man kneel; to its creed disciples of every faith may subscribe.
Yet it cannot be denied that since the advent of Christianity a Christian element had been almost imperceptibly infused into the Masonic system, at least among Christian Masons. This has been a necessity; for it is the tendency of every predominant religion to pervade with its influence all that surrounds it or is about it, whether religious, political, or social. This arises from a need of the human heart. To the man deeply imbued with the spirit of his religion, there is an almost unconscious desire to accommodate and adapt all the business and the amusements of life, - the labors and the employments of his every-day existence,—to the I-dwelling faith of his soul.
The Christian Mason, therefore, while acknowledging and appreciating the great doctrines taught in Masonry, and also while grateful that these doctrines were preserved in the bosom of his ancient Order at a time when they were unknown to the multitudes of the surrounding nations, is still anxious to give them a Christian character; to invest them, in some measure, with the peculiarities of his own creed, and to bring the interpretation of their symbolism more nearly home to his own religious sentiments.
The feeling is an instinctive one, belonging to the noblest aspiration of our human nature; and hence we find Christian Masonic writers indulging in it to an almost unwarrantable excess, and, by the extent of their sectarian interpretations, materially affecting the cosmopolitan character of the Institution.
This tendency to Christianization has, in some instances, been so universal, and has prevailed for so long a period, and has prevailed for so long a period, that certain symbols and myths have been in this way, so deeply and thoroughly imbued with the Christian element as to leave those who have not penetrated into the cause of the peculiarity, in doubt whether they should attribute to the symbol an ancient or a modern and Christian origin.
19 See, for example, the articles on “Freemasonry” in Documents of Synod: Study Papers and Actions of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical synod—1965-1982, ed. Paul R. Gilchrist (New Castle, Delaware: Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, 1982), pp. 252-264.
20 Alexander D.D., Reverend Archibald. Evidences of the Authenticity, Inspiration, and Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures.(Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication)., p.27-30
Again, if deism be the true religion, why has piety never flourished among its professors? Why have they not been the most zealous and consistent worshippers of God? Does not truth promote piety? And will it not ever be the case that they who hold the truth will love God most ardently, and serve him most faithfully? But what is the fact in regard to this class of men? Have they ever been distinguished for the spirit of devotion; have they produced numerous instances of exemplary piety? It is so much the reverse, that even the asking such reasonable questions has the appearance of ridicule. And when people heat the word “pious deist,” they have the same sort of feeling as when mention is made of an honest thief, or a sober drunkard.
There is no slander in making this statement, for deists do not affect to be pious. They have no love for devotion. If the truth were known, this is the very thing they wish to get rid of; and if they believed that professing themselves to be deist laid them under greater obligations to be devout, they would not be so zealous for the system. Believe me, the contest is not between one religion and another, it is between religion and irreligion. It is impossible that a man of truly pious temper should reject the Bible, even if he were unacquainted with its historical evidences. He would find it to be so congenial to his taste, and so salutary in its effects on his own spirit, that he would conclude that it must have derived its origin from heaven. But we find no such spirit in the writings of deists. There is not in them a tincture of piety; but they have more than a sprinkling of profane ridicule. When you turn to them from the Bible, you are sensible of as great a transition, as if you passed suddenly from a warm and genial climate to a frigid zone. If deists expect ever to conciliate regard for their religion they must appear to be truly pious men, sincerely engaged in the service of God; and this will have more effect than all their arguments. But whenever this event shall occur, they will be found no longer opposing the Bible, but will esteem it as the best of books, and will come to it for fuel to feed the flame of pure devotion. An African prince, who was brought to England and resided there some time, being asked what he thought of the Bible, answered, that he believed it to be from God, for he found all the good people in favour of it, and all the bad people against it!
The want of a spirit of piety and devotion, must be reckoned the principal reason why the deists have never been able to establish and keep up any religious worship among themselves. The thing has been attempted at several different times and in different countries, but never with success.
It is said, that the first enterprise of this kind was that of David Williams, an Englishman, who had been a dissenting minister in Liverpool, but passing over first to Socinianism, and then to deism, when to London, where, being patronized by some persons of influence, he opened a house for deistical worship, and formed a liturgy, consisting principally of praise to the Creator. Here he preached for a short time, and collected some followers; but he complained that most of his congregation went on to atheism. After four years’ trial, the scheme came to nothing. There were neither funds nor congregation remaining, and the Priest of Nature, (as Williams styled himself) through discouragement and ill health, abandoned the project.
