THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
July 1917
volume 3 - number 7
THE FAITH THAT IS IN THEM---A FRATERNAL FORUM
Edited by BRO. GEO. E. FRAZER, President, The Board of
Stewards
CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
Henry R. Evans, District of Columbia.
Harold A. Kingsbury, Connecticut.
Dr. Wm. F. Kuhn, Missouri.
Geo. W. Baird, District of Columbia
H.D. Funk, Minnesota
Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts
Dr. John Lewin McLeish, Ohio.
Joseph W. Norwood, Kentucky.
Francis W. Shepardson, Illinois.
Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia
M.M. Johnson, Massachusetts
John Pickard, Missouri
Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin.
Oliver D. Street, Alabama.
S. W. Williams, Tennessee.
Joe L. Carson, Virginia
T.W. Hugo, Minnesota
Contributions to this Monthly Department of Personal
Opinion are invited from each writer who has contributed one or more articles to
THE BUILDER. Subjects for discussion are selected as being alive in the
administration of Masonry today. Discussions of politics, religious creeds or
personal prejudices are avoided, the purpose of the Department being to afford a
vehicle for comparing the personal opinions of leading Masonic students. The
contributing editors assume responsibility only for what each writes over his
own signature. Comment from our Members on the subjects discussed here will be
welcomed in the Correspondence column.
QUESTION NO. 3--
Shall the dues in Masonic bodies be increased to cover the
financial support of Masonic homes in the respective Grand Jurisdictions? If so,
shall such Masonic homes be established for aged and infirm Masons only, or for
Masonic widows and orphans? If not, shall members of each lodge be encouraged to
contribute as individuals to a charity fund at the disposal of a charity
committee regularly appointed by the W. M.?
The Future Has Heavy Burdens for Us.
Unless, as in Ohio, ample provision is made by the Grand
Lodge, through its annual per capita assessment on lodges, to provide for the
support of a Masonic Home, it impresses me as a bounden duty that each lodge in
a jurisdiction constitute itself a unit to contribute annually according to its
means to the proper financing of an institution, which should be one of the
foremost of its Charities. Charity is a foremost principle of our Order, and
first of all such, should come our own Masonic Charities. Masonry must take care
of its own, and the calls upon Masonry in the near future, because of the
parlous times in which we now live are bound to be considerable. Any necessary
increase of lodge dues such as you suggest, should be met where necessary,
cheerily, even though at the cost of considerable lodge embarrassment. As
between the proper financing of a Masonic Home, and the luring of passive Masons
to lodge by the stomachic route, there should not be a moment's hesitancy in
making one's choice. Where necessary, eliminate the superfluous banquet, the
entertainment, the picnic or other "side degree" and let each craftsman put his
shoulder to the wheel to help assure the financial well-being of the Masonic
Home.
If you refer to our obligation, it will convince you that
the inchoators of the Masonic Institution held in equal esteem the Masonic
widows and orphans, these being ever coupled with the Master Masons in the
setting forth of the duties of the craftsmen. So in practical Masonry today, in
building for the future, we should build equally for the Masonic wife, widow,
mother, sister, son and daughter, as for the needy and infirm brother. The
greater the hardship the better for the craft. Masons must face all conditions,
and it is their privilege to serve. We cannot afford as Masons to show less
regard for the well-being, spiritually and materially of our widows, and our
orphans, than does another great religious world force evince for its own in
this category. Ours the task to sustain the grand reputation handed down to us
by our Masonic ancestors, and make Masonic Charity mean something wherever the
Square and Compasses have blazed a trail. It is admirable in any lodge to
encourage brothers to contribute as individuals to a Charity Fund at the
disposal of a Charity Committee appointed by the W. M. Far better to my mind,
however, the plan adopted by my own lodge, Excelsior No. 369 (Ohio), some
fifty-one years ago, of providing for an enforced levy per capita each year from
the General Fund to be added to the Charity Fund, this latter to be under
control of the Trustees and dispensed at their discretion for our own lodge
charities only. Starting with nothing in 1866, Excelsior soon amassed over
fifteen thousand dollars for this particular fund alone, and it is still
growing. That our forbears builded well, the brethren are beginning to realize,
with present and presumptive calls made upon this fund. John Lewin McLeish,
Ohio.
* * * A Home Must Have Assured Revenue.
It seems to me that the logical order of questions is this:
(1) Does the Jurisdiction need homes for the care of any kind of Masonic
dependents?
(2) If yes, which need is the most acute--for aged Masons
(with or without their wives), or for widows and orphans ? (3) How shall such a
home be financed?
Questions 1 and 2 are ones of fact purely and can be
decided best, in my judgment, by a careful study of the applications for charity
made to the Grand Lodge and the individual Lodges over a series of years. An
attempt to get the opinion of Lodges on these questions would probably have
misleading results.
No home should be undertaken without assured revenue. This
would ordinarily come from per capita tax under the established methods of Grand
Lodge finance. It would seem to be difficult to assure revenue on any other
basis.
This would probably only care for the support or possibly
for supporting a sinking fund. Necessary capital to start the institution would
probably have to be raised by subscription or might come from bequests.
This is not the Massachusetts method, but the financial
methods of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts throughout are different from those
commonly used in other Grand Lodges and therefore could not well be as suggested
as models. Frederick W. Hamilton, Massachusetts.
* * * Keep the Dues Democratic. The increasing of dues in
Masonic bodies is a matter that should be studiously avoided wherever and in
every way possible. It is so easy to add just a little, with the idea that the
amount is so small that it will not amount to anything; not with the idea of
making it hard for anyone--and yet, these small additions gradually amount to a
sum that may be almost prohibitive especially to the poor Lodges, and it is
among those very Lodges that we often find the finest Masonic realization of
true fellowship and brotherhood. To gradually raise dues to the breaking point
for any purpose is neither Masonic nor advisable--and it is a question whether
the maintenance of large charitable institutions can be accomplished without the
expenditure of sums of money for establishment (original cost) repairs, etc.,
that eventually become so large that, if invested, would produce an income
sufficient to enable annuities to be granted, allowing the recipients to
continue to live with relatives and friends.
If, however, such Homes ARE established, they should by all
means include the Aged and Infirm brethren and their dependent Widows, as well
as the Orphans.
If the Annuity system be used, it should be made available
through a Committee working under authority of the Grand Lodge, and the money
raised in the usual way by a per capita tax on the membership of the Lodges in
the jurisdiction.
I do not wish to be understood as condemning the many
magnificent Homes that have been established throughout the country, neither do
I lose sight of the benefits derived from the earnest work of Christian men and
women within these institutions and the great good derived from proper intensive
training of youth along religious and business lines--these are, unquestionably,
excellent and most desirable--but whether the aged and infirm of both sexes
could not be as well, if not better cared for at less actual cost in
institutions that are already established and in working order by means of the
granting of suitable annuities that could be graded according to necessity, is a
grave question.
From a sentimental standpoint, there is no choice. There is
nothing that will conduce to the happiness and well-being of a Mason in his
years of health and strength, as to know that when he is enfeebled and unable to
provide for himself and those he loves, that they will be cared for within the
family bosom of the Brotherhood that he loves so well--next to his OWN HOME,
there is no place on earth where he will feel they are so safe from harm as in a
well-appointed Home that is run under the careful supervision of the Grand
Lodge--a place where the aged and infirm brother, together with his Widow and
Orphan can and WILL be made as comfortable as possible by loving hands and
hearts. S. W. Williams, Tennessee.
The President of a Home Speaks.
The expense of such Homes should come from the treasury of
the Grand Body of the Jurisdiction which has authorized their establishment, and
the per capita tax on each member be increased sufficiently to permit of that
appropriation.
Such Homes should be for all Masonic dependents, but if
possible the accommodations for the children should be separate from those of
the older persons.
