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

TH E

AUGUST FRATERNITY O R D E R O F T H E R O S E C R O SS 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

TH E

AUGUST IN

F R A T E R N IT Y

A M E R IC A

T h e A u th e n tic O rder of th e Rose Cross F ounded in A m erica in 1858 by D r. P . B. R andolph The Rosicrucian

A B R IE F R E V IE W of one chapter of the synthetic, fictitious, so-called H istory of the R ose Cross Order by II. Spencer Lewis; the correction of som e of his gross m isrepresentations and false im plications; with a few observations on the m ethods of this Baron M unchausen of the Occult and his spurious Rosicrucian Order, A M O R C , fabricated in the year 1915

By

R. S W IN 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— and having read— investigate for you rself and 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

1C.

-if c -

i t --------

k

------------- =ic

— =>r - .........—

H

w

t a ■

r

a

v

l f e

■<$>■■tit ^

M ystery. Gods.

Spirit. Mind. 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.

A im

|f

6 q s 7 I W SSSfK PtJW H Wffloa B A tD

FEMALE ERA 11. C. 2500 to A. 1). 78. M ah il Pilos. Sudarova. Nowaahha. Y& T ilo p ila . S u d a rso rn a . S a g era. K a p ila . C helega. ^ 5 A c c h u ta Bo.

Sx{ Tagulura. A'Jf A m atta Tappa Wessentara. Samanya. Asadrisi. 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. Mizraim. Nagasena. Millinda. Punna. ' NelikeraOmoo . Kasawaeha. Wishaka. Z niu u so K u sy a p u . Cjuutimm IJm lh.

| TEMPLE l-;j. II. C. 5600. I B u d lilstic B ran c h .

llhelBpremeifrand lodge sfllorthllmerisa.and tlieislandsS leas.in behalfÎhteraity everywhereonlarth. XMSCHAL BMYEKLY RANDOLPH, SftiCViWlt.

Rule. Law.

h A fflf

Shane in. th e fflir iil 'nin Q je n t,

0EBER, E O T , 4

-

Thy doors shall not be sh u t against the honest seeker; Oramtcnr, nor shall they ever open a t the behest o f Wealth, [gilt, I ’lir Power, Nobility, Position,*or. Curiosity. Feed thou . tht\ H ungry Reason, lEcticenco, Help the W eak! Encourage the Wdvering,

/'

$?4i

3

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

Intellect.

f

i

i— ■.

Sensation.

1 _

Jjrnnd^nrttnrl.

giU ©«»t and ©Mil t'#at §l»n hath

—(fjrnml 5 omr.

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.

_

t m done, tbat ©teat attfl

(SrnniJ _

|«sn twajj tjtt ndiicM.

©rnnrt Joov. _«raua <
nwnns viion of

&

Change. Ethers. Electrics. M agnetics.

-ttvnml Cfmplnv. — (Srantl W anlnt. - Wratiil |Ua3tff.

5000. Budha; Ascleplns; Pthah j Meneptha; Khan Kludnpsinitus; Rhamim; Azolll I.; Menes i Malkizadek; Rhasoph; Ttibal-Zoth; Azilh; Zerdnsht ; l.aotz.e ; I'restcr Ihn : Selcucas Nicatnr’- /-.mil'll • liodonr r KebeeNclml; Sultoon Ahmed Sh'emKcn ; Aliuh lien Koodi;' 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, 97?; ov? ; llakem, Ilakem.oof. until succecdetl succeeded by I 996. until Dahcc .021 ; Mm,slam Uillab. .036; 1036llarkiack, ;liaikiack,1092 ;; Mostali, 1094 too.;;; Mousor. 1101 .!oi ; llaphed, 1130; 11,0; Sooltans, Grand Master and 11.' H A of Kgypt ( v — Nourrhcddin, I 1145; ? ! 1Dhafer, 1 1149; Vayez, 1155; Adhed Scdinillah, 1160; Saladin, 1171; Aziz, 1193; Mansour. 1198; Sapliadin I.. 1200; KanK-lhab KtTeiu" 21S; Saphadin II., 123s-. Saleh, 1240 Nourdan, 1249; Asehraaf, 1250-.'-Nourhedin, 1257; Koulazoul, 1259; llibais, 12O0; llercki 'Klian, 1277; Kalaoon, 1279; O lC o m i F.tt«I>i 10 — Osman, 1288; Orkan, i-,: Amurath and Moorad, 1359; ltajazct I., 1389; (.dii<|ucsl by Tamerlane and death of Hajazet, 1402; Solyman 1., 1402; Musn, 1.110; niouomet Mohnnn-i I., 1413; •: An Amurath 11., 1431 ; M0I1 1 ■ ' ' i 52.: i Siege of Rhodes, 1480; llajazet II., 1481; Zizim's flight to Rhodes;. Si-'"11 >,i... . by the Order, 1522; they Selim '1., 1512; Solyman II. (the Magnifi. )\ } S 20!, .Loss of Rhodes 111., 1595 ; Achmet I.. 1603; Mustapha I., irn7 ; Osman IL.■ 1618; M. -...... ...vrarchy, 1(122; Amurath 1^/., - ............... „ 1649; Solyin; , i 687_; Achi 1692; ................................... *'-■ • 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 ': . , > of treason, and Supremo Grand Lodge established In San Frui 1, Cal„ December, 1874, wi

iijsl c

R ivalry.

Intuition.

THE BEVEH PILLARS OF THE

m m sm

Order.

(Sulitf- a n d fffta n d f/u tc h o f' th e lllfadd, a t th e

Growth. Energy.

PRELUDE Addressed to all sincere students of Mysticism and the Occult as well as to all Mystics, Occultists and Initi 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 with 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 always w illing to work, to suffer, to (.lie if need be, o help their fellows 011 the hard steep upward I ath an to serve mankind; that the Rosicrucian Fraternity so founded in America has continued, without abatemeir, to exist to this day; that the work and the duty of can ying 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 ca n y on, as its self appointed “ Imperator,” a Clandestine Rosicrucian Order; that after those tr u e and wort iy Grand Masters and teachers of the authentic F ratem i y have passed through the portals of death and fiom this plane of action, this pretender and pseudo “ Imperator motivated by selfishness, ignobility and the desire .0

MUNCHAUSEN OF T H E OCCULT

their w 4 1 1(U1' orK’ defamed them, and would destroy dos in ° l . J‘‘I*utations by falsehoods and false innuenfrniVv! 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° '/< ûtlientic Eosicrucian F raternity or Order carrv ° 0,ss’ wô 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 ind! It w ill all adjust itself h‘i« , i 1(!: 1 ôes 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' 1emT1W8 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 iue statement of facts. I am the present Grand as ei or the authentic Eosicrucian Fraternity, in due an lightfu l order of succession, founded in America about 1858 by Dr. P. B. Eandolph. W hen yet a lad, I was accepted as a Neophyte in that great Spiritual pC 100 û°wn as the Eose Cross then presided over by * reeman B. Dowd as Grand Master. Dr. James 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 Her 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

CLANDESTINISM EXPOSED

3

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 wrongfully 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 following 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.

