_Grand Lodge of England_
While praying in a little chapel one day, Francis of Assisi was
exhorted by an old Byzantine crucifix: "Go now, and rebuild my Church,
which is falling into ruins." In sheer loyalty he had a lamp placed;
then he saw his task in a larger way, and an artist has painted him
carrying stones and mortar. Finally there burst upon him the full
import of the allocution--that he himself was to be the corner-stone
of a renewed and purified Church. Purse and prestige he flung to the
winds, and went along the highways of Umbria calling men back from the
rot of luxury to the ways of purity, pity, and gladness, his life at
once a poem and a power, his faith a vision of the world as love and
comradeship.
That is a perfect parable of the history of Masonry. Of old the
working Masons built the great cathedrals, and we have seen them not
only carrying stones, but drawing triangles, squares, and circles in
such a manner as to show that they assigned to those figures high
mystical meanings. But the real Home of the Soul cannot be built of
brick and stone; it is a house not made with hands. Slowly it rises,
fashioned of the thoughts, hopes, prayers, dreams, and righteous acts
of devout and free men; built of their hunger for truth, their love of
God, and their loyalty to one another. There came a day when the
Masons, laying aside their stones, became workmen of another kind, not
less builders than before, but using truths for tools and dramas for
designs, uplifting such a temple as Watts dreamed of decorating with
his visions of the august allegory of the evolution of man.
I
From every point of view, the organization of the Grand Lodge of
England, in 1717, was a significant and far-reaching event. Not only
did it divide the story of Masonry into before and after, giving a new
date from which to reckon, but it was a way-mark in the intellectual
and spiritual history of mankind. One has only to study that first
Grand Lodge, the influences surrounding it, the men who composed it,
the Constitutions adopted, and its spirit and purpose, to see that it
was the beginning of a movement of profound meaning. When we see it in
the setting of its age--as revealed, for example, in the Journals of
Fox and Wesley, which from being religious time-tables broadened into
detailed panoramic pictures of the period before, and that following,
the Grand Lodge--the Assembly on 1717 becomes the more remarkable.
Against such a background, when religion and morals seemed to reach
the nadir of degredation, the men of that Assembly stand out as
prophets of liberty of faith and righteousness of life.[113]
Some imagination is needed to realize the moral declension of that
time, as it is portrayed--to use a single example--in the sermon by
the Bishop of Litchfield before the Society for the Reformation of
Manners, in 1724. Lewdness, drunkenness, and degeneracy, he said, were
well nigh universal, no class being free from the infection. Murders
were common and foul, wanton and obscene books found so good a market
as to encourage the publishing of them. Immorality of every kind was
so hardened as to be defended, yes, justified on principle. The rich
were debauched and indifferent; the poor were as miserable in their
labor as they were coarse and cruel in their sport. Writing in 1713,
Bishop Burnet said that those who came to be ordained as clergymen
were "ignorant to a degree not to be comprehended by those who are not
obliged to know it." Religion seemed dying or dead, and to mention the
word provoked a laugh. Wesley, then only a lad, had not yet come with
his magnificent and cleansing evangel. Empty formalism on one side, a
dead polemical dogmatism on the other, bigotry, bitterness,
intolerance, and interminable feud everywhere, no wonder Bishop Butler
sat oppressed in his castle with hardly a hope surviving.
As for Masonry, it had fallen far and fallen low betimes, but with the
revival following the great fire of London, in 1666, it had taken on
new life and a bolder spirit, and was passing through a
transition--or, rather, a transfiguration! For, when we compare the
Masonry of, say, 1688 with that of 1723, we discover that much more
than a revival had come to pass. Set the instructions of the _Old
Charges_--not all of them, however, for even in earliest times some of
them escaped the stamp of the Church[114]--in respect of religion
alongside the same article in the _Constitutions_ of 1723, and the
contrast is amazing. The old charge read: "The first charge is this,
that you be true to God and Holy Church and use no error or heresy."