Members individually should not be depended on to support
the Home, but there is no reason why individuals should not be urged to
contribute to some funds for special objects needed at the Home.
A very important feature of the finances of a Home is to
charge each Lodge sending a person to the Home a certain small weekly sum; this
tends to make them a little less unnecessarily generous; 25 cents for a child,
50 cents for a woman, 75 cents for a man; the tendency is when it does not cost
anything more to dump everything onto the Home, but a little sum like the above
is a great economizer. I have been 13 years President of a Home and have learned
a few things in connection with Masonic charity when it don't cost the dispenser
anything, with Masonic sentiment in connection with the operation of a Home, and
the necessity of strict business principles from the start. T. W. Hugo,
Minnesota.
* * * Let the Dues Be Ample. Dues should be ample for Lodge
purposes without depending on fees for existence, for the obvious reason that
Lodges should not have the incentive of a need for new members. Grand Lodges
should levy tax sufficient to care for dependency of orphans and old Masons,
preferable, I think, in private families. Masonic Homes, if decided on, should
be separate institutions for the aged and children.
Each Lodge should care for its own, their means to be
supplemented, when necessary, from funds of Grand Lodge in hands of a good Grand
Charity Committee. Voluntary charity should be encouraged rather than relief by
taxation, because that is the only real Masonic charity. Homes are, many of
them, costly failures, and all expensive and difficult to manage. Bricks and
salaries are only extravagant advertising at best. "Let not thy left hand know,
etc." Jos. W. Eggleston, Virginia.
* * * Support the Homes. The lodges should support the
Masonic Homes in their jurisdictions and when necessary the dues should be
increased for such purpose. Masonic homes should be established for aged and
infirm Masons; also for Masonic widows and orphans when occasion demands it H.R.
Evans, Washington. D. C.
* * * Missouri Cares for Her Own. The great landmarks of
Freemasonry are faith in God, hope of immortal life, and love of fellowmen.
Belief in the first two can best be exemplified by practicing the third. Each
Grand Jurisdiction should, it seems to me, make adequate provision, under
exclusively Masonic control, for the care of its aged and infirm, its sick and
suffering, its widows and orphans. Its hospitals should be models. Its Home
should be all that this name implies. Its orphans should be reared and educated
with the most scrupulous care. Not until they are fully prepared should they be
sent out into the world, and the watchful eye of the Masonic guardian should
even then see to it that they have a fair chance in the battle of life.
The Grand Jurisdiction of Missouri is demonstrating today
that all this can be done and well done without an excessive tax upon the
brethren. And in Missouri also the Great Order of the Eastern Star has done a
magnificent work in aiding to make the Masonic Home of Missouri an institution
of which every Mason and every Star in the state is justly proud. John Pickard,
Missouri.
* * * Favors Use of Both Plans, Jointly.
It is my opinion that neither a Home nor a Charity Fund
alone is the ideal plan of caring for our dependent brethren, their widows and
orphans. To be complete there should be both. Some cases can not be cared for in
their own homes or among their friends and relatives. Some have no homes, some
have no relatives, some have no friends, who can and will undertake the burden
even for ample pay. Others have homes, friends, or relatives, where to the
increased happiness of all, they could and would be lovingly cared for with the
aid of a monthly or quarterly stipend from a Grand Charity Fund. In addition to
an annual tax on all the Masons in the jurisdiction to support these forms of
relief, there should also be Permanent Endowment Funds created and maintained by
voluntary contributions and by a small percentage of the annual per capita tax
set aside each year for this purpose.
Relief by the several lodges for their own dependents would
be too irregular and uncertain; it should in all cases be furnished at least in
the greater part by the Grand Bodies acting in unison under uniform regulations
which would bear equally upon all and insure equal benefits to all according to
their necessities.
Some may say I have set an impossible standard. It is not.
That it is high I do not deny, but no great accomplishment was ever achieved
without a high standard. Good standing of a worthy brother in a Masonic lodge
should be a guaranty that neither he nor his wife and children should ever want
for the necessities at least of life. Oliver D. Street, Alabama.
* * *
Thinks Homes Very Desirable.
The increasing of the dues in the lodges to an extent that
provides an adequate per capita for the Grand Lodge "charity fund" is the most
satisfactory and equitable way of providing for the ones we wish to assist and
is particularly desirable in those Jurisdictions which maintain Masonic Homes.
In every Jurisdiction of which I have any knowledge this per capita tax is
supplemented by voluntary contributions of those who are more able to give than
the average brother and these voluntary contributions are sometimes very large.
The act of giving, which is, in the per capita tax plan, an act of the
Fraternity as such, often creates a desire to do something as an individual.
It has been demonstrated by the different Jurisdictions
which maintain Homes that they are the best method of doing our duty to our
brethren who need care in old age or infirmity, and the widows and orphans. I
believe that Homes should be provided for all of those who are in need of our
assistance and who can be better taken care of in the home than elsewhere.
However, I believe it is advisable to maintain the orphans in a separate home
where practical, and at least in a separate building.
A duty correctly comprehended is a pleasure, and it is the
opinion of your scribe that the added interest in others' welfare produced by
being a contributor to a Masonic Home will have an uplifting influence among
many brethren who would not otherwise have had it called to their attention.
Silas H. Shepherd, Wisconsin. * * *
Is Half Charity Real Charity?
Your chairman, brethren, has the advantage of reading what
you have said, before he speaks out for himself. What you have said so well
above should stir up some real thinking. Here is a subject that reaches every
lodge and every Mason alike. And we have now the ever increasing demands of war
charities.
Shall we establish a scientific system of Masonic charity?
If we support homes at all, does not each initiate come into our order with the
implied understanding that we have a definite plan for his relief in the time of
his need? Facts are stubborn things, at times. In many jurisdictions we commit
infirm Masons to Homes which have no endowment and which depend upon periodic
contributions for their meagre support. I question whether this half charity is
real charity in any sense of the word. Oh, I do not mean to disparage the
splendid courage and sincere devotion of the faithful who manage these
institutions. But I do question the moral right of our great, universal order to
establish and maintain any haphazard, sporadic and unendowed system of charity.
Better by far that we send our brethren elsewhere, say to the United Charities,
than that we should partly do that which many of our members think that Masonry
should not do at all.
What I have written reads cold blooded. Every charitable
institution challenges our sentiments. But must we not some time take the
viewpoint of how we would feel, if sent by our brethren into the care of an
institution that has no secure and assured support? Perhaps the time has come
when we should say to the world that Masonry is not a charitable institution;
that the order assumes none of the financial obligations of its members. It is
not a difficult matter to state this question; it will take the best thought of
all our leaders to rightly answer it. George E. Frazer, IIlinois.
----o----
THE LODGE
BY BRO. A. W. TICHNOR, MICHIGAN
I SHOULD like to derive the word Lodge from the Anglo-Saxon
"lecgan," to "lay" or "lie." I like this derivation better than that from the
Greek "logos," as none of the other derivatives of this word have the soft "g";
and I like it much more than that which derives it from the German "Laub," and
makes it cognate with "lobby." Perhaps, however, some brother, more fortunate
than myself, has access to Skeat's New Etymological Dictionary of the English
Language, now being published in England, and probably the last word in
etymological definition.
If Lodge is derived from "lecgan," however, we may
formulate three definitions all containing the root meaning, and particularly
applicable to Free Masonry.
The first definition, then, that we can give to the word
Lodge is that it is a place where Free Masons "lie," or rest, during their
travels in foreign parts, and is undoubtedly taken from the name given the huts
that lay around the feet of the great Cathedrals on which the Craft lavished
their art and skill. It was in these that the Craftsmen lay at night and spent
the eight hours allotted to refreshment and sleep.
