The History of Freemasonry

by Albert Gallatin Mackey

Chapter 45 - Origin of the Grand Orient of France

THE truth of history compels us to acknowledge the fact that the Grand Orient, now and for a century past the supreme Masonic authority in France, was, in its inception, a schismatic body. Those principles of law, then recognized, as they still are, as directing the organization of Grand Lodges, appear to have been violated in almost every point by the dissidents who broke off from the old Grand Lodge and conspired to establish its rival.

The Grand Lodge was still in existence; it is true it was not energetic in action, but it was not asleep; its consent had neither been asked nor obtained for this radical change in its constitution; the lodges had not been invited to meet in general assembly nor to give their sanction to the dissolution of the old body and to the creation of the new one; everything had been done by the irresponsible authority of the eight commissioners, who were merely a committee appointed to make a report on the condition of the Order and to suggest reforms to the Grand Lodge. But they exceeded their powers; made no report, and proceeded in secret sessions, to which none but their friends and co-conspirators were admitted, to the inauguration of a new system, the adoption of which was to result in the abolition of the body which had appointed them and the creation of a new one, of which not the remotest idea was entertained by the authority from which they derived their powers.

But if ever a violation of law could be defended by the necessity of a reform of abuses, which could not be effected in a more legal manner, such defense might surely be found in the corrupt condition to which Freemasonry had been reduced by the mal-administration of affairs through the neglect of the Grand Lodge, the indifference of the Grand Masters, and the usurpations of their Substitutes.

Under the constitution of the old Grand Lodge it will be shown that there were many abuses and corruptions of the pure and primitive principles on which Speculative Freemasonry had been founded at the beginning of the century. A reformation of these abuses was undoubtedly necessary, if the existence of the Order was to be preserved. There ought not to have been any objection to the reform, it is only the method in which it was effected that is to be condemned.

A comparison of the old constitution of the Grand Lodge with that of the Grand Orient presents us with the abuses of the one and the reforms proposed by the other.

The Grand Lodge of France was composed only of the Masters of the lodges of Paris. Hence the Masons and the lodges of the Provinces had no voice in the government of the Order, though they were required to contribute to the revenues of the Grand Lodge and pay implicit obedience to its decree. It was simply the old tyrannic principle of taxation without representation, and was in direct violation of the organic law on which the Mother Grand Lodge at London had been instituted.

The Quarterly Communications, on which the supreme authority rested, was composed of thirty officers who were elected triennially.

There was also a Council consisting of nine officers and nine Masters of Paris lodges, whose decisions were, however, only provisionary and required to be confirmed by the Quarterly Communication to which they were reported.

The power of punishing offending members was vested in the Masters of lodges, but there lay an appeal to the Grand Lodge.

The Masters of lodges were in general chosen for life, and were not removable by the lodges over which they presided, and which in fact were merely, in many instances, instruments provided for the pecuniary interests of their Masters.

Thory, very strangely, calls the constitution of which these are the principal points "simple, uncomplicated, and conformable to the regulations of foreign Grand Lodges." The reader will be able to give to these two favorable views their proper value.

He admits that there were abuses, but he attributes them to the factions which agitated the Grand Lodge after the death of the Duke d'Antin, and to the state of anarchy which supervened on the suspension of the labors of the Grand Lodge by the order of government.

Doubtless, these circumstances exerted an unfavorable influence on the purity of the administration of the law, but whatever were the causes, the abuses existed, and, of course, their reformation was urgently demanded.

In all these points the new constitution of the Grand Orient provided a remedy and presented the desired reform, as may be seen from the following brief view of its principal features.

"The Statutes of the Royal Order of Freemasonry in France," for such was the imposing title of the new constitution, provided in the initial article that the "Masonic Body of France," that is, the Grand Orient, should be composed, as its only members, of regular Masons, meaning thereby the members of lodges which had received Warrants from or had them renewed by the Grand Orient.

In this way, while all regular Masons were recognized as constituting a part of the great Masonic family of France, those who still retained their allegiance to the old and rival Grand Lodge were excluded from recognition.

This was a defensive act, the necessity of which excused its severity.

Again: It was declared that the Grand Orient should be composed of all the actual Masters or the deputies of lodges not only of Paris but also of the Provinces.

The Grand Lodge had never recognized the Provincial lodges as forming any part of its constituency. Their recognition by the Grand Orient as entitled to participate in its labors was the removal of a very flagrant abuse of the Masonic law of equality.

