CHAPTER LX

Back to index

THE ANTI-MASONIC EXCITEMENT

GENERAL history of Masonry in the United States would be incomplete if a notice of the anti-Masonic episode were left out; we shall, therefore, devote a few pages to this subject.

There have been, generaly diffused among the people, very erroneous ideas in regard to the sudden disappearance of one William Morgan, of whom it was said, that in consequence of a threatened publication of an exposure of the secret work of Freemasonry, he was either murdered or kidnaped and conveyed surreptitiously out of the country, and was never heard of afterward. It was an undeniable fact that he suddenly disappeared from the State of New York, and there is no satisfactory evidence that he was ever seen by anyone again.

Volumes have been published, both by anti-Masons and Masons, in, apparently, a vain effort to establish the charge on one side, that he was either murdered or transported out of the country, and, on the other side, that he came to no harm from the Masons, who were accused of his “sudden taking off.”

The latest publication was prepared by Past Grand Master Jesse B. Anthony, 33 degree, of New York, who availed himself of the excellent account by Hon. Josiah H. Drummond, Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Maine, and the pamphlets published, several years since, by Past Grand Master Rob.

Morris, of Kentucky, who spent much time and money in the State of New York, and other writers who had investigated all the circumstances connected with the affair. Our limits in this work do not admit of so extended an examination as that of Brother Anthony; nevertheless, it will be necessary, for a proper understanding of the case, to devote considerable space to a clear statement of all the ascertainable facts, and leave all speculations and conjectures to our readers.

William Morgan, it is said, was from Virginia; born in 1775 or 1776; was a stone mason by trade. In 1821 he resided near York in Upper Canada and was engaged as a brewer. His brewery being destroyed by fire, from thence he found his way to Rochester, N.Y., and worked at his trade as a stone mason, and in 1823 went to Batavia.

In the “Letters to John Qudncy Adams” it is related that “he was a hard drinker and his nights, and sometimes his days also, were spent in tippling-houses, while occasionally, to the still greater neglect of his family, he joined in the drinking carousals of the vilest and most worthless men; and his disposition was envious, malicious, and vindictive.”

Some persons doubt if he ever was regularly made a Mason; but it is nevertheless true that, after reaching Batavia, he was admitted as a visitor in Wells Lodge of that place. After this he was made a Royal Arch Mason in Western Star Chapter, at Le Roy, N.Y., May 23, 1825. His name was on the first petition for the establishment of a Royal Arch Chapter in Batavia. Some others seeing his name on the petition, declined signing it, and a new one was gotten up, leaving his name off. After the chapter was organized, upon his application for membership he was rejected.

There was at that time a weekly newspaper the - “Republican Advocate,” conducted by one David C. Miller. It is said he had been initiated in a lodge in Albany, N.Y., but owing to his noted character, ascertained thereafter, he had been refused advancement.

These two worthies, and companions in dissipation, both impecunious and greatly in financial difficulties, concocted the scheme to divulge what they knew of Masonry. Morgan having advanced further in the degrees, was to furnish the information, and Miller was to do the editing, printing, and publishing.

This scheme, by some means, became known to the Masons. No doubt, in the drunken orgies of Morgan he had boasted of his contemplated revenge.

Articles also crept into the paper one of which was publicly read in a bar-room in 1826, which stated: “ There will be issued from the press in this place, in a short time, a work of rare interest to the uninitiated, being an exposition of Ancient Craft Masonry, by one who has been a member of the institution for years.

Morgan having had some transaction in Canandaigua with the tavern-keeper we think it was simply borrowing some clothing, and having failed to return the articles, a warrant was taken out for larceny, upon which his arrest followed, and he was carried to Canandaigua by a posse; among them were several conspicuous Masons. He was acquited of the charge, because he had borrowed the clothing, and had not stolen them. He was again arrested for a debt to another tavern-keeper, and upon confession of judgment he was sent to jail. Miller was also arrested, September 12, 1826, and carried to Le Roy; he was discharged, as the plaintiff did not appear in time.

A few days previous to Miller’s arrest, a warrant in behalf of the plaintiff (Johns) was issued by a justice of the Peace residing in Le Roy against Miller and John Davids, his partner in the printing office, for the purpose of collecting money before then advanced by Johns in the prosecution of their undertaking. The officer in whose hands the warrant was placed for execution was a constable of the town of Stafford, who, having learned that the office of Miller was strictly guarder and that he was fully determined to resist all attempts to serve any process upon him, engaged a number of assistants. On September 12th he and his posse, who were followed by a large number of people, went to Batavia to make the arrest. So many strangers, without any ostensible business, making their appearance in Batavia, aroused the most fearful apprehension among the citizens. Miller received a note early in the morning from some unknown person that an effort would be made to take by force the papers intended for publication. He showed this note to a few of the citizens of the town, some of whom were Masons, and asked their opinion. They advised him to look upon the matter as idle rumor, as to attempt such a measure was impracticable and foolish. So many unknown persons, however, suddenly making their presence known, and as if by concert, those who had advised him to take no notice of the warning; received by Miller began to fear that it was indeed a preconcerted plan to carry out the intention of obtaining, by violence if necessary, the aforesaid papers. The magistrates were all absent from the village, and this also increased the suspicions. Very soon a number of the citizens, Masons as well as others, offered their services to prevent any violence. Morgan had gone from Batavia the day before this in the charge of an officer, but no news of him had yet been received. Consternation and apprehension pervaded that small community, but as nothing further transpired, order and quietness soon prevailed. Soon after this the constable, with a single individual accompanying him, went to the office to arrest Miller and Davids with a civil process. The office was fortified by “two swivels,” fifteen or more guns, and six pistols, all being loaded, but was at that time undefended, except by Miller, Davids, and a son of Miller.

The assistant arrested Davids, who called for a pistol; the constable arrested Miller. Both of them submitted and were carried through an armed crowd of their friends to a tavern across the street. A very large number of persons, nearly fifty, were there assembled. They gave no sign of any hostility whatever, and in conversation with others showed that no intention on their part existed of any violence or wrong. Subsequent disclosures, however, clearly showed that in the minds at least of a few an intention had existed of obtaining possession of the “papers” by force if necessary. Those Masons in Batavia to whom this design had been communicated severely condemned such intention, which was conceived in folly and would be fraught with mischief and ruinous in consequences.  These views having been communicated to the leaders, the whole scheme was abandoned. The absence of the justices was caused by their being subpoenaed as witnesses in a trial at Bethany on that day.

From the evidence produced it was clearly shown that certain indiscreet and overzealous Masons did inaugurate a scheme to get rid of Morgan and prevent the publication of his pretended “exposure.” He was conveyed out of the State, by his own consent, from a fear that someone would murder him. A promise was made to take care of his wife and children, and with $500 in hand he was taken into Canada. There were a great many incidents connected with the expedition to transport him out of the State, which we deem it unnecessary to mention in detail.

This affair created wonderful excitement in allthe New England States and in New York and Pennsylvania, among the Masons particularly; it extended, in a milder form, southwardly, and reached as far as the District of Columbia, but its effects, morally and politically, south of the famous historical “line of Mason and Dixon,” was very slight indeed. In New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, however, the loyal members of the Craft sustained their integrity against political, religious, and social persecutions. A new political party was organized, and that party made a national issue at the next presidential canvass in 1832, and William Wirt was their candidate for the office of Chief Magistrate, and the canvass resulted in his receiving the electoral vote of Vermont, the only State to cast their votes for him. We are glad to announce that when Masonry again revived and came forth from that terrible time of persecution, under the leadership of that grand and magnanimous MAN, Philip C. Tucker, as we have shown in preceding chapters, he brought order out of confusion and re-established Masonry in all its branches. At the present day there can

not be found more enthusiastic Masons in any State of our Union, than now exist in the Green Mountain State.

The official examinations of parties who were directly or remotely connected with the abduction of Morgan, aroused and continued to excite the sentiments of hostility to the Masonic Institution; it was once well said that the “fice-dog always barks at what he does not understand,” so with that similar class in ever community, they are always ready and constantly seeking opportunities to oppose what is beyond their linmited comprehension. Charges were constantly found against those Masons who were suspected of any complicity in those affairs, and suits were brought against them for several years. Among those who were arrested and imprisoned was Eli Bruce. From 1827 to 1831 there was always some one or more confined in the jail at Canandaigua.

Eli Bruce was charged with the abduction of Morgan, and was acquitted, for it was not proved that anyone had been abducted. De Witt Clinton was then Governor of New York, as well as one of the most prominent and distinguished Masons in the United States, and was of course eminently desirous of ascertaining the truth in all these matters. He formulated certain questions to Eli Bruce, who was the High Sheriff of the County, as to his agency in these matters: Bruce declined to answer them and he was promptly removed from his office. Governor Clinton, it is well known, both in his private and public utterances, condemned the whole transaction of the removal of Morgan. The official account of Bruce’s trial shows that complaint was made to the Governor, and Bruce was summoned to Albany in answer to the charges and show cause why he should not be removed. The reply by his counsel did not satisfy the Governor, and he was tried in the court at Canandaigua, in August, 1828. He was convicted and sentenced to twenty-eight months in jail. The execution of the sentence was postponed until May 13, 1829, upon his appeal, but on May 20, 1829, he was imprisoned until September 23, 1831. The evidence at the trial showed that Bruce understood that Morgan voluntarily consented to his removal and that a cell at Lockport was prepared for him until he could be carried to Canada. He at first declined to have anything to do with the affair, but at last gave in, and, with the others, conveyed Morgan over the river to Canada.  Matters having been delayed for Morgan’s removal, he was reconveyed to the State and concealed in the old magazine at Fort Niagara, until the time was suitable for his conveyance to the farm provided for him in Canada. From that time Morgan, it appears, was never seen by anyone, and Bruce testified that he did not know when or how he disappeared.

Other parties were implicated, and upon trial of each, they were punished by imprisonment.

The anti-Masonic spirit was not satisfied with the punishment of those immediately concerned in this nefarious transaction. Many conventions were held, and self-constituted Missionaries sprang up, like toadstools in a night, and scattered their venomous seed broadcast and found favorite soil,

in the debased condition of many polluted minds, in which to foster these seeds of opposition to an Institution which, in all its principles and daily practices, had demonstrated its utter abhorrence to any such transactions as the Morgan affair, and also as being subversive of public order, private human rights, and the clearly enunciated precepts of Masonry whose Theological virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity, whose cardinal virtues are Temperance, Prudence, Fortitude, and Justice, whose principal Tenets are Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth.

A convention of delegates from several Baptist churches was held at Le Roy, N. Y., January, 1827, and “Resolved, That all such members as belong to Baptist churches and who also belong to the Society of Freemasons, be requested to renounce publicly all communication with that order, and if the request is not complied with in a reasonable time, to excommunicate all those who neglect to do so.” If the present writer be permitted to publicly express his private opinion, it would be, that all such loyal members who refused to comply with so outrageous a resolution would, after the “excommunication,” be immediately received into the church of an all merciful Savior, and welcomed out of so bigoted and benighted a congregation; as time has subsequently proved they were.

At the famous Lewiston Convention they published the following discoveries:

1. That the unhappy Morgan was taken to Newark, Upper Canada, gagged, bound, and blindfolded.

2. That he was then offered to the British Masons of that place, with the request that they should get him on board a British Man-of-War or turn him over to Brandt, the Indian Chief and a Mason, to be executed with savage cruelty.

3. That the Newark Lodge assembled on this proposition, and sent for Brandt, who came accordingly.

4. Brandt proved himself too noble of nature to have anything to do with so cowardly, inhuman, and wicked a transaction. The savage hero disdained to do that which conwardly white monsters urged him to do.  5. The Newark Masons, thus rebuked by savage justice and magnanimity, likewise finally declined to take charge of the miserable victim.  6. The diabolical wretches, who had him in custody, brought him back as far as Fort Niagam, and then murdered him in cold blood, cutting his throat from ear to ear, cutting out his tongue, and burying him in the sand, and concluding the hellish rites by sinking the body in the lake.  Brandt denied the charge so far as it related to him, “false in one, false in all.” The 6th is a clincher for mendacity - the whole statement is contrary to all the legal testimony in the case, and does not tally with a subsequent account of finding Morgan’s body in the Niagara River, but was put forth by the political party of the day; and when Thurlow Weed was told that it did not prove to be Morgan’s body, he said very pertinently, “It’s good enough Morgan till after election.”

September 11, 1830, a convention was held in Philadelphia. A committee reported an address, stating that Morgan was murdered, notwithstanding that in all the legal proceedings there was not a single witness to prove that Morgan was murdered. This address, however, demanded the suppression of the Institution of Masonry.

The following extract will show the spirit which prevailed:

“To this government Freemasonry is wholly opposed. It requires submission to its own authority in contempt of public opinion, the claim of conscience, and the rights of private judgment. It would dam up the majestic currents of improving thought, among all its subjects throughout the earth, by restricting beneficial communication. In attempting to do this it has stained our country with a brother’s blood, tempted many of our influential citizens into the most degraded forms of falsehood, and burst away with its powers undiminished, its vengeance provoked, and its pollution manifest, from the strong arm of retributive justice. The means of overthrowing Masonry cannot be found in any, or in all our executive authorities. They cannot be found in our judicial establishment

“The only adequate corrective of Freemasonry - that prolific source of the worst abuses is to be found in the right of election, and to this we must resort.

“There is therefore no impropriety in resorting to the elective franchise to correct the evils of Freemasonry.

“It, Freemasonry, ought to be abolished; it should certainly be so abolished as to prevent its restoration. No means of doing this can be conceived so competent as those furnished by the ballot boxes.” We here see what prejudice, ignorance of the subject, and a spirit of persecution can effect upon the minds of men, when prompted by ambition for public office.  The first paragraph is a long tissue of falsehoods, as time proved those utterances to have been; not a sentence was predicated upon a single fact which had been or could be proven. Every Mason will at once declare that every charge made in that address was maliciously false and mis-leading.

In 1836 a National Convention of anti-Masons was held in Philadelphia and nominated William H. Harrison for President, and Francis Granger for Vice-President, and this ended the political influence of that party.

The writer of this article was old enough to remember that contest and the prominent actors therein. Their failure at that time did not dishearten most of the leaders, as very soon thereafter they became prominent leaders of the newly organized Anti-Slavery party, a subject with which we have nothing to do whatever.

All the Grand Lodges within the States affected by this unto-ward anti-Masonic persecution, passed such resolutions as to, and did, satisfy most people, that Masonry as an institution had nothing to do with the Morgan affair, but condemned the injudicious and unauthorized individuals who were participants, nor made any efforts to screen them from merited justice; nevertheless, the persecution of individuals continued, and many who were socially so situated as to render their lives unbearable, surrendered their memberships and withdrew from the Institution. At length, in some of these States, particularly in Vermont, the lodges and other bodies ceased to hold their meetings, as has been shown in our different histories of those bodies.

In 1840 there were signs of renewal of activities in Masonic affairs; thirteen years of persecution had passed and there came a revival.

We learn from the authorities in New York that the lodge at Le Roy, Olive Branch, No. 39, never ceased its meetings, although located in the immediate neighborhood of the place where the whole difficulty originated, and is considered as the preserver of Masonry in Western New York during all those years of persecution and excitement.

Governor Clinton wrote to the Governors of Upper and Lower Canada asking that inquiry be made in regard to Morgan, and said in his letters :

“During the last year he (Morgan) put a manuscript into the hands of a printer at Batavia, purporting to be a promulgation of the secrets of Freemasonry. This was passed over by the great body of the Fraternity without notice and silent contempt; but a few desperate fanatics engaged in a plan of carrying him off, and on the 12th of September last (1826) they took him from Canandaigua by force, as it is understood, and conveyed him to the Niagara River, from which it is supposed that he was taken to his Britannic Majesty’s dominions. Some of the offenders have been apprehended and punished; but no intelligence has been obtained respecting Morgan since his abduction.”

In response to this request of Governor Clinton, the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada issued his proclamation:

“50 pounds Reward. - His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor having received a communication from His Excellency the Governor of the State of New York, by which it appears that William Morgan who some years ago exercised the calling of a brewer in this place, and who has recently resided in Canandaigua, in the State of New York, was some time in the last year conveyed by force from that place, and is supposed to be forcibly detained in some part of this Province; any person who may be able to offer any information respecting the said William Morgan, shall, upon communicating the same to the Private Secretary of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, receive the reward above offered.

“Government House, January 31, 1827.”

The Grand Lodge of New York adopted the following:

“Whereas, It is alleged that an outrage has been committed on the body of William Morgan, and

Whereas, Proceedings in consequence of such allegations have been made in Courts of justice in relation to the subject, and

“Whereas, By reason of foul misrepresentation an effort has been made to impress the public mind with an opinion that the Grand Lodge and the Fraternity in general have attempted to screen, if not to protect, the perpetrators of this alleged outrage; therefore be it

“Resolved, That the Grand Secretary be instructed to ascertain from the public record a statement of the facts in relation to the persons said to have been Masons, charged and convicted of the abduction of Morgan, and report to this Grand Lodge at its next annual communication.”

A supplemental report was adopted (June 2, 1832):

“That participating with the members of this Grand Lodge, and the Great Body of the Masonic Fraternity, in a feeling of deep abhorrence of the outrage, which was a violation alike of Masonic obligation and the law of the land, they (the Committee) have examined the papers submitted thereto with that attention which the importance of the subject demands.

