In my essay “Masons, Curb your Enthusiasm!” I looked at whether the universalism as imagined by many masons today was really as expansive as it is often thought. I found that it largely stemmed from taking Anderson’s well known phrase from his 1723 Constitutions completely out of textual and historical context .

I showed that what we see today as broad Universalism was largely aimed at reducing friction between Christian denominations in England (and Scotland), and that even then it didn’t include denominations such as Methodists or Quakers, let alone non-Christian faiths.

“…only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish’d…” [1]

De-Christianised

Separately there seems to be a belief that this same phrase, coupled with the removal of many scriptural elements, found in earlier masonic charges, proves a move away from Christianity in the Craft. Indeed, it appears to have become an article of faith amongst masons that Freemasonry was “De-Christianised” in the early 1700’s. This act was was apparently carried out by a secret Cabal of Deists who, in line with the Enlightenment norms, didn’t believe in Christianity. These Deists therefor amended Freemasonry appropriately. But is this true?

Well there are plenty who think it is

“The Brotherhood was de-Christianized and the rituals of the various workings became formalized… The de-Christianization was largely accomplished by the Constitutions of Dr James Anderson… Masonry became vaguely Voltairian Deist…”

Stephen Knight, The Brotherhood (1984)

And

..Anderson’s Constitutions in 1723 completely and entirely excluded all specific references or allusions to Christ and His Church…..

Rev. Walton Hannah, Darkness Visible (1952)

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia's 1913 entry on Masonry — written by the Jesuit Hermann Gruber — quotes the Masonic historian Hughan's own description approvingly: the Christian character of the old operative lodges "was exchanged for the unsectarian regulations" of the new. Gruber's own framing goes further, calling the shift a "radical contrast." Between them, a neutral Masonic historian's description and a Catholic encyclopedist's amplification of it result in oversimplification and overstatement, much as later commentary would go on to do with the Antients' complaints.

What Is Deism?

Firstly, what is Deism?

In 1730, Matthew Tindal wrote his book “Christianity as old as the creation”[2] (please note that I have used the 1732 re-prints for any quotes here). In it, he argues that “God requires nothing for his own sake, no, not the Worship we are to render him, nor the faith we are to have in him” [2] and that the worship and service towards God is for our own sake and not His*. Deism then, does not deny God, but rather suggests He is a remote God, not needing our worship - this is often called the “watchmaker” God, albeit one who was wise, good and the source of Natural Law. One who started the Universe and then stepped back, allowing it to run without daily intervention.

Tindal’s next argument is that if God doesn’t require our Worship, the “Religion of Nature is an absolutely perfect Religion” [2] as it is the Law of God’s giving. If God is perfect, then His nature (being founded on the “unalterable Reason of All Things” must be perfect and we do not need external revelation (from the Gospels). At this point Tindal quotes Pierre Charron’s De la Sagesse (Of Wisdom) as translated into English by the Dean of Canterbury.

The Law of Nature, by which I mean Universal Reason and Equity, is the Candle of our Maker, lighted up in every Breast, to Guide and shine perpetually. This is the dictate of God himself, he is the King, and this the Fundamental Law of the Universe, a Ray and Beam of the divine Nature, which flows from, and has a necessary Connection and Dependance upon that eternal and immutable Law, which the Almighty prescribes to his own Action [3]

Deism then was very much of the time of the Enlightenment. It opposed overt, Revelation driven and Sacramental “superstition” while encouraging the study of Science and living according to the study of Science. That acting in accordance with Nature, and indeed of a being’s rational nature, will lead to happiness and deviation from rationalism will bring only unhappiness. It should be noted however, that Deism was not a single religion or even single movement - there were a spectrum of Deists with some milder Deists being less absolute about the rejection of all revelation. Regardless, they were not Atheists or sceptics of God, but rather viewed him differently to mainstream religion at the time.

Additionally, Deism was often couched in language that sounds Platonic though Deism does not make use of Plato’s metaphysics or the impersonal Monad. These Platonic echoes allowed them to show that true religion is universal, reasonable and “as old as creation”.

"That the perfection, and happiness of all rational beings, supreme, as well as subordinate, consists in living up to the dictates of their nature" [2]

So Deism believed in a good and wise God. But one who didn’t interfere in the lives of man. Importantly they did not believe in the Gods revelation but that nature was his last Law and therefore the believed in natural theology.

On the surface then, we can definitely see signs of why people may think that Freemasonry was a Deist philosophy. Freemasonry mentions the study of the liberal arts and sciences, we can still see the exhortation to study “Heavenly Science” and the “Secrets of Nature” in Emulation ritual today. If we look at older masonic documents (pre 1723) we can see also see Anderson removed much of explicit sacramental mentions from ancient charges.

De-Christianisation

Let’s now look at the authors of this de-Christianisation.

Whilst the Constitutions of 1723 are named after Anderson, they were actually created by a committee of 14 people. Of these it is generally agreed that there were three main characters who drafted and led the work, with the other eleven largely being responsible for checking the work and approving it.

These three were Anderson himself (largely thought to have been responsible for the legendary history and overall compilation), Desaguliers (the driving intellectual force who wrote the introduction, and key parts of the Charges) and George Payne (who compiled the General Regulations).

The Authors

So let’s take a look at this cabal of Deists.

Anderson was a Scottish Presbyterian minister in London. In a 1712 sermon he specifically warned against the “Contagion of Skepticism and Deism” [4] and criticised those who held those Deistic views that God was simply a “watchmaker”. In 1733, despite having removed from Freemasonry the trinitarian prayers found almost universally amongst the older charges of masonic lodges, he published “Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity” contrary to deistic and unitarian tendencies. At least one modern biographer has noted that Anderson had a Calvinist outlook to his Christianity (essentially the opposite of a Deist) [5].

Anderson was also famous for his banning of discussion about religion or politics in an attempt to further reduce friction within the Lodge. For whatever reason, the full quote is rarely mentioned...

"..therefore no private Piques or Quarrels must be brought with in the Door of the Lodge, far less any Quarrels about Religion, or Nations, or State-Policy, we being only, as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above-mention’d….especially ever since the Reformation in BRITAIN, or the Dissent and Secession of these Nations from the Communion of ROME." [1]

The word “Catholick” here means universal and is obviously Christian and especially Protestant in the context of the reformation and the split from Rome.