H. SPENCER LEW IS His Spurious AMORC and His Wholesale 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 Fraternity, 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 with 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 statements made therein are based on fact and those that are so based are distorted half truths, making them worse than downright false hoods. However, it is not my 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 with indi viduals, many of whom I knew personally; yet, reading it in the light of my 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 writing 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 sicru cian s tu d e n ts 1 w ere well aw a re of th e *Special a tte n tio n is called to th e use of th e term s F ra te rn ity , O rder and B rotherhood. These w ere used in te rc h a n g ea b ly by th e R andolph F ou n d atio n even p rio r to th e year 1874 as n o te copy o f th e C h a rte r w hich w as issued by R andolph w henever a Lodge w as form ed.

6

MUNCHAUSEN OF T H E OCCULT ta c t th a t th e R o sicru cian O rd er of E u ro p e h ad p rev io u sly au th o rized th e e sta b lish m e n t of tr u e R o sic ru c ia n ism in A m erica in th e y ea r 1692 an d 1693,-' an d th e re w e re m any living d e sc en d a n ts of th o se first official R o sic ru c ia n s3 who objected to th e e sta b lish m e n t of R o sic ru c ia n ism in A m erica in connection w ith any o th e r o rg a n iz a tio n 1 w ith o u t w a rra n t or p ro p er 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 Master 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 emigrants 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 Masters Among Men. Their own literature frequently


7

mentions the Baptists, 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 emphatically tells his followers that the Amorc is not a descendant of the group that came to America in 1694. Our proof: 1urn 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 answer” de-

There n e v e r was such a d ecree. Ephrata— S ev en th day B a p tis ts .

F r a n c e ,E g y p t, Germany— Which ?

7 V V V

i V ; V 7 ?

8


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 Baptists 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 English 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 isto ric a l re c o rd s th a t a m an by th e nam e of Dr. P. B. R andolph, w ho w as a s tu d e n t of th e occult and m y stical, cam e in c o n ta c t w ith som e R o si c ru cian lite ra tu re or essay s p rio r to th e y e a r 1856 w hile in A m erica.2 It a p p e a rs th a t Dr. R an d o lp h v isited London in 1858 and th e re m e t a s tu d e n t of m y sticism k n o w n as Mr. W. G. P a lg ra v e,3 w ho claim ed to be a m em b er of som e e so te ric O rd e r1 in E urope, w hich w as o p e ra te d u n d e r a c h a rte r issu ed by a ‘Council of S ev en ’.5 T h ro u g h th is m an he w as in tro d u ced to Mr. H a rg ra v e Je n n in g s, E lip h a s Levi, and sev e ra l o th e rs w ho e v en tu a lly fo rm ed th e H igh Council of th e orig in al S. R. I. A. in E ngland." Dr. R an d o lp h w as in itia te d into th is M asonic R o sicru cian body as an h o n o r a ry m em ber, co n tin u ed h is to u r and 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 statements 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 *See th e brochure, The M asters A m ong Men.


9

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. Lewis 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. Lewis did know, and the proof that he did, and that his statements 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. Lewis 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 himself 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 “ Rosi crucian,” which he is not and never has been, but a "12° Illum inati” under a Rosicrucian appelation. If printed evidence is indeed evidence, then this much is clear:

10


W e

Ancient an& U g a t t r a l ( § t b n osae Q r n r i a IN

THE

U N IT E D

STATES

OF

A M ER IC A

ITS HISTORY, PURPOSES AND SYMBOLISM B y ' H. S p e n c e r L e w

is ,

F . R . C.

(1 2 ° Il l u m in a t i , T o u l o u s e , F r a n c e )

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION NU M B E R T W O

A. M. O. R. C.

Copyrighted 1915 and Issued by*

THE PUBLICATION COMMITTEE, AMERICAN SUPREME COUNCIL

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 Tw o” he published the follow ing statement -—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 Dr. R an d o lp h a n d one or m ore


11

o th e r R o sa ec ru c ia n s of fo reig n in itia tio n to e sta b lish 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 av e alw a y s fa ile d .”

I insist 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 statement 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 most 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 Napoleons,” 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 Ran dolph to have been Grand Master of the French Frater

12


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. After 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. He will 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 admitted 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: Even 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 igh 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 making such a faux pas in so vitally important matter? 3Here we have another of those half-truths, always more misleading than any outright falsehood. It 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

CLANDESTIN ISM EXPOSED

13

and authentic English 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 Allen 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 English 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 Neophytes and Initiates. 0 The writer is fam iliar with all of the literature pub lished by Dr. P. B. Randolph, yet he is not aware that Dr. Randolph, either in his published writings 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 on -in itia tes); they have appeared in such litera ture only since the establishment 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 Seven” 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 It is likewise 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 *See M asters Among: M en.

14


the formation of the H igh Council of the original S.R.I.A. “W hile in A m erica1 he R an d o lp h w ro te a n u m b er 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, an d in one of th e m in tro d u ce d a sto ry a b o u t th e m y stic R o sicru cian s,= in tim a tin g th a t h e w as p lan n in g to e sta b lish som e of th e R o sicru c ia n M asonic3 worlc in A m erica on th e b a sis of th 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 mys tic Rosicrucianism. This was his book Ravalette and, were Mr. Lewis even slightly 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 “ intim ate” in Ravalette that he was planning such a Fraternity, but gave in its pages the history of an actual Order then fully 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 lse ! 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 with 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 with the


IS

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 re o f h is [R an d o lp h 's] books, dealing in u n u su a lly p lain la n g u ag e w ith su b jec ts n o t g en erally d iscu ssed in A m erican L ite ra tu re , an d c e rta in ly h av in g n one of th e goo d n ess an d h ig h id ealism of th e S. R. I- A. [L ondon] te a c h in g s, h e w as trie d in c o u rt fo r su ch pu bli c atio n s,1 a n d e v e n tu a lly ab an d o n ed his e n tire w o rk 2 be c au se of th e co n d em n atio 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. We know that Mr. Lewis had a copy of Eandolph’s Life Story; The Rose Cross Order, wherein the entire story of his life is given at the time he (Mr. Lewis) wrote this distortion of truth and suppression of facts, therefore, it follows that the statements were made w ittingly and deliberately with 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 unlawfully 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 writing 011 sex matters now boldly spread over the pages of many popular magazines. Dr. Alice Stockliam was fined one thousand dollars and given a suspended sentence of one year in prison for the publication of her views on matters pertaining to sex, while Ida Chaddock committed suicide in a Long Island prison because of like persecutions by

16


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 writings 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 ev en tu ally sig n ed h im se lf in so m e le tte r s and p ap e rs as th e ‘S u p rem e G rand M a ste r of E u lis fo r th e w o rld ’*1 and a few of h is frie n d s trie d to ex p lain a fte r h is u n fo rtu n a te tra n sitio n th ro u g h su icid e2 th a t h e believed h im self to he a G rand M a ste 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 cia n T erm inology, and th e re a re n o d o cu m ents o r p a p e rs to b e found in E u ro p e in d ic atin g th a t h e w as e v e r au th o riz e d to e sta b lish a n y th in g of a R o sicru cian n a tu re in A m erica'1 o r e lsew h ere and n one of th e h isto ric a l re c o rd s of th e O rd er m en tio n h is n am e or his b ra n c h es a s a P a rt of R o sicru cian 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 set a t re s t the question as to ju s t how he signed him self, th e read er should re fe r to th e form o f c h a rte r h erein reproduced.