Again: All the Warrants of constitution which had been granted by the old Grand Lodge to irremovable Masters, that is, to Masters elected for life, were suppressed by the Grand Orient, which recognized as Masters only those who were elected from time to time by the lodges.

These were the most important points of difference between the Grand Lodge and the Grand Orient; but they were so important as to make the old Masonic form of government, as Thory expresses it, an oligarchical government by an irresponsible few, while that of the new one was representative, the only form that was recognized by the founders of the Speculative system of Freemasonry.

In a Society based on the principle of equality it is very endent that the administration of affairs should not be confided to a privileged class, to the exclusion of many of its members.

Hence, though the Grand Orient of France originated in a schismatic usurpation of power, and was therefore irregular and illegal in its methods of organization, the end would seem to have justified the means. It can not be doubted that at that important epoch, the Masonic Order in France was indebted for its salvation from impending dissolution to the establishment of the Grand Orient.

The "Grand Orient" was, as it were, the generic title assumed for the whole Masonic Order; within its bosom was the body called "The National Grand Lodge." The distinctive titles were, how ever, more shadowy than real. The "Grand Orient" is the name by which the Supreme authority of Freemasonry is always described by French as well as other writers.

The title was a novel one, first invented in France at that time. It had never before been heard of in Masonic language, though it has long since become quite common on the Continent of Europe and in South America. It has, however, never been adopted by the Freemasons of any of the English-speaking nations, who adhere to the primitive and better phrase, " Grand Lodge," as the title of the Supreme Masonic authority.

The first meeting of the Grand Orient as a National Grand Lodge was held on March 5, 1773. Other meetings succeeded, until June 24th, when the new Constitution was adopted, and the nomination of the Duke of Chartres as Grand Master, which had been made by the old Grand Lodge, was confirmed. The amovability of the Masters of lodges, and the right of the Provincial lodges to base represented in the Grand Orient were again proclaimed, and the choice of fifteen officers of honor as well as the nomination of the ordinary officers was referred to the Duke of Luxembourg.

But though the Duke of Chartres had been nominated as Grand Master, he had not yet formally accepted the nomination, an act which the members of the new Grand Orient felt to be imperatively necessary to the success of their designs. Having been previously elected to the same office by the old Grand Lodge, the founders of the Grand Orient recognized the policy of withdrawing him from all connection with the rival organization and of securing the adhesion to their cause of a prince of the royal blood.

Morally considered, no man in France was more unfit to be called to the head of the Masonic institution than the Duke of Chartres. From his early youth he had exhibited a depraved disposition, and passed amid companions, almost as wicked as himself, a life of vice and in the indulgence of the most licentious practices. When on the death of his father he became the Duke of Orleans, he developed a hatred for the king, who had refused to elevate him to posts to which his high birth entitled him to aspire, but from which he was excluded by his blackened reputation. Inspired with his hatred for the king, and the court, and moved by his personal ambition, he fomented the discontents which were already springing up among the people. On the breaking out of the revolution he became a seeker for popular favor; rivalled the bitterness of the most fanatical Jacobins, renounced his rank and title and assumed as a French citizen the name of Philip Egalite, repudiated Freemasonry as opposed to republican ideas, such as were then the fashion, threw up his office as Grand Master, was elected to the National Assembly, voted for the death of his cousin Louis the Sixteenth, and finally, as a fitting close to his life of infamy, expired on the guillotine, one of the many victims of the reign of terror.

At the period of his election as Grand Master, the Duke of Chartres had, though very young, (1) already exhibited a foreshadowing of his future career of infamy. Enough certainly was known of his vicious character to have made him an unfit leader of a virtuous society. But motives of policy overcame all other considerations.

The Duke himself was reluctant to accept the position which was tendered to him. Some jests made by the wits of the court, who perhaps saw the unfitness of the appointment, are said to have been the cause of the coldness with which he viewed the dignity tendered to him. (2)

A deputation consisting of four members of the Grand Orient, all men of rank, waited on the Duke to obtain his consent to the adoption of the new constitution, which would of course have been the recognition of the new body which had enacted it. But he refused to see the deputation.

(1) He was born in 1747, and was therefore only twenty-six when elected Grand Master. (2) This was the cause assigned by contemporary writers for the reluctance with which he gave his consent. See Thory, "Fondation de la Grand Orient," p. 39.