The voluminous nature of the papers presented and the shortness of the time have, however, prevented them from investigating the subject as fully as they would desire, and further time was asked in which to formulate a report.”

At the communication of the Grand Lodge of New York held March 7, 1832, Mordecai Meyers presiding, twelve experienced and capable members of the Grand Lodge, together with the Grand Officers, were appointed to visit all the Lodges in the City of New York, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, to arouse them to a sense of their duty, instruct the officers of said lodges in their work, to advise and encourage them to a strict adherence to the Constitution and Regulation of this Grand Lodge, and to inspect their books.

EXTRACTS from the “Proceedings of the Triennial Session of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templars for the United States of America assembled at the Asylum in Masonic Temple, in the City of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, on Tuesday, the 19th of September, A.D. 1871 A.O. 753.”

“Grand Master Gardner then read the following Address:

“Knights, Companions: On Thursday, the 29th of November, 1832, fourteen bold and valiant Knights assembled in the Masonic Temple in this city, and proceeded to open the General Grand Encampment of the United States. The Rev. Sir Jonathan Nye, of New Hampshire, presided over the deliberations, and welcomed his associates by an affectionate and fraternal address. The illustrious Sir James Herring, of New York, recorded the proceedings; while the venerable Prelate, Rev. Sir Paul Dean, of Massachusetts, implored the blessings of heaven upon the brave Knights and their doings. Of these fourteen good men, and true, two were from New Hampshire, five from the jurisdiction of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, one from Connecticut, two from New York, one from Maryland, and three from the District of Columbia.

“The General Grand Chapter met at the same time in Baltimore, that distinguished man and Mason, Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, being its presiding officer. He was re-elected to the high office which he had so honorably filled for the preceding three years.

“No session of the National Grand Bodies, held before or since that time, has so attracted public attention as did this of 1832. John Quincy Adams, ex-President of the United States, did not consider this meeting of a mere handful of men in Baltimore beneath his notice, or unworthy the abuse of his caustic pen; and page after page of his letters, then published in the newspapers of the day, since collected into a volume, attest the interest which that meeting occasioned.

“The period was indeed a peculiar one. For six years the excitement and frenzy of anti-Masonry had been gathering strength and fury, until at last, in a national convention of anti-Masons held here in the City of Baltimore, candidates were nominated for the two highest offices of the Republic. The election took place in 1832, and William Wirt of Maryland, and Amos Ellmaker, of Pennsylvania, the nominees of the anti-Masonic, political party for President and Vice-President, received the seven electoral votes of Vermont, and no more. The power of anti-Masonry culminated in 1832; and when the General Grand Encampment assembled here, in the waning days of autumn, and found the fires around which the national Council of anti-Masons had been held, and read by their uncertain and unsteady light the strength and weakness of Anti-masonry in the Union, they knew that the battle had been fought, and that the night of agony was over. The hate and bitterness and fiendish hostility they knew would still remain -powerful in localities to infinite harm - but the Nation had repudiated antiMasonry, and had elected, as President, Andrew Jackson, an acknowledged, out-spoken, well-known Freemason; so well known that on the 23d of May, 1833, John Quincy Adams, in a published letter to Edward Livingston, then Secretary of State, paid a merited compliment to the Past Grand Master of Tennessee, in words intended to be severe and censurable.

“’The President of the United States,’ said Adams, ‘is a Brother of the Craft, bound by its oaths, obligations, and penalties, to the exclusive favors, be they more or less, of which they give the mutual pledge. That in the troubles and difficulties which, within the last seven years, have

befallen the craft, they have availed themselves of his name, and authority, and influence, to sustain their drooping fortunes, as far as it has been in their power, has been matter of public notoriety. A sense of justice has restrained him from joining in their processions, as he has been importunately urged by invitations to do, but he has not withheld from them his support’”

Almost forty years have passed away since the National Grand Bodies assembled in Triennial Session in the City of Baltimore. Behold the change! Those fourteen brave Knights have gone to their reward - not one of them now lives to rejoice at this triumphant return to Baltimore. They sleep peacefully and serenely the last great sleep: peace to their ashes; honor to their names. The railroad and telegraph now traverse populous States, then scarcely known. The Union stretches from ocean to ocean, and holds in its fast embrace great States, whose territory was then unexplored.

From all parts of this wide extended country - from the Atlantic and the Pacific -from the great rivers, with their fertile valleys - from the mountain ranges, with their verdant slopes -from the rugged North and the sunny South - from the great West, whither the star of empire is taking its course, and from the sea-girt populous East - come up here to Baltimore to this Eighteenth Triennial Session of the Grand Encampment of the United States, in companies, in battalions, in regiments, thousands of true Knights, bearing the banners of the Cross, living witnesses of the truth of the resolutions passed by the General Grand Encampment in 1832, that “Political Parties, in assailing the orders of Knighthood, aim a blow at all the free institutions of the country.”

The institution which in 1832, was abused and maligned, its members insulted and degraded, and which could then gather in its National Convention but fourteen tried souls, has survived the abuse, the malignity, the insults, and degradation, and stands before you today in its wisdom, strength, and beauty.

In 1832 those fourteen Knights did not disturb the usual tranquillity of Baltimore, and their presence here was unrecognized. Quiet in demeanor, unobtrusive in manner, they came with a firm determination to fully perform their devoirs to Temple Masonry.

In 1871 the authorities of Baltimore, with a liberality of sentiment and a heartiness of greeting which will be gratefully appreciated by every Templar of the United States, welcome us as guests of their municipality.  The Templar Knights throng the city - its houses, streets, and squares, and are received by brethren and citizens with a warmth of fraternal, generous hospitality, unbounded and catholic as the principles of Freemasonry.

 

 

Part III

Back to index

 

SYMBOLISM OF NUMBERS

THE best way, says Lawrie in his preface, “of refuting the calumnies which have been brought against the fraternity of Freemasons is to lay before the public a correct and rational account of the nature, origin, and progress of the institution, that they may be enabled to determine whether or not its principles are, in any shape, connected with the principles of revolutionary anarchy, and whether or not the conduct of its members has ever been similar to the conduct of traitors.” And from the publication of such sentiments it must be evident to every Brother’s experience that the feeling against Freemasonry, which displayed itself so openly only a few years ago, has assumed a much milder form, if it be not entirely removed.

It will not, however, be difficult to account for the dearth of Masonic writers in a preceding age. Before the 18th century symbolical masonry, being limited to the simple ceremonial, needed few illustrations; because, as the science was chiefly operative, the most valuable secrets would be those which had a reference to building, to the scientific ornaments and decorations of each particular style of architecture as it flourished in its own exclusive period; and these mysteries were communicated gradually, as the candidate rose through the different stages of his order or profession.

There appears to have been one general principle, which extended itself over every style from the early English to the florid, decorated, and perpendicular, and constituted one of the most ineffable secrets of the Masonic lodges. It is now known to have been the hieroglyphical device styled Vesica Piscis; “which may be traced from the Church of St. John Lateran, and the old St. Peter’s at Rome, to the Abbey Church at Bath, which is one of the latest Gothic buildings of any consequence in England. It was formed 1733 by two equal circles cutting each other in the centers, and was held in high veneration, having been invariably adopted by Master Masons in all countries. In bas-reliefs, which are seen in the most ancient churches, over doorways, it usually circumscribes the figure of our Saviour. It was indeed a principle which pervaded every building dedicated to the Christi6an religion, and has been exclusively attributed to the scientific acquirements of Euclid.”

Oliver, in Pythagorean Triangle, says: “The secret meetings of master masons, within any particular district, were confined to consultations with each other, which mainly tended to the communication of science, and of improvement in their art. An evident result was seen in the general uniformity of their designs in architecture, with respect both to plan and ornament, yet not without deviations. We may conclude that the craft or mystery of architects and operative masons was involved in secrecy, by which a knowledge of their practice was carefully excluded from the acquirement of all who were not enrolled in their fraternity. Still, it was absolutely necessary, that when they engaged in contracts with bishops or patrons of ecclesiastical buildings, a specification should be made of the component parts, and of the terms by which either contracting party should be rendered conversant with them. A certain nomenclature was then divulged by the master masons for such a purpose, and became in general acceptation in the middle ages.” 

The abstruse calculations which accompanied the sciences of geometry and arithmetic are no longer necessary to Freemasonry as an institution purely speculative; and they were accordingly omitted in the revised system, as it was recommended to the notice of the Fraternity by the Grand Lodge in 1717, and we retain only the beautiful theory of these sciences, with their application to the practice of morality, founded on the power and goodness of T.G.A.O.T.U.

It would be an injustice to our Brethren of the last century to believe that they did not entertain a profound veneration for the principles of the Masonic order. But the customs and habits of the people of England, living in that day, differed materially from our own.

There were times when conviviality and a love of social harmony prevailed over the more sedate pursuits and investigations of science, in which such an astonishing progress distinguishes the present times. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries London was an atmosphere of clubs, and a society of this kind existed in every street for the peculiar use of its inhabitants, besides those which were exclusively frequented by persons possessing similar tastes or habits of amusement. And it will be no disparagement to masonry if we believe that its private Lodges did not sustain a much higher rank than some of these celebrated meetings, for the Kit-Cat, the Beefsteak, and other clubs were frequented by the nobility and most celebrated characters of that polished era.

It was the organization of Freemasonry that gave it the distinctive character which elevated its pretensions above the common routine of club-life, and although it is admitted that the members of the latter entertained a strong attachment to their several institutions, yet none were so enthusiastic as those who had enlisted in the pause cause of masonry as we may learn from the few testimonies which remain. A mason of high standing, more than a century ago, thus expresses his feelings respecting the order: “Masonry is the daughter of heaven, and happy are those who embrace her. By it youth is passed over without agitation, the middle age without anxiety, and old age without remorse. Masonry teaches the way to content, a thing almost unknown to the greater part of mankind. In short, its ultimate resort is to enjoy in security the things that are, to reject all meddlers in state affairs or religion, or of a trifling nature; to embrace those of real moment and worthy tendency with fervency and zeal unfeigned, as sure of being unchangeable as ending in happiness.

They are rich without riches, intrinsically possessing all desirable good, and have the less to wish for by enjoyment of what they have. Liberty, peace, and tranquillity are the only objects worthy of their diligence and trouble.”’

“But this, as well as almost all the testimonies of that period to its superior excellence, is confined exclusively to the practice and rewards of Christian morality. “Modern revision has, however, extended the limits of scientific investigation in the order of Freemasonry beyond what was intended by those who decreed that ‘the privileges of masonry should no longer be restricted to operative masons, but extend to men of various professions, provided they were regularly approved and initiated into the order.’

And Dr. Hemming and his associates, in the year 1814, thought it expedient to introduce some peculiar disquisitions from the system of Pythagoras on the combinations of the point, the line, the superfice, and the solid, to form rectangular, trilateral, quadrilateral, multilateral figures and the regular bodies, the latter of which, on account of their singularity and the mysterious nature usually ascribed to them, were formerly known by the name of the five Platonic bodies; and they were so highly regarded by the ancient Geometricians that Euclid is said to have composed his celebrated work on the Elements, chiefly for the purpose of displaying some of their most remarkable properties. These disquisitions usually conclude with an explanation of the forty-seventh problem of Euclid, which is called the Eureka of Pythagoras.

“That great philosopher, Pythagoras, who, by the superiority of his mind, infused a new spirit into the science and learning of Greece, and founded the Italic sect, taught his disciples Geometry that they might be able to deduce a reason for all their thoughts and action, and to ascertain correctly the truth or falsehood of any proposition by the unerring process of mathematical demonstration. Thus being enabled to contemplate the reality of things and to detect imposture and deceit, they were pronounced to be on the road to perfect happiness. Such was the discipline and teaching of the Pythagorean Lodges. It is related that when Justin Martyr applied to a learned Pythagorean to be admitted as a candidate for the mysterious dogmata of his philosophy, he was asked whether, as a preliminary step, he had already studied thesciences of Arithmetic, Music, Astronomy, and Geometry, which were esteemed thefour divisions of the mathematics; and he was told that it was impossible to understandthe perfection of beatitude without them, because they alone are able to abstract thesoul from sensibles, and to prepare it for intelligibles. He was further told that in theabsence of these sciences no man is able to contemplate what is good. And becausethe candidate acknowledged his ignorance of them he was refused admission into thesociety.

“Above all other sciences or parts of the mathematics, however, the followers ofPythagoras esteemed the doctrine of Numbers, which they believe to have beenrevealed to man by the celestial deities. And they pronounced Arithmetic to be themost ancient of all the sciences, because, being naturally first generated, it takes awaythe rest with itself, but it is not taken away with them. For instance, animal is first innature before man; for by taking away animal we take away man; but by taking awayman we do not take away animal. They considered numbers extending to the decad, tobe the cause of the essence of all other things; and therefore esteemed the creation ofthe world as nothing more than the harmonious enect of a pure arrangement of number. This idea was adopted by Dryden:

 

‘From harmony, from heavenly harmony,

This universal frame began;

From harmony to harmony,

Through all the compass of the notes it ran,

The diapason closing full in man.’

 

Pythagoras had another idea, as we are informed by Censorinus, respecting thecreation of the world, and taught that it was fashioned according to the principles ofmusical proportion; that the seven planets which govern the nativity of mortals have aharmonious motion, and intervals corresponding to musical diastemes, and rendervarious sounds, according to their several distances, so perfectly consonant that theymake the sweetest melody, but inaudible to us by reason of the greatness of the noise,which the narrow pasage of our ears is incapable of receiving.’

“And further, he esteemed the monad to represent the great and good Creator, underthe name of Dis, or Zeus, or Zau; and the duad he referred to as the evil andcounteracting principle or daemon, ‘surrounded,’ as Plutarch expresses it, ‘with a massof matter.’ And Porphyry adds, that the monad and duad of Pythagoras seem to havebeen the same with Plato’s peras and apeiron, his finite and infinite in his Philebus; theformer of which two only is substantial, that first most simple Being, the cause of unityand the measure of all things.

“According to the above doctrine, the monad was esteemed the father of Number, and the duad its mother; whence the universal prejudice in favour of odd numbers, the father being had in greater honour than the mother. Odd numbers being masculine, were conidued perfect, and appicable to the celestial gods, while even numbeers, being female, were considered imperfect, and given to the terrestrial and infernal deities. Virgil has recorded several instances of this predilection in favour of odd numbers. In his eighth Eclogue, he says (thus translated by Dryden):

‘Around his waxen image first I wind

Three woollen fillets of three colours join’d;

Thrice bind about his thrice-devoted head,

Which round the sacred altar thrice is led.

Unequal numbers please the gods.’

 

 

“The Eastern nations of the present day appear to reverse this principle. When two young persons are betrothed, the number of letters in each of their names is subtracted the one from the other, and if the remainder be an even number, it is considered a favourable omen, but if it be odd, the inference is that the marriage will be unfortunate.

“Every tyro knows that odd numbers are masonic; and if he be ignorant of the reason why 3, 5, 7, and 11, have been adopted as landmarks, let him apply to the Master of his Lodge for information, and he will then be satisfied of the wisdom of the appropriation, because number forms one of the pillars which contribute to the support of scientific masonry, and constitutes an elementary principle of Geometry. Thus, in the celebrated Pythagorean triangle, consisting of ten points, the upper single dot or jod is monad or unity, and represents a point, for Pythagoras considered a point to correspond in proportion to unity; a line to 2; a superfice to 3; a solid to 4; and he deened a point as a monad having position, and the beginning, of all things; a line was thought to correspond with duality, because it was produced by the first motion from indivisible nature, and formed the junction of two points. A superfice was compared to the number three, because it is the first of all causes that are found in figures; for a circle, which is the principal of all round figures, comprises a triad, in centre, space, circumference.

But a triangle, which is the first of all rectilineal figures, is included in a ternary, and receives its form according to that number; and was considered by the Pythagoreans to be the author of all sublunary things. The four points at the base of the Pythagorean triangle correspond with a solid or cube, which combines the principles of length, breadth, and thickness, for no solid can have less than four extreme boundary points. “Thus it appears that in applying number to physical things, the system of Pythagoras terminated in a tetrad, while that of Aristotle, by omitting the point, limited the doctrine of magnitude to a triad, viz., line - surface -body. In divine things, however the former

philosopher profusely used the number three, because it represented the three principal attributes of the Deity. The first whereof, as we are informed by Cudworth, is infinite with fecundity; the second infinite knowledge and wisdom; and the last active and perceptive power. From which divine attributes the Pythagoreans and Platonists seem to have framed their trinity of archical hypostases, such as have the nature of principles in the universe, and which, though they be apprehended as several distinct substances gradually subordinate to one another yet they many times extend the to Theion so far as to comprehend them all within it.

While employed in investigating the curious and unique properties which distinguish many of the digits, we no longer wonder that the inhabitants of the ancient world, in their ignorance of the mysterious secrets of science, and the abstruse doctrine of causes and effects, should have ascribed to the immediate interposition of the Deity those miraculous results which may be produced by an artful combination of particular numbers. Even philosophy was staggered; and the most refined theorists entertained singular fancies, which they were unable to solve without having recourse to supernatural agency. Hence the pseudo-science of Arithomancy, or divination by numbers, became very prevalent in the ancient world; and was used by Pythagoras as an actual emanation of the Deity. By this means, according to Tzetzes, he not only was able to foretell future events, but reduced the doctrine to a science, governed by specific rules, which he transmitted to posterity in his Book of Prognostics.