17

was known, as suck, to or used by the original Rosicrueian 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. it is supplemental to but in no wise inconsistent with the original Rosicrucian work. Prim arily it was founded for those Neophytes 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 always 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. If 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 making 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,” with 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

18


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 his far jour ney. We know of this confession and we have every rea son to believe it to be true. This quoted statement 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, bomeranglike, 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 statement made by Mr. Lewis that Randolph did not use the terms Rosi 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 with the idea of protecting himself 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 (without any “ Ancient and M ystical” ) and this is merely the Latinized form of F r a


19

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 with 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 with 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 fully only by the Randolph foundation. If the statements made by Mr. Lewis in 1929 were true, even so far as he him self is concerned, then he was guilty of a gross falsehood when he, in his second “ offi cia l” booklet published in 1915 made the statements he did. Have the records from which he then obtained his information 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? What manner of a man is he, if this be true? May he not be just as mistaken and inaccurate with reference to all matters and things with which he had dealt and about which he has written? Since he is so careless with 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 establishment in America of the Rosicrucian foundation

20


by Randolph and forty-one years after the last Charter issued by Randolph in which the terms “ Brotherhood” 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, who 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 hich R an d o lp h had esta b lish e d on th e P acific C o ast an d in se v e ra l e a ste rn cities,2 but, 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 stan tly disb an d ed 3 w hen th e m em b e rs th e re o f dis covered th a t th e re w as no re a l R o sic ru cia n te a c h in g s or ritu a l1 in th e w ork and in s iste d on w ith d ra w in g from th e R andolph w ork an d u n itin g w ith th e re g u la r foreig n b ra n ch es of th e R o sicru cian O rd er.”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. Lewis has ever written relative to Dr. Randolph and the Rose Cross in America ? In this immediate connection it should be borne in mind


21

that Mr. Lewis 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 When 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 dissention 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. Lewis claims these Lodges “ constantly disbanded” he further admits that the Lod ges did exist, and that is an important admission. As a matter 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 Ritual used by Randolph is now in the hands of the writer hereof. This ritual was worked in complete detail during the June, 1910, Temple Dedica 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

22


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 with 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. 5Here 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. Lewis 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.* “Mr. Dowd w as succeeded by a Dr. E d w ard H. B row n, w ho likew ise w as u n ab le to se cu re a n y of th e R o sicru cian tea c h in g s1 or m a in ta in R an d o lp h ’s sch em e a g a in s t th e com m on c ritic ism s2 and th e bad re p u ta tio n '1 w hich h is w ritin g s had 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? All 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 Rosicrucians?” Again, in turn Dr. Brown was a student under Randolph, ♦This does n o t have referen ce to th e E n g lish M asonic S. R. I. A.


23

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 claiming 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 writmg, 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. Lewis fails to mention instances or give quotations from any source or publications mentioning bad reputation,” we challenge him to produce the or iginal prints. If he cannot do this, and we know that he cannot, he must stand convicted of defamation and fa lse hoods, by his own unproven charges, and that w ith a v iew of ju stifyin g the usurption of the office of the men whose title he assumes without any right whatsoever. In a s ta te m e n t signed by M rs. R an d o lp h an d w hich a p p ea re d in a fra te rn a l p u b licatio n as a b io g rap h ical sk e tc h of th e life of Dr. R an d o lph 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 City on O ctober 8tli, t f ,a011(' t h a t h is tra n s itio n o c cu rred in Toledo, Ohio, on Ju ly 29th, 1875; and sh e fu r th e r s ta te s th a t alth o u g h he o rg an ized som e b ra n c h e s a s la te as 1874,* th e y ‘have long sin 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 impor*See d a te on th e fo rm o f c h a r te r h e re in reproduced.

24


lance. It is important and interesting to note tliat Mr. Lewis quotes, as authorative, a statement 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. lie 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. It 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 exis 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. Primarily, 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 matter may not be con


25

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, without 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, within 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 Sedir, th e w ell-know n R o sicru cian h isto 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 ‘ed itio n s’— re fe rrin g to th e sig n ific a n t p o in t t h a t h is w o rk w as m o stly th a t o f p u b lish in g v ario u s editions of books claim in g to be R o sicru cian .”

This paragraph is of interest only in that it is an other distortion of fact, made to suit 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 statements and his conclusions on what he had read or been conveyed to him;—purely heresay at best. Is it a logical conclusion that because a man writes 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 medi cine there can be no medical colleges? Or that, if a man writes one book on the Rose Cross he must be a Rosicru cian, but. if he writes many books on the subject his “ work is sim ply a society of editions” and that he was never a member of the Fraternity? Because Robert Fludd was a most 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

26


Initiate, therefore, whatever he said of Randolph must be classified as ‘‘snap judgm ent” without being based on facts or knowledge. “T h e R o sicru cian O rd er h a s n e v e r b e e n ex clu siv ely 1 or even p rim a rily a book p u b lish in g b u sin e ss, a n d a carefu l ex am in atio n of th e h is to ric a l w ritin g s co n n ected w ith th e R o sicru cian O rd er show s th a t n o n e of th e books now fam ous as R o sicru cian m a n u sc rip ts o r official p u b licatio n s ev e r co n tain ed a co m plete o u tlin e of th e s e c re t te a c h in g s o r l'ites of th e R o sicru cian s,2 an d w h a t is m o re im p o rta n t, n e v e r claim ed to co n ta in su ch th in g s.”