The joyful event of the birth of a son (1) and heir presented it was supposed a more favorable opportunity for obtaining his consent to their proceedings. The expectation was gratified. The Duke of Luxembourg, who took an earnest interest in the success of the Grand Orient and who exercised much influence over the mind of the prince, repaired to his residence long before the appearance of the deputation and succeeded in obtaining his consent to grant an interview.

Having been admitted to his presence, his approval of the proceedings by which the Grand Orient was organized was obtained, and he consented that his installation as Grand Master should take place soon after his return from a visit to Fontainebleau which he was obliged to make.

Accordingly, he was installed in his own house, called la Folie Titon, in the Rue de Montreuil, on October 28, 1773. The Grand Orient was thus legalized, so far as his patronage could make it so, as the supreme legislative authority of the Masonic Order in France. Hence, this installation by its rival of the same Grand Master whom it had itself elected in 1771, and who still retained that position, was a cause of great annoyance to the old Grand Lodge. The old Grand Lodge did not, however, cease at once to exist, but continued its labors, exercising a warfare with the Grand Orient for several years.

It held a session on June 17, 1773, at which were present those Masters of the Paris lodges who were still faithful to it and some deserters from the Grand Orient, who had abandoned that body when it suppressed the law of immovability.

At this session the Grand Lodge fulminated its decrees against the Grand Orient, which it declared to be a schismatic body, surreptitiously formed - a mere faction.

On September 10th it declared the eight commissioners deprived of all Masonic rights, and forbade their admission to any of the lodges.

Though fully recognizing the embarrassment which resulted from the installation of the Duke of Chartres, it determined to maintain its independence and to continue its labors with the assistance of the few lodges which still adhered to it. For this purpose it continued

(1) This was the Duke of Valois, afterward Duke of Chartres, then Duke of Orleans, and finally King Louis Philippe of France.

its denunciations of the Grand Orient and revoked all its decrees as fast as they were passed. It had among its adherents some able men, who employed their talents in the composition and publication of circulars and even books in which the Grand Orient and all its proceedings were denounced.

Responses were not wanting on the part of the Grand Orient, among whose most able and energetic defenders was the Duke of Luxembourg, while M. Gouilliard, a Doctor of Laws and the Grand Orator of the Grand Lodge, was the most conspicuous writer on behalf of that body.

It would be tedious to follow in all its details this internecine war of "paper pellets," which lasted with equal acrimony on either side for many years. It will be sufficient to pursue, with rapid sketch, the progress of each of the rival bodies until the close of the century, when a union was finally accomplished.

In 1774 the Grand Lodge assumed the title of the "Sole and only Grand Orient of France,'' (1) and proceeded to the election of its Grand Officers under the auspices of the Duke of Chartres, whom it recognized as "Grand Master of all the lodges of France." It again decreed that the so-called Grand Orient of France was irregular, and its members and partisans were clandestine Masons; it forbade its lodges to admit them as visitors unless they abjured their errors and promised submission to the Grand Lodge; it also interdicted the members of its own lodges from visiting the Grand Orient.

In 1775 the Grand Lodge granted Warrants to eight lodges in Paris and to still more in the Provinces, and continued to increase the number of lodges under its obedience for many successive years, so that its existence was not merely a formal one. On the contrary, it appears to have been a troublesome though not eventually a successful rival of the Grand Orient.

In 1780 it must at last have felt the inconvenience of having a Grand Master only in name, for there is no record that the Duke of Chartres, or his Substitute, the Duke of Luxembourg, ever attended its communications. To remedy this evil, the Grand Lodge in 1780 appointed three honorary Presidents, who were to supply the place of the Grand Master in his absence from the meetings.

(1) Seul et Unique Grand Orient de France.

That the old Grand Lodge was not yet moribund notwithstanding the greater activity of its rival, the Grand Orient, is evident from the fact that in its Tableau issued in 1783, it reports the number of lodges under its jurisdiction in Paris as well as the Provinces as amounting to the respectable number of 352. In the same yeas the English printed lists enumerate 453 lodges, but many of these were extinct and 123 were situated in foreign countries, so that there were actually at that time more lodges in France under obedience to the old Grand Lodge than there were in England under the jurisdiction of the constitutional Grand Lodge. (1)

But in 1789 the political troubles which then began to agitate the kingdom, and which soon after resulted in the French Revolution, had a very serious effect on the condition of Freemasonry. The attendance on the lodges was very infrequent, and finally, in 1792, the Grand Lodge suspended its labors and the members were dispersed.