Hear now the charge in 1723:
/#
_A Mason is obliged by his Tenure, to obey the moral law; and if
he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist
nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient times Masons
were charged in every country to be of the religion of that
country or nation, whatever it was, yet it is now thought more
expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men
agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves: that is,
to be Good men and True, or Men of Honor and Honesty, by whatever
Denomination or Persuasion they may be distinguished; whereby
Masonry becomes the Centre of Union and the Means of conciliating
true Friendship among persons that must have remained at a
perpetual distance._
#/
If that statement had been written yesterday, it would be remarkable
enough. But when we consider that it was set forth in 1723, amidst
bitter sectarian rancor and intolerance unimaginable, it rises up as
forever memorable in the history of men! The man who wrote that
document, did we know his name, is entitled to be held till the end
of time in the grateful and venerative memory of his race. The temper
of the times was all for relentless partisanship, both in religion and
in politics. The alternative offered in religion was an ecclesiastical
tyranny, allowing a certain liberty of belief, or a doctrinal tyranny,
allowing a slight liberty of worship; a sad choice in truth. It is,
then, to the everlasting honor of the century, that, in the midst of
its clashing extremes, the Masons appeared with heads unbowed,
abjuring both tyrannies and championing both liberties.[115]
Ecclesiastically and doctrinally they stood in the open, while
Romanist and Protestant, Anglican and Puritan, Calvinist and Arminian
waged bitter war, filling the air with angry maledictions. These men
of latitude in a cramped age felt pent up alike by narrowness of
ritual and by narrowness of creed, and they cried out for room and
air, for liberty and charity!
Though differences of creed played no part in Masonry, nevertheless it
held religion in high esteem, and was then, as now, the steadfast
upholder of the only two articles of faith that never were invented by
man--the existence of God and the immortality of the soul!
Accordingly, every Lodge was opened and closed with prayer to the
"Almighty Architect of the universe;" and when a Lodge of mourning met
in memory of a brother fallen asleep, the formula was: "He has passed
over into the eternal East,"--to that region whence cometh light and
hope. Unsectarian in religion, the Masons were also non-partisan in
politics: one principle being common to them all--love of country,
respect for law and order, and the desire for human welfare.[116] Upon
that basis the first Grand Lodge was founded, and upon that basis
Masonry rests today--holding that a unity of spirit is better than a
uniformity of opinion, and that beyond the great and simple "religion
in which all men agree" no dogma is worth a breach of charity.
II
With honorable pride in this tradition of spiritual faith and
intellectual freedom, we are all the more eager to recite such facts
as are known about the organization of the first Grand Lodge. How many
Lodges of Masons existed in London at that time is a matter of
conjecture, but there must have been a number. What bond, if any,
united them, other than their esoteric secrets and customs, is equally
unknown. Nor is there any record to tell us whether all the Lodges in
and about London were invited to join in the movement. Unfortunately
the minutes of the Grand Lodge only commence on June 24, 1723, and our
only history of the events is that found in _The New Book of
Constitutions_, by Dr. James Anderson, in 1738. However, if not an
actor in the scene, he was in a position to know the facts from
eye-witnesses, and his book was approved by the Grand Lodge itself.
His account is so brief that it may be given as it stands:
/#[4,66]
King George I enter'd _London_ most magnificently on _20
Sept. 1714_. And after the Rebellion was over A.D. 1716, the
few _Lodges_ at _London_ finding themselves neglected by Sir
_Christopher Wren_, thought fit to cement under a _Grand
Master_ as the Centre of Union and Harmony, _viz._, the
_Lodges_ that met,
1. At the _Goose_ and _Gridiron_ Ale house in _St. Paul's
Church-Yard_.
2. At the _Crown_ Ale-house in _Parker's Lane_ near _Drury
Lane_.
3. At the _Apple-Tree_ Tavern in _Charles-street,
Covent-Garden_.
4. At the _Rummer and Grape_ Tavern in _Channel-Row,
Westminster_.
They and some other old Brothers met at the said _Apple-Tree_,
and having put into the chair the _oldest Master Mason_ (now
the _Master_ of a _Lodge_) they constituted themselves a Grand
Lodge pro Tempore in _Due Form_, and forthwith revived the
Quarterly _Communication_ of the _Officers_ of Lodges (call'd
the GRAND LODGE) resolv'd to hold the _Annual_ Assembly _and
Feast_, and then to chuse a Grand Master from among
themselves, till they should have the Honor of a Noble Brother
at their Head.
