The August Fraternity. Order of the Rose Cross in America...and...H. Spencer Lewis, by Dr. Clymer.

55  Download (0)

Full text

(1)

AUGUST FRATERNITY

O R D E R O F T H E R O S E C R O S S

I N A M E R IC A

A

H. S P E N C E R L E W I S

The Baron M unchausen of the Occult

OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO ALL

MASONS, ROSICRUCIANS, STUDENTS OF THE OCCULT AND FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS

(2)
(3)

I N A M E R I C A

T h e A u th e n tic O rd er o f th e Rose Cross

F o u n d ed in A m erica in 1858

by D r. P . B. R an d o lp h

The Rosicrucian

A B R IE F R E V IE W

of one chapter of the syn th etic, fictitious, so-called H istory of the R ose Cross Order by II. Spencer Lew is; the correction of som e of his gross m isrepresentations and false im plications; w ith a few observations on the m ethods of this Baron M unchausen of th e O ccult and his spurious Rosicrucian Order, A M O R C , fabricated in the year 1915

B y

R . S W I N B U R N E C L Y M E R

[n o t c o p y r ig h t e d]

R ead— an d having read— investigate for you rself an d thus learn the truth A d d itio n a l copies available on request

P U B L I S H E D IiY

THE PHILOSOPHICAL PUBLISHING COMPANY

QUAKERTOYVN. PENNSYLVANIA

(4)
(5)

M y ste ry . Gods. Spirit. M ind. Light. Power. Will. Lore. Gentleness. Promptitude. Temperance. Hopefulness. Endurance. Courage. Steadfastness. Watchfiillness. Caution. Cleanliness. Purity. Fidelity. Energy. Silence. jDigtiity. Truthfulness. Equipoise. Self-restraint. Justice. Patience. FEMALE ERA 11. C. 2500 to A. 1). 78. M ah il Pilos. Sudarova. Nowaahha.

</

q

/. /i-u M/dm t i j ’ l/ie ^lawcA cw vlded in m e/ Jtcboly, yA m i/o mvlo /fie wM lfiy, <med'

iu/tade namM ate ■

/&e/ow/J a/ndt/nc/uclrAiy. l/iade m/uide MynaAde# la d t l/u ^PyA am td'

|f

6 q s 7

A i m I W SSSfK PtJW H Wffloa B A tD

Y& T ilo p ila . S u d a r s o rn a . S a g era . K a p ila . C helega. ^ 5 A c c h u ta B o. Sx{ Tagulura. A'Jf A m a tta Tappa Wessentara. Samanya. Asadrisi.

llhelBpremeifrand lodge sfllorthllmerisa.and tlieislandsS leas.in behalf ^Ihteraity everywhere onlarth.

XMSCHAL BMYEKLY RANDOLPH, SftiCViWlt. II. 0. 300?. Jalaka. Anipudu. Sujata. Tanhankara. Dipankara. Yagra Puna. Maitreyi. Kusyapa. Konayowandu I K akusandu. B. C. 4101. Fahian. M aha Apr ad. Kleshnu. Mclchlzadok IV. Potiphera. Zend Ksatra. M izraim. Nagasena. Millinda. Punna. ' NelikeraOmoo . Kasawaeha. Wishaka. Z niu u so K u s y a p u . Cjuutimm IJm lh. | TEMPLE l-;j. II. C. 5600. I B u d lilstic B ra n c h . h A fflf 0EBER, E O T ,

Thy doors sh a ll not be sh u t against the honest seeker; nor shall they ever open a t the behest o f Wealth,

Position,* or. Curiosity. Feed thou. tht\ H ungry

H elp the W eak! Encourage the Wdvering, i

S L S C " : ii® - - T k So y, H ‘ s2 ® S S £ B — TB* Mystery.

- The Power. A m G T IO N -rT h s Paws. LO VE--The Pnergy. W ILL - - The Agent.

m m s m 4 -Oramtcnr, [gilt, I ’lir Power, Nobility, Reason, lEcticenco,

THE BEVEH PILLARS OF THE

f

i— ■. 1

Shane in. th e ffli r i i l 'nin Q je n t, '/ $ ?4i 3<l Ij'iii af- the. (Sulitf- a n d fff t a n d f/ u t c h o f' th e lllfa d d , a t th e

-‘ffni(l([U(Ut( U o f th e S c n i/d e .

giU ©«»t and ©Mil t'#at §l»n hath

t m done, tbat ©teat attfl

|«sn twajj tjtt ndiicM.

nwnns vi ion of ii jsl c

& Kludnpsinitus; Rhamim; Azolll I.; Menes i Malkizadek; Rhasoph; Ttibal-Zoth; A zilh; Zerdnsht ; l.aotz.e ; I'restcr Ihn : Selcucas Nicatnr’- /-.mil'll • liodonr

r Kebee Nclml; Sultoon Ahmed Sh'emKcn ; Aliuh lien K oodi;' Moliommed Talha; Zeobeir ; Othman ; Aim Sophian ; Itcni Raliar ; Aim liter • Hosein Ali -U-Kazim •

Nowairi Hushccn; llaber-il Mokanna; Zaid Hamden-Azhoth; Hosein Sawmi; Ahwazisirak. Vail of 1st Temple—lrak-Knlis at Mohomet's death a i> fir*

2(1 T v i n p l c . O r i e n t a l B i n m l o l Death of Mohomet, 632. Succeeded by Omar King. Hierarch and S. (J. M., a . n.'O u. 6.1.1, Osman • fisC Ali' Suspension of the Temple, and Propaganda for 313 years. Then came Hierarch and Grand Master, Caliph of Egypt Morzz, A.ln. 069. Azz ltillah, ov? ; Ilakem.oof. until succeeded I Dahcc .021 ; Mm,slam Uillab. .036; llarkiack, 1092 ; Mostali, too.;; Mousor. .!o i ; llaphed, 11,0; Sooltans, Grand Master and H A 1036 ; liaikiack, 1092 ; Mostali, 1094 ; Mousor. 1101 ; llaphed, 1130; Sooltans, Grand Master and 11.' ( v I ? ! 1 1 1149; Vayez, 1155; Adhed Scdinillah, 1160; Saladin, 1171; Aziz, 1193; Mansour. 1198; Sapliadin I.. 1200; KanK-lhab KtTeiu"

N ourdan, 1249; Asehraaf, 1250-.'-Nourhedin, 1257; Koulazoul, 1259; llibais, 12O0; llercki 'Klian, 1277; Kalaoon, 1279; O lC o m i

Amurath and Moorad, 1359; ltajazct I., 1389; (.dii<|ucsl by Tamerlane and death of Hajazet, 1402; Solyman 1., 1402; Musn, 1.110; Mohnnn-i ; • An

1 ■ ' ' i 52.: i Siege of Rhodes, 1480; llajazet II., 1481; Zizim's flight to Rhodes; Si-'"- ' 11 >,i... . .