Some feeble attempts of the same kind have been made in the United States; but they are unworthy of being particularly noticed.
Federick II., the deistical king of Prussia, had once formed the plan of a Pantheon in Berlin for the worshippers of all sects and all religions, the chief object of which was the subversion of Christianity; but the scheme was never carried into execution.
The most interesting experiment of this kind was that made by the Theophilanthropists in France, during the period of the revolution. After some trial had been made of atheism and irreligion, and when the want of public worship was felt by many reflecting persons, a society was formed for the worship of God, upon the pure principles of Natural Religion. Among the patrons of this society, were men beloved for their philanthropy, and distinguished for their learning, and some high in power.
La Revellière Lepaux, one of the directory of France, was a zealous patron of the new religion. By his influence, permission was obtained to make use of the churches for their worship. In the city of Paris alone, eighteen or twenty were assigned to them, among which was the cathedral church of Notre Dame.
Their creed was simple, consisting of the great articles, The Existence of God, and the Immortality of the Soul. Their moral system also embraced two great principles, The Love of God, And The Love of Man; - which were indicated by the name Theophilanthropists. Their worship consisted of prayers and hymns of praise, which were comprehended in a manual prepared for a directory in worship. Lectures were delivered by the members, which, however, underwent the inspection of the society, before they were pronounced in public. To these were added some simple ceremonies, such as placing a basket of fruit and flowers on the altar. Music, vocal and instrumental, was used; for the latter, they availed themselves of the organs in the churches. Great efforts were made to have this worship generally introduced in all the principal towns in France; and the views of the society were even extended to foreign countries. Their manual was sent into all parts of the republic by the Minister of the interior, free of expense.
Never did a society enjoy greater advantages at its commencement. Christianity had been rejected with scorn; atheism had for a short time been tried, but was found to be intolerable; the government was favourable to the project; men of learning and influence patronized it, and churches ready built were at the service of the new denomination. The system of Natural Religion which was adopted was the best that could have been selected, and considerable wisdom was discovered in the construction of their liturgy. But with all these circumstances in their favour, the society could not subsist. At first, indeed, while the scene was novel, large audiences attended, most of whom however were merely spectators; but in a short time, they dwindled away to such a degree, that instead of occupying twenty churches in Paris, they needed only four; and in some of the provincial towns, where they began under the most favourable auspices, they soon came to nothing. Thus they went on declining until, under the consular government, they were prohibited the use of the churches any longer; upon which they immediately expired without a struggle, and it is believed that not a vestige of the society now remains.
It will be instructive and interesting to inquire into the reasons of this want of success, in a society enjoying so many advantages. Undoubtedly, the chief reason was, the want of a truly devotional spirit. This was observed from the beginning of their meetings. There was nothing to interest the feelings of the heart. Their orators might be men of learning, and might produce good moral discourses, but they were not men of piety, and not always men of pure morals. Their hymns were said to be well composed, and the music good; but the musicians were hired from the stage. There was also a strange defect of liberality in contributing to the funds of the society. They found it impossible to raise, in some their societies, a sum which every Christian congregation, even in the poorest of any sect, would have collected in one day. It is a fact, that one of the societies petitioned government to grant them relief from a debt which they had contracted in providing the apparatus of their worship, not amounting to more than fifty dollars, stating, that their annual income did not exceed twenty dollars. In the other towns their musicians deserted them, because they were not paid, and frequently no person could be found to deliver lectures.
21 WGW, vol. 32, 7-3-1792. WGW note: “The portrait was not executed until September, 1794, in Philadelphia. Having been refused a sitting at the above time, Williams offered the Masonic Lodge No. 22 of Alexandria the finished work, if the lodge would request him to make a portrait. The lodge approved this idea Aug. 29, 1793. The resultant portrait was executed in pastel, and is now in the possession of the lodge.” Mrs. Washington said it was her favorite portrait of the President, because the stylization and embellishment of portrait painters was not followed, and Williams painted Washington as he saw him, even with imperfections like small pox marks.
22 Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, 125.
23 WGW, vol. 36, 9-25-1798. To Reverend G.W. Snyder. WGW note says, “In a letter from Snyder (Aug. 22, 1798, which is in the Washington Papers), it is stated that this book ‘gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of ‘Illuminati,’ whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural.’” Washington followed up the letter a few weeks later. WGW, 10-24-1798. To Reverend G. W. Snyder. “Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into. It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.”