Accordingly, on _St. John's Baptist's_ Day, in the 3d year of
King George I, A.D. 1717, the ASSEMBLY and _Feast_ of the
_Free and Accepted Masons_ was held at the foresaid _Goose_
and _Gridiron_ Ale-house.
Before Dinner, the _oldest Master_ Mason (now the _Master_ of
a _Lodge_) in the Chair, proposed a List of proper Candidates;
and the Brethren by a majority of Hands elected Mr. Anthony
Sayer, _Gentleman_, _Grand Master of Masons_ (Mr. _Jacob
Lamball_, Carpenter, Capt. _Joseph Elliot_, Grand Wardens) who
being forthwith invested with the Badges of Office and Power
by the said _oldest Master_, and install'd, was duly
congratulated by the Assembly who paid him the Homage.
Sayer, _Grand Master_, commanded the _Masters_ and _Wardens_
of Lodges to meet the _Grand_ Officers every _Quarter_ in
_Communication_, at the Place that he should appoint in the
Summons sent by the _Tyler_.
#/
So reads the only record that has come down to us of the founding of
the Grand Lodge of England. Preston and others have had no other
authority than this passage for their descriptions of the scene,
albeit when Preston wrote, such facts as he added may have been
learned from men still living. Who were present, beyond the three
officers named, has so far eluded all research, and the only variation
in the accounts is found in a rare old book called _Multa Paucis_,
which asserts that six Lodges, not four, were represented. Looking at
this record in the light of what we know of the Masonry of that
period, a number of things are suggested:
First, so far from being a revolution, the organization of the Grand
Lodge was a revival of the old quarterly and annual Assembly, born,
doubtless, of a felt need of community of action for the welfare of
the Craft. There was no idea of innovation, but, as Anderson states in
a note, "it should meet Quarterly _according to ancient Usage_,"
tradition having by this time become authoritative in such matters.
Hints of what the old usages were are given in the observance of St.
John's Day[117] as a feast, in the democracy of the order and its
manner of voting by a show of hands, in its deference to the oldest
Master Mason, its use of badges of office,[118] its ceremony of
installation, all in a lodge duly tyled.
Second, it is clear that, instead of being a deliberately planned
effort to organize Masonry in general, the Grand Lodge was intended at
first to affect only London and Westminster;[119] the desire being to
weld a link of closer fellowship and cooeperation between the Lodges.
While we do not know the names of the moving spirits--unless we may
infer that the men elected to office were such--nothing is clearer
than that the initiative came from the heart of the order itself, and
was in no sense imposed upon it from without; and so great was the
necessity for it that, when once started, link after link was added
until it "put a girdle around the earth."
Third, of the four Lodges[120] known to have taken part, only
one--that meeting at the Rummer and Grape Tavern--had a majority of
Accepted Masons in its membership; the other three being Operative
Lodges, or largely so. Obviously, then, the movement was predominantly
a movement of Operative Masons--or of men who had been Operative
Masons--and not, as has been so often implied, the design of men who
simply made use of the remnants of operative Masonry the better to
exploit some hidden philosophy. Yet it is worthy of note that the
leading men of the craft in those early years were, nearly all of
them, Accepted Masons and members of the Rummer and Grape Lodge.
Besides Dr. Anderson, the historian, both George Payne and Dr.
Desaguliers, the second and third Grand Masters, were of that Lodge.
In 1721 the Duke of Montagu was elected to the chair, and thereafter
members of the nobility sat in the East until it became the custom for
the Prince of Wales to be Grand Master of Masons in England.[121]
Fourth, why did Masonry alone of all trades and professions live after
its work was done, preserving not only its identity of organization,
but its old emblems and usages, and transforming them into instruments
of religion and righteousness? The cathedrals had long been finished
or left incomplete; the spirit of Gothic architecture was dead and the
style treated almost with contempt. The occupation of the Master
Mason was gone, his place having been taken by the architect who, like
Wren and Inigo Jones, was no longer a child of the Lodges as in the
old days, but a man trained in books and by foreign travel. Why did
not Freemasonry die, along with the Guilds, or else revert to some
kind of trades-union? Surely here is the best possible proof that it
had never been simply an order of architects building churches, but a
moral and spiritual fellowship--the keeper of great symbols and a
teacher of truths that never die. So and only so may anyone ever hope
to explain the story of Masonry, and those who do not see this fact
have no clue to its history, much less an understanding of its genius.