- ... -... ...vrarchy, 1(122; Amurath 1^/.,

IV .. >774! Selim 111., 1781;. 'E nd of Oriental rule, decay of 2d'Tcmpic, estabiisiimenl of Kuropean ami Occidental’ Ilianc'hes.^lnitialion of 12 ruil°U!i ^

Randolph. Propaganda begun 1855 : 1st Grand Lodge founded August, 1857; 1S60. dissolution of Grand Lodge, and rounding of Supreme Grand Lodge at San Francisco,Cal., Nov. sill, 1861—John Temple, S. Grant

M aster; ifc.63, d*alh of S. G M. The Temple slept from 1861 till 1874: 1’. li. Randolph S . G. M. and Hierarch. Rcbuildcd, from the corner o,„„. l,i,t a , , , 1 ' : . ,

„ 1649; Solyin; , i687_; Achi

> of treason, and Supremo Grand Lodge established In San Frui 1, Cal„ December, 1874, wi

_ Jjrnnd ^nrttnrl. —(fjrnml 5 omr. _ (SrnniJ _ ©rnnrt Joov. _«raua <<Ju»ril. -ttvnml Cfmplnv. — (Srantl W anlnt. - Wratiil |Ua3tff. Rule. Law. Order. R ivalry. Intuition. In tellect. Sensation. Change. Ethers. Electrics. M agnetics. Growth. Energy.

5000. Budha; Ascleplns; Pthah j M eneptha; Khan

. Selim 1., 1512; Solyman II. (the Magnifi. 111., 1595 ; Achmet I.. 1603; Mustapha I., irn7 ; Osman IL. 1618; M.

1692; ... *'-■ •

9 7?; llakem , 996. until succecdetl by of Kgypt — Nourrhcddin, 1145; Dhafer, 21S; Saphadin II., 123s-. Saleh, 1240

F.tt«I>i 10 — Osman, 1288; Orkan, i-,: niouomet I., 1413 : Amurath 11., 1431 ; M0I1

(6)
(7)

Addressed to all sincere students of M ysticism and the Occult as w ell as to all Mystics, Occultists and In iti­ ates who believe in the absolute functioning of the Law

of Karma: _ i f

Let us suppose, by way of illustration, that about three-quarters of a century ago a Rosicrucian initiate w ith due warrant of law ful authority from the authentic august Fraternity established the Order of the Rose

Cross in America; that as Grand Master, lie taug 1 '■ ie

Great Work to others, noble and self effacing, who were alw ays w illing to work, to suffer, to (.lie if need be, o help their fellow s 011 the hard steep upward I ath an to serve mankind; that the Rosicrucian Fraternity so founded in Am erica has continued, without abatemeir, to exist to this day; that the work and the duty of ca n y- ing it on, passed from Grand Master to Grand Mas ei, from teacher to teacher, all noble men, each of whom with unselfish devotion, in turn, served their fellow-men and passed on from this plane of life; and that a man now still in the flesh, after due preparation, succeeded to Grand Mastership of the august Fraternity with instruc­ tions to defend his benefactors and to carry 011 the Greet

Work as his predecessors had done, according to u,

ancient land-marks of the Fraternity.

Then, let us suppose, that about 18 years ago, a charlatan, a pretender, without knowledge of the true work and w ithout warrant of authority from the authen­ tic Fraternity, started in America and continues to c a n y on, as its self appointed “ Im perator,” a Clandestine

Rosicrucian Order; that after those t r u e and wort iy

Grand Masters and teachers of the authentic F ratem i y have passed through the portals of death and fio m this plane of action, this pretender and pseudo “ Imperator m otivated by selfishness, ignobility and the desire .0

(8)

their w 4 1 1(U1' orK’ defamed them, and would destroy

dos in ° l . J ‘‘I*utations by falsehoods and false

innuen-frniVv! 01 'le llluy w rongfully appropriate tlie

Pecimi leu unselfish labors to his selfish glory and

Pecuniary profit.

M astov^f ^ us suppose that the present Grand

of the R° '/< ^ utlientic Eosicrucian F ratern ity or Order

carrv ° 0,ss’ w^o is obligated and in duty bound to

for •i/l l ° i |. I(| 1X' no^ e work and who is deeply indebted

wroiiof nV I'0 Predecessors, who have been so

ve ^ U ' a^d_ unjustly defamed and w ilfully slandered;

fvioiiV*^,(|)S° ^ man heeds the advice of certain cautious

in tin f ly: " Never m in d ! It w ill all adjust itself

h‘i« , i 1(!: 1 ^oes nothing to defend the innocent against

•ilfIi'(S8’ f so^100^8— does nothing to right the wrong,

wit 1 +1 le . ,ows. *n Ids lieart that unless he protests

I ,! d la | ‘s in him, unless he declares the truth which

fhr> vlK).u ‘s cl'J°ut his predecessors now unable to defend *msc ves, and exposes the falsehoods circulated about their noble work and accomplishments, that he hi' ’i' 1 emT1W8 in his duty and cannot be and remain aim ess. II he does fail in the performance of this sim-

( v!!, aiu* ^°ying service— what w ill his Karma toe?

le ^01>egoing suppositions, by w ay of illustration, aie a iu e statement of facts. I am the present Grand as ei or the authentic Eosicrucian Fraternity, in due

an lig h tfu l order of succession, founded in Am erica

about 1858 by Dr. P. B. Eandolph. W hen yet a lad, I w as accepted as a Neophyte in that great Spiritual pC 100 ^u°w n as the Eose Cross then presided over by * reeman B. Dowd as Grand Master. Dr. Jam es B. Phelps w as chosen as my teacher, personally selected by the In ­

ternational Initiate and Eosicrucian, Count Quinotti. I was instructed in the Philosophy of the Eose Cross and guided through H er m ysteries until I could stand alone. I served under Grand Master Dr. Edward H. Brown and succeeded him. I knew these men and the men and u omen associated with them, who loved and labored so that any who would, m ight know the Truth and the Life.

I know that they were unselfish and ready to suffer for Truth— they never failed in their duty. I know that

(9)

they had only the good of mankind in mind. I know that the calumny and clouds of doubt cast upon their records by one who never knew them, is without the slightest justification and have no foundation in truth. I also know, and fully understand, that this calumny is spread and those doubts were created by a person whose sole aim is to belittle those men and to destroy, if possi­ ble, in the public mind and esteem, the authenticity of the Fraternity or Order that they founded and have pre­ served to this day, in order that lie may establish in its place in the public mind and esteem, his own clandestine and spurious order w rongfully claimed to be Rosicrucian. A gain I ask: “ W hat w ill my Karma be, if under these circumstances, I fail in the defense of those noble souls that have now joined the Hierarchy of the W hite Broth­ erhood?” I SHALL NOT FA IL THEM!

And—what about you who read the follow ing pages and are convinced of the truth therein set forth, if you shall fail to do all in your power to “ publish and lift up a standard” against the falsity and greed that seeks to undermine the foundation and to destroy their Great Work?