Symbolically, let us remember that. as Masons, we are, on
this earth, traveling in foreign parts working at the erection of the Temple in
which, when it is completed and the ledger--or cope-- stone is laid, the Stone
rejected by the builders, we expect to possess the Word and to receive our due
wages. The place of our labors, however, is the Lodge; and this is symbolically
represented as the world wherein we rest until we receive the summons to travel
on to another country.
Now let us examine the symbolism that compares the Lodge to
King Solomon's Temple. This edifice, and particularly the Sanctum Sanctorum or
Holy of Holies, was that in which the Word of God lay, and which, to the devout
Jew, was the Lodge of God among men. But the Temple was but a symbol of that
House not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens, and it is on this House, or
Lodge, that we as Masons are laboring, preparing, by means of our working tools,
the living stones. Let us notice, by the way, how the rough ashlar is taken by
the cable-tow and, after the application of the point of a sharp instrument,
made a perfect ashlar and set in the corner of foundation. Then again, more
firmly held by the cable-tow and, having been tried by the square, it is passed
to a more excellent position and caused to stand before the eye of the Supreme
Architect. Finally, still more securely bound by the cable-tow, according to the
plans delineated by the Compasses, it is raised, after many trials, from earth
to heaven, where finally it will contain the Word. Symbolism therefore teaches
us that the Lodge is where our Mysteries lie.
In the lodge of the master of the work our ancient
operative brethren gathered to transact such business as might properly come
before them, and to make, pass and raise Masons. So an assemblage of Masons came
to be called a Lodge. But here let us remember that with such a Lodge lay the
power of conferring the degrees and of regulating the Craft, and so, authority
having been deposited with a proper number, they might be considered, in an
especial sense, the Lodge.
There is a striking similarity between Free Masonry and the
Catholic Church. Corresponding to the Worshipful Master is the Bishop and to the
brethren about the Lodge the Bishop's council of presbyters. To these was
committed the deposit of the faith-- which is the Word of God--and the
ministration of the Mysteries, by which men are introduced, passed and
raised--by means of the Sacraments-- into a position of unity with God. So with
the Master, Wardens and Brethren is lodged the "Landmarks"--of some of which we
should not speak too openly--and the power of ministering the Mysteries after
the true Masonic manner, with the result of making a man ultimately the
depository of the Masonic Word, which in itself is symbolic of unity with the
Grand Architect of the Universe. Thus a body of men may be known as a Lodge,
because of what "lies" with them.
There is another sense in which Masons use the word Lodge,
and that is in connection with a piece of furniture seen only, as a rule, at the
consecration of new lodges. It is used there as a symbol of the Lodge, and it
may also be taken to be a symbol of the Ark of the Covenant--which was made, by
the way, of the wood of the acacia-- which was the place of deposit of the
Testimony of God (Ex. xxv., 16). I think that the Ark of the Lodge should be
that which conceals what is revealed at the illumination of a Mason, the Word of
God, and the Urim and Thummim of Direction and Truth, the Great Lights of
Masonry. (cf. Hasting's "Dictionary of the Bible," and Pike's "Morals and Dogma"
sub voce.)
It must be remembered that the Ark of the Covenant was the
primary symbol of the Presence of God in the revelation of Religion under the
older order. It lay first in the Tabernacle and afterwards in the Temple, and
was that for which the Temple was built to contain. At the destruction of the
Temple it disappeared--"Arca Testamenti nostri direpta est, 4 Esdras x. 22, ad
Vulgatam--and it, and the cavern in which it was hidden were objects of search
to the pious Jew. (cf. Jerem. iii. 16, and 2 Macc. ii. 4, et seq.) Some scholars
state that the Ark was destroyed; but certain traditions indicate otherwise.
We may further notice that, according to the Old Testament,
it was not God's purpose to take Himself away absolutely from His people, but
only to retire from them for a while as a punishment for their sins. It became
necessary for Him to remove from them the abiding presence of His Word, because
the people had profaned it by their misconduct, because they looked on the
Mystery of godliness with less than that reverential awe due it, and had made it
common among them. Therefore the Ark was taken from them, the Word was lost, but
not forever. And so the Lodge of Consecration could well remain as the symbol of
the resting place of the Word, and the abiding principle of Free Masonry.
Now all of this may be taken as a study in etymology, and
some of the symbolism contained therein. And it is concerned here more with the
objective philosophy of Free Masonry than the subjective, which seems to be the
trend of Masonic study of today. But still we have seen that the Lodge, in all
senses of the word, represents the Deposit of the Word of God, where it "lies,"
or is "lodged," for the benefit of the Craft, to be given each one at the
completion of the Temple, if found worthy. Some of us, it is true, believe that
the Word is to be found in Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, whom we call
Emmanuel, God with us, the Tabernacle of God with men, the Temple destroyed and
rebuilt in three days. So we strive to defend the Christian religion and spread
the genuine cement of brotherly love and friendship, that we all may be "builded
together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Ephes. ii. 22.)
----o----
LABOURS
Nothing is worth doing
That does not eventually send a man
On a higher and wider quest.
All labours that narrow,
All toils that deaden,
All pursuits that enslave,
Are enemies to be fought
With the sword of enterprise
And the arrow of adventure.
Therefore, at any moment
Of this eventful or uneventful life,
It behooves a man to ask himself
What he is doing,
And whither his work is leading him.
If it is leading him to prison,
To lethargy, or to mutilation,
To dishonour, or to death,
Let him arise and take ship
To the furthest port he can reach,
Or let him wander among the mountains
Making new observations,
And finding nobler labours.
--Elizabeth Gibson Cheyne.
----o----
THE PILLARS OF THE PORCH
BY BRO. JOHN W. BARRY. P.S.G.W., IOWA
PART II.
Nor was Solomon without examples in the Holy Land, for
according to I. Samuel, III., 3-15, the Ark was housed in a temple at Shilo. The
Canaanites had large temples in the time of the Judges. The Temple of El-Berith,
at Shechem, was a place of refuge for a thousand men. (See Judges IX., 46.)
There was a large temple of Dagon at Gaza, supported on pillars, for which see
Judges XVI., 23:29, and one at Asdod (I. Sam. V., 5:6, and I. Chron. X., 10.) In
the land of Hiram were many temples, as related by Josephus. A single
illustration will suffice. On page 257 of Antiquities of the Jews is the
following: "Meander, also, who translated the Tyrian archives out of the dialect
of the Phoenicians into the Greek language, makes mention of these two kings,
where he says thus: 'When Abibalus was dead, his son Hiram received the kingdom
from him. He raised a bank in the large palace, and dedicated the golden pillar
which is in Jupiter's Temple. He also went and cut down materials of timber out
of the mountain called Libanus for the roof of temples, and when he had pulled
down the ancient temples he both built the temples of Hercules and that of
Astarte.'" And why, it may be asked, are there few or no remains of those
temples as compared with temples built long before on the Nile ? Largely because
they were of wood construction. The columns were wood, covered with metal or
wound with hemp, and coated with stucco. Layard's men, at Nineva, during his
digging there, found sufficient of such encased wood columns to make their camp
fires. And such, with few exceptions, was the construction in the Holy Land
before Solomon. But as to foundations of heavy masonry there are early Hebrew
remains at Baalbec, Palmyra, and other places. Solomon's Temple was, therefore,
new and exceptional in its construction only in the extreme richness of its
decorations and in making Jachin and Boaz wholly of brass, and its perpetuation
in the memory of men is due principally to the fact that it was the first great
temple erected to the Living God. As such it has and will endure in the minds of
men.