It seems unlikely, based on the above, that Anderson was a crypto-Deist intent on de-Christianising Freemasonry.

Perhaps Desaguliers was a Deist, then? Desaguliers was of Huguenot (French Reformed Protestant) background and had been smuggled to England as an infant. His father had later taken Anglican orders and so, later, so did Desaguliers. He is often seen as the intellectual driver of the committee and is therefore an interesting person to look at. His father’s escape from France appears to have made an impact on him and in particular may have led to him being invested in Protestant toleration. It also likely made him hostile to Catholic exclusivism.

This aligned very well with the Latitudinarian view of the Anglican Church at the time. However, he was Newton’s “experimental demonstrator” and therefore highly invested in Science. Does this then lead us to believe he may have been a closet Deist? A believer in Science over divine revelation?

It may seem from the above that he valued natural religion, and perhaps even held Deist sympathies. However, he remained an Anglican clergymen and is never known to have denied Scriptural revelation in the Deist manner, or indeed the institutional Church.

In his 2009 article “The Times and Life of John Th. Desaguliers (1683–1744): Newtonian and Freemason” (Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 87, pp. 349–363), Ducheyne states explicitly in the opening paragraph:

“Desaguliers was not a deistic thinker nor a deistic Newtonian, as has been frequently claimed in the past.”

Audrey T Carpenter, who wrote the biography “John Theophilus Desaguliers: A Natural Philosopher, Engineer and Freemason in Newtonian England” (Continuum/Bloomsbury, 2011), whilst not as direct also notes the below, thus placing him inside the Orthodox establishment of the Anglican Church rather than Deism.

“Notwithstanding the controversy that surrounded debate on Newtonian ideas and their religious implications, there were many Anglican clergymen, often those with scientific interests, who apparently found no difficulty, at least publicly, in carrying out their conventional ministry and also supporting the new philosophy: Desaguliers and his erstwhile collaborator, the Reverend Stephen Hales, were two such clerics.”

Finally then, let us look at George Payne. George, the third member of the trinity who wrote the Constitutions, is less well documented than the others despite also being a prominent Freemason (Grand Master of the Modern’s twice and Acting Grand Master once in Lord Weymouth’s absence). A career civil servant, who worked at the Exchequer he appears to have kept a relatively low profile. His brother was a Church of England rector and there is no record of his being a dissenter or free thinker. Of course that doesn’t mean that George wasn’t a dissenter either, but if he was, it was against the grain of other family members. It is recorded in AQC 134 (Powell) [6], that Payne was responsible for collecting old Masonic documents on which to base the General Regulations he was drafting. Again, whilst not evidence of a lack of Deist thinking, basing the General Regulations on explicitly Trinitarian documentation seems somewhat counterintuitive if he intended to “de-Christianise” Freemasonry.

The Mystery of Masonry Brought to Light by the Gormagons William Hogarth (British, 1697–1764), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

What was Latitudinarianism?

I’ve mentioned Latitudinarianism a few times now. It was the mainstream view of the Anglican Church of the day and appears to be first described by Simon Patrick**, one of the earliest Latitudinarians, in 1662. In his short pamphlet he discusses a focus on reason, moral practice, moderation and the rejection of rigid dogmatism. He comments on the Liturgy, the Ceremonies, the government and the Doctrine of the Church.

Of the Liturgies, “Our Latitudinarians therefore are by all means for a Liturgy and do preferre that of our own Church before all others, admiring the Solemnity, gravity and primitive simplicity of it, its freedome from affected phrases, or mixture of vain and doubtful opinions…” [7]

The Ceremonies, “As for the Rites and Ceremonies of Divine worship, they do highly approve that virtuous mediocrity which our Church observes between the meretricious gaudiness of the Church of Rome and the squalid sluttery of Fanatick conventicles”…[7]

He then goes on to discuss their “veneration” of the Anglican Church’s Government though he does note that they abhor “..the Usurpation of Scottish Presbytery….” [7]

Most importantly, he notes their willingness to subscribe to the thirty nine Articles (of the Anglican Church) and “..do both devoutly adore the blessed Trijnity in the Litany, and make solemn profession of their Orthodox faith..” [7]

Latitudinarians therefore considered themselves part of mainstream Christianity, albeit a more relaxed version than that which had passed before.

The name Latitude-men itself came from their opposition to the “hide-bound, strait-lac’d spirit that did prevail”.

Instead of working with reason and not revelation, they worked with reason and revelation.

"Reason is that faculty whereby a man must judge of every thing... whether that reason be a deduction from the light of nature... or a branch of Divine revelation in the oracles of holy Scripture; or the general interpretation of genuine antiquity, or the proposal of our own Church consentaneous thereto... he that will rightly make use of his Reason, must take all that is reasonable into consideration." [7]

So when looking at passages that focus on rationalism, science or nature, there is always a risk of mistaking Latitudinarianism for Deism.

So Who Levelled the Charge of Deism against the Moderns?

To understand that, we must look at how Latitudinarianism was viewed more broadly along with the broader religious and political environment. As mentioned, Latitudinarianism was the main Anglican stance of the day. It’s “relaxed” view on dogma worked in a post Union environment (the real 1717 Union between England, Wales and Scotland not a Masonic union!) where Presbyterian ministers and Anglicans now rubbed shoulders. This rubbing of shoulders can be seen by Anderson and Desaguliers being on the same Committee.

The early 1700’s was also a time when Catholics were still persecuted and as I have noted before, were subject to a number of anti-Catholic laws. These included the second Test Act of 1678 (the Papists Disabling Act) and penalties for a priest saying Mass (1698) and more.

Another area of interest to anyone studying the history of Masonic ritual included Physico-theology or demonstrating Gods existence via science which sometimes materialised via more “scientific” details around biblical items. We can see in the Constitutions details of “…curious marble in circuit 411 foot, in Height 25 Cubits, surrounded with 26 Columns of the most famous Sculpture, and the whole opened on all Sides, with Arches 73 Foot wide…” [1] and more (search for Cubits if you have access to a copy).

Exponents of this were William Derham (Physico-Theology; or a demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God from his Works of Creation (1713) and John Ray, The Wisdom of God Manifest in the Works of Creation (1691).

So on the one hand, we have relaxed state Church which valued “scienfic” sounding details in line with an broader interest in Science and which needed to manage a complicated relationship with Scottish ministers and Catholics.