I have written that which follows because I know it to be the truth. Let it be clearly understood that I as­ sume full and complete responsibility for all statements made and will gladly welcome the opportunity to prove and fu lly demonstrate the truth of my statements before any competent and impartial tribunal.

(10)
(11)

H is Spurious AMORC and His W holesale Fabrications

Early in the Fall, shortly after my return from a tour through the Great W est and Soutli on a mission of investigation and the gathering of valuable material re­ fated to the interests of the august Fraternity, the Fra- ternity, Order and Brotherhood of the Rose Cross '' which I represent, a student of the Great Work placed in my hands a copy of a publication entitled: “ Rosicrucian Questions and Answers w ith Complete History of the Rosicrucian Order” by H. Spencer Lewis, and requested that I give the book careful consideration, particularly chapter VI, entitled: “ The Birth of Semi-Rosicrucian Organizations. ’ ’

This I have done and find the book in general to be a text of fabrications rather than a history of the august

Fraternity. Few of the statem ents made therein are

based on fact and those that are so based are distorted half truths, m aking them worse than downright false­ hoods. However, it is not m y purpose here or now to show how small a proportion of the contents of the book in question is actual Rosicrucian history but to discuss the chapter specified, since this chapter deals w ith indi­ viduals, many of whom I knew personally; yet, reading it in the light of m y own first hand and, therefore, ac­ curate knowledge, the entire chapter reads more like a Munchausenism than a trustworthy text by one who lays claim to be a Rosicrucian.

A fter w riting at some length of the English Masonic Rose Cross and its establishment in America in 1880 and questioning the honesty, capability and the Masonic and Rosicrucian standing of the Hon. Kenneth R. H. Mc­ Kenzie, recognized as an authority of high repute on Masonic and Rosicrucian affairs for the past fifty years, Mr. Lewis says:

“A m erican R o sic ru c ia n s tu d e n ts 1 w ere w ell a w a re of th e

*Special a tte n tio n is called to th e u se of th e te rm s F r a te rn ity , O rd e r and B ro th erh o o d . T hese w ere used in te rc h a n g e a b ly by th e R andolph F o u n d a tio n even p rio r to th e y e ar 1874 as n o te copy o f th e C h a rte r w hich w as issued by R andolph w h en ev er a Lodge w as form ed.

(12)

ta c t th a t th e R o sic ru c ia n O rd er of E u ro p e h ad p re v io u sly a u th o rized th e e s ta b lis h m e n t of tr u e R o s ic ru c ia n is m in A m erica in th e y e a r 1692 a n d 1693,-' a n d th e r e w e re m any living d e sc e n d a n ts of th o s e first official R o s ic ru c ia n s 3 w ho objected to th e e s ta b lis h m e n t of R o s ic ru c ia n ism in A m erica in con n ectio n w ith an y o th e r o rg a n iz a tio n 1 w ith o u t w a r r a n t or p ro p e r ritu a ls .”

1 Ignoring everything that either Dr. P. B. Ran­ dolph or Freeman B. Dowd, first and second Supreme Grand Masters of the authentic Eosicrucian Fraternity in America, have written relating to the Rosicrucians, and consulting only Sylvester Clark Gould, whom Mr. Lewis apparently accepts as an authority, we find that there was but one active Rosicrucian Order in America prior to and at that date (1880), (excepting only the Masonic Rose Cross Society working under E nglish and Scottish authority and being Masonic, in no way conflict­ ing with the authentic Order), and that one and only one was the Order established by Randolph about 1856 and in the year 1880 it was still actively functioning under the jurisdiction of Freeman B. Dowd, as Grand Master, Dr. Randolph having passed through the Portals of the Greater Mysteries. Certainly these “ American Rosicru­ cian students” were aware: (a) that Randolph had es­ tablished the authentic Fraternity as above stated; (b) that he had the absolute and exclusive authority for the establishment of the Fraternity in America; and (c) being either neophytes or members of the Fraternity, as thou­ sands were at that date, under Grand M aster Dowd, they were not merely “ aw are” but knew that the Order ex ­ isted and was actively “ w orking” in America.

2 This mis-statement has been so frequently repeated by Mr. Lewis that he may now believe it to be true. As a matter of fact, no such charter was ever granted to Americans or American em igrants by either a clandes­ tine or genuine Rosicrucian foundation. These good people who left Holland,—who travelled to London and were received in the Lodge of Philadelphia,— a purely sectarian Boehme M ystic organization,—were P ietists who later established in Pennsylvania a P ietist colony and never even pretended it to be a Rosicrucian Brother­ hood. This has been made clear in our brochure, The

(13)

mentions the B aptists, Anabaptists, Dunkers, the work of the M ystic Boehme and others—all Sectarians, but does not mention the Rosicrucians.

Even if it were true that these sectarians had really been Rosicrucians, this would not in any possible way ju stify the existence of Mr. L ew is’ clandestine organiza­ tion unless he could prove, beyond preadventure of a doubt, that his organization had legitim ately descended from these good Sectarians once established near Phila­ delphia and Eplirata, And, from all that Mr. Lewis lias \\ ritten and printed on the subject in order to ju stify liis spurious movement, one would be lead to conclude that he sought to establish such a connection. However, Mr. Lewis em phatically tells his followers that the Amorc is not a descendant of the group that came to America in 1694. Our proof:

1 urn to page 109, second column of the May, 1927, issue of The M ystic Triangle, an Official Amorc Publica­ tion, and there, under the “ question and answ er”

de-There n e v e r was su ch a d e c r e e . E phrata— S ev en th day B a p t i s t s . F r a n c e ,E g y p t, Germany— Which ? 7 V V V i V ; V 7 ?

(14)

Carefully note the underlined statement. This should, once and for all, settle this question and at the same time establish the priority of the Randolph Founda­ tion. Marginal notes are by a Correspondent.

:i The only living descendants of these early Sectarian settlers were located in Ephrata, Pennsylvania and the surrounding territory, and in Ephrata the original colony building still stands. It is questionable whether even as late as 1880 a single one of these people had ever heard the term “ Rosicrucian.” Those good people were S ev ­ enth Day B aptists and so remain to this day, the Mystics among them having died out long prior to 1880.*

4 In no literature extant can I find any reference to any objection being raised by any Rosicrucian, or by any other person for that matter, to the establishm ent in America of the E nglish body referred to by Mr. Lewis. It was recognized by those most concerned as purely a Masonic activity and looked upon by the Rosicrucians proper as being much after the Eighteenth Degree of Scottish Rite Masonry. Inasmuch as authentic Rosicru­ cianism certainly has no quarrel with Masonry, it did not then, any more than it does now, concern itself with any­ thing that Masonry may do in matters Masonic.