1A rather drastic change of attitude from that con tained, for instance, in Mr. L ew is’s early publications of, let us say, 1916, in which he very emphatically states that no books will be published by his concern. N ow he merely claims that the Rosicrucian Order is not “ exclu sively or even primarily a book publishing business.” W hy the voltface? This w ill be considered later. We would go further than Mr. Lewis dare go and declare that with the possible exception of the Fama and Mystical Marriage the authentic Fraternity does not pub lish any books. W hat the individual member of the Order may do, so long as he does not expose the Secret Work and so long as his action is not in any way inimical to the Fraternity, is the concern of no one. Dr. Ran dolph wrote and published books but he did so on his personal responsibility and was ready to defend him self and his work at all times. As a writer and publisher, 1 have written and published books, but it has been an individual activity engaged in on my own personal re sponsibility and I have never pretended that the writing of books is either illegitim ate or undesirable. On the contrary, I have felt and do now feel, that good books, based on facts, are of advantage to students. 2 Neither Dr. Randolph, Mr. Dowd, m yself or any one else connected with the authentic Fraternity in America have ever made the claim that the books we wrote contained either in part or as a whole, the secret teachings or rites of the Fraternity. A ll that we ever claimed is that we were dealing with the philosophy taught by the Rosicrucians, i. e., tlie fundamental prin ciples upon which the Fraternity is founded. Fludd, Jennings and others did the same and they have not been


27

accused of unethical practices by anyone who had knowl edge of the Eose Cross and its mission. The Rosicrucians, in common with all other esoteric associations, have always had, and still have, a doctrine and a philosophy which is not secret and upon which the structure of the Fraternity is built. This philosophy and system of life and action is for the people. It is through such a philosophy that seekers after the truth become interested. This philosophy is published to-day by its interpreters just as Andrea, the founder of the Order did, when he published his Fama F rateniitatis and his Mys tical Marriage and no one has ever accused him of reveal ing the secrets and mysteries of the Order, or that his was exclusively a book-publishing concern. Lord Bacon was a far more voluminous writer than Randolph and yet Mr. Lewis advances the untenable claim that he was the founder of the Fraternity. W hy the difference? Is it a sin and a disgrace and an admission of ignorance for one man to write books and a glory, honor and indication of wisdom for another man to do likewise? “W e h av e, for in sta n c e , in A m erica, a book called ‘T he R o sicru cian s and T h e ir T e a c h in g s’.1 T h is book w as w rit te n by a New T h o u g h t lea d e r,2 w ho h a s w ritte n m any o th e r books on v ario u s su b je c ts arid w ho is n o t a m em b er of th e R o sic ru c ia n O rd er.3 T h e book c o n tain s n o n e of th e R o sic ru cia n te a c h in g s.”4

Does Mr. Lewis withhold the name of the author of The Rosicrucians and Their Teachings, lest some of those he has so grossly misled m ight seek information for . themselves therein and possibly be brought in contact with the authentic Fraternity? 1 The book to which Mr. Lewis refers, and of which I am the author, was first issued under the title, The Fra ternity of the Rosicrucians, and was so copyrighted, 1906.*' In 1904, at the suggestion of Dr. James R. Phelps, the MS. was placed into the hands of Dr. Edward H. Brown for criticism. Tn 1905, the MS. was returned to me with Dr. B row n’s suggestions. It was rewritten and published in 1906 with the full approval of Freeman B. Dowd, Dr. James R. ‘Phelps, Dr. Edward H. Brown and the International Council. The early edition contained *See c o p y rig h t certificate in T he M asters A m ong M en.

28


verbatim, the only absolutely simon-pure Eosicrucian books ever published, that is, the Fama Fraternitatis and Mystical or Chemical Marriage by Andrea, upon which, all know who are truly informed, tbe Rosicrucian Fraternity was founded. A ll who read these books with a discerning mind for Truth must conclude that the Amorc organization possesses nothing genuinely R osi crucian. Moreover, the reprint in The Rosicrucians and Their Teachings of the various Manifestoes issued by the Randolph foundation from time to time prior to the pub lication of the book constitutes proof that this founda tion has continued active despite all of Mr. L ew is’s labored and unsuccessful endeavors to show to the con trary. 2 This statement is absolutely groundless, a figment of tbe imagination, pure and simple. Anyone who cares to take the trouble to inform him self can readily discover that I have never been associated with New Thought in any capacity; I have never attended a New Thought Convention and I have never even subscribed for a New Thought magazine. However, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that I had been a New Thought leader: is it impossible for a New Thoughtist or practitioner to be a Rosicrucian? If it is, why then does Mr. Lewis hold forth in his publications that Ella W heeler W ilcox and Elbert Hubbard were members of his organization ? Were these New Thoughters differently constituted from others who have accepted the philosophy taught by New Thought? And is not his statement above a deliberate, though indirect, slur on all who are interested in or con nected A v it h New Thought? 3Mr. Lewis! How do you know that I am not a member of the Rosicrucian Fraternity? W ho has de putized you to be the spokesman for the authentic Fra ternity? Have you in your possession the x'ecords of the authentic Fraternity that existed prior to and since your unwarranted assumption of authority? I here and now, openly and justly challenge you to show before any un biased committee or competent tribunal: (a) that T am not a member of the Rosicrucian Fraternity; (b) that you know and can prove that I was not finally Initiated


in Boston; (e) that you know and can prove that the Supreme Head of the International Council of the authen tic Fraternity did not confer authority upon me. I de mand and have a just right to demand proofs and facts that your published assertions are true, and not un founded, misleading and unauthoritative statements. “ Mr. R a n d o lp h ’s w ork w as la te r ta k e n up ag a in by Dr. R. S. C lym er1 w ho claim ed to be th e ‘su c c e sso r’ to R a n dolph2 an d to h av e in h e rite d a n d acq u ired th e R o sicru cian ‘a u th o rity ’ w hich R an d o lp h h ad .3 C lym er follow ed in th e sam e p la n s a d o p ted by R an d o lp h an d co nducted an o rg a n i zatio n c o n sistin g w holly of books,1 a n u m b e r of w hich deal w ith love, m a rria g e , a n d ‘sex re g e n e ra tio n ’, th e la tte r b ein g in su ch lan g u a g e as to be condem ned in any R o sicru cian assem b ly ,5 if n o t in a n y g e n e ra l asse m b ly of lad ies an d g e n tlem en .0 H e p ro ceed ed to c a rry on h is w ork first u n d e r th e n am e of a p u b lish in g com pany,7 th e n u n d e r v ario u s n am es,8 av o id in g th e u se of th e co m p lete n am e or c o rre c t n a m e of th e R o sic ru c ia n O rd er,0 an d d e v isin g e n tire ly new and u n iq u e sym bols for h is R o sicru c ia n lite ra tu re ,10 w ith o u t in frin g in g upon th e c o rre c t sym bols in an y way. Dr. C lym er c o n tin u es to o p e ra te h is sale of books an d p re s e n ta tio n of p e rso n a l, ‘R o sic ru c ia n ’ te a c h in g s u n d e r d ifferen t n a m e s11 fro m h is hom e in P e n n sy lv a n ia , w ith o u t h av in g e sta b lish e d a n y ty p ic al R o sic ru c ia n tem p les an y w h ere in A m erica,12 an d w ith o u t an y c o n n ectio n s w ith th e re g u la r R o sic ru cia n O rd er a n d L odges in E u ro p e .”13

The foregoing assertions, made as if with knowledge but in defiance of all facts, forces me to declare the truth and this truth gives the positive lie to the entire para graph quoted above. 1 The paragraph begins with the mere implication of a partial truth. It is true that the writer for the past thirty years has carried 0 11 the Work established 111 America by Dr. Randolph. Mr. L ew is’s words imply however, that this Work was merely taken up by me— more or less casually and then irregularly carried on. Let it be known as here affirmed: that the Work as done by me was begun and has been carried forward with con tinuity, in orderly procedure and in strict accordance with ancient Rosicrucian usage. Freeman B. Dowd was selected by Dr. Randolph as his successor before either Mr. Lewis or I were born. In the early ’90’s I enrolled under Mr. Dowd. As before stated, Dr. James R. Phelps, of Boston, was selected as my guide and instructor.* I continued under Dr. P h elp ’s ■"The pro o fs a re in th e archives of th e F r a te rn ity an d a t im m ediate com m and.