For four hundred and nineteen years it stood a marked
building. Because of its fine workmanship, because of its lavish wealth of
decoration, and because it was the Temple of the God of Abraham, it became well
known not alone to priests, princes and kings, but to builders throughout the
world as well. Naturally such a building would be imitated and duplicated by
other kings thirsting for glory. Josephus says it was duplicated on Mt. Gerizim
and also in Egypt by Onian. Wilkins in his learned treatise, "The Temple of
Jerusalem the Type of Grecian Architecture," shows that Grecian temples, built
while Solomon's Temple was still standing, are duplicates of that famous
structure. This view is held by a number of careful investigators, who after
long years of study of the Temple of Solomon, have come to be regarded as almost
final authorities. Among this number is Edward Charles Hakewill, an architect,
who has published a work called "The Temple." In this he submits scale drawings
of Solomon's Temple, and says that the plans and elevations apply accurately to
existing temples that were built while Solomon's Temple yet stood. It occurred
to me that a photograph of the ruins of those old temples, together with
Hakewill's scale drawings, would give the best possible idea of the actual
appearance of Solomon's Temple.
The general outline of adjoining buildings, together with
its courts, may be seen in cut No. 13, from Pain's Temple of Solomon.
Cut No. 14 is the ground plan of Solomon's Temple, and is
duplicated in the temple at Paestum and in the Theseum. The dark circles
represent Jachin and Boaz standing in the porch. In the next cut will be seen a
front view and then a sectional view on the line A-B, showing Jachin and Boaz in
elevation. Cut No. 15 is the front view, and in the massive, well-proportioned
structure we can see why it stood four hundred and nineteen years. In cut No. 16
is seen the sectional view, showing the pillars in the porch, drawn to scale,
eighteen cubits high.
In cut No. 17 is seen a general view of the ruins at
Paestum, a long since abandoned Grecian city. The building at the left is the
Temple of Neptune, and the other the Temple of Ceres, dating from the early part
of the sixth century B.C., and, therefore, contemporaneous with Solomon's
Temple. Jachin and Boaz stand within the porch, and are architecturally known as
"columns in antis." Returning now to cut No. 14, note how accurately the Temple
of Neptune corresponds. Returning to Paestum, cut No. 18 is a rear view, looking
from within. The pillars, including the chapiters, are twenty-nine feet high, or
less than half the height assigned to Jachin and Boaz, when we say they were
forty cubits, or sixty feet high.
The Theseum, the other temple to which the scale drawings
apply, is at Athens, and is seen in cut No. 19. It was contemporaneous with the
Temple of Solomon, and, like the temple at Paestum, is remarkably well
preserved. In size it is 45x104, with pillars nineteen feet high. Cut No. 20 is
a near view of the front. The pillars corresponding to Jachin and Boaz are seen
within the porch at the middle.
Neither do the other temples at Athens furnish the remotest
suggestion of such an anomaly as a building with its porch higher than the main
structure. The world renowned Parthenon is shown in cut No. 21, as it now
appears. The portion here shown dates 450 B. C., but it stands on a foundation
containing sections of columns from a temple erected in the prehistoric past.
This part of the foundation is seen in cut No. 22.
The Erectheum, at Athens, is an Ionic structure dating from
the fifth century B. C. In cut No. 23 is a view of the north porch, famed for
its excellence. Its pillars are twenty feet. In cut No. 23a is a view of the
Erectheum from the south, showing the east and west porches. In cut 23b is seen
the porch of the Caryatids at the west entrance to the Erectheum, the most
famous porch of which there are any remains. Though contemporaneous with the
Temple of Solomon, and odd to the verge of a dream, it yet adheres to the
principles of reasonable construction, and its renowned female columns are not
reaching over the top of the temple.
In cut No. 24 is shown a porch from the Temple of Castor
and Pollux, at Girgenti. The four pillars shown are all that remain standing of
the temple. This temple was 51x111, with pillars twenty-one feet high, and dates
from the fifth century B.C.
Think of it, here are the ruins of grand temples
contemporaneous with that of Solomon, and how high are their pillars? At Paestum
twenty nine feet, including the chapiters; of the Theseum, nineteen feet; of
Castor and Pollux, twenty-one feet; of the Erectheum, twenty feet, while the
Parthenon, over one hundred feet wide, has pillars but thirty-three feet high.
Compare with our second degree work, wherein Jachin and Boaz are said to have
been forty cubits, or sixty feet high, in a building only forty-five feet wide,
a height out of proportion, and, indeed, inconsistent with the architecture of
Solomon's time, or for that matter the architecture of any other time.
ROMAN BUILDINGS ON HEBREW FOUNDATIONS
As was said previously, there are no remains in the Holy
Land dating back far enough to be of service for the purpose in hand. Yet
Baalbec and Palmyra are noted for the ruins of temples dating from later Roman
times. As nearly all of them stand on Tyrian or Hebrew foundations, they may be
of interest in showing that though built upon and in the midst of the ruins of
buildings dating from Hiram and Solomon, no one of them even suggests a porch
higher than the temple. In cuts No. 25, 26, and 27 is shown views of the ruins
of the Temple of Baalbec, which was a magnificent structure 370x440 feet.
The Temple of the Sun was 130x200 feet, with pillars
forty-five feet high (shown in cut No. 28)
Palmyra or Tadmour was built by Solomon. In cuts No. 29 and
30 are views of its ruins, but there is no suggestion even here of a building
with its porch higher than the main structure.
Tyre, next after Jerusalem, is the most interesting spot to
Masons, but nothing in point could be secured. However, the tomb of Hiram will
interest Masons. Six miles outside the present town is the tomb, shown in cut
No. 31, and so far as can be learned it is the real thing, the actual resting
place of Hiram, King of Tyre. To the right will he noticed a square and compass
cut in the rock, but by whom and when are questions that cannot be answered. In
the same way the southeast corner of the original wall of Solomon is of
interest(shown in cut No. 32). At this point the wall stands 60 feet above the
ground. In 1862 Captain Warren dug down to the beginning of this wall, which he
found eighty feet below the surface, and showed that the portion below grade was
part of the original wall made in preparing the temple site. On the under side
of the stones were numerous red marks or signs, which he could not explain.
The principal buildings now on the temple areas are the
Mosque of Omar, known as the Dome of Rock, which Ferguson says dates from the
first century of our era, and the Mosque el Aksa, built about five hundred years
later. Though interesting, they are only of negative value to the purpose in
hand, for though built on the very site of Solomon's Temple and amid its ruins,
they give no hint of such a building as is now described when the second degree
is conferred. In cut No. 33 is shown one of the four porches of The Dome of
Rock. This building is an octagon, measuring one hundred and fifty feet in
diameter and sixty-six feet on a side. The dome is sixty-five feet in diameter
and ninety-seven feet high.
Here, then, is a building two thousand years old, standing
on the very site of Solomon's Temple, and indeed it is believed to contain
material once a part of Solomon's Temple -- yet take note that the pillars are
proportioned to the main building and support the facade.
(To be continued)
----o----
Mad wars destroy in one year the works of many years of
peace.--
----o----
MASONIC HISTORY---SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH
BY BRO. JOHN T. THORP, ENGLAND
MASONIC students--the majority of them-- are agreed that
this Craft of Masonry to which we belong was originally, and for many centuries,
almost exclusively operative, and that it is to our forefathers in the craft
that we are indebted for those magnificent structures, temples, cathedrals,
palaces, and abbeys, which are spread more or less all over Europe, and which
are at once our wonder, our admiration, and our pride. Now, just when and just
where this brotherhood of Masons originated we do not know. Indeed, we may never
know; it is so old, it goes so far back into the mists of antiquity, that its
beginnings are lost. But this we know, that, like many other things, it began
somewhere in the East, and advanced, travelling by slow steps in the trail of
the sun, towards the West. Some are of the opinion that it originated in India,
one of the oldest civilizations that is known, the land of golden sunshine, of
marvelous temples. It may be so. Others, again, think they can trace its origin
to the land of Egypt--a land which is still full of wonder and full of mystery.