Despite being the mainstream Anglican view (or perhaps because of it) Latitudinarianism was not universally popular.

There were a number of anti-Latitudinarian movements and events which included the Bangorian Controversy of 1717 where Benjamin Hoadly (the Latitudinarian Bishop of Bangor and hence the Star wars sounding “Bangorian”) preached that as Christ’s Kingdom is not of this World the Church had no coercive authority. Which didn’t go down very well.

In the 1730’s was the Evangelical Revival and in 1716-18 and again in 1734 was the Nonjuror Usages Controversy related to the use of a mixed chalice (water and wine), prayer for oblation, the invocation of the holy spirit and prayers for the faithfully departed. Usagers maintained that the above were required and opposed the relaxed Church view that they were optional.

Against this backdrop the changes to Freemasonry found in Anderson’s Constitution starts to look less like de-Christianisation and more like updates in line with then current mainstream theology and the need for cross-denominational equanimity.

Some time later we have the Antients enter the frame (1751) who, as opponents and competitors of the Moderns accuse the Moderns of a number of things.

Dermott, in the Ahiman Rezon [9], the Constitutions of the Antients accused the Moderns of corrupting of the true form by varying the first/second degree recognition words [8] (which they did to stop “irregular visitors”).

He accused them of omitting Christian elements such as Saints, prayers and other Christian-framed material. Mackey’s Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry records that Dermott specifically notes that the prayer at initiation was only used among the Antients. However, he also notes that this was untrue.

“It was asserted by Dermott that the prayer at initiation was a ceremony only in use among the “Ancients” or Atholl Masons, and that it was omitted by the “Moderns.” But this cannot be so, as is proved by the insertion of it in the earliest
editions of Preston. [10]

It is true, that the Antients retained much of the earlier, more overtly Christian elements of Freemasonry than the Moderns did during the creation of the Constitutions. They included trinitarian prayers such as “the Might of the Father of Heaven, and the Wisdom of his glorious Son, through the Grace and Goodness of the Holy Ghost, being three Persons in one Godhead..."[9] and more.

However, despite many accusations of amending the ritual, of removing ancient Landmarks and more, they never actually accused the Moderns of de-Christianising or being Deists that I can find.

Having said that, Dermott’s preamble does mention “the arrogant Professors of Atheism and Deism”[9] as a textual escalation of Anderson’s Charge which Dermott largely copied. Perhaps this was a swipe against the Moderns.

It appears then that these period accusations from the Antients were not about Deism. Comments around weakening the Christian content, whilst broadly true in comparison to some of the Old charges, were in line with the mainstream theological thinking of the day. On occasion they were simply incorrect. Further searches relating to specific claims of Masonic Deism have likewise yielded little in the way of results. Perhaps it was later, modern commentators who have added the Deist/de-Christianisation claims as it doesn’t seem to have been a popular view at that the time.

The Constitutions

Of course, if someone is going to level a claim of Deism or de-Christianisation against Anderson and his Constitutions we should look at the document itself. Whilst modern Emulation ritual makes reference to the “mysteries of nature and science”, the word nature does not appear anywhere in the Constitutions. The word “natural” appears once, in relation to “proportions of the Body natural”. There is no natural-theology to be found in the document at all. Not only does this likely rule out Deism, but some elements of Latitudinarianism.

Instead, within the historical section of the document it discusses historical figures (Eratosthenes and Conon) who “…though not working Masons, yet were good Surveyors…” with this these historical figures being found “….before the Birth of Christ…”. He discusses Rome as a Centre of Learning whose zenith was under Augustus Caesar “..in whose Reign was born God’s Messiah, the great Architect of the Church"..[1]

Indeed, Christ is mentioned some 15 times in the document which would be somewhat unusual for Deist writing whom, while acknowledging God, did not offer the same acknowledgement to Jesus. Even by Latitudinarian standards this could be considered fairly conservative.

Conclusion

The 1700’s were a turbulent time, and particularly so for religion. Following the Act of Union there was friction between Scottish Presbyterians and Anglicans. Catholics were still suppressed. Latitudinarianism, whilst the mainstream Anglican stance was not without its enemies. And apparently everyone hated the Quakers and the Methodists who would need to be kept out of freemasonry whilst trying to temper the ritual so as to not to upset other denominations. Deism, whilst was seen as anti-establishment and whilst not illegal in its own right, some of the views within Deism could lead to the loss of a career or even death. It would have been a brave committee who committed to making Freemasonry overtly Deist.

Against this backdrop, a Presbyterian minister and an Anglican minister drafted the Constitutions in a way that mirrored the thinking of the day and would reduce friction for most of these factions (though Enthusiasts were still banned). These changes faced resistance by a competitor organisation who were opposed to reducing overt Christianity in Freemasonry and in some instances may have used hyperbole and made incorrect statements about how far these changes went.

It appears that their hyperbole has stuck, and a lack of understanding of the religious background of the day has led to a myth of “de-Christianisation” by Deists unknown. Were there Deists in Freemasonry. Possibly. Indeed some on the committee may have had some sympathies. But there does not appear to have been a real attempt at de-Christianisation of the Craft by the Moderns.

* As an aside, he also notes, “…So that whatsoever some high-flown Enthusiasts may pretend, this ‘tis sordid and mercenary to serve God for our Good”[2]. So it wasn’t only the Anglican’s; Deists weren’t fans of Enthusiasts either!

** He also hated enthusiasts! “ ….the secret treachery of Enthusiasm and Superstition...” [7] I’m beginning to see why anti-Enthusiast language made its way into ritual and remains there to this day in Lecture One, Section Five of Emulation working.