“ It a p p e a rs 1 from som e h is to ric a l re c o rd s th a t a m an by th e n am e of Dr. P. B. R an d o lp h , w ho w as a s tu d e n t of th e occu lt an d m y stical, cam e in c o n ta c t w ith som e R o si­ c ru cian lite r a tu r e or essa y s p rio r to th e y e a r 1856 w hile in A m erica.2 I t a p p e a rs t h a t Dr. R an d o lp h v isite d London in 1858 an d th e r e m e t a s tu d e n t of m y s tic ism k n o w n as Mr. W. G. P a lg ra v e ,3 w ho claim ed to be a m e m b e r of som e e s o te ric O rd e r1 in E u ro p e, w hich w as o p e ra te d u n d e r a c h a r te r issu ed by a ‘C ouncil of S e v e n ’.5 T h ro u g h th is m an h e w as in tro d u c e d to Mr. H a rg ra v e J e n n in g s , E lip h a s Levi, an d se v e ra l o th e rs w ho e v e n tu a lly fo rm ed th e H ig h C ouncil of th e o rig in al S. R. I. A. in E ngland." D r. R an d o lp h w as in itia te d in to th is M asonic R o sicru cian body as a n h o n o r­ a ry m em b er, c o n tin u ed h is to u r an d re tu rn e d to A m erica.”

It is of the utmost importance that the interested reader, student or investigator, should give the most careful consideration to each of the statem ents made in the foregoing paragraph. It may not be unfair to state that Mr. Lewis wrote the above with the deliberate inten­ tion of deceiving and blinding his readers to all he had

(15)

previously written and printed on the subject; yet, it is nevertheless true that each, separate statement in the paragraph just quoted is absolutely false and that he knew that practically all of them were untrue.

1 The paragraph begins w ith the words “ it appears.” One naturally concludes from this expression that Mr. Lewis did not actually know; that he was writing alto­ gether on supposition or heresay, and this, no man has a right to do on so vital a topic involving the integrity of a leader as famous as was Dr. Randolph in his day. Moreover, if, as he flatly claims and we as positively deny, Mr. Lew is is a Rosicrucian, then he would not need to speak of appearances— as an Initiate, as a member of the Fraternity, he would know.

2 Mr. L ew is did know, and the proof that he did, and that his statem ents made in the 1929 publications are utterly false, can readily be proven. To settle this par­ ticular question once and for all time, as well as the ques­ tion whether or not Mr. Lew is is a Rosicrucian, we here reproduce an exact reproduction of the title page of his own “ Official Publication Number Two, A. M. 0 . R. C .” published in 1915, after he had started to organize his spurious body. The reader can readily see for him self that the author of this booklet is shown to be none other than “ H. Spencer Lewis, F. R. C.” Also, that, evidently being uncertain, he does not as yet call him self a “ R osi­ crucian,” which he is not and never has been, but a "12° Illum inati” under a Rosicrucian appelation. I f printed evidence is indeed evidence, then this much is clear:

(16)

W e

Ancient an& U g a t t r a l

( § t b n

IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

ITS HISTORY, PURPOSES A N D S Y M B O L I S M B y ' H. Sp e n c e r Le w i s, F . R . C.

(1 2 ° Il l u m in a t i, To u l o u s e, Fr a n c e)

So let Mr. Lewis refute his “ It-appears” statement. 1 quote another of his statements, written and published in 1915, from which it conclusively appears that he had prior knowledge of Dr. Randolph’s Rosicrucian standing and activities. On page 10 of his said “ Official Publica­ tion Number T w o” he published the follow ing statem ent -—knowing when lie wrote it, that insofar as it concerned Dr. Randolph’s Rosicrucian standing and authority it was true, but that the lim itations he placed upon the same were wholly false, namely:

“T liis is w hy th e a tte m p ts of D r. R a n d o lp h a n d one o r m o re

osae Q r n r i a

OFFICIAL PU B LIC A TIO N N U M B E R T W O

A. M. O. R. C.

Copyrighted 1915 and Issued by*

THE PUBLICATION COMMITTEE, AMERICAN SUPREME COUNCIL

(17)

o th e r R o sa e c ru c ia n s of fo re ig n in itia tio n to e s ta b lis h th e O rd e r in th is c o u n try w ith in th e p a s t h u n d re d y e a rs h a v e a lw a y s fa ile d .”

I in sist that Mr. Lewis then knew this statement in ­ tim ating that the Randolph Foundation had failed, to be false for the reason that one of tlie officials of his organi­ zation had previously been in correspondence with the then, as now, firmly established Rosicrucian organization, the original Randolph Foundation, officially known as the Fraternitas Rosae Crucis, i. e., The Rosicrucian Order or Brotherhood. This correspondence is on file in the ar­ chives of the Fraternity.

Furthermore, and of vastly greater importance, in view of what is printed in liis 1929 publication, I call a t­ tention to another statem ent printed in this same book­ let copyrighted by Mr. Lewis in 1915, more than fourteen years prior to his “ It-appears” statement, wherein Mr. Lewis admitted that Dr. Randolph was ‘ ‘ One of the fore­ m ost men of the Order who ever lived in this country and was at one time Grand Master of the R. C. Lodge in France, which was attended by one of the N apoleons,” Bee page 10 of the said booklet, “ Official Publication Number T w o.”

Grand Master of the R . C. O rder in France and its Colonies. The papers permitted public negotiations to be made in the United States only after January x, 1915; for the year 1915 was the one designated centuries be­ fore as the proper time for the O rder to be born in America. T h is is why the attempts of Dr. Randolph and one or more other Rosaecrucians of foreign initia­ tion to establish the O rder in this country within the past hundred years have always failed. The necessary papers, co-operation and privilege could not be secured

(

even regardless of the fact that D r. Randolph was one! of the foremost men of the O rder who ever lived in this I country and was at one time Grand Master of the R . C. I Lodge in France, which was attended by one of the! Napoleons.*

Please note that Mr. Lewis has admitted that Dr. Randolph actually was an Initiate of a foreign Rosicru­ cian Order, just as he had previously admitted R an­ dolph to have been Grand Master of the French Frater­

(18)

nity. Mr. Lewis tlien proceeds to claim that because of this foreign initiation, Dr. Randolph and others, whom he does not name, failed in establishing the Order in America.

A fter giving this serious thought, let the sincere stu­ dent searching after Rosicrucian truth, turn to the pur­ ported history of the Order w ritten by Mr. Lewis as published during the year 1916 in his magazine, The American Rosae Crucis, especially noting contents of pages 24, 25 and 26 of the May, 1916, number. H e w ill there lind a description of the initiation Mr. Lewis claims to have passed through, and all of it w ithin one night, not as one might expect, in America or an American pos­ session, but in Toulouse, France, that identical foreign country wherein Mr. Lewis adm itted Dr. Randolph had been initiated and made Grand Master of the Fraternity, and because of which—the said foreign initiation—Dr. Randolph failed to establish the Order in America.

Consider further Mr. L ew is’s reasoning: E ven though a Grand Master of the Fraternity, Dr. Randolph could not succeed in establishing the Fraternity in America, but Mr. Lewis, a pretending initiate of one n ig h t’s dura­ tion in that same Fraternity over which he admits Dr. Randolph had presided as the Supreme Head, could suc­ ceed. The least in the Fraternity was able to accomplish that which the greatest or highest could not. Is that not colossal conceit? If this is not the essence of inconsist­ ency, what is?