But whenever and wherever this brotherhood originated, students today have come
to the conclusion that its establishment was due primarily to two causes. First,
that it was due to the dangerous character of the employment. Of all the
occupations to which men in the early days applied themselves, the Mason's was,
and is still, one of the most dangerous. He had to work with sharp-edged tools,
he had to deal with huge masses of material, he had to convey these materials
from the places where they were prepared to where the building was being
erected, and he had to raise these materials to considerable heights from the
ground--all of this probably with very imperfect and unsuitable tools. It is
fair to assume that no large building was erected in olden times without
considerable loss of life and injury to limb. Now we believe that this dangerous
character of their common employment drew together the various members of the
building craft into a brotherhood, bound and banded together for mutual
assistance, protection, and support. If you come to think about it you must see
that it is very probable to have been the case. What brings people together? A
common danger, a common experience, does it not ? I once knew two men who were
as unlike as two men could possibly be; no one could understand what made them
fast and firm friends. What was it'! They had each lost their father when they
were young, and a common sorrow brought them together, and bound them together
in an almost life-long friendship. And so we can understand that the dangerous
character of a common employment would bind the Masons together into a
brotherhood. A second cause seems also to have operated in a similar direction.
It is this: While most of the early craftsmen were occupied, as I have said,
with simple work, work that required little skill, making what was for temporary
use, as, for instance, the manufacture of clothing, or the materials for
clothing, furniture and utensils for the household, implements for agriculture,
weapons for the chase, or for war, all more or less for temporary use,
excellence of work, however desirable, was not absolutely necessary. But the
masons did not build for today nor for tomorrow; they built for the ages to
come. And how well they built we know, for many remains are still there to prove
it. And so, in order to ensure that none but suitable men should get admission
into their brotherhood, the Masons probably bound themselves together, in order
that they might prevent anyone joining their brotherhood, except those whom they
were perfectly certain would be a strength to their community and an ornament to
their craft. This is a subject I recommend to your study. We have not by any
means yet got to the bottom of all this. I am giving you the results of our
latest investigations, but we have still much to learn. There are still many
things to discover, and I recommend this subject to you as a study and for your
research. What was at the back and the beginning of this establishment of
Freemasonry is a study well worth all the time you can spare to devote to it.
Starting, then, somewhere in the East--we do not know
where--our brethren travelled slowly westward, through Phoenicia and Palestine,
where they built the temple of Jerusalem, much of which is mythical, though in
connection therewith we have the first historical account of the division of
Masons into classes-- on through Asia Minor, entering Europe by way of
Byzantium, the present Constantinople, through Greece to Rome, where, already,
several centuries before the Christian era, we find the Masons strongly
established, firmly bound together, and working diligently in the erection of
"stately and superb edifices," under the name of Collegia. One would fain use an
English word, but I do not know that there is one that exactly translates it.
Collegia were corporations of persons associated together in pursuit of a common
object--rather a long phrase, but that is what it means. Well, no doubt, many of
the members of these Collegia were neither more nor less than trade unionists.
The Collegia, however, were not all of them composed of workmen, but they were
established and continued for many and very varied purposes and objects. For
instance, not only were there collegia of masons, but there were collegia of
architects, collegia of artists, collegia of painters, collegia of musicians,
collegia of civil servants, collegia of those who were learned in the law,
collegia of those who practiced medicine and surgery, collegia also of those who
occupied themselves in the sacred ministry of religion; but still no doubt a
great many were purely trade organizations. Now these collegia are an
exceedingly interesting study. Bro. Ravenscroft has written a book dealing with
this subject, in which he gives an interesting insight into it. But he has not
completed it yet. There is still much more to discover, and again I recommend
this subject to your study. These collegia were an exceedingly interesting body
of men, and in many respects they resembled the Freemasons' Lodges of today, as,
for example, their brotherhood being divided into three classes, as with us.
Their first class they called learners; we call them apprentices. I need
scarcely remind you that the word apprentice means a ]earner. Their second class
they called colleagues or companions; we call them fellows of the craft. Fellows
are companions, are they not? A school-fellow is your school companion. See how
similar, even in terms, these classes were. The third class they called magistri
or masters. The duty of the masters was not only to prepare plans and designs,
and to superintend the erection of the building in hand, but also to teach the
learners. You will remember that when you were invested with the badge of a
master mason, you were told, among other things, it would be your duty to afford
instruction and assistance to the brethren in the inferior degrees. So the
brethren of today in this twentieth century can clasp hands with the brethren of
the old collegia of Rome, over two thousand years of time.
In the early years of the Christian era, Rome, the seat of
the principal of these collegia, was mistress of the world. Her frontiers, as
you know, from history, extended far and wide, and in all the outlying portions
of the huge Roman Empire colonies had been established, guarded, and protected
by legions of Roman soldiers. In these colonies, at any rate in the Roman
colonies in England, there have been discovered traces of collegia of masons as
early as the reign of the Emperor Claudius, Anno Domini 50. So, in the first
century of this era, there were in England organized bodies of masons banded
together for the erection especially of "stately and superb edifices," some of
which ornament and adorn this land at the present day.
But after two or three centuries of almost worldwide
domination, the great Roman Empire was invaded by the Goths and Huns,
semi-civilized warriors from the north, and to resist the invasion and to
protect the Imperial city, the Roman legions were summoned hastily back to Rome.
They went, and along with them there went many members of the collegia, for the
Roman soldier was not only a soldier, he was also a workman. And how well he
worked, and what excellent roads he made, we all know. Resistance was all in
vain. Rome was taken and sacked, the collegia of masons were dispersed, and a
small remnant of the members, according to the accounts that are left to us,
fled northwards. There, on the little island of Comacina, in Lake Como, they
secluded themselves, and through two centuries they remained there, sharing with
one another the secrets and mysteries of their craft, emerging now and again
from their hiding places to do a little work in their immediate neighborhood,
anxiously waiting and watching for the time to come when they could set
themselves more publicly to work at their craft.
Two centuries passed--we call them the Dark Ages, for they
were dark--but at length the time came when the forces of misrule and disorder
had spent themselves, and the masons once more emerged from their hiding places
and set themselves diligently to work. Their first duty was to restore in a
measure the ravages of the Goths, and, having accomplished this, they set out
once more on their journey towards the golden West; through Lombardy,
Switzerland, Germany, and Gaul they travelled, and thence on to England, where,
by the time of Ethelstan, A. D. 926-940, we find them strongly established under
the name of Gilds.
Now of these gilds we know a great deal; but we do not know
everything. Mr. J. Toulmin Smith and others have written very learnedly about
the gilds. There was a great deal about the Gild of Corpus Christi that we do
not know yet, and if any of you have begun the study of early English gilds, you
will, I am sure, have found it a very fascinating one, and I recommend you to
proceed with it. These gilds seem to have been similar in some respects to the
collegia, and it is quite possible, they were established on the ruins of the
old Roman collegia.
I have just mentioned Ethelstan. Now Ethelstan was a
wonderful man. We do not know one-half we as masons owe to Ethelstan. He was the
grandson of Alfred the Great, and the first to call himself King of England. He
was a wise and pacific prince, and he gave the land just and wise laws. He
cultivated the arts of peace, and, as one of the records says of him, "He
brought the land to rest and peace, and builded great buildings of abbeys and
castles, for he loved masons well." We cannot wonder that gilds flourished
during Ethelstan's time, that they spread themselves all over the nation,
becoming exceedingly powerful, and doing exceedingly good work. They flourished
for several centuries, and were only finally suppressed in the reign of Edward
VI., about the middle of the sixteenth century. These gilds we are now coming a
little more to modern times--were exceedingly powerful. It is an astonishing
thing that all through the ages the masons have been an exceedingly powerful
body. The reasons for it you will probably ascertain if you read the early
records diligently. These gilds had special privileges. For instance, they were
allowed to frame their own rules and regulations, and to enforce obedience to
them. Indeed, in some towns the records tell us that the municipal authorities
themselves assisted the gild of masons to enforce obedience. How great a
privilege that was I need scarcely remind you; ordinary working men then had no
power, for it was the King, the barons, and the Church that usurped it all.