30


direction and instruction until called to B oston in 1902, at which time I first met Dr. Brown, who was later to b e come Grand Master of the Fraternity. It was at this time that I received my final degree and was given m y “ freedom” or “ w ages.” It was then I commenced my labors and have continued active ever since. The W ork has been carried on through the proper succession of Grand Masters as has been the usage since A ndrea founded the Fraternity. 2 The writer is the “ successor” to Dr. Randolph only in such manner as one Grand Master follow s in the fo o t steps of another and as handed down to him, by selection, in orderly succession, with such authority and W ork as has been carried on by each Grand M aster since the be ginning of the Fraternity. 31 have neither ‘ ‘inherited ’ ’ nor ‘ ‘ acquired ’ ’ the “ A uthority” which had been conferred upon Dr. R an dolph. I earned it by right of attainm ent. This author ity was conferred upon me by right of succession, ju st as, and by the same method Dr. Randolph and prior Grand Masters received it, who were the rightfu l successors of the original Grand Master. 1This accusation has been made against us by Mr. Lewis from the time when he organized his spurious Rosicrucian Order and now the element of com edy en ters: In the April, 1916, number of The American Rosae Orucis, page 13, paragraph 8, Mr. Lewis says: “Dr. C lym er o p e ra te s th e P h ilo so p h ic a l P u b lis h in g C om p any of A llentow n, P a., an d se lls r e p r in ts of so m e so-called ‘R o sic ru c ian b o o k s’ w ritte n b y one D r. P . B. R a n d o lp h , who n e v e r h ad e ith e r th e r ig h t o r p riv ile g e of w ritin g fo r p u b licatio n an y R o sic ru c ia n s e c r e ts .”

From this it is clear that Mr. L ew is’s present accusa tions are no more than repetition of former m isrepresen tations. Even the casually interested reader, “ the man in the street,” can prove for him self that I did not pub lish or re-publish a single one of R andolph’s books except his History (1918—almost three years after the above was written by Mr. L ew is), until more than ten years later, i. e., 1926. After devoting a number of columns to part-truths


31

and whole falsehoods, all more or less proclaiming that I am merely a publisher of books and therefore cannot be either a Rosicrucian or an authority on the subject, Mr. Lewis proceeds 0 11 page 14 of the same number: “F ir s t— th e tru e O rd er— th e o rig in al and p e rfe c t R osaecrucian O rd e r is k n o w n b y only one n a m e — ‘T h e A n cien t an d M ystical O rd er R o sae C ru cis’. S econdly—its world-wide, e sta b lish e d sym bol is th e tria n g le w ith po in t dow nw ard an d w ith th e c ro ss w ith in th e tria n g le . T h ird ly — it se lls no books or degrees, by m ail or o th erw ise, p u rp o rtin g to co n ta in se c re ts o r in itia tio n s.”

And so the one and only name is: “ Ancient and M ystical Order Rosae Crucis?” Note that it is not the Rosicrucian Brotherhood as now so widely advertised and claimed by Mr. Lewis, but simply and only the Order of Rosae Crucis. W hy the change? When did he legally change it? W hy does he now, despite the above positive statement, advertise his clandestine organization as the Original Rosicrucian Brotherhood instead of, the “ only one nam e”-—The Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis? Please note the equally positive statement “ it sells 110 books ’ ’ and then recall all that Mr. Lewis has written from time to time regarding those who write, publish, or write and publish books on the subject; finally, refer to any of his late publications such as The Rosicrucian D igest and turn to the last cover page to find there displayed in colors what is described as a Rosicrucian Library of some ten volumes, some written by Mr. Lewis, some purporting to be written by him, and all published and sold by his Amorc concern. Also bear in mind that the book w ith which we are dealing and from which we quote is written by this same Mr. Lewis and is sold and published by Amorc, his clandestine Rosicrucian organization. It will likewise be news to the many who have gone to California and there received and paid $25.00 for a degree, that the Amorc sells no degrees, by mail or otherwise, “ purporting to contain secrets of in itiation s.” W hat, then, does his initiation at $25.00' per degree in California and written lessons by mail at $2.00 per month purport to convey to the candidate? It would appear to the casual reader that Mr. Lewis dug a grave for us and then blindly stumbled into it himself.

32


JMr. Lewis, I challenge you to produce specific in stances of condemnation of these books by any Rosicrucian or other assembly— outside of Amorc— or stand con victed of inexcusable invention—inexcusable, because you know or should know that physicians of all schools, as well as countless fathers and mothers, use these books as texts and we have yet to receive a word of criticism from any one relative to the contents of these books. W e contend that the statem ents made by Mr. Lew is are manufactured out of the whole cloth and defy him to prove to the contrary. 0 W hat has been said above5 applies here. W e make no exceptions, save as to the membership of his spurious organization. You, Mr. Lewis, have here made accusa tions which no innocent self-respecting person can allow to pass unchallenged, since silence m ight be considered a tacit admission of the truth of your allegations. 7 My publishing business has been carried on under the name of a purely business concern. This is in strict accordance with the practices of the Fraternity since its foundation. A study of the literature of the time in which Andrea was active and much later w ill show that all letters addressed directly to the Fraternity were re turned as undeliverable. A ll inquiries, beginning with the foundation of the Fraternity in 1614 up to the pres ent century, had to be addressed indirectly. They were then placed in the hands of the proper individual who took up the problem with the applicant or aspirant after which letters m ight be addressed so as to reach the Fra ternity more directly. U ntil it became necessary for me .to declare the truth, in order to refute Mr. L ew is’s w ide ly published fabrications and false claims, I adhered faithfully to the said ancient and strict Rosicrucian prac tice. 81 never have, since the establishm ent of my W ork, had occasion to change to various or different names. There are thousands livin g who can testify from first hand knowledge that my publishing company has always been known as the Philosophical Publishing Company, and nothing else, and it is so registered. 0 Those who have had charge of the W ork of the

33'


Fraternity liave never avoided but have always used the complete and correct name of the Rosicrucian Fraternity, Brotherhood or Order, the name and symbols used by the Founders of the Fraternity. This also is known to thou sands of adherents and need not be unknown to any honest investigator. SUPREME

HIERARCHY

OF THE

R. C . T8 5 8 - 191 7 T his le tte rh e ad co n ta in s th e R an d o lp h in s ig n ia an b e g in n in g o f o u r labors an d ended w ith th e cycle 1917.

0jrJxxrxrl&

J

J

3)nt]neritfl OF THE

A .'

A .\

This le tte rh e a d also co n ta in s th e R andolph in sig n ia an d w as, an d s till is, used w hen c o rresp o n d in g w ith s tu d en ts in th e P ro b a tio n a ry courses o f study.