Is it possible to reconcile such contradictory state­ ments? Is it possible to believe that one who really is a Rosicrucian should be capable of m aking such a faux pas in so vitally important matter?

3 Here we have another of those half-truths, always more m isleading than any outright falsehood. I t is true that Dr. Randolph did meet a M ystic by that name, but Mr. Palgrave (an Initiate of a high degree), had noth­ ing whatever to do with Randolph’s introduction into the Original Rosicrucian Fraternity, nor to the French Or­ ganization. Mr. Palgrave introduced Dr. Randolph to Hargrave Jennings and, through Jennings, Randolph was introduced to Lord Lytton and to many of the secret

(19)

and authentic E nglish Eosicrucians and not, as Mr. Lewis would have us believe, to the Masonic Rose Cross body. Dr. Randolph was introduced to the original Ger­ man Fra. R. •. C. •. by General Ethan A llen Hitchcock, and to the French Order by Drs. Fontain and Bergevin, by means of their letters of introduction which Randolph carried with him when he left New York for foreign shores.*

4 A s already stated, W. G. Palgrave was not an ob­ scure M ystic by any means but one of the Inner Council of the esoteric E nglish Rosicrucian Fraternity. This body, first established in England by Dr. Robert Fludd, one of the Council of the original German foundation, followed the original tenets of the Order and was known only to its N eophytes and Initiates.

0 The writer is fam iliar w ith all of the literature pub­ lished by Dr. P. B. Randolph, yet he is not aware that Dr. Randolph, either in his published w ritings or his cor­ respondence, ever used the term ‘ ‘ Council of Seven. ’ ’ While these Councils of Three, Seven and Nine have been in existence since the establishment of the Fraternity, the terms were not then used in publications for the pro­ fane (n o n -in itia tes); they have appeared in such litera­ ture only since the establishm ent of spurious bodies in order to prove and establish certain points relative to the

authentic organization. Unless we have inadvertently

overlooked such a reference in Randolph’s writings, it is to be concluded that this assertion is, like so many others, manufactured out of the whole cloth. However, it is absolutely certain that Dr. Randolph did not ever write or say that any Rosicrucian Order was “ operated under a charter issued by the Council of S even ” for the obvious reason that the Council does not issue charters in the authentic organization. A ll charters are now and always have been issued only under the hand and seal of the Supreme Grand Master.

0 I t is likew ise untrue that any of the men to whom Dr. Randolph was introduced by Mr. Palgrave or that Randolph him self ever had anything directly to do with

(20)

the formation of the H igh Council of the original S.R.I.A.

“W hile in A m erica1 he R a n d o lp h w ro te a n u m b e r of books d ealin g w ith th e su b je c ts of h e a lth , m a rria g e , love, and sex hygiene, a n d in one of th e m in tro d u c e d a sto ry a b o u t th e m y stic R o sic ru c ia n s,= in tim a tin g t h a t h e w as p la n n in g to e sta b lis h som e of th e R o sic ru c ia n M asonic3 worlc in A m erica on th e b a s is of t h a t w hich w as b ein g c a rrie d on by th e S .R .I .A .”

J The expression “ while in A m erica” is no doubt in­ tended to convey the idea to many readers that Dr. Ran­ dolph was seldom and but briefly in America, possibly that he was not an American. The fact is, Dr. Randolph was born in and lived in America during all but a few years of his life and liis loyalty as an American in heart and soul was never questioned by anyone. He was a friend and adviser to many great Americans— among them the immortal Abraham Lincoln.

2 It is true that Dr. Randolph wrote a story on m ys­ tic Rosicrucianism. This was his book Ravalette and, were Mr. Lewis even sligh tly versed in Rosicrucian lore and philosophy, he would understand that this was really the story—veiled, it is true— of Randolph’s own experience of Initiation, as well as a history of that period (1856-59). He did not “ in tim ate” in Ravalette that he was planning such a Fraternity, but gave in its pages the history of an actual Order then fu lly function­ ing in America as well as in other countries. The illus­ tration of the form of charter issued by Randolph to American Lodges is further evidence of said fact.

3 This is absolutely fa ls e ! Dr. Randolph never

claimed to be a Mason or that he had any connection

with Masonry whatever. The movement which Ran­

dolph established had nothing to do w ith Masonry other than just as many good Masons are churchmen; so, also, many good Masons are also Rosicrucians. This un­ founded statement gives rise to the question whether Mr. Lewis is endeavoring to draw attention from him ­ self and his own unfortunate Masonic history in New York and his Masonically clandestine connections as published in his magazine, The Triangle, September 29, 1921, and The American Rosae Crucis, January, 1916. Randolph had nothing whatever in common w ith the

(21)

Masonic Eose Cross known as the S. R. I. A. His was a continuation of tlie original esoteric foundation.

“B ecau se o£ th e n a tu r e o f h is [R an d o lp h 's] books, d ealin g in u n u su a lly p la in la n g u a g e w ith s u b je c ts n o t g e n e ra lly d isc u sse d in A m erican L ite ra tu r e , a n d c e rta in ly h a v in g n o n e of th e g o o d n ess an d h ig h id e a lism of th e S. R. I- A. [L ondon] te a c h in g s , h e w as tr ie d in c o u rt fo r su c h p u b li­ c a tio n s,1 a n d e v e n tu a lly a b a n d o n e d h is e n tire w o rk 2 be­ c au se of th e c o n d e m n a tio n of h is w ritin g s .”3

1 Here is falsification in its most ingenious and in­ sidious form, namely, tlie use of half-truth which, when the entire truth is unknown to the reader, condemns a man in the minds of all but the most discriminating thinkers. W e know that Mr. Lewis had a copy of Ean- dolph’s Life Story; The Rose Cross Order, wherein the entire story of his life is given at the time he (Mr. Lew is) wrote this distortion of truth and suppression of facts, therefore, it follows that the statements were made w ittingly and deliberately w ith intent to deceive. It is true that Dr. Eandolph was tried in Court for a part of the contents of his works on Love, Woman and Marriage. It is also true (greatly to his credit) that he so thorough­ ly believed in the soundness of his teachings and his high purpose, that at the trial he acted as his own attorney and was honorably acquitted. The prosecuting attorney, who prosecuted Eandolph at that trial, publicly stated that he considered Dr. Eandolph the greatest Eosicru­ cian who had ever lived and that Randolph was then the Supreme Grand Master of the Fraternity. This, Mr. Lewis well knows and deliberately suppresses—indeed, he would destroy the character of the man whose work he would unlaw fully and wrongfully appropriate to him ­ self only to debase it.