“The ancients had a kind of onomantic arithmetic, the invention of which was in like manner ascribed to Pythagoras, whether truly or not is of no importance here, in which the letters of the alphabet, the planets, the day of the week, and the twelve zodiacal signs, were assimilated with certain numbers; and thus, by the use of prescribed tables, constructed astrologically according to the aspects, qualities, dignities, and debilities of the planets relatively towards the tweve signs, etc., the adept would authoritatively pronounce an opinion on questions affecting life and death, good and evil fortune, journeys, detection of theft, or the success of an enterprise. It must be confessed, however, that these predictions were not always correct; for the rules laid down in different systems varied so essentially that the wisest magician was frequently puzzled to select an appropiate interpretation. The numeral system has been introduced into the modern practice of astrology, and very important results appear to depend on the trine, quartile, and sextile aspect of the planets in the horoscope.

“Something of this sort was used by the Jewish cabalists; and hence one of the rules of their cabala was called gemetria, or numeration, which was chiefly confined to the interpretation of their sacred writings. The letters of the Hebrew language being numerals, and the whole Bible being composed of different combinations of those letters, it was supposed that the correct meaning of difficult passages could only be ascertained by resorting to their numerical value. The Talmudists entertained an opinion that the mystery of numbers was actually taught in their scriptures; because after the idolatrous priests of Baal had accepted the challenge of Elijah, that prophet constructed his altar of twelve stones, corresponding with the twelve tribes of Israel; but they say that when he took this number for the special purpose of conciliating the favor of Jehovah, it was not merely because the sons of Jacob were twelve in number, but because that particular number was supposed to contain a profound and unfathomable mystery.

“Divination by numbers was not confined to Jewish or heathen nations, but occupied much attention at different periods of Christianity; and superstitious properties, I am afraid, are still attached to particular numbers, as forming climacterics, or grand climacterics; for the days of a man’s life are usually considered to be affected by the septenary year, which, as it is frequently believed, produces considerable changes in both body and mind. But the most remarkable change in a person’s life is at the climacteric, or 7 x 7, 49 years; or the grand climacteric, 7 x 9, 63 years; or 9 x 9, 81 years; each of which is conceived to be fraught with a peculiar fatality. And there are numbers of persons, even in the nineteenth century, who contemplate these periods with some degree of terror, and esteem it a relief when they have passed away.

“The exalted ideas which were entertained by the ancient poets and philosophers respecting the mysterious properties of numbers, may be estimated from the superstitious uses to which they were made subservient in all countries, whether inhabitants were savages or refined. The former saw that the number of his fingers ended at ten; and this constituted the amount of his knowledge. It formed the standard of all his computations. When a savage, on his warpath, was asked the number of his enemies, if few, he would hold one or more of his fingers; if many, them all. And in whatever manner his ideas of units might be designated, the calculation would always end in ten. Thus, in Homer, Proteus counts his sea-calves by fives, or in other words by the number of fingers on his hand. Several nations in the wilds of America have to this day no other instruments of calculation. It is another strong presumption of the truth of what I now advance, that all civilized nations count by tens; tens of tens, or hundreds; tens of hundeds, or thousands; and so on, but always from ten to ten. We can discover no reason why this number should be chosen rather than any other for the term of numeration, except the primitive practice of counting by the fingers.”

“Arithmetical operations,” says the Abbe Pluche, “were facilitated and shortened first by the use of counters, and afterwards by figures or chalked letters. Thus the Romans, when they had a mind to express unity, either held up, one finger or chalked the figure I. To express the succeeding numbers they drew II, III, IIII. For the number five they depressed the three middle fingers, and extended the thumb and little finger only, which formed the V. They signified ten by putting two V’s, one upon the other, thus X, or by joining them together, which formed X. Then they combined the X, the V, and the I, till they came up to fifty, or five tens, which they expressed by laying the five upon its side. The figure in this posture assumed the form of an L. A hundred was marked with two L’s put one upon the other which was subsequently rounded into a C. Five hundred was expressed by LC, and a thousand by CLO. These figures were afterwards changed, the one into D, and the other into CLO, or M. The Greeks and Hebrews employed the letters of the alphabet ranged in order, to express all imaginable numbers.

Amongst these sages, the Monad represented the throne of the Omnipotent Deity, placed in the centre of the empyrean, to indicate T.G.A.O.T.U., by whom all things were made and preserved. This disposition was symbolised by the hierogram of a point within a circle or equilateral triangle, to exemplify equally the unity of the divine essence, and His eternity, having neither beginning of years nor end of days. And this deduction appears perfectly reasonable, because the Monad or Point is the original and cause of the entire numeral system, as God is the cause of all things, being the only and great Creator on whom everything depends: for, if there were more all-powerful Beings than one, none would be independent, nor would all perfection be centred in one individual, ‘neither formally by reason of their distinction, nor eminently and virtually, for then one should have power to produce the other, and that nature which is producible is not divine. But all acknomledge God to be absolutely and infinitely perfect, in whom all perfections imaginable, which are simply such, must be contained formally, and all others which imply any mixture of perfection, virtually.’

Sthenidas the Locrian says, “The first god is conceived to be the father both of gods and men, because he is mild to everything which is in subjection to him, and never ceases to govern with providential regard. Nor is he alone satisfied with being the maker of all things, but he is the nourisher, the preceptor of everything beautiful, and the legislator to all things equally.

“The universal symbol by which this great Being was designated, viz., the point within a circle, it may be necessary to explain with some degree of minuteness, because it constitutes one of the most important emblems of masonry. One of the earliest heathen philosophers of whom history gives any account was Hermes Trismegistus, and he describes the Maker of the universe as ‘an intelligible sphere whose centre is everywhere, and whose circumference cannot be defined,’ because the universe is boundless, and He existed from all eternity. David expressed a similar sentiment when he said, ‘Thou art the same, and Thy years will have no end.’ We are told that the Persians, when they wished to pay a high respect to the Diety, ascended to the top of a high mountain, and expanding both hands, they prayed to Him in the name of the circle of heaven.

In like manner, the Jews entertained a belief that ‘the heaven of heavens could not contain Him.’ The Romans placed a circular target as a symbol of the Deity, because, as in the circumference there is but one point at its centre, and can be no more, so in the whole circumference of the universe there can be only one perfect and powerful God; nor is it possible there should be another.

“I have received a suggestion from a very intelligent brother respecting this symbol, which merits consideration. He says: When the W.M. elect enters into the obligation of an Installed Master, the brethren form a circle round him, he being in the centre; and in this situation he is said to be the representative of Solomon, the son of David. Now, as this is unquestionably a Christian degree, I understand this son David to be a figurative expression for the Redeemer of mankind. The W. M. is then specially intrusted with the Holy Scriptures and invested with a jewel which is emblematical thereof, and it then becomes his duty to exhort his brethren to search those Scriptures, because they contain the words of eternal life, and testify to the divinity of Christ. Searching implies something lost; and our ancient brethren, the early Christians, after they had lost, by an untimely death, their Lord and Master, remembered that while assembled together in Lodge here below, He promised, that when two or three were gathered together in His name, He would be in the midst of them; and cheered by the recollection, they were naturally led to hope that He would always be found in the centre of their circle, whenever regularly assembled together in a just and perfect Lodge dedicated to God and holy St. John. In like manner, we are reminded by that sacred symbol that He is always in the midst of us -that His all-seeing eye is always upon us, and therefore exhorted to discharge our duty towards Him and our fellow-creatures with freedom, fervency, and zeal.

“The Monad, amongst the Grecian philosophers, was a symbol of the hermaphrodite deity, or junction of the sexes, because it partakes of two natures. In a mysterious passage of the Yajur Veda, Brahma is spoken of, after his emanation from the golden egg, as experiencing fear at being alone in the universe; he therefore willed the existence of another and instantly became masculo-feminine.

The two sexes thus existing in one god mere immediately, by another act of volition, divided in twain, and became man and wife. This tradition seems to bave found its way into Greece; for the Androgyne of Plato is but another version of this Oriental myth. If the Monad be added to an odd number, it makes it even, and if to an even number, it makes it odd. Hence it was called Jupiter, because it stands at the head of gods and men; and also Vesta or Fire, because like the point within a circle, it is seated in the midst of the world. It was also cadled the Throne of Jupiter, from the great power which the centre has in the universe being able to restrain its general circular motion, as if the custody of the Maker of all things were constituted therein.

“Plutarch tells us that Numa built a temple in an orbicular form for the preservation of the sacred fire; intending by the fashion of the edifice to shadow out, not so much the earth as the whole universe; in the centre of which the Pythagoreans placed Fire, which they called Vesta and Unity.

The Persians worshipped the circumference, but it could only refer to the apparent course of the sun in the firmament, which is the boundary of common observation; for the real circumference is far beyond the comprehension of finite man. And the sun, under the symbol of a point within a circle, was the great object of worship amongst the Dionysian artists who built the Temple of Solomon.

“The Monad further signified Chaos, the father of life, substance, the cause of Truth, reason, and the receptacle of all things. Also in greater and lesser it signified equal; in intention and remission, middle; in multitude, mean; in time, now, the present, because it consists in one part of time which is always present. The cabalists considered that the first eternal principle is magical, and like a hidden fire, is eternally known in its colours, in the figure, in the wisdom of God, as in a looking-glass. The magical centre of the first principle is fire, which is as a spirit, without palpable substance.”

“The learned Aben Ezra, on the 11th chapter of Daniel, says that the number one is in a manner the cause of all numbers, and it is besides a complete number; it causes multiplication and remainder, but does not admit of either itself. And in another place he says, ‘Numbers are founded on the unit one.’ The sage Latif observes the same. According to Euclid, in his second definition of the seventh book, numbers are formed of many units; but unity being indivisible, has no composition, nor is it a number, but the fountain and mother of all numbers. Being the cause of all numbers, they are formed by a plurality of units. Thus 2 is twice 1; 3 is three units, etc.; so that all numbers require the Monad, where it exists by itself without requiring any other. All which is to be considered of the first cause; for as one is no number, but the cause and beginning of number, so the First Cause has no affinity to creatures, but is the cause and beginning of them; they all stand in need of Him, and He requires assistance from none. He is all in all, and all are included in Him in the most simple unity. The Jewish Rabbins agree that He is One, and there is no unity like His in the universe; the nearest idea that we can form of Him is symbolized by the unit or figure one.

The Pythagoreans say, ‘the Monad is the principle of all things. From the Monad came the indeterminate duad, as matters subjected to the cause. Monad, from the Monad and indeterminate duad; Numbers, from numbers; Points, points; Lines, from lines; Superfices, from superfices; Solids, from these solid Bodies, whose elements are four,

Fire, Water, Air, Earth; of all which, transmuted, and totally changed, the World consists.’

But Freemasonry has a peculiar preference for the monad, which produces some very striking and remarkable coincidences in every nation under the sun. In an old ritual of the Fellow-Craft’s degree, used about the middle of the last century, we find the following passage in reference equally to the first step of the winding staircase, the Point, and the letter G: ‘God, the great Architect of the Universe, whom it is at all times our duty to worship and obey.’ In a ritual still more ancient, the same meaning is rather differently expressed, viz., ‘the Grand Architect and Contriver of the Universe ; or He that was taken up to the topmost pinnacle of the Holy Temple.’

“This acknowledgment of the divine unity, or point within either a circle or a triangle, was common to all the systems of Spurious Freemasonry that ever existed, from India and Japan to the extremest West, including the Goths, the Celts, and the aborigines of America. All acknowledge the unity of T.G.A.O.T.U., whether involved in the deepest ignorance, or refined by civilization and a knowledge of philosophy and science. The sages of Greece, through a series of wire-drawn reasoning, came to the same conclusion as the uninformed savages of Britain, Scandinavia, Mexico, or Peru.

“Zoroaster is sublime in his description of the Deity; but he had enjoyed the advantage of associating with the learned Jews at Babylon and from them, doubtless, he had acquired his knowledge. He taught that ‘God is the first: incorruptible, eternal, unmade, indivisible, not like anything, the author of all good, the wisest of the wise, the father of justice, self-taught and absolutely perfect.’ An-aximenes, the follower of Thales, like his master, was a bold and subtle reasoner, and called everything by its proper name. He denominated the one God Zeus, by which he intended to intimate that, like the air we breathe, He is infinite, omnipresent, and eternal. The Emperor Trajan, in a conversation with the Rabbi Joshua, hearing the latter say, that ‘God is everywhere present,’ observed, ‘I should like to see Him.’ ‘God’s presence is indeed everywhere,’ replied Joshua, ‘but He cannot be seen; no mortal eye can behold His glory.’ The Emperor insisted. ‘Well,’ said Joshua, ‘suppose we try first to look at one of His ambassadors.’ The Emperor consented. The Rabbi took him into the open at noonday, and bid him look at the sun in his meridian splendor. ‘I cannot - the light dazzles me.’

‘Thou art unable,’ said Joshua, ‘to endure the light of His creatures, and canst thou expect to behold the resplendent glory of the Creator? Would not such a sight annihilate you ?’ 

“Xenophanes, the principal leader of the Aleatic sect, entertained the same belief; and described that Great Being, whom they all admitted to be incomprehensible, as ‘incorporeal, in substance, and figure globular; and in no respect similar to man. That He is all sight and hearing, but does not breathe. That He is all things; the mind and wisdom; not generate, but eternal, impassible, and immutable.’ Parmenides held that ‘the principle of all things is one; but that it is immovable.’ Sophocles assures us that in his time, the belief in one God, who made heaven and earth, was prevalent among those who had been initiated into the Greater mysteries.

“Socrates and his pupil Plato maintained the same opinion. By the name of God,’ said they, ‘we mean the parent of the world; the builder of the soul; the maker of heaven and earth; whom it is difficult to know by reason of His incredible power; and if known, it is impossible to clothe our knowledge in words.’ Anaxagoras contended for the supreme government of one God, but acknowledged that he was unable to comprehend his nature. His pupil, Euripides, however, was more fortunate, for he discovered the omnipresence of the Deity; and confessed it by asking whether it is possible to confine Him within the wall of a temple built with hands? Protagoras was banished by the Athenians for impiety in declaring that ‘he knew nothing of the gods, because in so short a life it was impossible to acquire a knowledge of them.’

“Zeno taught the unity and eternity, of the Deity. Plutarch, learned in all the rites and doctrines of the Spurious Freemasonry of Egypt and Greece, expresses himself plainly on this point in his treatise of Isis and Osiris. Atistides believed and taught his disciples that ‘Jove made all existing things, in the earth, the heavens, or the sea.”’

Thus was the doctrine of the Monad or unity, the first point in the Pythagorean Triangle, carried out in these early ages, and among an idolatrous people; for however they might worship an indefinite number of intelligences, they had discrimination enough to perceive that there could be only one Being of unbounded power, because a duplication of such beings would circumscribe the potency of each individual, and destroy his omnipotence and immutability. “It was idle,” says Bryant, “in the ancients to make a disquisition about the identity of any god, as compared with another; and to adjudge him to Jupiter rather than to Mars, to Venus rather than Diana. According to Diodorus, some think that Osiris is Serapis; others that he is Dionysus; others still, that he is Pluto; many take him for Zeus or Jupiter, and not a few for Pan.”

“The twofold reason of diversity and inequality, and of everything that is divisible in mutation, and exists sometimes one way, sometimes another, the Pythagoreans called Duad, for the nature of the Duad in particular things is such. These reasons were not confined to the Italic sect, but other philosophers also have left certain unitive powers which comprise all things in the universe; and amongst them there are certain reasons of quality, dissimilitude, and diversity. Now these reasons, that the way of teaching might be more perspicuous, they called by the names of Monad and Duad, but it is all one amongst them if they be called biform, or equaliform, or diversiform.”

From such definitions and principles it will not be difficult to see that the Duad was sufficiently comprehensive to admit of a vast number of references; and therefore the prolific fancy of poets and philosophers assigned to it a variety of remarkable qualities.Being even it was esteemed an unlucky number, and dedicated to the malignant genii and the infernal deities, because it conveyed to the mind ideas of darkness, delusion, versatility, and unsteady conduct.” (2) For this reason, the Pythagoreans spoke of two kinds of pleasure, “whereof that which indulgeth to the belly and to lasciviousness, by profusion of wealth, they compared to the murderous songs of the Syrens; the other, which consists in things honest and just, comprising all the necessary indulgences of life, is quite as attractive as the former, and does not bring repentance in its train.”

The Duad was considered indefinite and indeterminate, because no perfect figure can be made from two points only, which, if united, would merely become a right line; whence a notion was originated that it is defective in its principles, and superfluous in its application to the sciences. It signified also misfortune, from a general belief in its unpropitious qualities; and discord, because in music that which renders dissonances grating, is, that the sounds which form them, instead of uniting to produce harmony, are heard each by itself as two distinct sounds, though produced at one and the same time.

Brand tells us that there is a little history extant of the unfortunate reigns of William II., Henry II., Edward II., Richard II., Charles II., and James II., entitled “Numerus Infaustus in the preface to which the author says, “Such of the kings of Enghnd as were the Second of any name, proved very unfortunate princes.”