Of course these pages cannot recite in detail the history and growth
of the Grand Lodge, but a few of the more salient events may be noted.
As early as 1719 the _Old Charges_, or Gothic Constitutions, began to
be collected and collated, a number having already been burned by
scrupulous Masons to prevent their falling into strange hands. In
1721, Grand Master Montagu found fault with the _Old Charges_ as being
inadequate, and ordered Dr. Anderson to make a digest of them with a
view to formulating a better set of regulations for the rule of the
Lodges. Anderson obeyed--he seems to have been engaged in such a work
already, and may have suggested the idea to the Grand Master--and a
committee of fourteen "learned brethren" was appointed to examine the
MS and make report. They suggested a few amendments, and the book was
ordered published by the Grand Master, appearing in the latter part of
1723. This first issue, however, did not contain the account of the
organization of the Grand Lodge, which does not seem to have been
added until the edition of 1738. How much Past Grand Master Payne had
to do with this work is not certain, but the chief credit is due to
Dr. Anderson, who deserves the perpetual gratitude of the order--the
more so if he it was who wrote the article, already quoted, setting
forth the religious attitude of the order. That article, by whomsoever
written, is one of the great documents of mankind, and it would be an
added joy to know that it was penned by a minister.[122] The _Book of
Constitutions_, which is still the groundwork of Masonry, has been
printed in many editions, and is accessible to every one.
Another event in the story of the Grand Lodge, never to be forgotten,
was a plan started in 1724 of raising funds of General Charity for
distressed Masons. Proposed by the Earl of Dalkeith, it at once met
with enthusiastic support, and it is a curious coincidence that one of
the first to petition for relief was Anthony Sayer, first Grand
Master. The minutes do not state whether he was relieved at that time,
but we know that sums of money were voted to him in 1730, and again in
1741. This Board of Benevolence, as it came to be called, became very
important, it being unanimously agreed in 1733 that all such business
as could not be conveniently despatched by the Quarterly Communication
should be referred to it. Also, that all Masters of Regular Lodges,
together with all present, former, and future Grand Officers should be
members of the Board. Later this Board was still further empowered to
hear complaints and to report thereon to the Grand Lodge. Let it also
be noted that in actual practice the Board of Charity gave free play
to one of the most admirable principles of Masonry--helping the needy
and unfortunate, whether within the order or without.
III
Once more we come to a much debated question, about which not a little
has been written, and most of it wide of the mark--the question of the
origin of the Third Degree. Here again students have gone hither and
yon hunting in every cranny for the motif of this degree, and it would
seem that their failure to find it would by this time have turned them
back to the only place where they may ever hope to discover it--in
Masonry itself. But no; they are bound to bring mystics, occultists,
alchemists, Culdees or Cabalists--even the _Vehmgerichte_ of
Germany--into the making of Masonry somewhere, if only for the sake of
glamor, and this is the last opportunity to do it.[123] Willing to
give due credit to Cabalists and Rosicrucians, the present writer
rejects all such theories on the ground that there is no reason for
thinking that they helped to make Masonry, _much less any fact to
prove it_.
Hear now a review of the facts in the case. No one denies that the
Temple of Solomon was much in the minds of men at the time of the
organization of the Grand Lodge, and long before--as in the Bacon
romance of the _New Atlantis_ in 1597.[124] Broughton, Selden,
Lightfoot, Walton, Lee, Prideaux, and other English writers were
deeply interested in the Hebrew Temple, not, however, so much in its
symbolical suggestion as in its form and construction--a model of
which was brought to London by Judah Templo in the reign of Charles
II.[125] It was much the same on the Continent, but so far from being
a new topic of study and discussion, we may trace this interest in the
Temple all through the Middle Ages. Nor was it peculiar to the
Cabalists, at least not to such a degree that they must needs be
brought in to account for the Biblical imagery and symbolism in
Masonry. Indeed, it might with more reason be argued that Masonry
explains the interest in the Temple than otherwise. For, as James
Fergusson remarks--and there is no higher authority than the historian
of architecture: "There is perhaps no building of the ancient world
which has excited so much attention since the time of its destruction,
as the Temple of Solomon built in Jerusalem, and its successor as
built by Herod. _Throughout the Middle Ages it influenced to a
considerable degree the forms of Christian churches, and its
peculiarities were the watchwords and rallying points of associations
of builders._"[126] Clearly, the notion that interest in the Temple
was new, and that its symbolical meaning was imposed upon Masonry as
something novel, falls flat.