The almost hopeless battle Eandolph fought is more readily understood and appreciated when we consider that more than thirty years later one Moses Llarmon was

sent to the Federal prison at Leavenworth for w riting 011

sex m atters now boldly spread over the pages of many popular magazines. Dr. A lice Stockliam was fined one thousand dollars and given a suspended sentence of one year in prison for the publication of her views on m atters pertaining to sex, w hile Ida Chaddock committed suicide in a Long Island prison because of like persecutions by

(22)

the infamous Anthony Comstock. Dr. Randolph de­ fended his writings, won his case and was warmly ap­ plauded by those who crowded the courtroom.

2 The statement that Dr. Randolph abandoned his writings or his work, is wholly without a shred of truth. The publication and sale of his books has continued to this day and the demand is as great as ever. In fact, many of his teachings, once laughed and sneered at, have since proven to be scientific and sound in every respect. There has never been a time since 1865 when these books have not been on sale or could be bought. I know. I, per­ sonally, have bought and sold them since 1894, and only recently I have republished and sold three of them, viz: Seership, Eulis and Soul, The Soul World. A s to the statement that Dr. Randolph “ eventually abandoned his entire work,” let the reproduction of the form of Charter issued by Randolph to his Lodges speak for itself and let the reader note that the date of this copy is of the year (1874), one year before Randolph passed to the Beyond, proving that he was active up to the very last years of his life.

3Randolph’s w ritings and books have never been condemned by any representative tribunal. Some of his statements were questioned in the late sixties, but since then there has been no question regarding them, except possibly objections made by individual readers, which is the case with reference to practically all classes of p u b ­ lications.

“R andolph e v e n tu a lly sig n ed h im se lf in so m e le t te r s and p a p e rs as th e ‘S u p rem e G rand M a s te r of E u lis fo r th e w o rld ’*1 an d a few of h is frie n d s trie d to e x p lain a f t e r h is u n fo rtu n a te tra n s itio n th ro u g h su ic id e 2 t h a t h e believed h im se lf to he a G rand M a s te r of th e ‘T rip le O rd e r’. T h is te rm is n o t an official p a r t of R o sic ru c ia n T erm inology, an d th e r e a re n o d o cu m en ts o r p a p e rs to b e found in E u ro p e in d ic a tin g th a t h e w as e v e r a u th o riz e d to e s ta b lis h a n y th in g of a R o sic ru c ia n n a tu r e in A m erica'1 o r e ls e w h e re and n o n e of th e h is to ric a l re c o rd s of th e O rd er m e n tio n h is n a m e or h is b ra n c h e s a s a P a rt of R o sic ru c ia n h is to ry .”4

1 Can Mr. Lewis produce “ the letters and papers” he here mentions'? Again, Mr. Lewis has confused the issue. Dr. Randolph never claimed that the term Eulis

♦To fo rev e r s e t a t re s t th e question as to j u s t how he sig n ed h im self, th e re a d er should re fe r to th e fo rm o f c h a r te r h erein reproduced.

(23)

was known, as suck, to or used by the original Rosicru- eian Foundation. On the contrary, he clearly stated that it was an Order instituted by himself, while Grand Master. Its existence was first made known at Memphis, Tenn. i t is supplemental to but in no wise inconsistent with the original Rosicrucian work. Prim arily it was founded for those N eophytes of The Rose Gross who had attained to a certain development and progressed beyond certain de­ grees in the Rose Cross inner or esoteric work. Since only those who had passed beyond the original second degree work were and are eligible to membership in the Degree or Order of Eulis, the original second degree work (which has alw ays been followed in its pristine purity) gradually became known in the Randolph Foun­ dation as the Degree or Order of Eulis. Each degree is an Order in itself. Inasmuch as Dr. Randolph, then Grand Master of the Fraternity, was the founder of Eulis, it was entirely proper that he should proclaim him self as the Grand Master of Eulis and sign official communications and documents as Grand Master of the

“ Triple Order” as shown 0 11 the copy of Charter repro­

duced in this booklet.

W e question seriously whether any of Dr. Ran­ dolph’s friends ever offered such an explanation. I f they did, then they were m erely friends and neither Initiates nor members of the Fraternity. May we here ask Mr. Lewis to cite book, chapter and page for his authority in m aking this statement? It is, of course, clearly under­ stood by every serious student of the Occult that no one except a member of the Fraternity could possibly “ ex­ p lain ,” w ith any degree of correctness, to the world at large as regards Randolph, his work, affiliation or

authority. Randolph was Supreme Grand Master or

Hierarch of the Triple Order and so remained to the time of his death.

■Relative to R andolph’s transition, it is true that his death was the result of a pistol shot and that surface indications pointed to suicide—that was the coronor \s verdict. B ut the actual facts, known to a very few and only to those of the Inner Council are, namely: that a member, very near and dear to Randolph, shortly before

(24)

passing on, confessed to tlie Master of one of tlie Tem­ ples, tlxat it was he, due to jealousy and temporary in­ sanity, who had made and executed the plans to give Randolph’s death the appearance of suicide and that he, (the said member), had sent Randolph on h is far jour­ ney. We know of this confession and we have every rea­ son to believe it to be true. This quoted statem ent made by Mr. Lewis has also been made by others but always lor sinister and ignoble personal reasons. To use such a weapon against the record of a great man, (or any man for that reason) who has passed on may, bomerang- like, reveal the unworthy character and equally un­ worthy purposes of those who stoop so low as to use such weapons.

Relative to records in Europe or elsewhere, we refer the reader to what has been w ritten and printed by Mr. Lewis himself as to who and what Randolph was. More­ over, we recall to mind the oft-repeated statem ent made by Mr. Lewis that Randolph did not use the terms R osi­ crucian (Rosicrucia), Order or Brotherhood, and that he (Randolph) established no Lodges, as to this, we refer the reader to the form of the Charter issued by Randolph to his Lodges, herein reproduced.

3 We question seriously whether Mr. Lewis is an authority on Rosicrucian terminology. Does he really know the language? Is Amorc of authentic Rosicru cian terminology? If so, then in what records or manu­ scripts, or authentic text book is it to be found? W as it ever used before Mr. Lewis invented it w ith the idea of protecting him self against the charge of clandestinism ? Is the term “ Ancient and M ystical” Order Rosae Crusis materially different from the term “ Order of the Rose Cross” used by Randolph except the prefix “ Ancient and M ystical?” Was it ever used in that special form before Mr. Lewis made use of it? W as it used in that form in the Fama or the M ystical Marriage? If so, then in what edition and on what page? Let those who desire to know, consult these two original Rosicrucian docu­ ments? There is but one original name and that is: Fraternitas Rosae Crucis (w ithout any “ Ancient and M ystical” ) and this is merely the Latinized form of F r a ­

(25)

ternity of tlie Rose Cross or Rosicrucians. This name is used by us and was so used long before Mr. Lewis came into the spotlight w ith his fabrication; it is used, now as always, interchangeably w ith the terms The Rosicrucian Fraternity. The Rosicrucian Brotherhood, The Rosicru­ cian Order, Order of the Rose Cross and Brotherhood of the Rose Cross, and, what is of greater importance, both legally and fraternally, is the fact that the earliest Char­ ters as well as that of 1874 clearly states that it (the Fraternity) is both a Brotherhood and an Order and as such, these terms were then preempted by usage which has continued ever since and Mr. Lewis uses them w ith­ out rights or authority of any kind. Let the reader re­ fer to the form of Charter as issued by Dr. Randolph— the same Charter under which we continue to work. These names have been registered and can be used right­ fu lly only by the Randolph foundation.