“The number two was referred to Juno, because she was the sister and wife of Jove; (5) and hence the Duad became a symbol of marriage. On this subject Hierocles says two things are necessary to all men in order to pass through life in a becoming manner, viz., the aid of kindred, and synmpathetic benevolence. But we cannot find anything more sympathetic than a wife, nor anything more kindred than children, both of which are afforded by marriage. And to produce these two beneficial effects, Callicratides gives the following excellent advice: ‘Wedlock should be coadapted to the peculiar tone of the soul, so that the husband and wife may not only accord with each other in prosperous, but also in adverse, fortune. It is requisite, therefore, that the husband should be the regulator, master, and preceptor of his wife. The regulator, indeed, in paying diligent attention to her affairs; but the master, in governing and exercising authority over her; and the preceptor in teaching her such things as are fit for her to know.’

“But how unfortunate soever the Duad may have been esteemed as a general principle, it was not devoid of its share of beneficent properties to balance against those that were malignant or forbidding. ‘The two principles,’ said the Paracelsic Lectures of Continental Masonry, ‘are not always at strife, but sometimes in league with each other, to produce good. Thus death and anguish are the cause of Fire, but fire is the cause of Life. To the abyss it gives song and fierceness, else there would be no mobility. To the Light -World, essence, else there would be no production but an eternal Arcanum.

To the world it gives both essence and springing, whence it becomes the cause of all things.’ The Duad was defined by the Pythagoreans, ‘the only principle of purity; yet not even, nor evenly even, nor unevenly even, nor evenly uneven.’ It was an emblem of fortitude and courage, and taught that as a man ought to do no wrong, neither ought he to suffer any, without due sense and modest resentment of it; and therefore, according to Plutarch, the ‘Ephori laid a mulct upon Sciraphidas, because he tamely submitted to many injuries and affronts, concluding him perfectly insensible to his own interest, as he did not boldly and honestly vindicate his reputation from the wrongs and aspersion which had been cast upon it; under the impression that he would be equally dull and listless in the defence of his country, if it should be attacked by a hostile invader.’

“The Duad was elevated by the ancient philosophers of the Italic sect into a symbol of justice, because of its two equal parts. Hence Archytas, who was a follower of Pythagoras, says, ‘The manners and pursuits of the citizens should be deeply tinctured with justice; for this will cause them to be sufficient to themselves, and will be the means of distributing to each of them that which is due to him according to his desert. For thus also the sun, moving in a circle through the zodiac, distributes to everything on the earth, generation, nutriment, and an appropriate portion of life: administering, as if it were a just and equitable legislation, the excellent temperature of the seasons.’

“It signified also science, because the demonstration of an unknown number or fact is produced from syllogistic reasonings on some other number or fact which is known; and this is deducible by the aid of science. It was further considered as a symbol of the soul, which is said to be divided into two parts, the rational and the irrational; the latter being subdivided into the irascible and the appetitive. The rational part enables us to arrive at the truth by contemplation and judgment; while the irrational uniformly impels the soul to evil. And it signifies Opinion, which must be either true or false; and Harmony, whence the ancients introduced music at their banquets along with wine; that by its harmonious order and soothing effect it might prove an antidote to the latter, which being drank intemperately, renders both mind and body imbecile.”

“The Pythagorean philosophy,” says Reuchlin, “taught that the Monad and Duad were a symbol of the principles of the universe for when we make inquiry into the causes and origin of all things what sooner occurs than one or two ? That which we first behold with our eyes is the same, and not another; that which we first conceive in our mind is Identity and Alterity - one and two. Alcmaeon affirmed two to be many, which, he said, were contrarieties, yet unconfined and indefinite, as white and black, sweet and bitter, good and evil, great and small. These multiplicitous diversities the Pythagoreans designed by the number Ten, as proceeding from the Duad; viz, finite and infinite, even and odd, one and many, right and left, male and female, steadfast and moved, straight and crooked, light and darkness, square and oblong. These pairs are two, and therefore contrary; they are reduced all into ten, that being the most perfect number, as containing more kinds of numeration than the rest; even, odd; square, cube; long, plain ; the first uncompounded, and first cornpounded, than which nothing is more absolute, since in ten proportions four cubic numbers are consummated, of which all things consist.”

“Categories, reducible in two, Substance and Accident, both springing from one essence; for ten so loves two, that from one it proceeds to two, and by it reverts into one. The first Ternary is of one and two, not compounded but consistent; one having no position, makes no composition; an unit, whilst an unit, hath no position, nor a point whilst a point. There being nothing before on, we rightly say, one is first; two is not compounded of numbers, but a coordination of units only. It is therefore the first number, being the first multitude; not commensurable by any number, but by a unit, the common measure of all number; for one, two, is nothing but two; so that the multitude which is called Triad, arithmeticians term the first number uncompounded, the Duad being not an uncompounded number, but rather not compounded.”

“The Chinese philosophers entertained similar fancies about the color of blue, which is formed by a mixture of red and black. This color, they say, ‘being the color of heaven, represents the active and passive principle reunited in one; the male and female, the obscure and brilliant. All corporeal beings are produced by inapprehensible nature, emanating from blue, which forms the origin of all subtile natures.’ In the science of astrology, which was very prevalent half a century ago, the signs were invested with significant colors. Thus it was said that Taurus was designated by white mixed with citron; Aries and Gemini, by white and red; Cancer, green and russet ; Leo, red and green; Virgo, black speckled with blue; Libra, black or dark crimson; Scorpio, brown ; Sagittarius, yellow or green; Capricorn, black or russet; Aquarius, a sky color or blue; and Pisces by a brilliant white.”

“Nor were the Jews destitute of a respect for the number two which was indeed inculcated in the Mosaical writings. Thus while the clean beasts were admitted into the ark of Noah by sevens, the unclean ones were allowed to enter by pairs. The angels that were deputed to destroy Sodom were two; Lot had two daughters; the sons of Isaac and the daughters of Laban were each two in, number, as were also the sons of Joseph. Moses was directed to make two cherubim; the Onyx-stones of remembrance on the high-priest’s shoulders were two, to symbolize the Sun and Moon, as Josephus says; but Beda thinks they were emblematical of the faith and practice of the patriarchs and prophets, while others suppose, with greater probability, that the high-priest bore them on his shoulders to prefigure the manner in which Christ was to bear the sins of His people. The Jewish offerings were frequently directed to be by pairs; as two lambs, two pigeons, two turtles, two kids, etc. The wawe loaves were two; and the shewbread was placed on the table in two rows; the sliver trumpets to direct the march of the Israelites in the wilderness were the same number.”

“Again, Joshua erected two monuments on passing the river Jordan, one in the bed of the river, and the other on its banks; the temples of Solomon and of Gaza were each supported on two pillars; Jeroboam made two golden calves, and set them up at Dan and Bethel; there were two witnesses against Naboth, as the Mosaic law required in cases affecting human life; and two bears were sent to vindicate the character of Elisha. In the case of Naaman the Syrian, we find the use of this number fully exemplified in the two mules’ burden of earth - two young men of the sons of the prophets - two talents - two changes of garments - two servants, etc. In the visions of Daniel the ram had two horns; and in Zachariah we have two olive-trees, two anointed ones, and two staves called Beauty and Bands, an emblem of brotherhood. Similar coincidences might be found in the Gospels, but the detail would be tedious, and the result without utility, as far as regards Freemasonry.”

“In our system, the principle of the duad is plainly enunciated (although two is not esteemed a masonic number) in the two Pillars of the porch of Solomon’s Temple, which were placed in that situation by the wise and judicious monarch, to commemorate the remarkable pillar of a cloud and of fire; the former of which proved a light and guide to the Israelites in their escape from their Egyptian oppression; the other represents the cloud which proved the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in their attempt to follow them through the depths of the Red Sea. Our noble and illustrious Grand Master placed them in this conspicuous situation, that the Jews might have that memorable event in their recollection, both in going in and coming out from divine worship.”

In the spurious Freemasonry of some ancient nations, this principle of duality was extended to support the doctrine of a good and evil power, who possessed almost equal government in this lower world; and the prospeity or decadence of a nation was supposed to be produced by the superiority of one or other of these beings, which, however, was esteemed, in most cases, accidental. In Persia the doctrine attained its climax. Oromases was Light, and Ahriman, Darkness.

Hyde says, “The Magi did not look upon the two principles as co-eternal, but believed that light was eternal, and that darkness was produced in time; (1) and the origin of this evil principle they account for in this manner: Light can produce nothing but light, and can never be the origin of evil; how then was evil produced ? Light, they say, produced several beings, all of them spiritual, luminous, and powerful; but their chief, whose name was Ahriman, had an evil thought contrary to the light. He doubted, and by that doubting he became dark. From hence proceeded all evils, dissension, malice, and everything also of a contrary nature to the light. These two principles made war upon one another, till at last peace was concluded, upon condition that the lower world should be in subjection to Ahriman for seven thousand years; after which space of time, he is to surrender back the world to the Light.”

In countries where the two principles were represented by two serpents, the solstitial colures were described under these symbols. Thus in the Egyptian hieroglyphics, two serpents intersecting each other at right angles, upon a globe, denoted the earth.

These rectangular intersections were at the solstitial points. The Teutonic Masonry of the last century thus explained the two principles of Light and Darkness: “From the eternal centre is made the eternal substantiality as a body or weakness, being a sinking down, and the spirit is a springing up, whence comes motion, penetration, and multiplication; and when the spirit created the substantiality into an image, breathing the spirit of the Trinity into it, the whole essences, even all forms of nature, the power of Light and Darkness., and the whole eternity, it instantly blossomed and became the paradise or angelical world. In the Darkness is the genetrix, in the Light is the wisdom: the first imaged by devils, the other by angels, as a similitude of the whole eternal being, to speak as a creature. And Lucifer, imaging beyond the meekness of the Trinity, kindled in himself the matrix of Fire, and that of nature becoming corporeal, then was the second form of the matrix, viz., the meekness of the substantiality enkindled, whence water originated, out of which was made an heaven to captivate the fire, and of that Fire and Water came the Stars.”

 

 

Part IV

Back to index

 

LEGENDS AND SYMBOLS IN THE SEVERAL DEGREES OF MASONRY

MOST Masonic writers of recent date have assumed that Speculative Masonry was founded upon the legends and symbols of antiquity. Dr. A.G. Mackey, in the preface to his valuable work on Symbolism of Freemasonry, says:

“Of the various modes of communicating instruction to the uninformed, the Masonic student is particularly interested in two; namely, the instruction by legends, and that by symbols. It is to these two, almost exclusively, that he is indebted for all that he knows, and for all that he can know, of the philosophic system which is taught in the institution. All its mysteries and is dogmas, which constitute its philosophy, are intrusted, for communication, to the neophyte, sometimes to one, sometimes to the other of these two methods of instruction, and sometimes to both of them combined. The Freemason has no way of reaching any of the esoteric teachings of the Order except through the medium of a legend or a symbol.”

It is greatly to be regretted that the most important legends of Masonry are so communicated and represented, when the degrees are conferred, as to impress upon the minds of the candidates the realisms, rather than the “allegories,” which were originally designed as “veils” to conceal the “moral principles” of the system, and which are also “illustrated by symbols.”

Legends have no documentary evidence of the truthfulness of the narrative or any authenticity. Such are the legends in the Masonic degrees. There is no authenticity whatever for the statements or representations. In fact, strict adherence to authentic history as contained in the “Great Light” of Masonry itself, contradicts the details of all the Masonic legends; hence we arrive at the truthfulness of the allegorical system, which was originally designed to teach the morality contained in the Institution.

The first three degrees of Freemasonry are in themselves allegorical, representing certain important principles in their enumeration. First, the introduction into Masonic Life and Light. Secondly, the progress during life in instruction -the life-work education in all branches of useful knowledge. Thirdly, the decadence, death, and final disposition of the body, its resurrection, and the immortality of the soul.

In each of these degrees symbolisms are introduced, teaching important truths, which are calculated to impress upon the mind the value of the great moral principles thus visibly represented. Step by step, as the candidate advances in each degree, he learns the value of the gradation in moral lessons, by which his future life is to be guided. All of these are primarily referable to his first declaration of “Faith in God,” “Hope in Immortality,” and “Charity or Love to all Mankind.”

In these we recognize the several “duties” incumbent upon all men, which were inculcated in every system of morality taught by the ancient patriarchs and philosophers - our duty to God, our duty to ourselves, and our duty to all men. In these are found the realisms of Masonry, and not in our legends and allegoies, by which they are veiled and concealed.

Of what value to us, at the present day, are the representations of the manner in which the Craftsmen and Apprentices were distributed when the Temple of Solomon was under construction ? Or when and how they recoved their wages? Every step, from the first admission of a candidate to the ante-room of a regularly constituted lodge, until he has become an obligated Mason, has its moral lesson. His preparation, admission, and subsequent progress is marked by a lesson, which it is intended shall be carefully studied by the candidate for his future guidance in life. The following sections of that degree are lessons, explanatory and instructive, in the art of Masonry. The first section of the second and third degrees are similar to that of the first; and the following sections are strictly instructive and allegorical. The instructions in all three of these degrees is by symbols and emblematical representations. The science of symbolism is perhaps as old as any other science -the learning of the ancient world was originally conveyed by symbolism. At the present day philosophy treats only on abstract propositions. Freemasonry, however, retaining its traditions, continues the ancient method as the best means of imparting its moral lessons - by symbols - which word, derived from the Greek; means to compare one thing by another. This method of instruction, or “object teaching,” is employed in schools at the present day. It is the language of poetry. The “legend” is a spoken symbol and is employed in Masonic teaching, in some countries is an acted drama, in others it is merely recited or react; in both, it is designed to convey to the mind important moral truths. It is the province of the initiated candidate to investigate these symbols and allegories to draw out from them the philosophies and moral lesson concealed by them. It has been well said that

“Freemasonry is the Science of Morality, veiled in Allegory, and illustrated by Symbols.”

We personally do not claim for Freemasonry the title of a science, but we do insist that it comprehends all true philosophy. Its fundamental principle is a belief in God, without which there can be neither morality or philosophy. The second principle taught in Masonry is the immortality of the soul; and the third principle is the resurrection of the body. These constitute the philosophy of Freemasonry. It is upon these principles that all the ancient religions were founded. In the belief of all the ancients in a Deity, we find a multiplicity of gods; yet, in all of them, there was a chief god, who was so far above all the others as to constitute a distinct Deity. Most of these ancient religions contemplated a Triune God.

“The rites of that science which is now received under the appellation of Freemasonry, were exercised in the Antediluvian World; revived by Noah after the flood; practised by mankind at the building of Babel, conveniences for which were undoubtedly contrived in the interior of that celebrated edifice; and at the dispersion spread with every settlement, already deteriorated by the gradual innovations of the Cabiric Priests and modelled into a form, the great outlines of which are distinctly to be traced in the mysteries of every heathen Nation, exhibiting the shattered remains of one true system whence they were all derived.

The rites of idolatry were indeed strikingly similar and generally deduced from parallel practices, previously used by the true Masons; for idolatry was an imitative system, and all its ceremonies and doctrines were founded on the general principles of the patriarchal religion. If the patriarch united in his own person the three offices of king, priest, and prophet, the secret assemblies of idolatry were also governed by a Triad, consisting of three supreme offices; if primitive Masonry was a system of Light, the initiated heathen equally paid divine honors to the Sun, as the source of light, by circumambulating in the course of that Sutninary, during the ceremony of initiation.” 

Sammes, in his Britannia, says: “The Mysteries of the Cabiric rites were accounted so sacred and powerful that whosoever was initiated in them, immediately secured, as they thought, some extraordinary gifts of holiness, and that in all their dangers they had a present remedy and expedient about them to deliver and rescue them; but that which most affected the Pnwnicians was a confidence they had that those religious ceremonies preserved them from dangers by sea; therefore it is no wonder that, arriving in Britain, they taught the inhabitants that worship to which they held themselves most obliged for their safety.”

In the above extract from Oliver reference is made to the rite of circumambulation. Every Mason will recognize that rite as an essential one in every degree of Masonry, both ancient and those degrees invented since 1717. Pythagoras required his initiates to pass three years in silence and darkness before admission to the mysteries. In all the ancient rites of the Orient the candidate was conducted by devious ways over many rough and rugged paths, and encountered various obstacles, and had to pass through the cold air, and water, the fire, and at last the earth, which four elements were symbols of purification, and lustrations by these were requisite before the postulant could receive the higher mysteries and become an epopt.

“The uniformity of practice which attended the progress of error in different nations is truly astonishing. They equally used the Ambrosice Petrae as vehicles of regeneration; they shrouded their rites under the impenetrable mask of secresy; they possessed the same mode of instruction by symbols, allegory, and fable; the same repugnance to committing their abstruse secrets to writing; the same system of morality; the same attachment to amulets, telesmans, and perhaps Magic; and equally inculcated the immortality of the soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments, which were alike pantomimically exhibited during the initiations.”