But we are told that there is no hint of the Hiramic legend, still
less any intimation of a tragedy associated with the building of the
Temple. No Hiramic legend! No hint of tragedy! Why, both were almost
as old as the Temple itself, rabbinic legend affirming that "_all the
workmen were killed that they should not build another Temple devoted
to idolatry, Hiram himself being translated to heaven like
Enoch_."[127] The Talmud has many variations of this legend. Where
would one expect the legends of the Temple to be kept alive and be
made use of in ceremonial, if not in a religious order of builders
like the Masons? Is it surprising that we find so few references in
later literature to what was thus held as a sacred secret? As we have
seen, the legend of Hiram was kept as a profound secret until 1841 by
the French Companionage, who almost certainly learned it from the
Free-masons. Naturally it was never made a matter of record,[128] but
was transmitted by oral tradition within the order; and it was also
natural, if not inevitable, that the legend, of the master-artist of
the Temple should be "the Master's Part" among Masons who were
temple-builders. How else explain the veiled allusions to the name in
the _Old Charges_ as read to Entered Apprentices, if it was not a
secret reserved for a higher rank of Mason? Why any disguise at all if
it had no hidden meaning? Manifestly the motif of the Third Degree was
purely Masonic, and we need not go outside the traditions of the order
to account for it.
Not content to trace the evolution of Masonry, even so able a man as
Albert Pike will have it that to a few men of intelligence who
belonged to one of the four old lodges in 1717 "is to be ascribed the
authorship of the Third Degree, and the introduction of Hermetic and
other symbols into Masonry; that they framed the three degrees for the
purpose of communicating their doctrines, veiled by their symbols, to
those fitted to receive them, and gave to others trite moral
explanations they could comprehend."[129] How gracious of them to
vouchsafe even trite explanations, but why frame a set of degrees to
conceal what they wished to hide? This is the same idea of something
alien imposed upon Masonry from without, with the added suggestion,
novel indeed, that Masonry was organized to hide the truth, rather
than to teach it. But did Masonry have to go outside its own history
and tradition to learn Hermetic truths and symbols? Who was Hermes?
Whether man or myth no one knows, but he was a great figure in the
Egyptian Mysteries, and was called the Father of Wisdom.[130] What
_was_ his wisdom? From such fragments of his lore as have floated down
to us, impaired, it may be, but always vivid, we discover that his
wisdom was only a high spiritual faith and morality taught in visions
and rhapsodies, and using numbers as symbols. Was such wisdom new to
Masonry? Had not Hermes himself been a hero of the order from the
first, of whom we read in the _Old Charges_, in which he has a place
of honor alongside Euclid and Pythagoras? Wherefore go elsewhere than
to Masonry itself to trace the _pure_ stream of Hermetic faith through
the ages? Certainly the men of the Grand Lodge were adepts, but they
were _Masonic adepts seeking to bring the buried temple of Masonry to
light and reveal it in a setting befitting its beauty_, not cultists
making use of it to exploit a private scheme of the universe.
Who were those "men of intelligence" to whom Pike ascribed the making
of the Third Degree of Masonry? Tradition has fixed upon Desaguliers as
the ritualist of the Grand Lodge, and Lyon speaks of him as "the
pioneer and co-fabricator of symbolical Masonry."[131] This, however,
is an exaggeration, albeit Desaguliers was worthy of high eulogy,
as were Anderson and Payne, who are said to have been his
collaborators.[132] But the fact is that the Third Degree was not
made; it grew--like the great cathedrals, no one of which can be
ascribed to a single artist, but to an order of men working in unity of
enterprise and aspiration. The process by which the old ritual,
described in the _Sloane MS_, was divided and developed into three
degrees between 1717 and 1730 was so gradual, so imperceptible, that no
exact date can be set; still less can it be attributed to any one or
two men. From the minutes of the Musical Society we learn that the
Lodge at the Queen's Head in Hollis Street was using three distinct
degrees in 1724. As early as 1727 we come upon the custom of setting
apart a separate night for the Master's Degree, the drama having
evidently become more elaborate.