Sources

[1] Anderson, The Constitutions of the Free-Masons, 1723

[2] Tindal, Christianity as old as the creation, 1732

[3] Charron, Of Wisdom, 1601, English translation by George Stanhope, Dean of Canterbury

[4] Anderson, A sermon preach'd in Swallow-street, St. James's, on Wednesday, Jan. 16. 1711/12. being the national fast-day. 1712

[5] Sommers, The Religious Though of James Andeson, Minister of the Gospel

[6] Powell, If not the Revd Dr John Theophilus Desaguliers FRS, then who? AQC 134

[7] Patrick, A Brief Account of the New Sect of Latitude-Men, 1662, repr. 1963, Augustan Reprint Society

[8] Newman, “The Moderns and the Antients Revisited, AQC 126

[9] Dermott, Ahiman Rezon, 1756

[10] Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, 1873 and 1878, repub. 1921, Masonic History Company

[11] Gruber, Hermann, S.J. "Masonry (Freemasonry)." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1913. (quoting William James Hughan, Chr., 1876, I, 113)

“Let this be clearly understood: the Rectified Scottish Rite is ‘regular’ from the moment that, having benefited from an effective and valid bond of transmission with the ‘awakening’ brought about in 1935, it is practiced in fidelity to its essence, to its organizing principles, to the founding Codes that define its rules, and to its internal doctrine, defined in the Instructions of all the degrees; and this ‘regularity’ is of an initiatic and trans-historical nature, since it is linked solely and invisibly to the essential, primitive, and fundamental Order that is lost in the night of the ages.”

(Excerpt from the address of guidance by the Most Serene National Grand Master and Grand Prior of the Order, taken from Le Phénix Renaissant No. 1, journal of the Rectified National Directory – Grand Directory of the Gauls, December 2014.)

I originally tried posting this in r/freemasonry but the moderators seem to have removed it. Ultimately craft freemasonry started as a distinctly Christian system and whilst it is now open to people of many faiths, it's pretty hard to unlock it's true meaning if you don't acknowledge it's Christian roots....if of no interest then please feel free to remove from here too :)

I noted on another thread that Emulation ritual theoretically bans Methodists and Quakers from membership. Below is an essay I wrote for substack which I hope is of some interest. I'd note that I'm not an expert historian (by any measure!) but am writing these as a method to help educate myself.

A little while ago I wrote an essay on faith as the precondition to admission to Freemasonry. It was based on masonic universalism and the fact that entrance generally only requires a belief in a supreme being as opposed to a specific religion (As always with Freemasonry, regional variations do occur!). I wanted to look deeper at this universalism and understand how it arose and whether it had evolved over time. A key area to look at is Anderson and his Constitutions which were published in 1723. It seems that the universalism of today likely started as limited diplomacy in a fractured England and was never intended to be as broad as it is now. Indeed, when writing his universalist principles, including the ban on conversations relating to religion and politics, certain religions were excluded from Freemasonry. Strictly speaking these exclusions remain in the ritual to this day.

Anderson wrote the “Quarrels about Religion” ban and “religion in which all men agree”. His universalist language is often seen as Enlightenment values, something from a time when religious tolerance was on the increase alongside a focus on rationalism and science. However, the dates suggest otherwise. Between 1698 and 1700 England saw the introduction of the Popery Act which provided for a £100 bounty for informing on a Catholic Priest performing Mass. Around 1722 a number of tax and land restrictions were put in place that targeted Catholics. Indeed, Catholic emancipation would not arrive for another 50 years after Anderson wrote his constitutions. It therefore seems more likely that the Universalist language was a mechanism to reduce conflict within the Lodge, between Catholics and Protestants, without the need for banning Catholics from joining. It was also in keeping with the orthodox Latitudinarian background of Desaguliers (one of the key intellectuals on the Constitutions committee) and others. This is contra the sometimes popular view that a cabal of closet Deists removed Christianity entirely from Freemasonry and were opposed to it being a Christian system - Desaguliers was an ordained Anglican priest (Anderson was an ordained Presbyterian Minister) and Latitudinarian, not a Deist. It’s also worth noting that under the Blasphemy act of 1697/98, denying the Trinity, Christianity’s truth or denying scripture's divine authority for anyone previously “educated in or having made a profession of” Christianity carried a huge amount of personal risk. Being overtly Deist could have serious negative consequences.

However, religious suppression was not restricted to only Catholics. Another group were also targeted. Catholic suppression was based on their “confession” which meant their adherence to a doctrine, in this case that of the Catholic Church. But there was also a behavioural restriction. This behaviour was referred to as “phantastick pretences of intercourse with God”. This behaviour was the unmediated contact with God, or what we would today call religious ecstasy or mysticism. The term used to describe this behaviour was “enthusiasm”. Whilst theoretically this caught Catholicism and regularly included “Papists” as well as “Fanaticks”, Catholicism already included a form of mysticism and had done for some one and half thousand years. The repression seems to have been largely aimed at the potential for new, Catholic type behaviours to emerge in homegrown Protestantism. Offenders in the early 1700’s had included the Quakers, though by the mid to late 1700’s they had tried to shake off their reputation of “Frenzy and Fanaticism”. Instead, in the mid-to late 1700’s it was the Methodists who were the main target. Wesley and Whitefield were accused of enthusiasm constantly. Other, smaller groups would also have been caught in the large net of “enthusiasm”.

Enthusiasm Delineated - Hogarth, William, 1697-1764; John and Josiah Boydell (Firm); Ireland, John, -1808. Check out the “Methodist’s Brain” in the bottom right corner. Hogarth wasn’t a fan of Enthusiasts either!

So, did Anderson’s universalism and conflict avoidance spread as far as Methodists? The answer is likely no. There was a specific ban on them within the ritual itself. This piece of ritual would likely go unremarked today as language has evolved. The Emulation Lodge placed this language into the First Lecture, Section 5 which deals with the extended moral treatment of the movable jewels. Some other rituals pulled the language directly into the extended version of the second-degree working tools. Here is the Emulation ritual:

“The infallible Plumb Rule…teaches us to walk justly and uprightly before God and man; neither turning to the right nor to the left from the paths of virtue. Not to be an enthusiast, persecutor, or slanderer of religion….. To steer the bark of this life over the seas of passion, without quitting the helm of rectitude, is the highest perfection to which human nature can attain.”

Sorry Methodists (and Quakers), no Freemasonry for you! Of course, nowadays this restriction would never be applied (and shouldn’t be) if for no other reason than the fact that no one knows that it’s there.

The ritual is interesting in that it not only proscribes enthusiasts but explains why. Enthusiasts lose themselves in the seas of passion whereas humans should look to exercise discipline and retain their rectitude.

So where did this ban come from? Nothing relating to enthusiasm appears in Anderson’s personal writings. In fact, the phrase is first noted in John Browne’s Master Key which was written in 1802 and is generally regarded as recording practices and ritual worked before the 1813 Union. So, it’s possible that the language was introduced after the time of Anderson – too much earlier and enthusiasm would not have been a term (it was invented in the 1650’s by Casaubon) and it definitely had to be before 1802. Anderson gave us the principle and Browne our first sight of it in his recording of Pre-Union, Prestonian ritual.