“The old Asiatic style, so highly figurative, seems, by what we find of its remains in the prophetic language of the sacred writers, to have been evidently fashioned to the mode of the ancient hieroglyphics; for, as in hieroglyphic writing, the sun, moon, and stars were used to represent States and empires, kings, queens, and nobility, their eclipse and extinction, temporary disasters, or entire overthrow, fire and flood, desolation by war and famine, plants or animals, the qualities of particular persons, etc.; so, in like manner, the holy prophets call kings and empires by the names of the neavenly luminaries; their misfortunes and overthrow are represented by eclipses and extinction; stars falling from the firmament are employed to denote the destruction of the nobility; thunder and tempestuous winds, hostile invasions; lions, bears, leopards, goats, or high trees, leaders of armies, conquerors, and founders of empires; royal dignity is described by purple or a crown; iniquity by spotted garments; error and misery by an intoxicating draught; a warrior by a sword or bow; a powerful man by a gigantic stature; and a judge by balance, weights, and measures. In a word the prophetic style seems to be a speaking hieroglyphic.”

Pythagoras expressed his mystical system by symbols which were explained to the initiated and were not comprehended by the rest of the world. His secrets were forbidden to be committed to writing and were communicated orally as ineffable mysteries. The Pythagoreans conversed with each other mostly by the sign language;

instruction by symbols was found useful in impressing on the mind the most comprehensive truths, and it is said was adopted from Masonry into all the mystic associations: “ The most ancient and such as were contemporary with, and disciples of Pythagoras, did not compose their writings intelligibly, in a common vulgar style, familiar to every one, as if they endeavored to dictate things readily perceptible by the hearer, but consonant to the silence decreed by Pythagoras, concerning divine mysteries, which it is not lawful to speak of before those who were not initiated; and therefore clouded both their mutual discourses and writings by symbols; which, if not expounded by those that proposed them, by a regular interpretation appear to the hearers like old wives’ proverbs, trivial and foolish; but, being rightly explained, and instead of dark rendered lucid and conspicuous to the vulgar, they discovered an admirable sense, no less than the divine oracles of Pythian Apollo; and give a divine inspiration to the Philologists that understand them.”

The Druids used hieroglyphics which, with much reluctance, were communicated even to their initiates themselves. These symbols were imitated from natural objects. Of a man of enlarged mind it was said, “he is an oak,” an irresolute and wavering person was an “ Aspen-leaf,” one who was deceitful was a “ Reed.” (2) The Druids used geometrical figures as lines, angles, squares, and perpendiculars as symbols. They did not use enclosed temples, as being thought by them inconsistent with the dignity and majesty of the gods; they did not employ carved images to represent deities, but employed the rude undressed stones, such as they found in the hills or on sides of mountains, which were erected in their circles for worship, which were marked out by rudse stone pillars surrounding an altar placed in the centre. They also constructed of similar stones long passages between two rows of such stones. Some of these passages were miles in extent.

In Egypt, in all probability, originated those passages, where we find the remains of them as sphinxes, obelisks, and catacombs, all of which no doubt were erected for the observance of their mystic rites. Clement of Alexandria says: “ Sphynxes were erected in front of temples and places of initiation, to denote that all sacred truth is enfolded in enigmatical fables and allegories.”

In the Egyptian mysteries the candidate was instructed in this as an ineffable secret, that the mysteries were received from Adam, Seth, Enoch; and in the last degree the postulant, after the completion of his initiation, was called, from the name of the Deity, AL-OM-JAH; pronounced Allhawmiyah. In India, the completed initiate was instructed in the great word, A.U.M., pronounced OME (o long); we thus see that the same word was used in Egypt as the second word. It has been supposed by some that these were initials of three certain names of Deity, viz. .-Agni, Fire; Ushas, Dawn; and Mitra, Midday Sun, all of them referring to “ Light” in its different degrees of intensity. In the higher degrees in Freemasonry these letters appear, having a deep significance, which we are not at liberty here to say more of. We may here quote from Dr. Oliver: “It is an extraordinary fact that there is scarcely a single ceremony in Freemasonry but we find its corresponding rite in one or other of the idolatrous mysteries; and the coincidence can only be accounted for by supposing that these mysteries were derived from Masonry. Yet, however they might assimilate in ceremonial observances, an essential difference existed in the fundamental principles of the respective institutions. The primitive veneration for Light accompanied the career of Masonry from the creation to the present day, and will attend its course until time expires in eternity; but in the mysteries of idolatry this veneration soon yielded its empire over men’s minds, and fell before the claims of darkness; for a false worship would naturally be productive of impure feelings and vicious propensities.” It is true, indeed, that the first Egyptians worshipped ON (A. U. N. in Hebrew, but pronounced Own) as the chief deity, who was supposed to be the eternal Light; and hence he was referred to the Sun as its great source and emanation. Thus it was said that God dwelt in the Light, his Virtue in the Sun, and his Wisdom in the Moon. But this worship was soon debased by superstitious practices. The idolaters degenerated into an adoration of Serpents and Scorpions, and other representatives of the evil spirit; and, amidst the same profession of a profound reverence for Light, became most unaccountably enamoured of Darkness; and a Temple near Memphis was dedicated to Hecate Scotia, (1) which was styled the Lord of the Creation, and in some respects deemed oracular. The superstition of Egypt which gave divine honors to Darkness spread throughout the world of idolatry, upon the principle that Darkness of Night, which existed in Chaos before the Creation of Light, was of superior antiquity. They therefore gave precedence to Night; and hence to signify the revolving of the earth they said a night and a day. Even the Jews began their time with the evening or commencement of darkness, as in Genesis i. 2, 3. Moses said God created Light out of Darkness.

In the Orphic Fragments Night is celebrated as the parent of gods and men and the origin of all things. In all the rites of initiation. Darkness was saluted with three distinct acclamations; hence we may see that before the Aspirant could participate in the “higher mysteries” he was placed in a coffin, bed or pastos, or was subjected to confinement for a period of time, in seclusion and darkness for reflection, which custom is still employed in some secret societies. This was a representation of the symbolic death of the mysteries; when he was released from that ceremony, it was to indicate his deliverance, and represented the act of regeneration or being born again, or bezels raised from the dead.

We learn from Clement of Alexandria that in the formulary of one who had been initiated he was taught to say, “I have descended into the bed-chamber.” Dr. Oliver says: “The ceremony here alluded to was, doubtless, the same as the descent into Hades; and I am inclined to think that when the Aspirant entered into the Mystic Cell, he was directed to lay himself down upon the bed, which shadowed out the tomb or coffin of the Great Father. This process was equivalent to his entering into the infernal ship; and while stretched upon the holy couch, in imitation of his figurative deceased prototype, he was said to be wrapped in the deep sleep of death. His resurrection from the bed was his restoraztion to life, or his regeneration into a new world; and it was virtually the same as his return from Hades, or his emergence from the gloomy cavern, or his liberation from the womb of the ship-goddess.”

The time required for this ceremony or imitation of death was generally for the space of three days and nights; but was varied in different localities. Nine days in Great Britain were required for the solitary confinement. In Greece three times nine days. In Persia it extended to fifty days and nights of darkness, want of rest and fasting. The remains in Great Britain of the places where the ceremonies were observed by the Ancient Druids are very numerous and well known at the present day, and have been referred to in a former part of this sketch. Among these are the remains of the celebrated Kit’s Cotti House, near Maidstone. “This was a dark chamber of probation, for Kit is no other than Ked, or Ceridwen, the British Ceres; and Cotti or Cetti meant an Ark or Chest; and hence the compound word referred to the Ark of the diluvian god

Noah, whose mysterious Rites were celebrated in Britain; and Ceridwen was either the consort of Noah, or the Ark itself symbolically the great Mother of Mankind. The peculiar names which these monuments still retain throughout the kingdom, are a decisive proof that they were appropriated, almost exclusively, to this purpose.”

Near a village in Somersetshire called Stanton Drew, or Druid Stones, there are the evidences of a rude structure which originally consisted of three circles of stones and an Adytune or a Pastos. There were various other similar structures in different parts of Britain, evidences of the prevalence of these ceremonies, religious in their character.

The initiation into the mysteries was a most important part of the religious worship; and all those who held any important place as priest or legislator, must pass through all their religious ceremonies, as indispensable preliminaries to their advancement, by the solitary confinement in the darkened Pastas. “The religionists of those days considered initiation as necessary as the Christians do baptism.”

We have referred, in a former page, to the several steps in the progress of initiation in the mysteries of the several degrees in Freemasonry, and that all of these were symbols by which the various principles sought to be inculcated were thus illustrated.

Each individual item was emphasized as the candidate progressed; when he was prepared in the ante-room, viz., his raiment, which should always be pure white, to represent that he was a candidate, from the Latin candidus, which means white. The peculiar arrangement of this raiment, in each degree, is explained in the lecture appertaining to each, as also the Zennaar which accompanies the raiment of each degree, which is in Freemasonry denominated a Cable-tow. The different degrees require a different disposal of this cable-tow; in each there is a distinct symbolism, known only to the initiated. The candidate thus prepared is in darkness as to what he is to encounter, ignorant of what will be revealed to him in his progress in at the end, and hanging from the left shoulder to the right hip. The Masonic scarf takes the place of the Zennaar. the various steps of his initiation; he is to be regenerated, born again into a new world of mysteries; as he was originally born into the world of physical light, so now he is to be born again into the moral and intellectual Light of Freemasonry. The following preliminary steps are purely ritualistic, and each Mason who has passed through them can for himself apply the symbols to their appropriate significations. It would be well for us just here to call to mind what has been said by others on this method of instruction in the Church. In the Explanation of the Symbolism of the Mass, Bishop England said that in every ceremony we must look for three meanings. “ The first, the literal, natural, and it may be said, the original meaning; the second, the figurative or emblematic signification; and thirdly, the pious or religious meaning; frequently the last two will be found the same; sometimes all three will be found combined.” Bro. A. G. Mackey, in quoting the above extract from the “ Churchman,” makes the following just comment:

“The Roman Catholic Church is, perhaps, the only contemporaneous institution which continues to cultivate, in any degree, the beautiful system of symbolism. But that which, in the Catholic Church, is, in a great measure, incidental, and the fruit of development, is, in Freemasonry, the very life-blood and soul of the institution, born with it at its birth, or rather, the germ from which the tree has sprung, and still giving it support, nourishment, and even existence. Withdraw from Freemasonry its symbolism, and you take from the body its soul, leaving behind nothing but a lifeless mass of effete matter, fitted only for a rapid decay.”

The candidate, after his admission to the lodge-room, follows the ancient custom of all the mysteries in a perambulation, which is a symbol of the Sun in his annual course through the twelve signs of the Zodiac, as also his diurnal course from east to west by way of the south. The candidates in the mysteries were said to as imitate the Sun and follow his beneficent example.” This symbolism referred to the custom of Pythagoras, who required his candidates to pass three years in silence and in darkness. The various obstructions met with in this “circumambulation” were in imitation of those encountered in the Ancient Mysteries, but of quite a different character, as in the Ancient Mysteries these obstructions were to severely test the courage and persistence of the candidate, and often resulted in the death of the individual; and in some of their underground passages which have been explored in modern times, evidences have been discovered that many persons thus lost their lives.

After the most solemn and impressive ceremonies, whereby the postulant becomes a Mason, he is brought to Light in Masonry by a symbolism, faint indeed, but highly significant of a great event in the history of creation. All that follows is instruction in the science and morals of Masonry. Each degree in Masonry is divided into “Sections” the first section is always the Rite of Initiation. The other sections are for the instruction of the Neophyte, the second section being a rehearsal of the various steps in the first section, and exoteric reasons for these. The following sections contain the morals and dogmas in the several different degrees appertaining to each. In the Fellow-Craft’s degree the second section is a pure allegorical representation; no Intelligent Mason can for a moment accept it other than an Allegory. As such there is nothing more impressive than the important lessons in each part of the representations. The American Rite differs from all others in the arrangement and number of the steps, and in some particulars there are other differences along the whole line. That this legend of the second degree is an allegory we have simply to consult the only history of King Solomon’s Temple as found in the “Great Light” and we will find that there was no possibility of adapting our Masonic ritual to that structure. In the sixth chapter of the First Book of Kings we read: “The door for the Middle Chamber was in the right side of the house; and they went up with winding stairs into the Middle Chamber and out of the Middle Chamber into the third.” Dr. Mackey, in commenting on this passage, says:

“Out of this slender Material has been constructed an Allegory, which if properly considered, in its symbolical relations, will be found to be of surpassing beauty. But it is only as a symbol that we can regard this whole tradition; for the historical facts alike forbid us for a moment to suppose that the legend as it is rehearsed in the second degree of Masonry is anything more than a magnificent philosophical myth.”

In addition to what Dr. Mackey has said, we would say that the middle and third chamber mentioned in the text referred to were the chambers on the north and south sides of the Temple mentioned in the same chapter of First Kings and fifth and sixth verses: Fifth, “And against the wall of the house, he built chambers round about, the walls of the house about, of the temple and the oracle; (1) and made chambers round about.” Sixth, “The nethermost chamber five cubits broad, and the middle six cubits broad, and the third seven cubits broad: for without of the house he made narrowed rests round about that ghe beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house.”

Then followed in the eighth verse, same chapter, as to where the door was to these three tiers of chambers, in the “right side of the house,” viz., at the east end, inside of the porch or vestibule. We take occasion at this place to say that in all of our rituals our lodge-rooms are diametrically opposite in their Orientation” to that of the Temple, which it is supposed we copy, viz.: the east of a Masonic lodge-room is at the end opposite to the “entrance.” Now the entrance to the Temple was at the east end, and the if

“Oracle,” or Holy of Holies, was at the west end, where we now place the presiding officer, and all Masonic bodies claim it to be the “East” or “Orient.”

The situation of Solomon’s Temple, on Mount Moriah, on the eastern side of the City of Jerusalem, now occupied by several mosques of the Mohammedan worship, the central building being the mosque of Omar; the topography of that part of the city militates against every legend and myth in our Masonic rituals in all the various rites, and thus is destroyed any attempt at realism in our degrees, which many very excellent Brethren still adhere to in their firm belief in the “Masonry of the Temple.” We again refer to Dr. Mackey for his comments on this point: “Let us inquire into the true design of this legend and learn the lesson of symbolism which it is intended to teach. In the investigation of the true meaning of every Masonic symbol and allegory, we must be governed by the single principle that the whole design of Freemasonry as a speculative science, is the investigation of divine truth. To this great object everything is subsidiary

The Mason is from the moment of his initiation as an Entered Apprentice, to the time at which he receives the full fruition of Masonic light, an investigator - a laborer in the quarry and the temple whose reward is the Truth. All the ceremonies and traditions of the order tend to this ultimate design. Is there light to be asked for? It is the intellectual light of wisdom and truth. Is there a word to be sought ? That word is the symbol of Truth. Is there a loss of something that has been promised ? That loss is typical of the failure of Man, in the infirmity of his nature, to discover divine truth. Is there a substitute to be appointed for that loss ? It is an allegory, which teaches us that in this world, man can only approximate to the full conception of truth.”

The proper lesson in the Allegory of the Fellow-Craft’s degree is to teach the Seeker after Truth that the intellectual faculties must be cultivated and educated by a regular course of instruction in the liberal arts and sciences. In the Entered Apprentice degree the candidate has been instructed in the moral and fundamental principles so essentially necessary for the proper and due performance of his several duties in life, to God, his neighbor, and himself.

All Speculative Masonry must be philosophical. No man can become truly a Speculative Mason without a knowledge of the liberal arts and sciences. It is in the second degree that the postulant learns of Operative and Speculative Masonry, and these two divisions are simply described in the lecture. The candidate must apply himself diligently to those seven arts and sciences enumerated and symbolized by the seven steps in order to appreciate Speculative Freemasonry. Does anyone imagine that the eighty thousand craftsmen at the building of the Temple were instructed in those seven liberal arts and sciences? That there was among them all, or in that day anyone, who understood the mechanics of the heavens or who did believe that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and that the Earth was in annual revolution around the sun, and diurnal rotation on its own axis? And yet these two principles are the foundation of astronomy.

In our rituals of the United States, the winding stairs are divided into three sets of odd numbers. The ancient temples were all approached by steps, odd in number; and Vitruvius, the most ancient writer on architecture, assigns the reason to be that, commencing with the right foot at the bottom, the worshipper would find the same foot foremost when he entered the temple, which was considered a fortunate omen. Dr. Mackey thinks, however, that

Masonry derives the use of odd numbers from Pythagoras, in whose system of philosophy it plays an important part, and in which odd numbers were considered as more perfect than even ones. Tracing boards of the 18th century show only five steps, delineated, and in some there are seven. The lectures used in England in the commencement of the present century, according to Preston, make as many as thirtyeight, in sums of one, three, five, seven, nine, and eleven.

After the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, Dr. Hemming, the Senior Grand Warden, in his new lectures corrected the error in having an even number (38), by striking out the eleven. In the United States these numbers were changed to three, five, and seven, making fifteen. Like all intellectual acquirements there must be a gradual increase in knowledge. The postulant at his approach to the ascending scale of knowledge is primarily instructed in the lessons of the three steps; having acquired these, he advances to the next ascent of five, wherein he is instructed in the human senses, so essentially necessary for the apprehension of all physical knowledge of the objective world. Now, inasmuch as the comfort and happiness of mankind is greatly added to in the best methods of construction of our dwellings, as also all public structures, the science of building is taught by showing the fundamental principles of architecture as illustrated in the five Orders derived from the three original Orders of the Greeks. In the next steps the candidate rises to the highest position of intellectual cultivation in the liberal arts and sciences. Having attained to this elevation, he is entitled to his reward, which is denominated “wages.” Here is introduced another allegory, which is derived from a scriptural passage, and is designed to prove the value of a secret pass-word, all of our Masonic degrees, which is to distinguish a friend from a foe, and by which is proved the right of a member to admission to the lodge, and should always be given before opening the lodge, and by every member or visitor before admission. This is often entirely neglected in some jurisdictions.