From the time of its organization in 1773, the Grand Orient had maintained a successful existence; it was patronized by a better class of Masons than that of which the Grand Lodge was composed, and had the support of the Grand Master of both bodies, his substitute, the Duke of Luxembourg, showing a very evident partiality for the Grand Orient, and not only never attending the meetings but actually denouncing the authority of the Grand Lodge.

The record of its transactions for these sixteen years supply us with more interesting incidents than those which marked the quiet progress of the Grand Lodge during the same period.

Its contests with the Grand Lodge for supremacy were unremittingly maintained. The mutual recriminations of both bodies did not tend to cultivate a spirit of fraternity. Finding itself embarrassed for the want of the registers and other archives which were retained by the Grand Lodge, the Grand Orient went so far as to apply to the Lieutenant of Police and cause the arrest and imprisonment of the keeper of the Seals and some other members of the Grand Lodge. But the effort to obtain possession of the documents, even by this harsh means was unsuccessful.

It was found impossible for want of the registers to discover the number and names of the country lodges, most of which, having

(1) See List No. 16 in Gould's " Four Old Lodges," p. 68

been established under the old, corrupt system of immovable Masters or Masters for life, retained their allegiance to the Grand Lodge, which still preserved the usage.

The Grand Orient, therefore, that the knowledge of its existence and its authority might be brought nearer these country lodges, established Provincial Grand Lodges, as another of the important changes which it was making in the usages of French Freemasonry.

These Provincial Grand Lodges were not, however, established on the same plan as those of England. Their design was, as has been said, to relieve the Grand Orient of the embarrassment of governing lodges at a distance. A provincial Grand Lodge was to be established not in a Province only, but in any town or place where there were not less than three lodges; it was to have a superintendence over them; its decrees were to be subject only to appeal to the Grand Orient, it was to collect and transmit all dues; and was to be the medium of all correspondence between the lodges and the Grand Orient.

The Grand Orient became rather aristocratic in its ideas and refused to recognize as members of the Order persons who were attached to the public theatres and to all artisans who were not Master workmen in their trades. Subsequently it forbade the lodges to meet in public taverns, a reformation which their English brethren had not yet reached.

In 1774 the title of "Royal Order," by which Freemasonry had hitherto been designated in France, was exchanged for that of the "Masonic Order," certainly a more appropriate name.

In 1775 the Grand Orient was occupied in determining the form of the Masonic government in the kingdom, and several decrees were made for the regulation of the deputies and representatives of lodges. It expressed its intention to purify the Order and the lodges which were profaned by the presence of corrupt men, and a commission was appointed to carry these views into effect.

The Duke of Chartres presided at a meeting of the Grand Orient in July, 1776, being the first time that he had been present since his installation in 1773.

The prevalence of "high degrees" and of Councils and Chapters which conferred them independently of the Grand Orient, had led the members of that body to take into consideration the expediency of following what had now become the fashion on the Continent and more especially in France, and of developing within its own bosom a rite which should be founded on the three symbolic degrees which had hitherto been practiced by it and by the Grand Lodge. A chamber of degrees or committee to regulate this matter was accordingly appointed in 1782. Two years after this chamber reported four degrees, which, with the three symbolic as a foundation, were to constitute the " Rise Francaise."

These degrees were entitled Elu, Ecossais, Chevalier d'Orient, and Chevalier Rose Croix, or, as they may be translated, Elect Mason, Scottish Mason, Knight of the East and Knight Rose Croix. Though there were some modifications of the rituals, the degrees were not an original conception of the Committee, but were borrowed substantially from those systems which had been practiced in France since the time of the Chevalier Ramsay.

The degrees having been adopted by the Grand Orient, it decreed that they should henceforth be the only ones recognized and practiced in the several chapters which were attached to the lodges under its jurisdiction.

Undoubtedly the adoption of these new degrees was a manifest innovation on the pure system of primitive Speculative Freemasonry, an innovation which the more conservative spirits of the English- speaking Grand Lodges had always resisted.

But under the peculiar character which Continental Masonry had long assumed, it was far better that the Grand Orient should adopt a system of development comparatively simple and consisting of only four additional degrees, and confine its lodges within those limits, than to permit them to become the victims of the numerous and extravagant systems by which they were surrounded and which were practiced by irresponsible Chapters and Councils.

The French lodges of the Grand Orient were thus provided with a uniform system of their own, far better than the many diverse ones, which bid defiance to all homogeneity of Speculative Freemasonry.

In 1791 the lodges under the Grand Orient, like those under the Grand Lodge, suspended their labors and closed their doors in consequence of the existing political agitations. Still the Grand Orient, even in that year, constituted two or three lodges, but Freemasonry had really assumed a dormant condition throughout the kingdom.