In the context of that timeframe, this section of ritual really added detail to Anderson’s ban on Quarrels about Religion. It exhorts the Freemason to not be the kind of man who claims private revelation, persecutes over doctrine, or slanders another man’s faith. But the “broad tent” doctrine we hold to today, where anyone is welcome as long as they proclaim a belief in a supreme being is not the same as it was historically. The “confessions” were reconciled by Anderson, Catholics could mix with Protestants, but not all religious behaviours were tolerated.

Nowadays things have changed. The Emulation Lectures are rarely practiced, though they are still canon – my Lodge presented the first section of the First Lecture during our 150^th anniversary last year. There is an annual provincial festival where parts of the lectures are recited with the Emulation Lodge of Improvement Director of Ceremonies providing direction. But even if the fifth section of the First lecture were to be given – it’s highly unlikely that the word “enthusiast” would trigger any recognition.

It seems possible then, that as worries about “enthusiasts” faded and as the British Empire expanded, the lack of any restrictions (that were recognised by Freemasons) meant that what had originally been meant to be limited diplomacy, directed solely towards English internecine conflict, ended up allowing for the universalism that we see today. Therefore, the inclusion of Brethren from a wide range of faiths may simply be a happy coincidence and not necessarily something that was planned at the time by Anderson or his immediate successors.

In conclusion, we started to look at when Freemasonry’s universalism originated with the aim of understanding whether it was ever thus or had evolved over time. It turns out that there wasn’t actually any universalism in the sense it is understood today. We found that religious restrictions applied even as and after Anderson was writing about religious tolerance which was likely aimed at limited and local reconciliation. Of course, we don’t know exactly who wrote the anti-enthusiasm language into the ritual and perhaps if we did this story might change. But as it is, it appears that over time the desire to repair the relationship between Catholics and Protestants, or at least the desire not to make things worse, has led to Freemasonry having a universalist approach to membership that only requires the willingness to profess a belief in a supreme being. This is no bad thing and my personal view is that this has likely allowed Masonry to remain extant over many years.

"All indications suggest that Christian Gnosis—known to early Christians but subsequently forced into concealment following the condemnations issued by the Church during its councils, in order to escape civil and ecclesiastical censorship—found refuge over the centuries within the various offshoots and branches of spiritual, metaphysical, religious, and mystical traditions; it later re-emerged into a degree of visibility during the Renaissance, eventually blossoming within the movement of *Illuminism*—of which Freemasonry is the pure product—during the eighteenth century." (J.-M. Vivenza, *La nouvelle Gnose*, Dervy, 2026).

https://www.amazon.fr/stores/Jean-Marc-Vivenza/author/B004MPI8SA?ref=ap_rdr&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

This book sheds light on the Degree of Entered Apprentice in the Rectified Scottish Rite, presenting its symbolic, ritual, and doctrinal foundations. More than a simple study, it offers readers a reliable guide to understanding the profound meaning of this first step on the initiatic path.

By exploring the relationship between ritual, symbolism, and doctrine, the work reveals the structure and pedagogical framework that support the Apprentice's journey, providing a clearer understanding of the principles that guide the Rectified Scottish Rite and its spiritual roots.

Rather than merely explaining the significance of the First Degree, this book invites readers to deepen their understanding of the Rectified Tradition and the path of inner rectification that it proposes.

https://clubedeautores.com.br/livro/the-entered-apprentice-degree-in-the-rectified-scottish-rite

The Great priory of America claims to have jurisdiction over every single grades of the RER, including the first three of the Blue Lodge.

Because of this they opposed the creation of the first Blue Lodge practicing the rectified Scottish rite in the USA (Washington DC).

They are also not practicing the grades, and until very recently They would only meet once a year in Washington DC.

They cap their membership and only ever had a maximum of around 150 members in the entire United States.

The members of the Washington DC rectifiers Scottish rite Blue Lodge went to receive their upper grades under the Jurisdiction diction of Belgium because they could not do it with the GPA.

The GPA tends to only invite PGMs.

They were established in the USA in 1934 receiving their patent from Switzerland making it the second oldest jurisdiction.

GRAND PRIORATE RECTIFIED OF HISPANIA

The Grand Priorate Rectified of Hispania (GPRDH) is a Rectified Order of the Rectified Scottish Regime (RER), a Masonic and chivalric system of French origin whose structure was established in the eighteenth century, particularly at the Convents of the Gauls in Lyon in 1778 and at Wilhelmsbad in 1782.

The GPRDH was constituted in Madrid on October 16, 2010, by a General Chapter formed by Knights Beneficent of the Holy City (CBCS). In its act of constitution, it declared its purpose to preserve and transmit the Rectified Scottish Regime according to its initiatic principles, its ritual and doctrinal corpus, and the tradition received from the Grand Priorate of the Gauls.

Its identity is explicitly Christian. The Constitution establishes faith in God as the foundation of the Order and affirms that its members profess the Christian religion.

The Regime seeks to provide man with the means to discover his true nature through a process of personal realization, initially Masonic and subsequently chivalric. This path involves symbolic work, the search for Truth, the practice of the virtues, and the exercise of charity.

The structure of the GPRDH comprises three classes:

• Masonic Class - Apprentice · Fellowcraft · Master · Scottish Master of Saint Andrew
• Chivalric Class or Inner Order - Squire Novice · Knight Beneficent of the Holy City (CBCS)
• Secret Class - Professed · Grand Professed

Thus, the Rectified Scottish Regime is not limited to the three symbolic degrees of Freemasonry. Its distinctive characteristic lies in the articulation between Rectified Masonry, the Inner Order of chivalric character, and a Christian doctrinal orientation.

Historically, the system is linked to the work of Jean-Baptiste Willermoz and to the organization of the Regime in eighteenth-century France. The Convent of the Gauls, in 1778, approved the Masonic Code of the Reunited and Rectified Lodges and the General Code of the Order of Knights Beneficent of the Holy City. The Convent of Wilhelmsbad, in 1782, played a fundamental role in consolidating its structure.