Fr a t e r n i t a t i s R o s a e C r u c i s THE SEE Beverly Hall

Quakertown, Pa. O fficial le tte rh e a d w ith o rig in a l in s ig n ia o f th e R o sicrucian F ra te rn ity . This is m o st fre q u e n tly used in co rresp o n d en ce w ith fo reig n bodies affiliated w ith the o rig in a l 1616 fo u n d a tio n .

Fr a t e r n i t a t i s R o s a e

c r u c is

The Rosicrucian Order, or Rosicrucian Brotherhood

T H E SE E Beverly Hall

O u a k e r io t u n , P a .

T he official le tte rh e ad o f th e F ra te rn ity , B rotherhood an d O rder as established in A m erica by R an d o lp h . The te rm s F r a te rn ity , B ro therhood and O rder a re used in te rc h a n g ea b ly now as in th e tim e o f R andolph. The w ords R osicrucia (R osicru c ia n ), E ulis a n d P y th ia n ia (A E th Priesth o o d ) also a p p ea re d on all C h arte rs issued by R an d o lp h u p to an d in clu d in g th e y e a r 1874 as is show n by th e C h a rte r form h e re in a fte r reproduced.

34


10 We have used, not a synthetic name and sym bology wholly unknown to anyone prior to 1915, such as that since used by Mr. Lewis in connection with his spurious Amorc because of fear of infringement, but, since we have the exclusive right we have worked under the authentic name and symbols first used by Andrea and L)r. Randolph as shown by our several letterheads here reproduced; every member of the authentic Fraternity and every Neophyte w ill at once recognize them. A t no time and under no circumstances have we de vised “ new and unique sym bols” for Rosicrucian litera ture; we have left that wholly to Mr. Lewis and his spur ious organization. Every symbol which we have used or now use, has been official with the Fraternity or its Grand Masters and we have taken the utmost care that there should be no deviation. A s in ancient times, each country, principality, and those belonging to the reign ing house, had their individual Insignia, or Coat of Arms, or Heraldic design which they used alone or in conjunction with that of their country, so the R osicru cian Fraternity has its original Symbol first used by Andrea. And each Grand Master has had his own special spiritual Seal, “ H ouse” or escutcheon. Andrea, the Founder of the Fraternity, had his personal armorial seal (the House of Andrea) and besides this, he received and used the symbol of the Fraternatis Rosae Crucis. Up to the time when my Insignia was conveyed to me from the Hierarchy, I used the original symbol of the Rose and Cross and that of Randolph. Now I employ that of the original Fraternity, sometimes that of Randolph and then my own, but the original Rose and Cross still re mains the official Insignia of the Fraternity.* 11 The Philosophical Publishing Company publishes and sells books according to strictly legitim ate business methods, and these have never been questioned or re flected upon by anyone except Mr. Lewis in his wholesale and amazing fabrications. The instructions of the F ra ternity are not my “ personal” teachings—they are the *This e n tire m a tte r is clearly established in th e te x t a n d illu s tra tio n s of the brochure, The M asters A m ong M en, w hich m a y be had w ith o u t o b ligation b y ap p ly in g to th e Philosophical P u b lish in g C om pany, Q ualcertown, P a.


35

original teachings and methods of training that have been in use in the Fraternity for three hundred or more years and wholly different from the instructions given by the Amorc which, Mr. Lewis has admitted under oath in his various law suits, were prepared by specialists or taken from books readily bought for a few dollars and which, therefore, cannot, by any stretch of the im agina tion, be considered as either true, ancient, original or authentic Eosicrucian teachings. Our authorized teachings have not been presented ‘ ‘ under different names ’ ’ as all those who know, can and will witness. They are the instructions which have been given to Neophytes since the foundation of the Great Fraternity, under which I was trained. 12 In the face of known facts, well-known to Mr. Lewis, his statement to the effect that we have estab lished no Eosicrucian Temples anywhere in America, is as ridiculous as it is false. W e have established other “ typ ical” Eosicrucian Temples in America, however, for my present purpose it is sufficient to point to the fact that during the year 1910 the Fraternity, under my direction, completed the construction of a Temple build ing at the present See in Pennsylvania, from native stone —a “ typ ical” Eosicrucian Temple— designed for the holding of the annual June and A ll-Souls convocations as well as for other Eosicrucian uses. It is still standing and used, sacred to its original design and purposes. Herewith we publish a picture of this Temple. Mr. Lewis was informed of the foregoing facts in or about the year 1915, at the time he started his clandes tine Eosicrucian organization— and prior to the publica tion of the illustration of his “ F irst Eosicrucian Temple in TJ. S. A .” hereafter referred to and reproduced. Aside from his general knowledge on the subject, he was spe cially informed by one, (to again refer to said incident) who was present at the Temple dedication, whose name is on the roster of the Temple, and who afterwards affili ated herself with Mr. Lewis. Later, in a letter written to me, he brazenly boasted, as before stated, that the lady in question was working hand in hand Avith him, that he had induced her to turn over to him the strictly

The Chapel built at Beverly Hall and officially opened in June, 1911. Both June and All Souls nigrht services are held yearly in this building.

36 MUNCHAUSEN OF T H E OCCULT


Z1

private books and manuscripts that she had obtained, under her sacred vow, from the Fraternity at the time of the dedication of said Temple during the June convoca tion, 1911. Mr. Lewis still retains said private books and manuscripts which were delivered to him at his behest under broken vows. Perhaps, such is his concep tion of honorable fraternal conduct in liimself and of those who take and break sacred vows and solemn oaths. This Temple, since used continually for the semi-annual convocations, still stands a mute and irrefutable witness against which no tissue of lies or false implications, con ceived and circulated by Mr. Lewis, can prevail. W ith out going into detail, we will say for the benefit of the uninformed, who care to know, that the Fraternity, which has members all over America, is established in other cities, notably Kansas City, Mo., where it owns its Temple.

THE THREE “ F IR S T ” ROSICRUCIAN TEMPLES IN THE U. S. A. Three “ F ir st” Temples! Ridiculous?— of course it is, yet on three different occasions, (dates hereafter given) Mr. Lewis has published three different descrip tions, with illustrations, of three different buildings each of which he has boldly asserted to be the “ F irst R osi crucian Temple in the U .S .A . or in the New W orld.” Here we have a remarkable phenominal illusion, such as can be produced only by a past master of the black art of fabrication. Indeed, who only, save a careless and reckless charlatan would have or could have the unm iti gated gall and brazen effrontery to make such ridiculous ly contradictory claims? To be sure, it is conclusive and apparent that if either was the lirst, neither of the other two could be the “ First Rosicrucian Temple of U .S .A . or the New W orld.” Perhaps you wonder, as we have often wondered, what sort of a distorted im agination and calloused con science this pseudo Rosicrucian possesses, that permits him to make, publish and illustrate such self-evident im possibilities? We confess that we have 110 solution ol this enigma. Yet, let me point to the fact that this is additional cumulative evidence that the tottering super structure of his Clandestine Rosicrucian organization was built 0 11 a foundation of contradictions and false claims, and that it has been sustained by periodical m ov ing of headquarters and constant shifting of unsustained claims and contradictory statem ents as to his Rosicru cian origin and authority—hence in order to sustain his clandestine Rosicrucian fabrication, is it any wonder that he has made repeated attem pts to destroy the authentic Fraternity and those connected with it by any means, fair or foul? We will deal with the three “ F irst Tem ples” in the