Further than this the Degree may not be discussed, except to say that
the Masons, tiring of the endless quarrels of sects, turned for relief
to the Ancient Mysteries as handed down in their traditions--the old,
high, heroic faith in God, and in the soul of man as the one
unconquerable thing upon this earth. If, as Aristotle said, it be the
mission of tragedy to cleanse and exalt us, leaving us subdued with a
sense of pity and hope and fortified against ill fortune, it is
permitted us to add that in simplicity, depth, and power, in its
grasp of the realities of the life of man, its portrayal of the
stupidity of evil and the splendor of virtue, its revelation of that
in our humanity which leads it to defy death, giving up everything,
even to life itself, rather than defame, defile, or betray its moral
integrity, and in its prophecy of the victory of light over shadow,
there is not another drama known among men like the Third Degree of
Masonry. Edwin Booth, a loyal Mason, and no mean judge of the essence
of tragedy, left these words:
/#[4,66]
In all my research and study, in all my close analysis of the
masterpieces of Shakespeare, in my earnest determination to
make those plays appear real on the mimic stage, I have
never, and nowhere, met tragedy so real, so sublime, so
magnificent as the legend of Hiram. It is substance without
shadow--the manifest destiny of life which requires no
picture and scarcely a word to make a lasting impression upon
all who can understand. To be a Worshipful Master, and to
throw my whole soul into that work, with the candidate for my
audience and the Lodge for my stage, would be a greater
personal distinction than to receive the plaudits of people
in the theaters of the world.
#/
FOOTNOTES:
[113] We should not forget that noble dynasty of large and liberal
souls in the seventeenth century--John Hales, Chillingsworth,
Whichcote, John Smith, Henry More, Jeremy Taylor--whose _Liberty of
Prophesying_ set the principle of toleration to stately strains of
eloquence--Sir Thomas Browne, and Richard Baxter; saints, every one of
them, finely-poised, sweet-tempered, repelled from all extremes alike,
and walking the middle path of wisdom and charity. Milton, too, taught
tolerance in a bigoted and bitter age (see _Seventeenth Century Men of
Latitude_, E.A. George).
[114] For instance the _Cooke MS_, next to the oldest of all, as well
as the _W. Watson_ and _York No. 4_ MSS. It is rather surprising, in
view of the supremacy of the Church in those times, to find such
evidence of what Dr. Mackey called the chief mission of primitive
Masonry--the preservation of belief in the unity of God. These MSS did
not succumb to the theology of the Church, and their invocations remind
us more of the God of Isaiah than of the decrees of the Council of
Nicaea.
[115] It was, perhaps, a picture of the Masonic Lodges of that era that
Toland drew in his _Socratic Society_, published in 1720, which,
however, he clothed in a vesture quite un-Grecian. At least, the
symposia or brotherly feasts of his society, their give-and-take of
questions and answers, their aversion to the rule of mere physical
force, to compulsory religious belief, and to creed hatred, as well as
their mild and tolerant disposition and their brotherly regard for one
another, remind one of the spirit and habits of the Masons of that day.
[116] Now is as good a time as another to name certain curious theories
which have been put forth to account for the origin of Masonry in
general, and of the organization of the Grand Lodge in particular. They
are as follows: First, that it was all due to an imaginary Temple of
Solomon described by Lord Bacon in a Utopian romance called the _New
Atlantis_; and this despite the fact that the temple in the Bacon story
was not a house at all, but the name of an ideal state. Second, that
the object of Freemasonry and the origin of the Third Degree was the
restoration of Charles II to the throne of England; the idea being that
the Masons, who called themselves "Sons of the Widow," meant thereby to
express their allegiance to the Queen. Third, that Freemasonry was
founded by Oliver Cromwell--he of all men!--to defeat the royalists.
Fourth, that Free-masons were derived from the order of the Knights
Templars. Even Lessing once held this theory, but seems later to have
given it up. Which one of these theories surpasses the others in
absurdity, it would be hard to say. De Quincey explodes them one by one
with some detail in his "Inquiry into the Origin of the Free-masons,"
to which he might also have added his own pet notion of the Rosicrucian
origin of the order--it being only a little less fantastic than the
rest (_De Quincey's Works_, vol. xvi).