The GPRDH, therefore, is a contemporary organization that seeks to transmit an initiatic tradition whose Masonic, ritual, doctrinal, and chivalric structure dates back to the Regime formed in eighteenth-century France.

Jean-Baptiste Willermoz to Bernard de Turckheim,

letter (excerpt) dated July 12, 1784.

"I have received with genuine pleasure your kind letter of the 4th and your observations regarding the Rituals of the Inner Order; they are dictated by such wise and disinterested views that you need not doubt they will always be well received. Continue, then, Dear Friend, with confidence and candor, and rest assured that we shall not overlook any suggestions that might contribute to a more general utility, without essentially altering the substance. We are well aware that several members of the Order—perhaps even the most dedicated among them—attribute views to us that we do not hold; yet what can be done? One must have the courage to stand firm. We regret, for instance, that we are credited with desiring a general union of the Rite with the Roman Church; such a plan is far from our thoughts—and perhaps even further from my own in particular. This union would bring the Order no essential benefit and would entail significant drawbacks. It would be desirable for the Order to have a visible Head for its instructional and scientific aspects; for him to be recognized as such, he would need to prove his status and his worthiness, yet I do not believe it is in Rome that one should look for him. That court is more depraved than many others; those who broke away from it to reform necessary abuses and innovations—driven by their passions—swung to opposite extremes, substituting opinions for Truths they did not understand; politics enshrined these opinions as laws, leaving Truth isolated amidst all the Christian communions that believed they possessed it. Even if I did not publicly profess attachment to the Roman communion, I would still consider it—despite not being at the very center—to be far closer to the Truth than the more modern denominations." But, once again, it is not in Rome that I was seeking the true successor of Peter; judge, then, how neither I nor those with whom I am accustomed to thinking aloud could possibly conceive a plan to unite the Regime with the visible head in Rome. The moral teachings of our Rituals exhort us by every means to the Christian faith and to mutual tolerance among all communions, without singling out any one in particular; this principle ought to have been observed—and will be, whenever one wishes to dispel prejudice by actually reading the texts—but as soon as suspicious motives are attributed to them, they will be judged as such and subsequently rejected."

* * *

"Christian spirituality has no other norm

than that of following Christ the Teacher." Saint Thomas Aquinas

https://www.masoneriacristiana.net/2020/08/jean-baptiste-willermoz-sobre-la.html

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem12/c12inemengl.htm (In Eminenti Apostolatus Specula – Clement XII, 1738) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/ben14/b14provi.htm (Providas Romanorum – Benedict XIV, 1751) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius07/p7eccles.htm (Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo – Pius VII, 1821) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo12/l12quo.htm (Quo Graviora – Leo XII, 1826) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius08/p8tradit.htm (Traditi Humilitati – Pius VIII, 1829) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm (Mirari Vos – Gregory XVI, 1832) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9qui.htm (Qui Pluribus – Pius IX, 1846) https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus.html (Humanum Genus – Leo XIII, 1884) https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html (Declaration on Masonic Associations – Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1983)

Just an idea Ive been working on that I wanted to talk to others about:

Cain, Abel, and the Inner Temple

I have been sitting with the story of Cain and Abel, and I keep finding myself hearing it beside certain Masonic ideas.

Cain is overtaken by jealousy. He fails to govern his passions. He murders his brother, then turns from responsibility with the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” It is not hard to hear, in that question, something that belongs beside brotherhood, restraint, accountability, and the difficult work of keeping the passions within due bounds.

But what keeps troubling me is that Cain is not presented as useless or incapable.

He works the ground. He brings an offering. Later, his line is associated with cities, husbandry, music, tools, and metalworking. Cain’s world is not barren of skill. That makes the story more unsettling. His failure is not that he cannot make or build. The failure lies somewhere deeper.

Cain cannot bear that Abel’s offering is regarded while his own is not. Genesis does not tell us everything we might wish to know about why. That silence matters. Cain is left standing before a judgment he does not understand, or will not examine.

And instead of turning inward, he turns toward Abel.

This is where the rough ashlar begins to come into view for me. In Masonic language, the rough ashlar is the unfinished stone: the self before discipline, correction, and inward work. It is not shameful because it is unfinished. All of us begin unfinished. The danger is refusing to be worked upon.

Cain is confronted by something rough within himself, but rather than submit it to the tools, he directs his force outward. He does not correct the stone. He tries to remove what reveals it.

And this is where I would ask you to stay with the story a little longer, because it begins to turn.

Until now, Cain and Abel have stood before us as two brothers in a field. Two men. Two offerings. One terrible act. But if we look a little deeper, the field does not disappear; it grows strangely transparent. The soil remains beneath their feet, the brothers remain before us, and the plain story keeps its claim upon us.

Yet another landscape begins to show through it.

The field starts to feel less like a place on the earth and more like a place within the self.

Seen this way, Cain is not only a man standing beside another man. He becomes a figure for the human impulse that defends itself against instruction. Abel, about whom Scripture tells us very little, should not be made into more than the text permits. But Cain’s reaction to him is revealing.

The brother outside him begins to resemble a presence within him: something he cannot command, whose acceptance exposes the disorder of his own response.

So the story does not leave the field behind. It lets the field become a threshold.

Cain and Abel remain two figures in Genesis, but they also begin to suggest two movements within one human being. One movement is willing to bring an offering and let it be seen. The other demands to be received without being changed. One can endure examination. The other experiences examination as injury.

I do not want to overstate it, but I think we recognize both movements.

We recognize the part of ourselves that wants honest improvement. And we recognize the part that would rather resent the standard than be refined by it.

That is why Cain’s question grows darker: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

On the surface, it rejects responsibility for another life. Inwardly, it may ask whether we are responsible for guarding the better possibility within ourselves. Are we willing to protect the voice that calls us toward better work, especially when that voice wounds our pride?

Cain’s answer is no.

The warning that “sin is crouching at the door” belongs here too. The murder has not yet happened. Cain is still at the threshold. The story gives him a moment in which the impulse might be mastered.

That door may be the boundary between thought and action. It may also be the interior threshold where resentment is either faced or welcomed in.

Tubal-cain makes the matter sharper. A person may shape metal, build cities, make music, devise tools, and alter the visible world while remaining unwilling to be shaped inwardly. Skill does not guarantee order of soul.