Ordinary common folk, like you and me, had no power, but the masons, banded
together, were sufficiently powerful to say to the authorities of a town, "These
are our rules and we want you to assist us to enforce obedience to them"; and
they did. Another privilege they possessed was the great power they had in
controlling any branches of business, trade or manufacture. Thus, no one could
follow the trade of a mason in any town unless he was a member of the local
masons' gild--so that practically they had the control of our craft of masonry
in any particular town. It is a common and trite saying, that for every
privilege you get, you get a responsibility; and I believe you do. A man is
wealthy, and he has the responsibility of his wealth. He does not always
recognize it, but I firmly believe that with every privilege there is given a
responsibility along with it.
Now these old gild masons of five hundred years ago had
responsibilities and restrictions over against their privileges. And what were
they? Inasmuch as municipal authorities granted them extensive jurisdiction,
they, on their part, promised to stand by the authorities. And members of
masons' gilds were not allowed to accept work outside the town in which the gild
was established. They were to remain there, and constantly to be in readiness in
case the authorities required their assistance for the repairs or extension of
the castle or the town walls. You will easily see how necessary it was, in those
troublous times of five hundred years ago, when every man was against his
neighbor, the King was against everybody, and the barons spent most of their
time in quarrelling-- you can understand how necessary it was in those times
that there should be a strong and competent body of masons to see that the
defense of the town was properly secured.
I now ask you to consider a very important date in the
history of this fraternity of ours. This date was 1376, for in the records of
the City of London of that year we first meet with the word "Freemason." It is
quite possible it may have been in much earlier use, but that is the earliest
date at which we find it. Inasmuch as the word "Freemason" is used in connection
with, and in contradistinction to the word "Mason," it is clear that there was
some difference between the two.
Who, and what were the Freemasons of the fourteenth
century? It is a fascinating study, and it has fascinated scores of us. We do
not yet know the truth of the matter. Many suggestions have been made from time
to time. Many have thought the word "free" had reference to the material in
which the mason worked. The "free" mason was said to be the man who worked the
"free" stone, the squared stone, whereas the ordinary mason was the rough-stone
worker. Others, again, were inclined to believe that a Freemason was a man who
was "free of his gild." Many students, however, are now accepting the theory
which was propounded some years ago by a very prominent Freemason, alas, no
longer with us, our late Bro. Speth. Briefly, it is this:--After the Norman
Conquest in 1066 a great many ecclesiastics flocked over from the Continent to
England, and a whole host of cathedrals, churches, abbeys, priories, and
monasteries were established all over the country. Now, in order to erect
buildings of that character, experienced masons were necessary. When these
buildings were being erected in towns, the gild would be able to supply
sufficient skilled labor. But it was the case often with abbeys, that they were
built far from any populous center, and the ecclesiastical authorities found it
exceedingly difficult to get the amount of skilled labor that was necessary to
erect these buildings. Now it is believed that they succeeded, by bribes or by
promises of higher wages, or better conditions of work, in detaching a great
many of the skilled gild masons from their allegiance to the gilds, and making
them free-- not free of the gild, they were free of the gild before, but free
from all the limitations, restrictions, and responsibilities which attachment to
the rules of the gild imposed upon them--free to travel here and there whenever
they liked, free from all those restrictions and bonds which had been usual with
them. Thus there were at the same time two distinct bodies of masons working in
England, the gild masons and the church-building Freemasons, and it is from this
latter body that we believe the Freemasons of today are descended.
Now, I will try if I can to show you some of the
distinctions between the two bodies of masons. In the Middle Ages, to which
period I am now coming, nearly all the architects were ecclesiastics; bishops,
abbots, and priors. I won't say exclusively, but a great many of them were
architects; thus from their association with these ecclesiastics, and from the
fact that they were occupied in the erection of ecclesiastical edifices and
church building, the Freemasons became an exceedingly religious body. They were
permeated with religious ideas and religious symbolism, and their work was done
in a great measure as a religious duty, and, I think, that fact accounts in a
great measure for the splendid beauty and excellence of the cathedrals in this
land. That work was done as a religious duty, and I believe these beautiful
piles of architecture are a consequence and a result of that fact. Now, we know
that many of these old bishops were architects. We know, for example, that
Bishop Hugh, of Lincoln, not only prepared plans and designs, but worked with
the workmen. He himself squared the stones, carried them with his own hands to
the ladder, and along the scaffolding, and placed them in their position in the
building. And we are told that all such master masons 'were teachers of
apprentices of architecture--this ecclesiastical architecture; they instructed
them, and, we believe that when they instructed the apprentices in the use of
the square, the level, the plumbrule, the compasses, the mallet, and the chisel,
as working tools, at the same time they instructed them in the symbolism of
those tools. Then I would remind you that the verbiage of our Masonic ceremonial
is comparatively modern. All our three degrees, certainly are not more than 200
to 220 years old, if as much, but our symbolism is exceedingly old. Some of it
goes back even prior to the time of Christ, so it is quite possible that the
apprentices of olden times, while they were instructed in the operative part of
their craft, were also taught by their ecclesiastical teachers the symbolic
meaning of the working tools which they were using with their hands. We believe,
many of us, that this accounts to some extent for the religious character of our
ceremonials of today. It has come along through the ages that are past, right
down to the present; and that our ceremonial will always remain a religious
ceremonial is our hope and prayer.
These church-building masons then were an exceeding
religious body. The gild masons were not so eminently religious. It is true they
had their Saint's days, and they went most religiously to church, but the
records tell us that those days frequently ended in scenes of drunkenness and
rioting. Again, the gild masons were strictly local bodies. Their operations
were restricted to the area within the town walls, and if a mason wished to
leave his employer and take service with another, all that he had to do was to
refer the new prospective employer to the gild books for his character and
qualifications. The church-building Freemasons, on the contrary, were by no
means a local body. They traveled hither and thither throughout the land, and
settled wherever they could find work suitable for them. They had, therefore, no
books and no employers, except at long distances, to whom they could refer their
new masters for their character and qualifications. So they took with them
something else; they took with them "a sign, token, and word." By that means
they could prove that they were what they professed to be, and that they
occupied certain positions in the craft which they professed to occupy. That was
the proof they took, and that was sufficient for their employers.
So our brethren traveled throughout the length and breadth
of the land, through several centuries, beautifying and adorning it with
"stately and superb edifices," which are at once our joy, and our pride, and
which constitutes a grand and glorious heritage to us, today, from times that
are past. Then you may ask me, what was this sign, token, and word? Ah, we
should like to know--very much like to know.
****
Now, whence came this "sign, token, and word"? We read a
good deal about a certain meeting or convention being held in the city of York,
in 926, and we are told that the rules and regulations of the masons were framed
at that meeting, and that the "sign, token, and word" were established there,
and carried from that meeting throughout the land. There is no proof of it, but
at the same time there must have been a meeting somewhere, where these rules and
regulations were adopted, and it is quite possible it was held in the City of
York, but we do not know. We still seek more light, and every few years a little
ray of light comes to us out of the darkness. Now, of the rules and regulations
framed during the period to which I have been referring, many copies are in
existence--about seventy-- and they are very interesting documents. Of the
seventy, not two are exactly alike; yet there is such a similarity between them,
that we are quite justified in believing that they originated from one far-off
long lost original. They commence with an invocation to the Trinity, which we
believe is the original of our opening prayer in the First Degree. There follows
the traditional history, introducing men such as Lamech, Noah, Hermes, Euclid,
Tubal Cain, David, King Solomon, coming down to Naymus Graecus, Charles Martel,
and ending with Ethelstan. Inasmuch as the traditional history ends with
Ethelstan, we are justified in believing that it was about that time that these
rules were arranged and coded.