[117] Of the Masonic feasts of St. John the Baptist and St. John the
Evangelist much has been written, and to little account. In
pre-Christian times, as we have seen, the Roman Collegia were wont to
adopt pagan deities as patrons. When Christianity came, the names of
its saints--some of them martyrs of the order of builders--were
substituted for the old pagan gods. Why the two Saints John were chosen
by Masons--rather than St. Thomas, who was the patron saint of
architecture--has never been made clear. At any rate, these two feasts,
coming at the time of the summer and winter solstices, are in reality
older than Christianity, being reminiscences of the old Light Religion
in which Masonry had its origin.
[118] The badge of office was a huge white apron, such as we see in
Hogarth's picture of the _Night_. The collar was of much the same shape
as that at present in use, only shorter. When the color was changed to
blue, and why, is uncertain, but probably not until 1813, when we begin
to see both apron and collar edged with blue. (See chapter on "Clothing
and Regalia," in _Things a Freemason Ought to Know_, by J.W. Crowe.) In
1727 the officers of all private--or as we would say,
subordinate--Lodges were ordered to wear "the jewels of Masonry hanging
to a white apron." In 1731 we find the Grand Master wearing gold or
gilt jewels pendant to blue ribbons about the neck, and a white leather
apron _lined_ with blue silk.
[119] This is clear from the book of _Constitutions_ of 1723, which is
said to be "for the use of Lodges in London." Then follow the names of
the Masters and Wardens of twenty Lodges, all in London. There was no
thought at the time of imposing the authority of the Grand Lodge upon
the country in general, much less upon the world. Its growth we shall
sketch later. For an excellent article on "The Foundation of Modern
Masonry," by G.W. Speth, giving details of the organization of the
Grand Lodge and its changes, see _A. Q. C._, ii, 86. If an elaborate
account is wanted, it may be found in Gould's _History of Masonry_,
vol. iii.
[120] _History of the Four Lodges_, by R.F. Gould. Apparently the Goose
and Gridiron Lodge--No. 1--is the only one of the four now in
existence. After various changes of name it is now the Lodge of
Antiquity, No. 2.
[121] _Royal Masons_, by G.W. Speth.
[122] From a meager sketch of Dr. Anderson in the _Gentlemen's
Magazine_, 1783, we learn that he was a native of Scotland--the place
of his birth is not given--and that for many years he was minister of
the Scots Presbyterian Church in Swallow Street, Piccadilly, and well
known to the folk of that faith in London--called "Bishop" Anderson by
his friends. He married the widow of an army officer, who bore him a
son and a daughter. Although a learned man--compiler of a book of
_Royal Genealogies_, which seems to have been his hobby--he was
somewhat imprudent in business, having lost most of his property in
1720. Whether he was a Mason before coming to London is unknown, but he
took a great part in the work of the Grand Lodge, entering it,
apparently, in 1721. Toward the close of his life he suffered many
misfortunes, but of what description we are not told. He died in 1739.
Perhaps his learning was exaggerated by his Masonic eulogists, but he
was a noble man and manifestly a useful one (Gould's _History of
Masonry_, vol. iii).
[123] Having emphasized this point so repeatedly, the writer feels it
just to himself to state his own position, lest he be thought a kind of
materialist, or at least an enemy of mysticism. Not so. Instead, he has
long been an humble student of the great mystics; they are his best
friends--as witness his two little books, _The Eternal Christ_, and
_What Have the Saints to Teach Us?_ But mysticism is one thing, and
mystification is another, and the former may be stated in this way:
First, by mysticism--only another word for spirituality--is meant our
sense of an Unseen World, of our citizenship in it, of God and the
soul, and of all the forms of life and beauty as symbols of things
higher than themselves. That is to say, if a man has any religion at
all that is not mere theory or form, he is a mystic; the difference
between him and Plato or St. Francis being only a matter of genius and
spiritual culture--between a boy whistling a tune and Beethoven writing
music.
Second, since mysticism is native to the soul of man and the common
experience of all who rise above the animal, it is not an exclusive
possession of any set of adepts to be held as a secret. Any man who
bows in prayer, or lifts his thought heavenward, is an initiate into
the eternal mysticism which is the strength and solace of human life.