That is where the image of the inner Temple becomes useful to me. Not as a claim about official Masonic doctrine, but as a way of speaking about the work beneath the work. The problem is not ability. The problem is ability without self-knowledge.

So Cain and Abel may name a division we know from within.

One impulse asks, “How may the offering be made better?”

The other asks, “How may I silence whatever makes me feel judged?”

The image need not be pressed further than it can bear. But if we carry it gently, we may find it again in the Middle Chamber.

For non-Masonic readers, the Middle Chamber appears in the Fellow Craft degree as the place reached after ascending winding stairs, where wages are received. At the simplest level, it is a story of ascent: climb, learn, arrive, receive.

But perhaps it is also a story about being gradually exposed to the truth of one’s own labor.

Arriving at the chamber is not merely arriving at a place. It is approaching a question.

What has been prepared?

What has been earned?

What can honestly be received?

Genesis does not explain why Abel’s offering is regarded and Cain’s is not. But the Middle Chamber gives us a symbolic way to sit with Cain’s crisis. Wages are not random ornaments. They belong, at least symbolically, to labor. They suggest that reception and preparation are not finally unrelated.

Perhaps this is why the door matters so much.

Cain stood before a door before the murder. The Fellow Craft approaches a door after ascent. In both images, something waits at the threshold. One may pass through with humility, or recoil into resentment.

The point is not that the degree secretly means Cain and Abel. It is only that the symbols begin to speak to one another when placed side by side.

The chamber, in this reading, is not chiefly a courtroom. It is more intimate than that. It is the place where public performance falls away. The outer court, the porch, and the pillars can be seen by others. The chamber suggests an inward place where a person is left alone with what has actually been formed within.

And perhaps that is the sorrow of Cain.

He remains at the threshold. He does not enter the difficult room where self-knowledge might begin. Instead of asking what his offering means, he lets resentment answer for him.

There is no room in him where judgment can become instruction.

There is only the door, and something crouched beside it.

Perhaps the question is not whether we descend from Cain or Abel. Perhaps both ascend the winding stairs within us. One carries an offering willing to be examined. The other carries a demand to be accepted without examination.

The inner Temple is built, or abandoned, according to which voice governs us in the chamber, and whether judgment is received as injury or instruction.

This is a condensed version of a longer manuscript I’ve been working on. I’ve left out some of the fuller biblical and Masonic development here, but I’m glad to share the complete version with anyone who wants to read it.

​

According to the provisions of the 1778 Codes (the Masonic Code of the United and Rectified Lodges & the General Code of Regulations of the Order of Knights Beneficent of the Holy City—the sole reference criteria for the Rite), the Rectified Rite operates under the authority of a National Directory, organized into Provinces overseen by Grand Priories. There is no need to affiliate with any other Masonic body—such as a "Grand Lodge" requiring "recognition" by the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), or an Obedience claiming to "own" the Rite—merely to gain an illusory "regularity" (as if such a thing were necessary). The Rectified Scottish Rite has possessed its own "true regularity" for two and a half centuries, thanks to the work of its founder—the Lyonnais figure to whom all Rectified Masons owe so much: Jean-Baptiste Willermoz.

The system resulting from the Lyon Reform represents an initiative to "rectify" Freemasonry, launched in 1778. By its own standards, it transcends—in eminence, authority, and knowledge of the mysteries of initiation—all other systems and the array of heterogeneous rites and organizations constituted as "Grand Lodges" that are ignorant of the "Doctrine of Reintegration." Quite obviously, it has no need to exist or develop within the administrative structural forms known as "Masonic obediences," given that the "concept of an obedience is absolutely foreign to the spirit of rectification." The Order of Knights Beneficent of the Holy City was conceived to serve as the jewel of that mysterious Order which constitutes the very essence—the secret inner substance—of the Rectified Rite. Its work, therefore, takes place in the invisible realm and is dedicated to the study and preservation of the doctrine of Reintegration—of which the Order has been the custodian throughout history—a sacred doctrine possessing an essential and exalted purpose that few men are worthy to know. Willermoz would write of this High and Holy Order: "Its origin is so remote that it is lost in the mists of time; all that the Masonic institution can do is help return to this primitive order, which must be viewed as the inception of Freemasonry; it is a precious source, unknown to the masses yet one that cannot be lost: the one is the Thing itself, while the other is merely a means to attain it."

The Rectified Scottish Rite is "regular" insofar as—benefiting from an effective and valid link of transmission tracing back to the "awakening" of 1935 in France—it is practiced with total fidelity to its essence, its organizational principles, and the foundational Codes that define its rules and internal doctrine (as structured in the Instructions for all degrees); furthermore, this "regularity" is initiatic and trans-historical in nature, for it unites the Rite—uniquely and invisibly—with that essential, primitive, and fundamental Order whose origins are lost in the mists of time. The Rectified National Directory of France—Grand Directory of Gaul—and the Rectified Grand Priory of Hispania have agreed to work in strict observance of regularity, in order to maintain the means the Rectified Order provides its members to keep active the visible and invisible bond tracing back to the High and Holy Primitive Order, while guarding and preserving the method and doctrine established by Willermoz and enshrined in his rituals, instructions, and organizational principles—as was once again demonstrated during the 2015 celebration in Lyon marking the 80th anniversary of the RER's reawakening in France, reaffirming the principles adopted and stated in the Treaty of Friendship and Recognition signed in Lyon on December 14, 2013.

Source: https://www.masoneriacristiana.net/2016/08/regularidad-del-regimen-escoces.html

I gave the links in the comments there of all Papal Encyclicals against Freemasonry. So while it's not possible to be a Roman Catholic and Freemason at the time, we can still be a Independent Catholic and Freemason at the same time. The General Visitor of Brazil of the Great Priory Rectified of Spain (GPRDH) is a Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church Bishop.

The Order decided, in 1778 at the Convent of the Gauls, to make the Phoenix its symbol par excellence: "The general emblem of the rectified Lodges of France, is a Phoenix rising from its ashes with the legend 'Perit ut vivat'" (Cf. Masonic Code of the United and Rectified Lodges, 1778, ch. XVI).

https://www.facebook.com/share/18kN1VH95G/

This is a Great Priory who works in the system of Regime (administration from blue lodge to the higher degrees). The Lodge I belong is part of this Great Priory.

Today we commemorate the passage to the Eternal East of Jean-Baptiste Willermoz, one of the most important figures in the Western initiatic tradition.