King Solomon’s Temple as a Masonic Symbol. Prior to 1860 -many writers on Masonry held to the opinion that Speculative Masonry dates its origin from the building of King Solomon’s temple by Jewish and Tyrian artisans, and, no doubt, general assent was given to the proposition; but subsequent authorities in Masonic history do not now concur therein.

Speculative philosophy existed prior to the construction of the Temple, but we may conjecture that in the formation of the rituals of the three degrees of Symbolic Masonry, the authors took the Temple and its construction as symbols, whereby the instructions in the moral principles, which formed the foundation of Speculative Masonry, were conveyed to the initiates. The very spirit of all of our lectures proves conclusively that when they were formulated they were designed to teach pure trinitarian Christianity, and while the Jewish scriptures did forecast the intermediary of a Christos, as all the ancient heathen mysteries did also, yet Jesus Christ as shown and demonstrated in the writings of the New Testament, was not understood by the Jewish writers of the Old Testament, nor by but very few of that faith since. The first three degrees taken in connection with the Holy Royal Arch, as they have always been with our Brethren of England, certainly show pure Christianity, as taught throughout the writings of the New Testament scriptures. It is possible that the investigations which for many years have engaged the earnest and serious attention of students of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge of London, may result in determining the period when our Masonic lectures were definitely formulated. We know historically that, commencing with the formation v the Grand Lodge, of England in 1717, the separation of Masonic “Work” into distinct degrees did not occur earlier than 1719. From that date, those who aided in the progressive movement were, first, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Desaguliers; by whom, principally, the “work” was divided into the three degrees of Apprentice, Fellow of the Craft, and Master; second, Entick, by whom, perhaps, the lectures of the degrees were first clearly divided; the third one who made important and valuable improvements in the lectures was Hutchinson; and about the same period Dunckerly made many additions and subsequently united with Hutchinson, in the improvement of the work and lectures of the three degrees. The fourth attempt to improve the lectures was by William Preston. He entered the door of Masonry in a Lodge of the Ancients, but subsequently became a member of a Lodge of the Moderns. Preston’s lectures recommended themselves at once to the more literary class of Masons, and toward the close of the 18th century were the prevailing lectures, and were introduced into all the English working lodges in the Colonies except in Pennsylvania, where we have understood the work and lectures of the ancients continued to prevail and are more or less the work and lectures of the present day.

When the two rival Grand Lodges of England united in 1813 and became the “United Grand Lodge,” Dr. Hemming, the Senior Grand Warden of the new Grand Lodge, was intrusted with the work of preparing a new set of lectures and arranging the floor work of the three degrees and reconciling any discrepancies. This was the last change in the English work and lectures in England. About the close of the 18th century in the last decade Thomas Smith Webb, who became very conspicuous as a Masonic scholar in the northern part of the United States, made many changes in the work and lectures of all the several degrees in Masonry as far as they had been introduced into the country.

Jeremy L. Cross, of Vermont, became his scholar, and about 1816 he too “ took a hand” at the lectures and made changes in Webb’s work; so that now, in all the States of the Union except, as before said, in Pennsylvania, the Webb-Preston work and lectures prevail.

The first section in all the degrees in Masonry is the initiatory rite. So soon as the candidate in any degree has been obligated he is essentially a Mason of that degree, and as such is entitled to all the secrets and mysteries appertaining to that degree; hence every following section in any degree comprises instructions and explanations of the several steps in the initiatory section of the degree.

In the third degree, the second section is a dramatical representation of the “Legend.”

To ordinary minds, unaccustomed to allegorical representations, it is received as a true representation of a real occurrence. Scholars who have critically examined and compared all the circumstances of the allegorical representation, are well satisfied that such an occurrence could not have happened in the locality represented. The situation of the Temple and the surrounding topographical features all forbid any such circunistances as are related in the Legend. Hence we must assume that our authors of the legend intended it to be the culminating Symbol of Ancient Craft Masonry. In that legend is carried out to its ultimate extent the grand idea which prevailed and dominated every one of the Ancient Mysteries of the Oriental religious rites, and when we carefully “read between the lines” we learn how very near to the fundamental principles of “Christianity” all of those religious rites approached, even in their ignorance of what Dr. Oliver and Dr. Mackey have denominated “true Masonry.” True Masonry, as originally designed, was intended to be strictly “Trinitarian Christianity,” and every step taken in Masonry prior to the organization of the Grand Lodge of England, in 1717, was Christian, and no one could be a Mason who was not such, and was true to “Mother Church,” as all the Ancient Manuscripts prove, and in some Grand Lodges in Europe this test is still required and a Jew or an infidel is excluded. Perhaps the change made in this direction, after 1717, admitting only those who professed a belief in God as being the only test of eligibility, has done good, by spreading abroad all the valuable principles involved in our several lectures, founded, as they all are, upon Faith in God, and having no other dogma. To this end was the legend of the third degree invented, and the secret mysteries of the whole of Masonry are concealed in the substitute when properly interpreted, as that should be, and not as now generally explained, which has no meaning whatever. When properly explained, it agrees precisely with that for which it was substituted.

Notwithstanding the conclusion reached by Dr. Mackey in the Chapter XXXI. referred to, we do not fully agree with him, but believe that the origin of the Mysteries involved in the third degree were invented some time subsequent to the organization in 1717; and that, perhaps, Chevalier Ramsay may have been the author, or, with the priests in the College at Clermont, have concocted those secrets, and invented the Royal Arch degree, which he brought with him into England, and endeavored to introduce into the work of the Grand Lodge of England. We know that the degree was finally introduced into the work of the “Ancients” of Dermott, and subsequently, by Dunckerly, into the old Grand Lodge of England, of which he was a very conspicuous and distinguished member. Through him the third degree was so altered that to obtain the original essential secrets of that degree it became requisite to take the Royal Arch degree. Now, in the Ancient and Accepted Rite the degree of “Mason of the Royal Arch,” which is essentially the same as the Ramsay degree, is so nearly like the English Royal Arch degree that we may say they are both from the same original source. Everyone who is familiar with these several degrees must confess there is a family likeness, and they all concur, in their essential features, in demonstrating that the religious elements are the same.

In reference to the occult science in India, we take the following extract from Louis Jacolliot, as translated by Willard L. Felt:

“Remember my Son, that there is only one God, the Sovereign Master and Principal of all things, and that the Brahmins should worship him in secret; but learn also that this is a mystery, which should never be revealed to the vulgar herd: - otherwise great harm may befall you. [Words spoken by the Brahmins upon receiving a candidate for initiation according to Vrihaspati.]

This triangular arrangement of the great name, AUM, recognized as the WORD in the higher Mysteries in India, as the One God referred to in the above extract, represents the Triune God of all the Ancient Mysteries of the Oriental religions.

Under the head of Freemasonry, Chapter II., page 484, Dr. Mackay says:

“Krause gives ample proof that the Colleges of Artificers made use of symbols derived from the implements and usages of their craft. We need not be surprised at this, for the symbolic idea was, as we know, largely cultivated by the ancients. Their mythology, which was their religion, was made up out of a great system of symbolism. Sabaism, their first worship, was altogether symbolic,

and out of their primitive adoration of the simple forces of nature, by degrees and with the advancement of civilization, was developed a multiplicity of deities, every one of which could be traced for his origin to the impersonation of a symbol. It would, indeed, be strange if, with such an education, the various craftsmen had failed to have imbued their trades with that same symbolic spirit which was infused into all their religious rites and their public and private acts.”

In plates 1 and 2 (pages 1718 and 1720) we have shown a very few of the symbols used by the Ancients in their mythologies, and which are copied from Calmet, and herewith is a short description of each.

Figure 1, plate 1, is an Indian representation of Vishnu, the second person of the Trimurti - the semblance of the God, is seated on a lotus-plant having four arms, and in each hand a peculiar emblem is displayed. The stem is supported by Vishnu, represented as an immense turtle. A huge serpent encircles the pillar; the gods hold the tail part and the daityas or demons hold the opposite end. By pulling the serpent alternately the sea was converted into milk, and then into butter, and from this was obtained the Amrita or water of life which was drank by the Immortals.

Figure 2 represents Brahma seated on a lotus flower after the deluge. Calmet supposes it to represent Noah and his three sons. The connection between numbers one and two may be seen in the conch shells shown in the hands, and the chains of pearls around the necks.

Figure 4 represents the Sun-God and Deus Lunus.

Figures 3, 5, and 6 are different forms of Nergal. The word Ner-Gal divides into two parts: Ner signifies light, or luminary, etc., and gal signifies to roll, revolve, a revolution, a circuit, the two together implies the revolving or returning light. If this be truly descriptive of Nergal, there is nothing improbable in considering the cock as allusive to it, since the vigilance of the cock is well known, and that he gives due notice of the very earliest reappearance of light morning after morning. There are different senses in which lightt may be taken, besides its reference to natural light.

“1st. Deliverance from any singular danger, or distress. Esth. Viii. 16.

“ 2dly. Posterity; a son, or successor. I Kings xi. 36; 2 Chron. cxi. 7.

“ 3dly. Resurrection, or something very like it. Job xxxiii. 28, 30; Psalm xcvii. II.”

In the figures 3, 5, and 6 there is no allusion to the first of these principles, but they have a strong reference to the second, Posterity, and the idea of fecundity is expressed in the adaptation of the figure of a cock, which signifies the returning of light. In figure 5, which is taken from a gem in the Gallery at Florence, Italy, two cocks are yoked to the car of Cupid, and driven by one Cupid and led by another; and not merely as if harnessed to a common car, but as if they had been in a race and had come off victorious; as the driving Cupid carries a palm-branch, which is the reward of victory, obtained by these his emblematical coursers.

In figure 3 we have a car with a cock standing in the attitude of crowing and flapping his wings; which is the custom of this bird on certain occasions. The star shown is the Star of Venus, and distinguishes this equipage as the consecrated vehicle of that supreme goddess of love and beauty. At a short distance in the background sits Hymen, the god of marriage and conjugality; his torch brightly blazing; at his feet is a cock crowing, etc., in a manner and attitude very like the other; and with precisely the same allusions. The indication of this allegory is the influence of Venus and Hymen, the genial powers of vitality, on the renovation of life, in human posterity.

As the extinction of lamps, or torches, indicated utter desolation, deprivation of children and misery, so on the contrary we are led to imply the joy of connubial engagements.

The figure 6 represents a cock holding in his bill two ears of corn; he is attended by Mercury, having a Caduceus in one hand, and a bag of money tithe other. This gem has puzzled the learned. Montfaucon  E says: “To see Mercury with a cock is common enough; but to see him walking before a cock larger than himself, is what I have never noticed, except in this representation. It may denote that the greatest of the qualities of Mercury is vigilance. The cock holding the corn in his bill, may, perhaps, mean that vigilance only can produce plenty of the productions necessary to the support of life.” Ancient Mythology adopted various representations of the human form.

Figure 7 is an Abraxas, taken from Montfaucon. It represents a man with two faces having on his head the bushel or sacred Calathus, two wings are on his shoulders and two wings on his hips, and a scorpion’s tail and a staff in each hand.

Figure 8 evidently represents Neptune.

Figure 9 represents Ashtaroth or Astarte, which is the same as Venus. She holds a long cross in her hand and has the sacred Calathus on her head. This is a Medal of Zidon, which was a city of great antiquity; St. Ambrose, in writing to Symmachus, implies that Venus is the Metrane of Persia, and though worshipped under different names yet is constantly the same power. In this connection we must enlarge somewhat upon the names of Ashtaroth, Astarte, and Venus, as in the description of several of the following figures the subject will be better understood.

Venus represented with a dove is referred to Askelon, and yet we know that Egypt had her Venus and dove, as shown in a medal when she stands with a staff in one hand and a dove supported by the other hand extended. This medal was struck in Tentyra, a city of Egypt. This shows that the worship of the dove was very prevalent in these countries. The etymology of Askelon is derived from weight, or balance, shekel.

Another origin is suggested; Ash in Hebrew denotes fire; Kel denotes activity, briskness, and heat, even to wasting; lun denotes to reside, to stay, to remain. These ideas combined, mean, “the residence, or station, of fire, in activity or heating.” To explain this the following Hindoo story is found in Aszatic Researches, vol. iv., p. 168, which agrees with this etymology. “The Puranas relate that, Sami Rami, in the shape of a dove, came and abode at Asc’halanorthan, which is obviously Askelon; here Samiramis was born, according to Diodorus Siculus, and here she was nursed by doves. She was, says he, the daughter of Derketos. Here, say the Indian Puranas, she made her first appearance. Now, by doves, we are to understand priestesses; by her birth, the institution or establishment of her worship, as daughter, i.e., immediate successor or offspring of Derketas. Sami is the Hindoo word for fire, and Rama signifies the fir-tree; ‘Sthan is station, residence, dwelling. By uniting these ideas, we find they also signify ‘the residences,’ ‘Sthan, of fire, Sami, in perfect conformity to the Hebrew name, as above explained.”

Figure 10 represents Dagon, properly Dag-Aun. We must anticipate the description of this figure by reference to another figure, not shown, viz.. There is a gem in the Florentine Gallery which is probably of Grecian workmanship; it shows the progress of those variations by which in process of time Art relinquished the truly ancient representation of Dagon. This figure exhibits a union of the human and fishy parts; but this union is contrary to the original idea of the emblem, which was that of a person coming out of a fish, not making a part of the fish, but issuing from it. (As will be seen in figure 10.) Shall I be thought fanciful in referring the figures of this plate to traditional memorials of Noah, his wife, and three sons? All of them having human upper parts, but piscine lower parts; i.e., all of them originally considered as having issued from a fish; though by lapse of time the import of that allegorical representation was forgot.

N.B. The original Merman and Mermaid of our heraldry supporters. (2) In figure 10, instead of the male and female, and three children, all having piscine lower parts, there is one person allied to a fish; but this one person has four arms, or governing powers. Now I take the fact to be this: when the male personage was used as a type of the event commemorated in this emblem, then the original allusion was to Noah and his three sons; but when a female personage was used, as an emblem of the very same event, then the allusion was to the wife of Noah. On the same principle genealogies were reckoned, and are still in the East, only by the male sex; we have no genealogy by women in Scripture; but this rule was departed from, speciali gratia, when the universal mother of the second race of mankind was to be commemorated. Vide figure 2 for the picture of a man with four heads and four arms, that is, four governing powers, Mental and Corporal; or in this Indian emblem, the four states and conditions of life, or the four castes and distinctions among the inhabitants, which castes are, on the Indian system, equally attributable to Noah as the father, or to his wife as the mother of succeeding generations. The four bearded heads may be those of the four fathers of mankind united into one; signifying legislative government, morals, etc. The four arms to the female figure, No. 10, may signify executive government. Still they represent government in some manner or other; and wherefore four? unless four persons had originally their respective departments in conducting the general welfare of the community, their descendants.

Figure 10, plate 2, is from Maurice’s History of India. It represents a female, crowned, having four arms, each holding its proper symbol, coming out of a great fish; as if this great fish was casting forth this personage, after the tempestuous ocean was calmed, the evil demon destroyed, and the verdant meadows were again clothed with cheerful herbage, as appears in the background of the original.

This emblem is called in Indian one of the appearances of Avartas of Vishnu.

There is an ancient fable that Oannes, who was said to be half a man and half a fish, came to Babylon and taught several Arts; and afterward returned to the sea . . . there were several of these Oannes . . . the namer of one was Odacon, i.e., o Dagon [the Dagon]. Berosus, speaking of Oannes, says he had the body and head of a fish; and above the head of the fish he had a human head, and below the tail of the fish he had human feet. This is the true figure of Dagon, who was the God of the Philistines, i.e., the most of the inhabitants of Palestine, long prior to the time when Joshua led the children of Israel across the river Jordan and took possession of the whole country and divided it among the twelve tribes. Etymologists say that Dagon was Saturn; others say he was Jupiter; others say Venus, whom the Egyptians worshipped under the form of a fish; because in Typhon’s war against the gods, Venus concealed herself under this shape. Diodorus Siculus says, that at Askelon the goddess Derceto, or Atagatis, was worshipped under the figure of a woman, with the lower parts of a fish (see figure 18, plate 2), and Lucian, de Dea Syr: describes that goddess, or Venus, as being adored under this form.

There is an ancient fable, that Oannes, a creature half man, half fish, rose out of the Red Sea, and came to Babylon, where he taught men several arts, and then returned again to the sea. Apollodorus reports that four such Oannes, in several ages, had arisen out of the Red Sea, and that the name of one of them was Odacon: whence the learned Selden derives Dagon. (1) The worship of Dagon continued in Palestine until the change in the mythology of early days to the Greek nomenclature, after the days of Alexander the Great. The temple of Dagon was pulled down by Sampson at Gaza. The Philistines deposited the ark in the temple of Dagon at Azoth.

Figure II, plate II, represents Succoth Benoth, and is a companion to the Deity Nergal; which the Babylonians selected as their favorite object of worship (2 Kings xvii. 30).