I f the statem ents made by Mr. Lewis in 1929 were true, even so far as he him self is concerned, then he was gu ilty of a gross falsehood when he, in his second “ offi­ c ia l” booklet published in 1915 made the statements he did. Have the records from which he then obtained his inform ation relative to Dr. Randolph and his authority, since been changed or destroyed? W ill Mr. Lewis ex­ plain? Did he guess then and find differently now? W hat manner of a man is he, if this be true? May he not be just as m istaken and inaccurate with reference to all matters and things w ith which he had dealt and about which he has written? Since he is so careless w ith the truth, how much of all he has w ritten can be depended upon as trustworthy? May this not be equally true as regards his one night initiation in France, or relative to his authority, first from France, then Egypt, later Ger­ many and finally— self-constituted?

4 To further emphasize what we have already said, we again question and ask: In what “ official” or other genuine Rosicrucian publication is the Amorc or the Ancient and M ystical Order Rosae Crucia mentioned? Is it mentioned in any publication prior to 1915? Let it be remembered that 1915 was fifty-five years after the establishm ent in Am erica of the Rosicrucian foundation

(26)

by Randolph and forty-one years after the last Charter issued by Randolph in which the terms “ B rotherhood” and “ Order,” so boldly used by Mr. Lewis in his clan­ destine organization, were interchangeably used in re­ ferring to the Fraternity.

“R andolph w as su cceed ed t>y a M r. Dowd, w ho tr ie d 1 to con­ tin u e o p e ra tin g som e of th e b ra n c h e s w h ich R a n d o lp h had e sta b lish e d on th e P acific C o a st a n d in s e v e r a l e a s te rn cities,2 b ut, acco rd in g to t h e ir own records, th e s e b ra n c h e s c o n sta n tly d isb an d ed 3 w h en th e m e m b e rs th e r e o f d is­ covered t h a t th e r e w as no re a l R o sic ru c ia n te a c h in g s or r itu a l1 in th e w o rk an d in s is te d on w ith d ra w in g from th e R an d o lp h w ork an d u n itin g w ith th e re g u la r fo reig n b ra n c h e s of th e R o sic ru c ia n O rd e r.”5

1 When Freeman B. Dowd became Grand Master of the Fraternity, Mr. Lewis was as yet unborn and there­ fore could not have known of his own knowledge whether or not Dowd was successful and in this instance heresay is of no value even if it did exist, since only those who could possibly have given authentic information would have been the members; and they have taken a vow of secrecy as sacred and binding as any that can be taken by a Mason, or a member of other major secret fraternal organizations. We know and here state from actual knowledge, that which Mr. Lewis does not seem to know, that Freeman B. Dowd was successful as a leader and followed as closely the ancient landmarks as any Grand Master who ever lived.

2 In one instance Mr. Lewis blatantly proclaims the fact (!) that Dr. Randolph never succeeded in establish­ ing Lodges of the Order and that he had no such Lodges; here he states that Dowd “ tried to continue operating some of the branches which Randolph had established on the Pacific Coast and in several eastern cities.” Between these contradictory statements, “ pay your money and take your choice,” but even so, it does appear, even ac­ cording to Mr. Lewis, that Randolph actually had estab­ lished Lodges. It was Quintilian who said: “ It is fitting that a liar should be a man of good memory.” The im ­ plication is severe, yet, how shall we otherwise charac­ terize almost everything that Mr. Lew is has ever written relative to Dr. Randolph and the Rose Cross in America ? In this immediate connection it should be borne in mind

(27)

that Mr. Lew is has admitted Randolph’s Grrand Master­ ship as well as that he (Randolph) established Lodges on the Pacific Coast and in several eastern cities. If Mr. Lewis admits that much, what are all the facts and the whole truth?

3 W hen and where did Mr. Lewis have the privilege to examine the records of the Fraternity which he has repeatedly said never existed? Can a man who does not belong to a certain organization and who is totally igno­ rant of its essential secrets be privileged to examine the records of that organization for authentic information when such records are open only to the members of high­ est degree who belong to one of the Councils? There never has been an organized institution wherein dissen- tion did not occur occasionally. In some future time an institution may exist wherein such dissentions will not occur, but so long as m en ’s minds are as diverse in their viewpoints as they have been and are at present, there is certain to be contention or “ differences of opinion” and this is rather a healthy condition than otherwise and shows growth where otherwise we would find stagnation. B y reason of the fact that Mr. Lew is claims these Lodges “ constantly disbanded” he further admits that the Lod­ ges did exist, and that is an important admission. A s a m atter of fact and of record, no Lodges actually dis­ banded; in two instances the Charters (notably that of Rochester, N. Y.) were rescinded and withdrawn for a time just as it occasionally happens in Masonry, due to infractions of the Law. This was during the life of Ran­ dolph and follow ing closely after the civil war when m en ’s minds were very bitter. No Charters were for­ feited during D ow d ’s term of office.

4 Mr. Lewis knows that this is a deliberate falsehood. The original R itual used by Randolph is now in the hands of the w riter hereof. This ritual was worked in complete detail during the June, 1910, Temple D edica­ tion Convocation. We know that Mr. Lewis is aware of this fact, because one of the members present at that Convocation and whose profile appears in the photograph taken of that class, later joined with Mr. Lewis and in formed him of what took place. We have her own con­

(28)

fession. Furthermore, Mr. Lewis later so far forgot him ­ self as to brazenly boast about this member and what he did to cause her to break her most solemn vow. We speak only of this special Convocation of the Fraternity (again referred to in dealing w ith the subject of Tem­ ples) because of the traitorous act of the individual in question and the information passed on by her to Mr. Lewis.

5 Here is another statement just as false as the pre­ ceding one. During the entire time that Dr. Randolph and Freeman B. Dowd were Grand Masters of the Frater­ nity no attempt was made by any one to organize spur­ ious or clandestine bodies such as was organized by and is now operated by Mr. Lewis. It is therefore not only untrue but impossible that any members should have left the Work when Randolph and Dowd were the Grand Masters and that they should have at that time joined any other organization in America. There was no other Rosicrucian Organization. Let Mr. Lew is produce any literature describing or mentioning such a Rosicrucian activity between 1850 and 1909 and we shall freely con­ fess that we are in error.*

“M r. Dowd w as succeed ed by a Dr. E d w a rd H. B row n, w ho lik ew ise w as u n a b le to se c u re a n y of th e R o sic ru c ia n te a c h in g s1 or m a in ta in R a n d o lp h ’s sch em e a g a in s t th e com ­ m on c ritic is m s 2 an d th e bad re p u ta tio n '1 w hich h is w ritin g s h ad b ro u g h t upon th e ir a c tiv itie s .”