But notwithstanding the dissolution of the lodges, several of the officers of the Grand Orient boldly sustained its activity so far as circumstances would permit. In France, in this day of trial, there were, as there were in America in a long subsequent period of persecution, some Masons who were willing to become Martyrs to their convictions of the purity of the Institution, and to the love which they bore for it.

But no such sentiments animated the bosom of the recreant Grand Master, the Duke of Chartres, who by the death of his father had become Duke of Orleans, and who, having abandoned his family and his class, had repudiated his hereditary title and assumed, according to the fashion of the sans culottes, the name of Citizen Equality - le citoyen Egalite.

The Secretary of the Grand Orient having in December, 1792, addressed him an official note relative to the labors of the Grand Orient, the Duke made a reply in the following words, on May 15, 1793:

"As I do not know how the Grand Orient is constituted, and as I moreover, do not think that there should be any mystery or secret society in a republic, especially at the beginning of its establishment, I no longer wish to have anything to do with the Grand Orient or with the meetings of Masons."

This peremptory, and in its terms insulting, withdrawal was received, as it may be supposed, by the members of the Grand Orient with expressions of the utmost indignation. It is said that the sword of the Order, one of the insignia of the Grand Master, was broken by the presiding officer and cast into the midst of the Assembly, and the Grand Mastership was declared vacant.

In 1795 a few of the lodges resumed their labors, and M. Rotiers de Montaleau was elected Grand Master. He, however, refused to take the title, and assumed that of "Grand Venerable," with, however, all the prerogatives and functions of a Grand Master.

The progress of Masonic restoration to activity was, however, very slow. In 1796 there were but eighteen lodges in active operation in the whole of France, namely, three at Paris, and the remaining fifteen in the Provinces.

In May, 1799, commissioners who had been appointed by the Grand Lodge and the Grand Orient concluded a treaty of union between the two rival bodies. The Grand Lodge in this treaty agreed to the abolition of the usage it had always hitherto maintained of the irremovability of Masters, and accepted the doctrine of the Grand Orient, that they should hereafter be elected by the members of the lodges.

On June 22, 1799, the two hitherto rivals met in a United Assembly, and the union of all the Freemasons of France was consummated, the title of Grand Orient being continued, to designate the supreme Masonic authority, and the Grand Lodge ceased to exist

Thus the rivalry which had existed in France for twenty-six years between two bodies, each claiming to be the head of the Order, was terminated by an amicable union.

In England the same sort of rivalry had existed between the Grand Lodge of the "Moderns " and that of the "Ancients" for a much longer time, and was terminated at a later period by a similar union.

But in the circumstances connected with this internecine war there were some singular coincidences which are worthy of remark.

In the first place, the original disruption was based in each kingdom on a single fundamental point of difference.

In England it was on the recognition of a Fourth degree in the ritual. The "Moderns" contended that there were in Speculative Freemasonry no more than the three primitive degrees of Apprentice, Fellow-Craft, and Master. The "Ancients" affirmed that for the completion of the ritual a Fourth degree, which they called the "Royal Arch," was essentially necessary, and that without it as a development of the Third degree, the system of Speculative Masonry was imperfect and worthless.

In France the single point of difference between the two bodies was that of the irremovability of the Masters, of lodges. The Grand Lodge had from the very beginning of its authentic history granted constitutions to certain Masters for the establishment of lodges over which they were to preside by a perpetual tenure of office, that is, they were Masters for life. Now as these "irremovable Masters" were often, nay almost always, appointed through corrupt motives, and as the lodges thus became, in a way, their personal property, the attempt was made to abolish them and to make the presidency of the lodges elective.

This reform, for it was evidently a reform, was opposed by the Grand Lodge, and hence those who were in favor of it established the Grand Orient, for the purpose of carrying out their views, and hence one of its first acts was to pass a decree abolishing the usage and suppressing the irremovable Masters.

There were, of course, supplementary motives for the schism, but this was undoubtedly the leading one.

So in England and in France there was a schism founded on a single difference of opinion, but this difference as it existed in each country never extended into the other. The English lodges never entertained the question of Masters for life, because from the organization of the Grand Lodge at London, those officers had always been annually elected, and this doctrine was held by both Grand Lodges.