With regard to these rules, I want to say a word or two.
Although we are of the opinion that the bishops not only taught the use of the
working tools, but also their symbolic meanings, still one would naturally
expect that the rules and regulations of an operatives' society would, at any
rate, give prominence to operative rules. Strange to say, they do not. A great
many of the rules--the majority of them--regulate conduct between employed and
employers, the conduct of the employer towards the workman, and the conduct of
the workmen towards one another. You would naturally expect that; but right in
front of these rules and regulations are three which are not operative, but
dealing with faith and conduct. Let me read from a manuscript of the fourteenth
century, one of the very earliest we have:--
(1) That whoso will con this craft and come to estate
(position) He must love well God and holy church algate.
(2) And to his liege Lord the King To be true to Him over
alle thing.
(3) And thy fellows thou love also For that the craft will
that thou do.
Is it not significant that right in the front of these
rules-- operative rules and regulations which bound them together as an
operative society of working men, there should be these three rules for faith
and conduct? It seems to me to be exceedingly significant. These same rules I
could trace for you in documents of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth
centuries, until we come to our books of Constitutions, and there we get the
same thing only in modern phraseology, right through the eighteenth, nineteenth,
and twentieth centuries. So long as these rules and regulations have existed,
never mind how they changed in course of years, there always stood, right in
front of them, these three--love of God, fidelity to the King, and assistance
and loyalty to one another.
The golden age of operative Freemasonry was the twelfth,
thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, for during that period the
whole of our grand and glorious English cathedrals were erected. Then came the
decline--due probably to three causes, first, the long-continued war--civil
war--Masonry is an art of peace--war destroys and Masonry erects, and Masonry
never did flourish in times of war. Freemasonry today, alas, is under a cloud,
and there are brethren whom we cannot meet. I think it is sad that it should be
so. God grant that the cloud may soon pass away, and that Masons the world over
may be brothers once again.
The first cause of this decline, as I have said, was the
long-continued wars, which impoverished the country. The second cause was the
dissolution of the monasteries. The monasteries had been great supporters of the
operative masons. The third cause was the advent of Puritanism. The people had
always desired that their temples for worship should be the most beautiful and
magnificent that man could devise, and skill could accomplish. But when
Puritanism came in, they were content with temples of worship which were small
in size, with little or no ornamentation, and easy to erect. In their dilemma
the masons turned from what had been the wealthiest portion of the community
--the Church--to the next wealthiest portion--the landowners, the nobility, and
the gentry of the land, and for one or two centuries they appear to have
occupied themselves in the erection of "the stately homes of England," many of
which still remain through the length and breadth of the land. This brought our
ancient brethren into association with a different class of people altogether
from that with which they had associated hitherto. Their previous associates had
been ecclesiastics, and they had imbibed very much from that association, but
now they became associated with men of a different class altogether--men of
education, men of leisure, men of wealth. You can understand this would have an
effect upon the society, and it had this effect, that many of these landowners
were attracted by Freemasonry. They were struck with its antiquity, and they
were struck with the many curious claims which were made on its behalf by those
who belonged to it. And they were struck, in a measure, by the mystery which
surrounded it. There is nothing like mystery to attract people, and so these
landowners said, "Can we be masons?" They were attracted all over the country,
the men whose mansions were built by the masons, and they began to inquire what
it meant. And so they sought admission, and the masons said, "You know we cannot
admit you as masons, because you are not masons; but, although you are not, we
will accept you as though you were," and that was the origin of the word
"accepted" mason. These men were not masons, but they accepted them as brothers,
as though they were masons; and so at that time-- about the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries--the society was composed of free and accepted masons. In
the early part of the eighteenth century the society had again got down to a
very low ebb, and the members of four lodges in London decided to make an effort
to revive it, and to bring it back to its old position of importance and
splendor. These four lodges, therefore, met to see what could be done. There was
the lodge at the Goose and Gridiron ale-house, St. Paul's Churchyard, the lodge
at the Crown ale-house, the lodge at the Apple Tree Tavern, in Covent Garden,
and the lodge at the Rummer and Grapes, Westminster. They met in June, 1717, and
established a Grand Lodge, the original of our Grand Lodge of today. They had
three principal officers, their Grand Master and Two Grand Wardens. One was
speculative and two were operative, showing that the operative element was still
the dominating one. Three years later we find that the proportion changes--there
were two speculative and only one operative. Six years later we find that the
operatives had disappeared. Their three principal officers --the Grand Master
and the two Wardens--were all speculative, and from that time our society has
been gradually losing its operative character, and for the last century or so we
have been practically an exclusively speculative and philosophical society.
There is much more I could say, but I have given you, I
think, a good deal to study, much food for thought, and many subjects which I
recommend to your attention. But bear this in mind, that amid all the changes
that took place in the rules and regulations which bound them together, in the
conditions under which they worked, and in the work on which they were employed,
the brethren never lost sight of their allegiance to those three rules to which
I specially draw your attention. They were the foundation upon which they built
the structure, the edifice of Freemasonry. And I am firmly convinced that as
long as we Freemasons of today are firm and faithful in our allegiance to our
Masonic principles, which are similar, we need never fear but that our society
will go on progressing and flourishing. We may rest assured that throughout the
ages to come it will weather all storms, it will withstand all shocks of
revolution, surviving perhaps the wreck of many empires, and even, let us hope,
resist the destroying hand of time.
----o----
THE APRON
Emblem more ancient,
Than order is old,
Whose story, fancy
Has never, all, told.
Culled from the innocent
Protype of Christ,
Worn in Fulfillment
To circumscribe vice.
Presented on entrance,
In "Temples of Light,"
To Entered Apprentices,
Whose trust is placed right.
Worn on his journey,
From threshhold to Sanctum;
Heart filled with yearning,
Circumspect, thankful.
Worn by him proud
Through life as a token,
Of acts unallowed,
And secrets unspoken;
Placed on the coffin
Of his last remains,
An emblem to soften
Our loss, of its pains.
--O. E. Looney, M. D.
----o----
THE MEN'S HOUSE
(This address, first given in the form of a sermon to a
company of Masons, is published in response to many requests, Brethren wishing
to go further in the study of The Men's House may find it scientifically
presented by Prof. Hutton Webster, in his "Primitive Secret Societies,"
especially chapters 1-4 and 10-11.)
BY BRO. JOSEPH FORT NEWTON, ENGLAND
AFTER all, the great secret of Masonry is that it has no
secret, and might better be called the Open Secret of the World. If it retires
into the tyled recesses of the lodge and works in the quiet and privacy thereof,
it is the better to teach in parable, symbol, emblem and drama those great and
simple truths which are to our human world what light and air are to the natural
world. When a young man enters a Masonic lodge he is asked whence he came, and
what he has come to do. Today let us reverse that order of inquiry and ask of
Masonry the question which she asks of all who bow at her altar: Whence it has
come, and what service it has to render to humanity ? Time does not allow us to
answer such questions in detail, but perhaps a brief sketch may provoke others
to pursue the study, and thus learn how far back the story of Masonry goes, and
how deeply it is rooted in the nature, need and aspiration of the race.