39

order of their appearance; herewith we reproduce a full page from the Lewis publication, the American Rosae Crucis, March issue, 1916, containing a description and an illustration of a building alleged to be the ‘ ‘First Rosicrucian Temple in U. S. A .” The description is typi cally Lewistonian, in that it contains a grain of truth and now and then a half-truth. Read the description and make your own investigation as to the whole truth. The building is somewhat symbolical of true Rosicrucianism in that it has an upright triangle at the top, but it was and is not symbolical of Mr. L ew is’s clandestine organi zation, because its symbol was then and is now the in verted triangle. Mr. Lewis did lease a part of this build in g at 70 W est 87th Street, New York City, where he had his headquarters for a short time, having failed to pay the rent, the career of the “ Fii-st Tem ple” ended ab ruptly. Since he could not pay the rent, it is apparent that the elaborate description of the luxurious furnish ings was just so much “ window dressing” for a highpressured pecuniary scheme that was intended to be and has been conducted under the Sacred name of Rosicru cian, contrary to every vital precept, basic principle and ancient landmark of the authentic Fraternity, Order and Brotherhood. To be sure, Mr. Lewis knew of the several Temples and Lodges of the Fraternity established in America un der the Randolph foundation, and of course, he knew of the existence of the Temple at the present See of the Fra ternity, as above pointed out, when he made his “ First T em ple” claim; however, it was not until the abundant and irrefutable proof of those facts became generally known and his followers and other interested parties be gan to question his authority and the Rosicrucian authen ticity of his organization, that he realized that he must abandon his claim concerning the “ First Tem ple” at 70 W est 87tli Street, New York City, and establish or find somewhere a Rosicrucian Temple that anti-dated the Randolph Foundation and somehoAV, in some mysterious w ay connect his clandestine organization with said prior Temple; but finding no such Temple in fact, he looked deep into the ever pregnant and prolific womb of his im-

40


T H E EN IGM A O F T H E T H R E E “ F IR S T ” T E M P L E S CAN Y O U SO L V E IT ? On th e opposite p ag e is show n a re p ro d u c tio n of a fu ll page tak en fro m th e Lewis P u b licatio n T H E A M E R IC A N R O SA E C R U SIS. M arch, 1916, P ag e 9. Is th e re a n y o th e r in te rp re ta tio n possible th a n th a t Mr. Lew is m ean s th a t th is w as th e first T em ple in A m e ric a ? Read th e descriptive m a tte r a n d convince yourself.


THE

AMERICAN

ROSAE

41

CRUCIS

First Rosaecrucian Temple in U. S. A. T h e H om e of the G rand Lodge in N ew Y ork C ity

11

Black W oodwork and Panels, and beautifully illuminated with electric lights at the sides of the room and in the centre of the ceiling.' There is a small alcove adjoining the Temple which provides room for the experimental elec trical equipment and the Wireless Telegraph Station belonging to the Grand Lodge. In the rear of the Temple is the chemical, physical and electri cal laboratory for the conduct of Rosaecrucian researches and the testing of certain laws and prin ciples. On the Second Floor—to the front—is the Grand Lodge Library and R est Room. This will be the largest Rosaecrucian Library in America as soon as all the books are installed and all are received from those who have been with holding their contributions of books until such a Library was estab lished. On the Third Floor, in the rear, there is an open-air summer g a r den for recreation and study. On the fourth floor there is one room being planned as a photographic experimental laboratory for work along special lines which are oc cupying the attention of' Rosaecru cians in many lands. In addition to these rooms there are a number of guest chambers occupied by those in charge of the Temple and by a few who are in sympathy with our work. St., Now York. All in all this is a Temple of which every Rosaecrucian will be proud. We shall be glad to have members-of our Order from any city visit us at any time and enjoy our rooms and the facilities for study and pleas ure afforded in every possible way. Likewise we shall be pleased to receive donations from our friends of pictures and antiquities.

d K

W M I I K ^ *ast America *ias *ts own Rosaecrucian Tem ple!” In these few words are expressed the realization of a century of dreams and a life£j d ||| time of hopes. Embodied in one m aterial monument are the plans and prospects of the entire Rosae crucian movement in the United States. This fine building is not only the home of the Grand Lodge, but the very pyramid of the Order in America. I t is w ith considerable pride that we illustrate and describe this Tem ple. Situated in the heart of New York City—in the select residen tial district, remote from business and commercialism—it has an ideal environment. Its outw ard appearance is digni fied and rather symbolical. The lower part of the building is of brown stone while the upper part is of red brick. I t has five stories and is topped w ith the significant triangle, as shown in accompany ing illustration. The first floor, approached by a wide-sweeping stairway, contains a wide reception hall from which one m ay enter the Executive Office or the Grand Lodge Temple. The Executive Office is richly furnished land here will be found the desks of the Imperator, the Secretary General, the Prelate and E ditor of the American Rosae Crucis. Ad 70 W est S7th joining this is the Reception and Music Room where every facility for a quiet talk and hour or two of music and read ing will be afforded to every visitor. Then, in the rear of the floor is the Temple, large and convenient, with its triangular platform and A ltar and the other articles of all Lodge equip ment. This Temple is decorated in Red with

P a g e N in e

I A

42


agination and brought forth liis second “ First Tem p le” and with the aid of an a rtist’s skill, he published a spurious or very much doctored picture of the second “ First Tem ple” as the frontispiece of his propaganda booklet, The Wisdom of the Sages, “ official publication number sixteen,” copyrighted November, 1932, which he described as “ The First Rosicrucian Temple in the New World, built on land granted 1689 by Wm. Penn, Fairmount Park, Philadelphia.” An exact copy with said de scription is herewith reproduced. In view of Mr. L ew is’ moving and shifting habits, it is not at all strange that lie shifted from one first Temple to another, he has al ways moved from one place to another and shifted his position, when necessary— and it has often been neces sary. E vidently the spurious synthetic picture of the sec ond “ First Tem ple” was not satisfactory to Mr. Lewis,

T H E EN IGM A OP T H E T H R E E “ F IR S T ” T E M P L E S CAN YOU SO L V E IT ? O n th e opposite p age is a reproduction of th e second “ F IR S T ” R o sicru cian T em ple in A m erica, according to M r. Lew is. T his is ta k e n fro m his booklet “ The W isdom o f th e Sages” and is copy rig h te d 1932, o r ju s t ab o u t six teen years a f te r th e d escription and p h o to g ra p h o f his first “ F IR S T ” R osicrucian T em ple w as published. W H IC H IS C O RR EC T?