24 Timothy Dwight, “The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis” (1798) in Annals of America, (Chicago, 1976), vol. 4.
25 Thomson compiled and published a harmony of the Gospels, and served as an elder in the Presbyterian Church. As a classics scholar, he was the source of the Latin motto, Annuit Coeptis, meaning “He [God] has smiled on our undertakings” that is back of the Great Seal of the United States and on the reverse of the American dollar bill. See Peter A. Lillback, Freedom’s Holy Light, (Bryn Mawr: The Providence Forum, 2000), pp. 4-7.
26 WGW, vol. 33, 3-5-1794. to Charles Thomson.
27 Boyd Stanley Schlenther, Charles Thomson: A Patriot’s Pursuit (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1990), pp. 216-217. “...the Master of the Masonic Order in Baltimore who was “determined... to unbosom my heart.” This man urged Thomson to become a Mason to help him bring the order (which had “deviated from the truth”) back to the “first principles” of Christianity. “I am in, you are out,” wrote the Masonic Master. “Will you–can you–deem yourself called upon to lend your aid to do much good?” Thomson stayed out. In fact, throughout his life he appears never to have joined any organization that he did not feel was involved in some useful purpose. He never was a member of the Tammany Society; he never joined Philadelphia’s Hibernian Club, organized in 1759 by bother Protestant and Roman Catholic Irish immigrants. It appears that any group that smacked of frivolity or that was mainly given to socializing was never to Thomson’s taste, and even those organizations with which he had associated himself –such as the Philosophical Society and the Agricultural Society—soon lost their charm, and interest, especially if they had appeared to have served their purpose for him.
To occupy his time after Hannah’s death, Thomson turned once again to biblical studies. Even while the Bible was in the process of printing, Thomson had begun “to draw up a harmony of the four evangelists from my translation following the Order of Dr. Doddridge.” Thomson believed that by arranging the facts presented in the Gospels, producing them in parallel columns, he had “removed the seeming inconsistencies with which they are charged & shewn that instead of contradicting, they strengthen & confirm one another’s narrative.”
In it, he justified publication on the grounds that though there had been many such harmonies, “infidels still continue to charge the Evangelist with inconsistency, and contradiction.” As for himself, Thomson publicly admitted that the real reason he first undertook the task was for his own “solace.”
One result of the publication of the Synopsis was brief renewal of his correspondence with Jefferson, which had not been maintained following their exchanges at the appearance of the full Bible in 1808. Early in 1816 Jefferson wrote that he had received a copy of the Synopsis, and after perfunctory compliments he proceeded to inform Thomson that he had made a “wee little book” of his own; by cutting the texts from the Gospels which include the words of Jesus, Jefferson had compiled what he called the “Philosophy of Jesus.” This information led Thomson to an innocent but extremely awkward indiscretion. Delighted that Jefferson saw this project as proof of his own religious nature) “I am a real Christian—that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus”), Thomson brought several Philadelphians to the conclusion that there was reason for “the Religious world. ...[to be] daily congratulating each other,” on Jefferson’s “happy change of Religious belief.” The miraculous had happened: Jefferson had made “a profession of faith.” The matter had gone so far that Thomson nearly provided Jefferson’s letter for publication, only to receive this rebuke: “I apprehend that [you] were no sufficiently aware of its private & personal nature, or of the impropriety of putting it in the power of an editor to publish, without the consent of the writer.” Crestfallen, Thomson wrote immediately to apologize. Jefferson – who had been caused no little anxiety and trouble by the who affair—replied, saying that he had received a communication from a person in Philadelphia who had seen his letter to Thomson, asking Jefferson “questions which I answer only to one Being. To himself, therefore. I replied: ‘Say nothing of my Religion; it is known to my God and myself alone.’” Under the circumstances, it was a kindly response to Thomson, but this really was the last letter ever to pass between the two men.”
28 Michael Novak and Jana Novak, Washington’s God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country, (New York: Basic Books, 2006), p. 97, “Some object that he was a member of the Freemasons for many years (although his attendance at lodge meetings was extremely rare), and that that is incompatible with Christian belief. (Roman Catholics, even today, are forbidden to belong to the Masons; in Europe, unlike in the United States, Freemasonry has been rabidly, sometimes violently, anti-Catholic.) But many American Christian then and now have found nothing incompatible between Freemasonry and Christianity and have looked at the former as a kind of service arm of the latter. Indeed, in Washington’s day many bishops and clergymen were active members of their local Masonic lodges.”