In primitive society there were four institutions, with
three of which we are familiar, but the fourth is not so well known. There was,
first of all, the most fundamental, the Home the cornerstone of society and
civilization. It was crude, as all things were in the morning of the world, yet
it had in it the prophecy of that enshrinement of beauty and tenderness into
which we were born, and the memory of which remains to consecrate us. There was
the Temple of Prayer-- not a temple at first, but only a rough altar of uncut
stone--uplifted by the same instinct for the Eternal which built the great
cathedrals. Its rites were rude, often grotesque and horrible, yet even in the
darkness of a great Fear there were gleams of "that light that never was on sea
or land" by which we are guided through the labyrinth of the world. Then there
was the state, beginning in patriarchal rule, merging thence into the tribe and
the nation, and at last we see many nations fused into huge empires which met in
the clash of conflict. The state, too, was rude, but it had in it the rudiments
of our patriotic devotion to our Republic.
EARLY SOCIETY SECRET
But there was another institution, quite as old as the
other three and hardly less important, to which we are more indebted than we
realize. Of this hidden institution let me speak more in detail, not only for
its human interest, but also for the fact that Masonry perpetuates it among us
today. It was called the Men's House, a secret lodge in which every young man,
when he came to maturity, was initiated into the law, legend, tradition and
religion of his people. Recent research has brought to light this long hidden
institution, showing that it was really the center of early tribal life, the
council chamber, the guest house, and the meeting place of men where laws were
made and courts were held, and where the trophies of war were treasured. Indeed,
early society was really a secret society, and unless we keep this fact in mind
we can hardly understand it at all. It is the key to the interpretation of the
evolution of primitive social life, and without it one can scarcely know the
process of human development.
When tribal solidarity was more important than tribal
expansion it is hard to exaggerate the value of these lodges as providing bonds
based upon feelings of kinship, and as promoting a sense of social unity and
loyalty which lies at the root of law, order and religion. Methods of initiation
differed in different times and places, but they had, nevertheless, a certain
likeness, as they had always the same purpose. Ordeals often severe and
sometimes frightful were required--exposing the initiate not only to physical
torture, but also the peril of unseen spirits--as tests to prove youth worthy,
by reason of virtue and valor, to be entrusted with the secret lore oœ his
people. The ceremonies included vows of chastity, of courage, of secrecy and
loyalty, and, almost always, a drama representing the advent of the novice into
a new life. Moreover, the new life to which he awoke after his "initiation into
manhood," for such it truly was, included a new name, a new language or signs,
grips and tokens, and new privileges and responsibilities. If a youth failed to
endure the tests, and proved to be a coward or a weakling, he became the scorn
of every man of his tribe.
No doubt it was the antiquity of the idea and necessity of
initiation which our Masonic fathers had in mind when they said that Masonry
began with the beginning of history--and they were not so far wrong as certain
smart folk think they were. At any rate, they saw clearly the service of secret
societies in the development of civilization, and that, like the home and the
temple, the Men's House was one of the great institutions of humanity. When the
tribes ceased to be the unit of society, giving place to the nation, the secret
training place for men became at once a school and temple, preserving and
transmitting the truths of religion, the rudiments of science, and the laws of
art, all of which were universally held as sacred secrets to be known only to
the initiated. By a certain wise instinct men felt that everything must not be
told to everybody, but that men must approve themselves as worthy to receive
truths which had cost so much; and that instinct was wise and true. Even the
gentle Teacher of Galilee would not cast His pearls before swine, and it was
therefore that He taught in parables, cryptic and dim. Hence the great ancient
orders called the Mysteries, which ruled the world for ages before our era, and
he who would estimate the spiritual possessions of humanity must take account of
their influence and power. Thus the Mysteries of Mithra in the East, of Isis in
Egypt, and the Eleusian Mysteries of Greece swayed mankind, using every device
of art to teach the truths of faith and hope and righteousness. In the temple of
the Mysteries, which contained the tradition and ministry of the Men's House,
the greatest men of antiquity received initiation--such men as Pythagoras,
Plato, Plutarch, to name no others, and Cicero tells us that the truths taught
in the house of the hidden place made men love virtue and gave them happy
thoughts for the hour of death. Those temples of the Mysteries were shrines
where art, philosophy, science and religion had their home, and from which, as
time passed, they spread out fanwise along the avenue of human culture.
THE TEMPLE BUILDERS
History is no older than architecture. Man could not become
a civilized being until he had learned to build a settled habitation, a Home for
his family, a Temple for his faith, a Memorial for his dead. So, and naturally
so, the Men's House came at last to be associated with the art of building, with
the constructive genius of the race, using the laws and tools of the builder as
emblems to teach the truths of faith and morality. Long before our era we find
an order of Builders called the Dionysian Artificers, working in Asia Minor,
where they erected temples, theatres and palaces--a secret order whose
ceremonies perpetuated the ancient drama of the Mysteries--and they were almost
certainly the builders of the Temple of Solomon. Thence we trace them eastward
into India, and westward into Rome, where they were identified with the Roman
College of Architects whose emblems have come down to us.
When Rome fell a band of artists took refuge on a fortified
island in Lake Como, in Northern Italy, where ' for a period they lived,
offering an asylum to their persecuted fellows, and where they preserved the
traditions of classic art. From them descended the great order of Comacine
Masters--the Cathedral Builders-- whom we can trace through the middle ages, and
who early became known as Freemasons--free, because they were exempt from many
restraints, and unlike Gild Masons, were permitted to travel at liberty wherever
their work required. They were great artists, commanding the service of the
finest intellects of the age, yet so bound together that, as Hallam said, no
cathedral can be traced to any one artist. For the cathedrals were not the work
of any one man, but the creation of a fraternity who so united the spirit of
fraternity with a sense of the sanctity of art as to obliterate individual
aggrandizement and personal ambition.
Thus the Freemasons traveled through the years, building
those monuments of beauty and prayer which still consecrate the earth, until the
decline of Gothic architecture, when the order of Cathedral Builders began to
decline. As early as 1600, scholars and students of mysticism began to ask to be
accepted as members of lodges of Freemasons, the better to study their symbolism
and teachings--as, for example, Ashmole, who founded the museum which bears his
name at Oxford. These men though not actual architects, were accepted as members
of the order, hence Free and Accepted Masons. From earliest time, as we may
learn from our own Bible--as well as from many ancient writings, such as the
Chinese classics and the Egyptian Book of the Dead--the tools and laws of
building had been used as symbols of moral and spiritual truth; and when the
work of practical architecture became so changed as no longer to require the
service of a fraternal order, the Freemasons ceased to be builders of temples of
brick and stone, but retained their organization and traditions--builders not
less than before, but using their tools as symbols of the truths and principles
with which they sought to build a Temple of Righteousness and Friendship upon
earth.
FREEDOM, FRIENDSHIP, FRATERNITY
This newer Masonry, as it has been called, took form in the
organization of the Grand Lodge of England, in 1717, from which it has descended
to us having spread all over the civilized world. Forming one great society of
devout and free men, it toils in every land in behalf of Freedom, Friendship and
Fraternity among men, seeking to establish government without tyranny and
religion without superstition; seeking, that is, to refine and exalt the lives
of men, to purify their thought and ennoble their faith; teaching them to live
and let live, to think and let think, to love peace and pursue it. Truly, the
very existence of such an order of men, initiated, sworn and trained to uphold
all the redeeming ideals of humanity, is an eloquent and farshining fact. It
does not solicit members, save in so far as its influence in a community may
invite the cooperation of right-thinking men who wish to foster what is noblest
in humanity, toiling the while to strengthen that social and moral sentiment
which gives to law its authority and to the gospel its sovereign opportunity.
What, then, is Masonry? For one thing, let it be said with
all emphasis that it is in no sense a political society, and its historic
Constitutions--called Old Charges--forbid the discussion of political issues in
its lodges "as what never yet conduced to the welfare of the lodge, nor never
will." Individual Masons, |