43

44


or possibly lie entertained fears that the same could no be identified in history, nor located in fact, so in 1933 m the April number of his official organ, The Rosaecrucian Digest, he published the picture of the third ‘1First 1 em p ie” with the following description. “ First Rosaecrucian Buildings. The lower part of this structure is pax of the first Rosaecrucian Temple, built in 1694-1695, on the banks of the W issahickon River. It is ikw within the lim its of Fairmount Park and is still occupied (by whom?) and marked as an historical site . . . •” We also reproduce herewith the picture of the third Firs Temple” as it appeared in the above mentioned Lewis publication. To be sure, the building last referred to, now stand ixig in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, was not built > Rosaecrucians and never was a Rosicrucian Temple. The facts concerning this historic building are discusse at some length in the Brochure, The Masters Among Men, which may be had free of charge upon application by all who are interested.

TH E ENIGM A OF T H E “ F IR S T ” R O SIC R U C IA N T E M P L E CA N Y O U SO L V E IT ? W e h ave show n you tw o of M r. L ew is’ F ir s t R osicrucian Tem ples. W e w ill now show you th e th ir d of th e se fir s t tem p es. In th e A pril, 1933, num ber of The R osicrucian D igest you will find this th ir d “ first” tem p le illu stra te d w ith th e w ord in g as given below u n e r p ictu re. I t is easy fo r th e re a d e r to in v e stig ate o u r sta te m e n ts by p ro c u rin g th ese AMORC p u b lications, w h e th er i t is as easy fo r h im to accep t th e “ J o n a h ” sto ry is a question. W H IC H W A S T H E F IR S T T E M P L E ? O u r a n sw e r is, t h a t n o t one o f th ese was R osicrucian in an y sense of th e w ord an d M r. Lewis is h im self u n c e rta in o r he w ould n o t a tte m p t to fo s te r such a n im possible im position upon his follow ers. T his th re e “ first tem ple story is a s tru e , a n d no m o re so, as is a ll th a t h e h a s ever w ritte n on R osicrucian ism.

,

—

— ------------------

46


\ Upon tlie subject of Lodges aud first Temples in uso l T a’nVe i Grewith reProduce tlie form of the Charter i . \ 1• Randolph in establishing Lodges and Temo hvi UJ " m enca m the year 1874 and prior thereto. (For nf ,^°US we d° n° t reproduce and publish copies . ,GG,U' Charters.) I f in view of Mr. L ew is’ many Jf 10ns anc* several admissions, further proof is firm ° i 'i ,e"tab,ish ^ a t ^ r. Randolph and his foundaAmo • abhshed Rosicrucian Lodges and Temples in tnrrr,1!°tl to tbe Lewis fabrication, then this Charter t W / lS Uf G l)r- Randolph in the year 1874 and prior tim!n i °' be sufficient and ample. However, addimr-iQn,!J10(° j ]SOemS be w holly unnecessary, since a comtv/i | ? Publication and conflicting statements of t W i,eW1S W1 ^’resistably lead to the correct conclusion, of m-r.t !‘S ('aif ble °* Promoting and sponsoring any kind tent • âgtUK,la> however, false, contradictory, inconsissuits I •I*,0SSI ’ e> or otherwise, if it serves his needs and S pU?p ° se>or Perhaps even his fancy. Truly, tlie can so Und degradation of a great work or sepm ; ^ i ,K! betrayal °t’ many earnest souls doesn’t A r ^ least’ t0 trouble Ms conscience, that , ho'y does this pseudo Rosicrucian know Ro«?ipvnn,tUe r W1 ut any connection with the regular he doo • n 't 1 and Lodges in Europe?” In truth, and a u t h o r Not being a member of the regular to es1 -il>li i " . ?r a?d possessing no lawful authority der « RnT'1 01 .raamtain his clandestine fabrication unlias bepn ’•1C1U01an. designation, he is not now and never the time n « « f Si B to ^nowa matter of fact, at the refm llr n .\ en l )r- Randolph law fully established he was G n n / t v / 1, all(^ authentic Fraternity in America, Rosicrucians f ° f tbe SuPreme Grand Dome of the

He waasnX (a faCt f mitted t0 be true

Council n;,, , ? a member of the International tained t)ronpvSUCCeSS°5S *n office have continuously mainthe Interim ti C(j>1“lec^10ns and fraternal relations with ^ f C0Unei1’ evea rmto this day. makes the st'w &^G1, '^terature, Mr. Lewis continually tobUshedln t i a t the Boi* W~ to * « • n,1: .' ' ani''t though lie falsifies dates and

CLANDESTIN1SM EXPOSED

47

Peimyyiv^ a rea(lers that this State, or8'anizatUlla’ ^'aS a s^ ct taw governing all Fraternal quirino-Cfi ° 11S’ a>s^0 atio 11 «, societies and companies, re may lm vf^ r1 \° their names and objects before they a given <)U / thnetion and that but one organization of t° tell tli > " T 11*1' name may register. He further fails °f the -fraternity of Rosicrucians— Order ^°undati 6 r° SS’ ’nc^ll(t>ng its variants, of the Randolph 1895 and0)11’ Ua.'s established in Pennsylvania prior to 011 the f , , M effiStered as re(luired by law. He is silent is clandpL- ^ Respite all Laws, civil and fraternal, he he contin Ue ^ ac^ ve *n defiance of the law, just as banner JUGS act*Ve Masonicly in a like clandestine these matters^ ^&S s^rou& reasons for his silence on ail can

U(!0n!1Jare this statement made in The AmeriCruds, April, 1916, page 14: w ith tiip ItS- w o r-lcl‘w ide, e sta b lish e d sym bol is th e trian g le trian g le ” P0In^ dow nw ard an d w ith th e cross w ith in the

''iff; b o o k i^ ’TK1*1"11 ^'Ve" 011 t l i l a s t cover page of his Ilis Trad (a u . ,he, W isdom ®f ‘he Sages, where, beneath ue Mark, he says: P r o t e c t t r 6 f SymboIs w e re ciuly re g iste re d solely fo r the AmericT

D

°*i t l l e w o r i c o f t h e

Rosicrucian

O rder

in

North

zatio n a n ' t h . - tlle A M 0R C is th e only R o sicru cian organiin th e U n it°r]Zq d t0 Uf,e re g iste re d im p rin t and symbol oidtes •

°es Mv i ~ • 111 the Occult". ]WlS U0.^ know that the inverted triangle, ^°rces, of tli-. m M ystie>is the symbolization of the evil "'hicli And,. cl5 B r°therhood, the Anti-Christ against ®rs> and thnT -f11^'ama Fraternitatis warned all seek a^Se teachij o-* ? *S or Insignia of the Prince of ^

&

•

^le true ^ V‘ ^ ew^s tail to inform his readers that e° ul(J not I), rplnal and authentic Rosicrucian Symbol ?°ntinuous i° , racle ^ ai'hed because it had long been in ls a faked T 5 U<^ ^la t his Trade Marked symbolization ed substitute for the genuine?

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

Recommend Documents