Third, the old time Masons were religious men, and as such sharers in
this great human experience of divine things, and did not need to go to
Hidden Teachers to learn mysticism. They lived and worked in the light
of it. It shone in their symbols, as it does in all symbols that have
any meaning or beauty. It is, indeed, the soul of symbolism, every
emblem being an effort to express a reality too great for words.
So, then, Masonry is mystical as music is mystical--like poetry, and
love, and faith, and prayer, and all else that makes it worth our time
to live; but its mysticism is sweet, sane, and natural, far from
fantastic, and in nowise eerie, unreal, or unbalanced. Of course these
words fail to describe it, as all words must, and it is therefore that
Masonry uses parables, pictures, and symbols.
[124] _Seventeenth Century Descriptions of Solomon's Temple_, by Prof.
S.P. Johnston (_A. Q. C._, xii, 135).
[125] _Transactions Jewish Historical Society of England_, vol. ii.
[126] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, article "Temple."
[127] _Jewish Encyclopedia_, art. "Freemasonry." Also _Builder's
Rites_, G.W. Speth.
[128] In the _Book of Constitutions_, 1723, Dr. Anderson dilates at
length on the building of the Temple--including a note on the meaning
of the name Abif, which, it will be remembered, was not found in the
Authorized Version of the Bible; and then he suddenly breaks off with
the words: "_But leaving what must not, indeed cannot, be communicated
in Writing_." It is incredible that he thus introduced among Masons a
name and legend unknown to them. Had he done so, would it have met with
such instant and universal acceptance by old Masons who stood for the
ancient usages of the order?
[129] Letter to Gould "Touching Masonic Symbolism."
[130] _Hermes and Plato_, Edouard Schure.
[131] _History of the Lodge of Edinburgh._
[132] Steinbrenner, following Findel, speaks of the Third Degree as if
it were a pure invention, quoting a passage from _Ahiman Rezon_, by
Lawrence Dermott, to prove it. He further states that Anderson and
Desaguliers were "publicly accused of manufacturing the degree, _which
they never denied_" (_History of Masonry_, chap. vii). But inasmuch as
they were not accused of it until they had been many years in their
graves, their silence is hardly to be wondered at. Dr. Mackey styles
Desaguliers "the Father of Modern Speculative Masonry," and attributes
to him, more than to any other one man, the present existence of the
order as a living institution (_Encyclopedia of Freemasonry_). Surely
that is going too far, much as Desaguliers deserves to be honored by
the order. Dr. J.T. Desaguliers was a French Protestant clergyman,
whose family came to England following the revocation of the Edict of
Nantes. He was graduated from Christ Church College, Oxford, in 1710,
succeeding Keill as lecturer in Experimental Philosophy. He was
especially learned in natural philosophy, mathematics, geometry, and
optics, having lectured before the King on various occasions. He was
very popular in the Grand Lodge, and his power as an orator made his
manner of conferring a degree impressive--which may explain his having
been accused of inventing the degrees. He was a loyal and able Mason, a
student of the history and ritual of the order, and was elected as the
third Grand Master of Masons in England. Like Anderson, his later life
is said to have been beclouded by poverty and sorrow, though some of
the facts are in dispute (Gould's _History of Masonry_, vol. iii).
UNIVERSAL MASONRY
/#
_These signs and tokens are of no small value; they speak a
universal language, and act as a passport to the attention and
support of the initiated in all parts of the world. They cannot be
lost so long as memory retains its power. Let the possessor of
them be expatriated, ship-wrecked, or imprisoned; let him be
stripped of everything he has got in the world; still these
credentials remain and are available for use as circumstances
require._
_The great effects which they have produced are established by the
most incontestable facts of history. They have stayed the uplifted
hand of the destroyer; they have softened the asperities of the
tyrant; they have mitigated the horrors of captivity; they have
subdued the rancor of malevolence; and broken down the barriers of
political animosity and sectarian alienation._
_On the field of battle, in the solitude of the uncultivated
forests, or in the busy haunts of the crowded city, they have made
men of the most hostile feelings, and most distant religions, and
the most diversified conditions, rush to the aid of each other,
and feel a social joy and satisfaction that they have been able to
afford relief to a brother Mason._
--BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
#/