The French lodges were never embarrassed by the question of a Fourth degree, which was the bone of contention in England. Though there were Chapters and Councils in which a Royal Arch degree under various modifications had existed from the time of the Chevalier Ramsay, these bodies had no legal connection with or recognition by either the Grand Lodge or the Grand Orient, both of which maintained the doctrine that pure Freemasonry consisted of only three degrees.

Another point of very interesting coincidence in the contention in the two countries was the following.

As both in England and France there were, during the contest, two bodies, each claiming Masonic sovereignty, it is evident that in each, one of the bodies must have been irregular, illegal, and schismatic, for it is the law of Freemasonry that the sovereignty can not be divided.

In England the schismatic and illegal body was the Grand Lodge of the "Ancients," the legal and constitutional one was the Grand Lodge of the "Moderns."

In France the schismatic and illegal body was the Grand Orient, which had been surreptitiously and irregularly formed; the legal and constitutional body was the Grand Lodge. Now it is very remarkable that when in each country the dissensions which had so long existed were brought to an amicable end and a union effected in the settlement of the principal question upon which the schism had been founded, the irregular and schismatic gained the victory, and the regular body was compelled to accept the doctrine which it had so long and so pertinaciously resisted.

Thus in England the Grand Lodge of "Moderns" recognized the Royal Arch, which it had always repudiated as an innovation, as one of the regular degrees of ancient Craft Masonry.

In France the Grand Lodge abandoned the doctrine of the irremovability of Masters, for which it had always strenuously contended, and accepted the theory and usage of the Grand Orient that the office of Master should be elective.

But though the Grand Lodge and the Grand Orient had been merged into one governing body of the French Masons, there were still difficulties presenting themselves in the effort to establish a unification of the Masonic system in the kingdom.

The abundance of high degrees, which from a very early period had been introduced into France, had been conferred in Councils and Chapters, which had never been recognized by either the Grand Lodge or the Grand Orient, but which had always acted independently of either authority.

Such were the Council of Emperors of the East and West, the General Grand Chapter, and finally the Supreme Council which had been organized by Count de Grasse Tily in 1804, under the authority of the Supreme Council at Charleston in the State of South Carolina.

In 1802 the Grand Orient had forbidden its lodges to confer any degrees which were not recognized by it. This caused the Scottish lodges, or those conferring these degrees, to establish a separate locality in the boulevard Poissonniere. Here they continued in defiance of the decree of the Grand Orient to practice the Scottish Rite. Finally, they established the "General Scottish Grand Lodge of France." The existence of this body was but an ephemeral one, for in two years it united with the Grand Orient.

Seeing the infatuation of the French Masons for the decorations and the mysteries of these high degrees, the Grand Orient, through the prudent counsels of Rotiers de Montaleau, the Grand Master, that it might put an end to all divisions in reference to Masonic Rites, declared that it would unite in its own bosom and recognize all Rites and Degrees whose dogmas and principles were in harmony with the general system of the Order.

Hence, at the present day the Grand Orient assumes jurisdiction over all the degrees of Freemasonry from the First to the Thirty third.

After an abortive attempt to effect a union between the Grand Orient and the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, the latter body assumed and still maintains jurisdiction over the Rite on which it is founded, and grants constitutions to lodges of the Symbolic degrees.

Hence, at the present day there are in France two independent authorities in Freemasonry - the Grand Orient, which claims jurisdiction over all Rites, and the Supreme Council, which confines its jurisdiction to the Ancient and Accepted Rite.

Very recently out of this body has sprung an independent Scottish Grand Lodge, whose existence as permanent or ephemeral is yet to be determined.

But these matters belong to the contemporary history of the present day, and as our investigations are properly restricted to the Origin of the Grand Orient, which subject has been fully discussed, an end may now properly be given to the present chapter.

Get More Information on Freemasonry

Masonic Secrets Revealed - The Secret Ceremonies And Oaths Of The Masons Exposed!
Masonic Secrets - The Secret Masonic Handshakes, Words, And Signs Of Craft Masonry.
Freemasonry and the Druids by W. Winwood Reade. Published 1861.
Secret Masonic Initiation Video - Secret video footage from Turkey.
Bristol Masonic Ritual - The Oldest and Most Unusual Craft Working in England
The Meaning of Masonry by W. L. Wilmhurst
Freemasonry - Its Hidden Meaning - by George H. Steinmetz
Masonic Books - Check out our selection of books on freemasonry.

Chapters in Part 2

Back to Masonic Secrets Revealed

Masonic Secrets recommends the following sites:

Sacred-Magick.Com: The Esoteric Library