This representation is evidently Venus rising from the sea, attended by Tritons, who regard her with veneration and triumph united; but this is not the original Venus; it is the story poetically treated, varied by the looser imagination of the Greeks, from the ancient emblem; retaining the idea, but changing the figures, etc., as seen they did in Dagon, and as they were accustomed to do in all their Deities; from whence the Egyptians, etc., thought them impious; and indeed their images became hereby altogether desecrated. To this incident of Venus rising from the Sea ought to be referred all that the poets have written on the birth of the goddess of beauty from the briny wave, from the froth or foam of the sea, etc., of which enough may easily be met with among the classic writers, Greek or Latin.

The Hebrew word Succoth is usually rendered booths, i.e., temporary residences, as tents, etc. The Rabbins translate it “tents of the young women”: it is literally “the tabernacles of the daughters, or young women,” that is, “if benoth be taken as the name of a female idol, from Bench to build up, procreate children, then the words will express, The tabernacles sacred to the productive powers feminine.”

The dove, when used as an insignia or as a token, referred primarily to the dove at the deluge; and the double-faced Jason referred primarily to Noah; who looked backward on one world, ended, and forward on another, beginning. In the illustrations connected with Succoth Benoth the head of Venus on one side of a medal with a dove for its reverse, and a head of Janus with a dove also for its reverse, must originally have referred to the same event; and this event was what the figure of Derketos, who was the Syrian goddess, commemorated; in other words, Venus rising from the Sea.

Derketos issuing from a fish; 1st, Noah, as the great progenitor of mankind, restored to light and life; 2dly, the prolific powers again in exercise, to 3dly, the revival of human posterity, etc., after a temporary residence in that floating womb of mankind, the ark of preservatlon.

The composition of a woman with the form of a fish is seen in a medal of Marseilles representing Atergatis, Derketos, the Syrian goddess Venus. Marseilles was settled by a colony of Phoenicians from Syria. They, like the Men of Babylon, carried their country worship and gods with them to their distant settlement.

In figure 12 is a representation of the eighth Avatar of Vishnu, in which he represents the Good Black Shepherd treading upon the head of the Serpent Calanach. The promise made to Adam and Eve when they were turned out of the garden of Eden, was that their seed should bruise the head of the Serpent. Now, this figure of Vishnu, the second person of the Indian Trimurti, was called Krishna -the Anointed one - and some have thought that this myth was to illustrate the promise made to Adam and Eve, as above stated.

Figure 13 is a representation of Ashtaroth, the same as Astarte or Venus. The horns are not united to form a crescent as in other pictures but are more natural; around the beautiful head are the Seven stars by three and four, and two figures of lightning to show her authority as regent of night.

Figure 14 represents another form of Abraxas which has more emblems than figure 7.

This figure has on its head the lotos; it has four wings; and connected with each wing an arm; and in each of its four hands different destructive emblems. It has on its feet what might be taken for a third pair of wings; but these are very imperfect, if they be wings.

Figure 15 is Dea Luna or Deus Lunus. This represents a man with a Phrygian bonnet on his head, clothed in a short dress, a sword in his right hand, in his left a man’s head, which he has recently cut off from the body lying by him, whose flowing blood spirts upward. Marcrobius says “the Moon was both male and female;” and adds one particular from Philocorus, that the male sex sacrificed to him in the female habit, and the female sex in the male habit. Though Spartian speaks of Carhoe as a place famous for the worship of Lunus, the reader must not think this worship was confined to that place and to Mesopotamia; for it was spread all over the East. This worship was established in Phoenicia long before the empire of Caracalla; a medal published by Vaillant hath Antoninus Pius on one side and the god Lunus on the others with his Syrian cap on, and holding a spear with a great star on one side of him, and a crescent, which signifies the moon, on the other. The medal was struck at Gaba, near Caesarea in Palestine, by the borders of Phoenicia.

Figure 16 represents the Egyptian Venus. This medal was struck in Tentyra, a city of Egypt, as appears by the legend upon it. Strabo mentions a temple of Venus at Tentyra. This is a reverse of a medal of Adrian; it represents Venus holding her dove in one hand, in the other a staff. On the whole, this has a strong similitude to medals of Askelon, and shows that the worship of the dove was very prevalent in these countries, and in their respective adjacencies.

Figure 17 is a representation of a four-horned goat, which is said to be from Spain, with two upright and two lateral horns. This animal was alive in London about 1769. It is a symbol of the goat of Mendes.

Figure 18 represents the figure of a woman united to the form of a fish, and is similar in composition and shape of Atergatis-Derketos, the Syrian goddess.

Figures 19 and 20 represent two appearances of Baal. They are human heads with symbols of an ox added to them.

Observe in No. 19 the stars which accompany the head; if these stars, or if a single star, be referred to the Deity it accompanies, then we see how easily the Israelites might “take up the Star of their God” (Amos v. 26), i.e., portrayed on medals, or small figures, whether images or coins, etc., carried about them; and secured from detection by their smallness and readiness of concealment. This figure has the bull’s or cow’s horns and ears on its head.

No. 20 has only the ears of a bull or cow; but has on its head a garland of vine-leaves and grapes, whereby it is allied to Bacchus; with two apples on the front of the head, whereby it is allied to Ceres, or to Pomona, i.e., it indicates a fruit-bearing divinity, perhaps Isis fructifera 

We have selected the foregoing examples of the very earliest symbols employed by the Ancient Nations to express their ideas of the Deities whom they worshipped; these all coalesce at last in the Sun and Moon. What was Fortune ? Baal Gad, the Luna Dea which presided over favorable times; where then is the wonder that the Israelites should be tempted to solicit favorable seasons from this goddess, instead of entreating them from the Lord ? as he complains; or that they should offer propitiatory incense to the queen of heaven? (Jer. xliv. 17) or that the question be asked, Can any of the deities of the heathen give rain? which is so necessary to fertility; and an act of true divinity alone. We see, too, how Gad and Meni terminate in the Sun and Moon.

We now revert to quite a different class of symbols, which we find prevailed in Egypt, Persia, Assyria, and was employed by the Almighty himself when he revealed his worship to the children of Israel. We allude to the Cherubim. The first authentic reference which we have in history we find in Genesis, ch. iii., v. 24, and in Exodus, ch. xxv., vs. 18, 19, and 20, which we quote, viz.: “And thou shalt make two Cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, on the two ends of the Mercy Seat. And make one Cherub on the one end, and the other Cherub on the other end; even of the Mercy Seat (3) shall ye make the Cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the Cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the Mercy Seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the Mercy Seat shall the faces of the Cherubim be.”

It would seem from the directions here given by the Almighty to Moses, that the cherubic form was well known to him, from his familiarity with the Cherubim so common in Egypt. We must therefore look to the Cherubim of Egypt to understand the subject and appreciate the Cherubim of the first Ark of the Covenant carried by the children of Israel in their forty years of “Wanderings in the Wilderness,” and into the “land of Promise” and the great Miracle wrought by it in the midst of the river Jordan. (Joshua,

ch. iii., vs. 15, 16, 17.)

In all the different nations, where the cherubic forms were employed, they were compound animals. The various authors on this subject have employed many articles.

Mr. Parkhurst, in his Dictionary, uses no less than sixty; and M. Calmet has many pages and numerous illustrations, some of which we will use. In these articles Calmet proceeds by giving a description of the various parts, separately entering into the compound animal.

1. He first takes the Cherubim described in the Bible, of their heads or countenances.

Each Cherub has four: 1st, that of a man; 2d, that of a lion; 3d, that of an ox; 4th, that of an eagle. In what manner were they placed ? Were they four heads attached to four necks rising from the trunk of the body; or four faces attached to one head ? He thinks they were four faces attached to one head.

II. Of their bodies, i.e., from the neck downward. This was human., the “likeness of a man,” which extended below the navel and to the lower rim of the stomach.

III. Of their wizzgs. Ezekiel describes them as having four wings; Isaiah describes the Seraph as having six wings, viz.: two on the head, two on the shoulders, and two on the flanks.

IV. Of their arms. The translations say hands, but certainly imply arms at length; their number was four, one on each side.

V. The lower part. It must have been 1st, either human thighs, legs, and feet to which was appended at the posteriors the body and hind legs of an ox; or, rather, 2d, the body and four legs of an ox, out of which the human part seemed to rise, so that all below the rim of the belly was in the form of an ox, and all above that was human.

VI. Their services, or, what they appeared to do. The vision seen by Ezekiel, and also by Isaiah, was the resemblance of a movable throne or chariot, of prodigious dimensions, on which the sovereign was supposed to sit; that the wheels were annexed to it in much the same manner as to the royal traveling or military thrones of the Persian Kings; and that the four Cherubims occupied the places of four horses to draw this capacious machine.

Did our limits permit, we could extend this examination into the subject of the Cherubim with great profit; but our object will have been obtained if we can succeed in showing how almost universal was the idea of compounding different animals into one for the purpose of illustrating the general ideas of the different attributes of their deities among all the nations of antiquity.

We copy from Calmet’s Dictionary the following description of the Cherub.

CHERUB -derived from the Chaldee, signifies as a child, from the adverb ki; as, and rabia, a young man, a child; otherwise, as multiplying, or as combating, from rahab, or abundance, or multitude of knowledge; from tab, a multitude, and Nacar, to know, otherwise, in Hebrew, rahar signifies to grow great, to nourish, to bring up; in Syriac, to labour.

This term in Hebrew is sometimes taken for a calf or an ox. Ezekiel i. 10 mentions the face of a Cherub, as synonymous to the face of ar ox. The word Cherub in Syriac and in Chaldee signifies to till or plough, which is the work of oxen. Cherub also signifies strong and powerful, possessing the strength of an ox. Grotius says the Cherubim were figures like a calf. Bochart thinks they were nearly the figure of an ox. So does Spencer. Josephus says they were extraordinary creatures of a figure unknown to mankind. Clemens of Alexandria believes that the Egyptians imitated the Cherubim of the Hebrews in their Sphinxes and hieroglyphical Animals.

The descriptions, in various parts of Scripture, of the Cherubim differ, but agree in a figure composed of various creatures except in the first description in Exodus. The others an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle, as in Ezekiel i. 5, and x. 2. Those placed in the Temple by Solomon were probably similar to these. (I Kings vi. 23.) We can readily see that those on the Original Ark could not have been like those in the Temple, for there evidently was but one head on each one from the expression “and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the Cherubim be.”

(Ex. xxv. 20.) There could only be one head and face to each of the two Cherubim.

Calmet’s own conclusion on this difficult question is as follows:

“So great obscurity has hitherto overwhelmed this figurative representation, notwithstanding it has been the theme of many very learned men, that I cannot flatter myself with succeeding at once in explaining it. I think, however, that this opens a new way for attaining some conception of its real forms; and I feel some satisfaction in the idea that these symbols were not unknown in kingdoms and countries independent of Judea.”

The Cherubic or compound form was common to most of the nations of the Orient. In Egypt, the sphynx and other examples are extant at the present day; in Assyria, all the Temples had such compound figures at their entrances, and we show some of these in figures 21, 22, 23, 24.

If In regard to these Cherubic forms, there were two extreme opinions: 1st. That it pleased God to compose the Jewish religious rites, ceremonies, and symbols, of materials as unlike as possible to those of the countries around them, especially of Egypt, in order to establish a total dissimilarity, and to exclude idolatry. 2d. That a close resemblance, especially to Egyptian manners, was established, in order to accommodate the services to the temper and habits of a people who had been used to such in Egypt. This was the hypothesis of the learned Spencer. The truth, I apprehend, lies between these opinions.

“The Jews considered the Cherubim as of the utmost important under the Levitical priesthood; yet they have lost their true representation. If the flame placed to keep the way to the tree of life was a Cherub, then this emblem is extremely ancient. Mr. Parkhurst finds resemblance to this symbol in the West Indies; in the Temple of Elephanta, in the East Indies; in Diana; in Proserpine; in Rhadigust, an ancient German idol; in Mithras, a Persian Deity; in the gryphon, or griffion, of Cochin-China; in Yahuthana Nasr, Arabian idols resembling a lion and an eagle; and in many other parts of the world. The opinion of this writer seems to be sufficiently established to warrant the inference, that this emblem was not borrowed by the Jewish ritual from Egypt only, but was known among many other nations in its principle at least.”

When we reflect that at the very earliest ages, when religious rites were new among all the nations of the earth, it does seem probable that they all derived their ideas from one original stock; and in time the varieties of manners and customs, and also following these, the methods of worshipping their gods with the same central and general ideas; the variations were like branches of an original stock. The fact that in the vast number of cherubic forms, found in any part of the original heathen and idolatrous world, the common symbols have a great likeness to those symbols used by the Jewish people and described in the Jewish sacred books.

The Cross.

When the Cross became a symbol is lost in the remotest antiquity, and there is no mention of it, historically, at any period, or to the country, or the people who were the first to make use of it as a symbol; nevertheless, it is found at a very early period, by which certain forms have been recognized by certain names having specific meanings.

There are principal forms of the cross which are used as symbols, and others frequently employed in ornamentation having no special signification There are a great many forms of the cross. Among these we call attention to the Swastika which is the usual form of the Swastika, or Svastika, a symbol which has recently excited very much attention among archaeologists. In 1894, the Smithsonian publication contained a very lengthy paper of 221 pages, giving the most complete history with full illustrations and examples of this symbol by Professor Thomas Wilson, Curator Department of Prehistoric Anthropology, U.S. National Museum. He says: “The swastica has been called by different names in different countries, though nearly all countries have in later years accepted the ancient Sanskrit name of Swastika; and this name is recommended as the most definite and certain, being now the most general and, indeed, almost universal. It was formerly spelled s-u-a-s-t-i-c-a and s-w-a-s-t-i-k-a, but the later spelling, both English and French, is s-w-a-s-t-i-k-a. The definition and etymology of the word is thus given in Littre’s French Dictionary:

“’ Svastica, or Swastika, a mystic figure used by several (East) Indian sects.’

“It was equally well known to the Brahmans as to the Buddhists. Most of the rock inscriptions in the Buddhist caverns in the West of India are preceded or followed by the holy (sarramentelle) sign of the Swastika. (Eugene Burnouf, Me Lotus de la tonne loi; Paris, 1852, p. 625.) It was seen on the vases and pottery of Rhodes (Cyprus) and Etruria.

“Etymology: A Sanskrit word signifying happiness, pleasure, good luck. It is composed of Sa (equivalent of Greek ev), ‘good,’ and asti, ‘being,’ ‘good being,’ with the suffix ka

(Greek Ka, Latin co).”

In the Revue a’Ethnographie (IV., 1885, p. 329), Mr. Dumoution gives the following analysis of the Sanskrit swastika:

“Su, radical, signifying goad, well, excellent, or suvidas, prosperity.

Asti, third person, singular, indicative present of the verb as, to be, which is sum in Latin.

“Ha, suffix forming the substantive.”

The Century Dictionary says, Swastika - [Sanskrit, lit., “of good fortune.” Svasti (su,, well, + astz; being), welfare], Same as fylfot.

Compare crux ansata and gammadion.

In Ilizos (p. 347), Max Muller says:

“Ethnologically, svastika is derived from svasti and svasti from su, ‘well,’ and as, ‘to be.’

Svasti occurs frequently in the Veda, both as a noun in a sense of happiness, and as an adverb in the sense of ‘well’ or ‘hail!’ It corresponds to the Greek xxxxx. The derivation swastika is of later date, and it always means an auspicious sign, such as are found most frequently among Buddhists and Jainas.

M. Eugene Burnouf defines the Mark Swastika as follows:

“A monogrammatic sign of four branches, of which the ends are curved (or bent) at right angles, the name signifying, literally, the sign of benediction, or good augury.”

The foregoing explanations relate only to the present accepted name “Swastika.”

The sign Swastika must have existed long before the name was given to it. It must have been in existence long before the Buddhist religion or the Sanskrit language.

In Great Britain the common name given to the Swastika from Anglo-Saxon times by those who had no knowledge whence it came, or that it came from any other than their own country, was Fylfot, said to have been derived from the Anglo-Saxon fower fot meaning four-footed, or many-footed.

“Many theories have been presented concerning the symbolism of the Swastika, its relation to ancient deities and its representation of certain qualities. In the estimation of certain writers it has been respectively the emblem of Zeus, of Baal, of the Sun, of the sungod, of the sun-chariot, of Agni the fire-god, of Indra the rain-god, of the Sky, of the sky-god, and finally the deity of all deities, the Great God, the Maker and Ruler of the Universe. It has also/been held to symbolize light or the god of light, of the forked lightning, and of water. It is believed by some to have been the oldest Aryan symbol. In the estimation of others it represents Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, Creator, Preserver, Destroyer. It appears in the footprints of Buddha, engraved upon the solid rock on the Mountains of India. It stood for the Jupiter Tonans and Pluvius of the Latins, and the Thor of the Scandinavians. In the latter case it has been considered - erroneously, however - a variety of the Thor hammer. In the opinion of at least one author it had an intimate relation to the Lotus sign of Egypt and Persia. Some authors have attributed a phallic meaning to it; others have recognized it as representing the generative principle of mankind, making it the symbol of the female. Its appearance on the person of certain goddesses, Artemis, Hera, Demeter, Astarte, and the Chaldean Nana, the leaden goddess from Hissarlik, has caused it to be claimed as a sign of fecundity.”