1 Mr. Lewis has admitted in print, as pointed out previously, that Dr. P. B. Randolph was at one time Grand Master of the Rose Cross and was one of the greatest Rosicrucians that ever lived. Mr. Dowd was trained by Randolph. Is it physically or spiritually pos­ sible for Dr. Randolph to have been one of the w orld’s greatest Rosicrucians without having received Rosicru­ cian teachings and training? A ll who speak with knowl­ edge and understanding admit that Randolph was sin­ cere: could it then be possible that Randolph should train Mr. Dowd and fail to pass on to him the teachings which had made Randolph “ One of the greatest R osicrucians?” Again, in turn Dr. Brown was a student under Randolph,

(29)

Phelps and Dowd: is it probable that Dowd and these other men should have trained Dr. Brown and finally selected him as Grand Master without passing on to him these teachings which had been given Eandolph? Were all these men rogues and charlatans? Mr. Lewis has the rather strange proclivity of claim ing that men and women of well-known renown in the affairs of men, but who have passed on to their final accounting and there­ fore cannot enter a denial, were members of his clandes­ tine organization, while other men, equally famed, who belonged to the Randolph Foundation and who are no longer here to defend themselves, are classed as rogues or worse.

2 We challenge Mr. Lewis to produce in its original form any such “ common criticism .” It is true, as pre­ viously stated, that Dr. Eandolph was charged with writ- mg, publishing and circulating what was at that period regarded by some as “ obscene literature” but—he fought the accusation and was honorably vindicated and the trial, rather than destroying him, made him internation­ ally famous and established his reputation as a writer who had only the highest and best interests of mankind at heart.

3 (Since Mr. Lew is fails to mention instances or give quotations from any source or publications m entioning

bad reputation,” we challenge him to produce the or­ iginal prints. I f he cannot do this, and we know that he cannot, he m ust stand convicted of defamation and fa lse­ hoods, by his own unproven charges, and that w ith a v iew of ju stify in g the usurption of the office of the men whose title he assumes w ithout any right whatsoever.

In a s t a te m e n t sig n ed by M rs. R an d o lp h a n d w hich a p p e a re d in a f r a te r n a l p u b lic a tio n as a b io g rap h ical s k e tc h of th e life of D r. R a n d o lp h in 1917, it is said th a t r r - R an d o lp h w as b o rn in N ew Y ork C ity on O cto b er 8tli,

t f ,a011(' t h a t h is tr a n s itio n o c c u rre d in Toledo, Ohio, on

J u ly 29th, 1875; an d sh e f u r th e r s ta te s th a t alth o u g h he o rg a n iz e d som e b ra n c h e s a s la te a s 1874,* th e y ‘h av e long s in c e becom e e x tin c t’.”

W hether Mrs. Eandolph wrote such Biographical sketch we do not know, if she did, it is of little

(30)

lance. It is important and interesting to note tliat Mr. Lewis quotes, as authorative, a statem ent attributed to Dr. Randolph’s surviving widow that flatly contradicts, once again, his frequently repeated assertion that the Randolph foundation never had Lodges, thus inadver­ tently again confessing that he did know by reading this sketch that such Lodges had been established even as late as 1874. li e fails to mention that Freeman B. Dowd had been named by Randolph as his immediate successor prior to his death and that all Lodges and branches had been placed under his control. I t is possible that Mrs. Randolph made the statement attributed to her, but it has no real significance, unless Mrs. Randolph was a member and had continued active as a member of such Lodges, otherwise it would have been as utterly im pos­ sible for her to be informed as to whether these branches had been changed, concealed or discontinued as for a member of a Masonic Lodge to know what is going on in that Lodge after he has permitted his membership to lapse. A s stated, it is important to note that Mr. Lewis, by one means or another had been informed of the ex is­ tence of such Lodges and thus refutes his own claims, as set forth in many and variously worded statements, to the effect that Randolph never had Lodges. It is also equally clear that he had but one object in view, namely: To mislead and throw off their guard those who would be certain to question him closely relative to the authen­ ticity of the Randolph foundation and the clandestine and pseudo nature of his own organization.

The purpose and intent of the authentic Rose Cross has never been the establishment of Lodges, as that term is commonly understood. The establishment of Lodges and Temples is secondary and incidental to its main ob­

ject, purpose and essential nature. Prim arily, as we

have pointed out on other occasions, the Fraternity is, in its truest sense, a Brotherhood— an esoteric school of M ystic and Occult teachings. W hen Lodges and Tem­ ples have been established by the Fraternity, they have been composed of Neophytes who have advanced to cer­ tain stages of the inner work and reached certain degrees of development. In order that the m atter may not be con­

(31)

fusing, let us point out that this method is wholly unlike that of Mr. L ew is’ clandestine, so-called Rosicrucian, organization which establishes and charters Lodges com­ posed of any who are w illing to join, w ithout regard to their fitness, training or development, that is, Lodges for the profane. Therefore, it may be stated, to be exact, that the authentic Fraternity establishes no Lodges, w ithin the commonly accepted meaning of the term. In the true Rosicrucian sense or meaning, its Neophytes each become Spiritual Temples ( scripturally), through the inner school training, and these form themselves in­ to Lodges and are then chartered—in such manner only are real Rosicrucian Temples or Lodges established— it is in this sense that their true meaning is to be under­ stood.

“A cco rd in g to S edir, th e w ell-know n R o sic ru c ia n h is to ria n , th e w o rk of R an d o lp h w as sim p ly a so c ie ty of ‘e d itio n s’— r e f e r r in g to th e s ig n ific a n t p o in t t h a t h is w o rk w as m o stly t h a t o f p u b lish in g v a rio u s editions of books claim in g to be R o sic ru c ia n .”

This paragraph is of interest only in that it is an­ other distortion of fact, made to su it Mr. L ew is’s pur­ pose and perverted methods. In the first place, Sedir never was, or even claimed to be, a Rosicrucian or a member of the Fraternity and therefore he could not and did not possess true and accurate information of what had taken place or Avhat m ight be taking place within the Lodges or Temples. Sedir was an historian: as such he based his statem ents and his conclusions on w hat he had read or been conveyed to him;—purely heresay at best. Is it a logical conclusion that because a man w rites books on medicine he has never been a medical student or a graduate and that his “ w ork ” is not that of a physician? Or, because there are text books on every phase of m edi­ cine there can be no medical colleges? Or that, if a man writes one book on the Rose Cross he m ust be a Rosicru­ cian, but. if he w rites many books on the subject his “ work is sim ply a society of ed itions” and that he was never a member of the Fraternity? Because Robert Fludd was a m ost voluminous writer, ergo, he could not have been a Rosicrucian? Sedir saw only the published works of Randolph and knew nothing of his life as an

Figure

Updating...

References

Related subjects :