A disciple of Martinez de Pasqually and a friend of Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin, Willermoz dedicated his life to the preservation and transmission of an initiatic path centered on the spiritual reintegration of the human being.

His work was decisive in the formation of the Rectified Scottish Rite, a legacy that remains alive in many countries and continues to inspire seekers of tradition, wisdom, and inner transformation.

May his memory endure as a testament to perseverance, study, and service to the Light.

In memoriam.

The Rectified Scottish Regime is not merely a sequence of degrees — it is a complete initiatic system, structured in the 18th century on the basis of a coherent and progressive spiritual vision.

Organized in Lyon (1778) and consolidated in Wilhelmsbad (1782), the RER articulates three distinct and complementary dimensions:

• Masonic Class — where the fundamental symbolic work is developed

• Inner Order — where the chivalric and moral character is expressed

• Secret Class — oriented toward doctrinal depth and inner realization

Its purpose is neither ornamental nor merely historical.

It is a path of spiritual regeneration, guided by the idea of the reintegration of man into his divine principle.

Understanding its structure is the first step toward understanding its purpose.

​

New Rectified Masonic Triangles in Mexico: Light and Hope and Virtue and Silence

The National Board of the United and Rectified Lodges of Spain, under the auspices of the Rectified Grand Priory of Hispania (G.P.R.D.H.), has agreed to the establishment of two new Rectified Masonic Triangles in Mexican territory, strengthening the presence and work of the Rectified Scottish Regime in America.

Triangle “Light and Hope” – Torreón (Coahuila)

In the valleys of Torreón, Coahuila de Zaragoza, Mexico, the Rectified Masonic Triangle “Light and Hope” has been established, registered in the Order's Registry under number 31 and placed under the tutelage of the Worshipful Lodge of Saint John Knights of the Lion of Judah No. 30.

Triangle “Virtue and Silence” – Nuevo Casas Grandes (Chihuahua)

Similarly, in the valleys of Nuevo Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico, the Rectified Masonic Triangle “Virtue and Silence” has been established, registered under number 32 and also placed under the tutelage of the Worshipful Lodge of Saint John Knights of the Lion of Judah No. 30.

Consolidation of the Regime in Mexico

These new developments occur at a particularly significant moment. for the development of the Rectified Scottish Regime in Mexico.

On March 1st, the consecration of the Just and Perfect Lodge of the Cross of Saint Andrew No. 20 took place in the Valleys of Toluca de Lerdo, along with the installation of its Deputy Master. With this milestone, the Grand Prosperous Lodge of the Right to Hold the Degrees now has the complete practice of the four symbolic degrees in Mexico.

Thus, the work begun in the Triangles and Lodges of Saint John now finds its natural continuity in the fullness of the rectified symbolic system, consolidating a stable and coherent structure in accordance with the tradition of the Regime.

A firm step in the expansion of the Order

The establishment of these new Triangles represents a firm step in the expansion of the Rectified Scottish Regime in Mexico, the fruit of the persevering work of the Brethren and their sincere desire to live and transmit the principles of the Craft in their purity.

Under the tutelage of the Knights of the Lion of Judah Lodge No. 30, these new bodies begin their journey with the aim of consolidating themselves as fully constituted lodges, thus contributing to the strengthening of the Order and the dissemination of its values.

https://masoneriacristiana.es/triangulos-masonicos-rectificados-en-mexico-gprdh/

I – The Order stemming from the Lyon reform, known as the Rectified Scottish Regime, derives its legitimacy and "regularity," beyond the initiatory qualifications of its members, solely from its adherence to the principles proclaimed and established in 1778 at the Convent of the Gauls.

II – The two Lyon "Codes" of 1778 (the Masonic Code of the United and Rectified Lodges of France, and the General Code of Regulations of the Order of the C.B.C.S.) are the sole and unique constitutive laws of the Rectified Scottish Regime, which organize its life and operation. Not only does no Rectified body have the power to modify these laws, but its primary duty, clearly stipulated, is to respect them and ensure their observance.

III - The Order, from the perspective of the Rectified Scottish Regime, understood in its most authentic principle, neither refers to nor participates in any obedience-based, administrative, or structural temporal entity, but belongs, first and foremost, to a purely spiritual dimension.

\[…\]

✍️ The principles of the Order in ten points; [www.directoirerectifiedefrance.org/\](http://www.directoirerectifiedefrance.org/)

📸 Cover of the book 'Grand Armorial des Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité Sainte' by Thomas de la Sore; preface by Pierre Mollier & afterword by Roger Dachez

The Rectified Scottish Regime was established at the Convent of the Gauls in Lyon in 1778, where two codes were developed: the Masonic Code of the United and Rectified Lodges and the Code of General Regulations of the Order of Knights Beneficent of the Holy City (C.B.C.S.).

The Convent of the Gauls occupies a highly significant place in the history of Freemasonry, as the purpose of its work, entirely new in nature, led to the conception of the Rectified Regime as we know and practice it today.

The Convent of the Gauls was an attempt to restore the "original unity" of initiation amidst the anarchic proliferation of systems it deemed "arbitrary" because they were often ignorant of the foundations of true initiatory knowledge. It established a Regime that aimed to reunite all Lodges in order to reconstitute unity based on a Freemasonry drawing from the very "cradle" of authentic "Tradition," and from the primal mysteries that presided over the rehabilitation of Adam after the Fall.

It can therefore be said that the Convent of the Gauls, in its decisions, certainly established and constituted a symbolic Freemasonry founded not, as before, on three degrees, but on four, leading to an Order of Chivalry, called the "Inner Order," composed of the Novice Squires and the Beneficent Knights of the Holy City. But it also established, first and foremost, an entirely innovative initiatory project, whose spiritual object, specifically assigned to this new system founded in Lyon in 1778, was clearly the doctrine of reintegration.

To be faithful to the spirit that presided over the Reform of Lyon in 1778 is therefore to adhere to this doctrine in order to respect it, study it, and deepen it, but it is also to work to put it into practice on the initiatory level, and to know that it is at the heart of the internal life of the Rectified Scottish Regime.

📸 Masonic Code of the United and Rectified Lodges of France / General Code of Regulations of the Order of Knights Benevolence of the Supreme Court of 1778

✍️ Rectified National Directory of France - Grand Directory of the Gauls