Commenting upon the theories of the various writers quoted, Professor Wilson says:

“In forming the foregoing theories their authors have been largely controlled by the alleged fact of the substitution and permutation of the Swastika sign on various objects with recognized symbols of these different deities. The claims of these theorists are somewhat clouded in obscurity and lost in the antiquity of the subject. What seems to have been at all times an attribute of the Swastika is its character as a charm or amulet, as a sign of benediction, blessing, long life, good fortune, good luck. This character has continued into modern times, and while the Swastika is recognized as a holy and sacred symbol by at least one Buddhistic religious sect, it is still used by the common people of India, China, and Japan as a sign of long life, good wishes, and good fortune. 

 

Whatever else the sign Swastika may have stood for, and however many meanings it may have had, it was always oSamental. It may have been used with any or all of the above significations, but it was always ornamental as well.

“Dr. Schliemann found many specimens of Swastika in his excavation at the site of ancient Troy on the hill of Hissarlik. They were mostly on spindle whorls. . . . He appealed to Professor Max Muller for an explanation, who, in reply, wrote an elaborate description, which Dr. Schliemann published in Ilios.”

He commences with a protest against the word Swastika being applied generally to the sign Swastika, because it may prejudice the reader or the public in favor of its Indian origin. He says:

“I do not like the use of the word Swastika outside of India. It is a word of Indian origin and has its history and definite meaning in India. . . . The occurrence of such crosses in different parts of the world may or may not point to a common origin, but if they are once called Swastika the vulgas profanum will at once jump to the conclusion that they all come from India, and it will take some time to weed out such prejudice.

“Very little is known of Indian art before the third century B.C., the period when the Buddhist sovereigns began their public buildings.

“The name Svastika, however, can be traced (in India) a little farther back. It occurs as the name of a particular sign in the old grammar of Panani, about a century earlier.

Certain compounds are mentioned there in which the last word is karma, ‘ear.’ one of the signs for marking cattle was the Svastika, and what Pinani teaches in his grammar is that when the compound is formed, saastika-karna, i.e., having the ear marked with a sign of a Svastika, the final a of Svastika is not to be lengthened, while it is lengthened in other compounds, such as datra-karna, i.e., having the ear marked with the sign of a sickle.”

“It (the Swastika) occurs often at the beginning of Buddhist inscriptions, on Buddhist coins, and in Buddhist manuscripts. Historically, the Svastika is first attested on a coin of Krananda, supposing Krananda to be the same king as Xandrames, the predecessor of Sandrokyptos, whose reign came to an end in 315 B.C. (See Thomas on the identity of Xandrames and Krananda.) The paleographic evidence, however, seems rather against so early a date.

“In the foot-prints of Buddha the Buddhists recognize no less than sixty-five auspicious signs, the first of them being the Svastika; the fourth is the Suavastzka, or that with the arms turned to the left; the third, the Nandydvarta, is a mere development of the Svastika. Among the Jainas the Svastzka was the sign of their Seventh Jina, Suparsva.”

“In the later Sanskrit literature, Svastika retains the meaning of an auspicious mark; thus we see in the Ramayana, that Bharata selects a ship marked with the sign of the Svastika. Varapamihira in the Brihat-samhita mentions certain buildings called Savastika and Nandyavarta, but their outline does not correspond very exactly with the form of the sign. Some Sthupas, however, are said to have been built on the plan of the Svastika.... Originally, Svastika may have been intended for no more than two lines crossing each other, or a cross. Thus we find it used in later times referring to a woman covering her breast with crossed arms, Svahastasvastika-stanti, and likewise with reference to persons sitting cross-legged.”

 

Max Muller continues:

“Quite another question is, why the sign should have an auspicious meaning, and why in Sanscrit it should have been called Svastika. The similarity between the group of letters sv in the ancient Indian alphabet, and the sign of Svastika is not very striking, and seems purely accidental.

“A remark of yours [Schliemann] (Troy, p. 38) that the Svastika resembles a wheel in motion, the direction of the motion being indicated by the crampons, contains a useful hint, which has been confirmed by some important observations of Mr. Thomas, the distinguished Oriental numismatist, who has called attention to the fact that in the long list of the recognized devices of the twenty four Jaina Tirthankaras the sun is absent, but that while the eighth Tirthankara has the sign of the half-moon, the seventh Tirthankara is marked with the Svastika, i.e., the sun. Here, then, we have clear indications that the Svastika, with the hands pointing in the right direction, was originally a symbol of the sun, perhaps of the vernal sun as opposed to the autumnal sun, Suavastika, and, therefore, a natural symbol of light, life, health, and wealth.

“But, while from these indications we are justified in supposing that among the Aryan nations the Svastika may have been an old emblem of the sun, there are other indications to show that in other parts of the world the same or a similar emblem was used to indicate the earth. Mr. Beal . . . has shown . . . that the simple (+) occurs as a sign for earth in certain ideographic groups. It was probably intended to indicate the four quarters - north, south, east, west - or, it may be, more generally, extension in length and breadth.

“That the cross is used as a sign for ‘four’ in the Bactro-Pali inscriptions (Max Muller, Chips fram a German workshop, Vol. II., p. 298) is well known; but the fact that the same sign has the same power elsewhere, as, for instance, in the Hieratic numerals, does not prove by any means that the one figure was derived from the other. We forget too easily that what was possible in one place was possible also in the other places; and the morale we extend our researches, the more we shall learn that the chapter of accidents is larger than we imagine.” 

In the Smithsonian Report (Annual) for 1897 we find an article by Marquis De Nadaillac on the “Unity of the Human Species,” who, in concluding one part of the subject, says:

“The accumulated proof renders it incontestable that the funeral rite of cleaning the bones and coloring them red was practised in different countries widely separated by sea or desert. Thucydides says the history of a people is to be sought in their tombs. In the cases cited, the tomb has responded and has thrown a clear light on the earliest origin of the rite, and at the same time on the common origin of man. A question arising from these facts is, whether they relate to religious or funeral rites. But this is comparatively of small importance. It was surely a custom of the unknown ancestors of these peoples, transmitted from generation to generation. These facts do not allow us to say that primitive life was everywhere the same, nor that if the productions of men are everywhere the same, they are always to satisfy the same needs. In the strange rite that we have recounted, a rite which has required much thought and multiplied cares and which one can believe was strange to barbarous and nomadic races, it is not a question of similar needs growing out of similar creations. In order to find a solution it is necessary to seek higher and farther; it is the identity of the genius of man in all times and in all regions that should be inquired of, and it is only there that it can be found. (1)

“The mysterious Swastika sign born in undefined regions and rapidly extended over the entire world, goes to support this hypothesis. We will seek the lessons it teaches.

“For a long time the Swastika (the croix gammee, a Greek cross, with arms bent to the right at right angles) has been regarded as an Aryan sign, even the Aryan sign par excellence. From this, or from its apparent place of origin, the name Indian (East Indian) has been given it; a name difficult at present to maintain because of the daily discoveries of its diffusion or spread among absolute strangers to the Aryan race.

“It appears from the researches made during late years that the origin even of the Swastika sign appears to be contested. Thus we read in the work of Count Goblet d’Alviella, one of those who has best studied the question:

“’The croix gammee (Swastika) appears from prehistoric times among the peoples originating in the valley of the Danube, who have respectively colonized the Troad and the north of Italy. It extends with the products of this antique culture, on one side, among the Greeks, Etruscans, Latins, Gauls, Germans, British, and Scandinavians; on the other side, to Asia Minor, Persia, the Indies, and to China and Japan.’

“Such is also the opinion of M. Salomon Reinach. According to him the sign of the Swastika already represented in the city of Hissarlik, prior, according to all probabilities, to the thirteenth century B.C., did not penetrate the Indies until after that period He continues that one does not find the symbol in Egypt, (2) nor in Phoenicia, nor Assyria; while, on the other hand, it is frequent in northern Italy, in the valley of the Danube, in Thrace, in Greece, and on the western shores of Asia Minor. Thence comes his conclusions that we should seek in Europe for its origin.

“I do not pretend to contradict this, but the first discovery of the Swastika on the hill of Hissarlik determines that this was not its place of origin. When came this mysterious sign which we see at Troy ? To what rite does it belong ? Where did it originate ?

These are questions we would like to have answered. In the present state of our knowledge, the question is insoluble. One point excites my interest, that is the long persistence of the Swastika and its rapid diffusion throughout such different regions. I see in this an important argument in favor of the unity of the human species. This argument should be further presented and such facts produced as justify it.

“An infant, the child of a savage, might amuse himself by tracing in the sand or on stone, or on the first object that came under his hand, squares and circles and crosses, and lines, making all imaginable angles; with progress the child can reproduce the images of his mind, the scenes that strike him most, even to bizarre figures which are due only to his imagination. He will not produce a sign as complicated as the Swastika unless he has it or has had it before his eye, or unless it shall have been transmitted to him by his ancestors. It is puerile to explain its presence in so many and such widely separated regions by the theory of the identity of the psychologic state among human races which have the same rudimentary culture.

“The mysterious Swastika figured on the idols and spindle whorls of the ancient Dardania, on the diadem of the daughters of Priam, and on the numberless objects from the early cities on the hill of Hissarlik, in the sacred temples of India as on the bas relief of Ibriz, attributed to the Hittites, on Celtic funeral urns, and on the hut urns of Albano or Corneto, a curious imitation of the habitations of the living wherein they have piously deposited the ashes of the dead.

“We see the Swastika on the balustrades of the porticos of the temple of Athena at Pergamos, on the sculptured ceiling of the Treasury at Orchomenos, on the vases of Milo and Athena, those of Bologna, the ancient Felsina of the Etruscans, of Caere (Cervetri), Cumes, Cyprus, and on the pottery gathered at Konigswalde on the Oder; on a golden fibula of the Museum of the Vatican, and a copper fibula of the Royal Museum of Copenhagen.

“It is encountered in the most ancient paintings of the catacombs of Rome, on the tunic of the Bon Pasteur, and on the archbishop’s chair of St. Ambrose at Milan, where it is associated with Romano,” the Latin cross and the monogram of Christ; on the ancient sacred books of Persia, as well as on the coins of Arsacides and the Sassanides; on the most ancient Christian monuments of Scotland and Ireland, often accompanied with Ogam inscriptions; on the Scandinavian runic books; in the Halstattien sepulchres of San Margarether or de Rovische, and in the necropolis of Koban.

“Schliemann found it at Tiryns and at Mycenae; Cartailhac in the citanias, those strange fortified towns of Portugal, some of which date from Neolithic times; Chantre in the tombs in Caucasus, and the Russian archaeologists on the bronze objects from their country in the Museum of Moscow.

“The Swastika has been found in France, in the Tumuli (mounds) of Haguenau, engraved on the cinctures of bronze. It is perpetuated on objects posterior or strange to the Roman domination. For example, on those taken in the Frankish tombs opened at Colombe (Loire-et-Cher), on a funeral stele at the Museum of Toulouse, on a vase at the Museum of Rouen, on the tinctures, Gallo-Roman or Merovingian, near La Fere. The Swastika also is found on a Celto-Roman altar erected at Ambloganna, in England by a Dacian legion in honor of Zeus or Jupiter. on the right and left are two circles, rayed after the fashion of stars, which Gaidoz believes to be a representation of the sun. The Laplanders still engrave the Swastika on their drums intended to be used in Magic rites.

“The Chinese decorate with it their standards, instruments of music, and their cannon.

“The Japanese employ it as a mark on their pottery, and the Hindus paint it in red on their houses at the beginning of the New Year, and make it with flour or sacred rice upon a table or stand when entering a house or church as a sign of good luck or good wishes, or the occasion of a Wedding or fete.

“The diffusion of a sign so complicated as the Swastika throughout all time and in all countries is something to be remarked, and of which we should recognize the importance. Our astonishment is doubled when we find the same symbol among the Ashantes on the Western coast of Africa, and see it figured in America among the most ancient civilization of which we have any knowledge. By what migration has it crossed the Atlantic, by what migrations has it penetrated such distant countries and appeared among races of men so different ? And if, as we believe, all these representations are due to an indigenous art, either Indian or African, where did they obtain their model ? Our ignorance on these points is complete, and the most we can do is to give a resume of the principal known facts.

“The Swastika has been found engraved on a shell from a mound in Tennessee which contained thirty-two human burials, on plates (five) of copper from the mounds of Chillicothe, Ohio, a stone hatchet from Pemberton, N. J., on an Arkansas vase in the National Museum, on a silver ornament, the authenticity of which appears incontestable, and which was shown in 1887 at the reunion at the Association Fransaise at Toulouse.

“Nordenskiold cites numerous examples of the Swastika, now engraved in straight lines, other times indicated by dots, among the cave dwellers of Mesa Verde, and the same is done by Max Mullet in Yucatan and Paraguay, while other savants have found it among the Huacas of Peru and among savage tribes of Brazil, where the triangular pieces of pottery, sometimes bearing the mysterious Swastika sign, often form the only dress of the women. (1)

“We find it in the paintings of the Navajos and on the ornaments of the Pueblo Indians, while the Sac Indians of the Southwest wear it on their collars and garters on occasion of their religious fetes, although it is not possible that they should know the sense which is attached to it, and the Wolpis paint it on their dance rattles.

“I have omitted to treat of numerous figurines ornamented with the Swastika in the hope to find an explanation of this mysterious symbol. We find it engraved on a figure of Buddha in the United States National Museum, on the base of a bronze Buddha from Japan, and on a vase in the Kunsthistorische Museum of Vienna where it figures on the breast of Apollo. Astarte bears it on her arms and shoulders, Adonis on his arms, a follower of Aphrodite, on her robe, a centaur from Cyprus on his right shoulder. In a rude representation of Apollo directing the car of the sun it is found on the wheels of the chariot. A female statue in lead found at Troy wears a triangular covering over the ulva, the center of which bears a Swastikas Numerous cinctures or girdles worn by women bore this same Swastika sign. Does this not indicate that it may have been regarded as an emblem of the generative forces of nature ?

“But we will not venture further in our researches for the signification of a sign so obscure as is the Swastika. Probably (and the figurines just mentioned give this hypothesis a semblance of truth) it was a religious emblem, an amulet consecrated by the varied superstitions of man, as is the hand with the fingers raised a survival of an ancient Chaldean symbol which is worn to-day by the Italians, as is the little pig by the Parisians. Was it dedicated to the living sun; to Zeus or Baal; to Astarte or to Aphrodite; to Agni, the god of fire; or to Indra, the god of rain; or, still further, to Vishnu or to Siva, the Hindu representatives of creation and destruction ? All these hypotheses are possible; more than this, all of them are probable, for the signification of Swastika has singularly varied according to the time and to tradition. Those persons who in the actual state of our knowledge pretend to formulate general conclusions are sadly in error.

“I approach the end of my task. By the side of the similarity of the anatomic structure of man in all times and of all races, I have sought to place the similarity of his genius, as proved by the identity of his conceptions. The ossuaries which contain the remains of his predecessors, the custom of coloring his bones red after they had been denuded of their flesh, the mysterious sign to which we have given the name Swastika, and other conceptions, other almost universal creations, which it would be easy to add, all tend toward the confirmation of the knowledge given to us by the earliest arms, the first tools and implements of flint, and the most ancient pottery. We believe it impossible to misapprehend or mistake the multiplied proofs that flow from modern researches, all of which affirm with an irrefutable eloquence the unity of the human species.”

Among the very ancient symbols of the Orient we find the Pentalpha, or five-pointed star. In one of the illustrations in the Iconographic Encycpoedia of the late Professor Baird, President of the Smithsonian Institution, who succeeded Professor Henry, we observe that the Pentalpha occupies the most conspicuous place. That picture represents the universe, viz., the great celestial serpent forms a circle having the tail in its mouth, at the top; diametrically opposite, at the bottom the serpent twists the body in a large coil; upon this coil is a huge tortoise; on the back of the tortoise stand four elephants occupying the four cardinal points; on these elephants rests the earth, which is flat on the bottom and hemispherical on the top; above the earth are represented concentrically the seven heavenly spheres; immediately above the uppermost sphere, and suspended from the junction of the tail and mouth of the serpent, is the Pentalpha.

The Pentalpha has been so called, because the five (pence) points each represented the Greek letter Alpha. It was called Hygeia or symbol of health by Pythagoras.

We refer our readers to Book IV., Chapter IV., pages 1755 to 1783 -and especially on pages 1781 to 1783 - wherein we have shown the connection between some of the symbols now employed in our modern Masonic system, with those of the remotest antiquity, and have made frequent references to Dr. Mackey and to his predecessor, Dr. Oliver, from whose works on symbolism we have freely quoted such passages as would demonstrate our subject.

The writer of this treatise on Symbolism has endeavored to place before the reader the intimate relation between all the forms of language, as displayed by man, from the earliest ages, in the crudest efforts to convey his ideas to others, down to the perfected forms of animal life, as displayed in the unnatural compositions in the cherubim, which was shown first to Moses, and subsequently to the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah, as described in the text.

We can give no further explanations than those taken from ancient writers, as, down to the present day, they are as mysterious as they have always been in every age of the world, like the image of the veiled Isis in her temple on the island Philae in Egypt, with the following inscription: “ I am that which was, which is, and which is to come, and no mortal hath lifted my veil.”

 

 

 

PART FIVE

ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE

ROYAL ORDER OF SCOTLAND

ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED SCOTTISH RITE

CHAPTER I

Back to index

THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE SCOTTISH RITE

IN Chapter LI of this work will be found a “History of Christian Knighthood,” and in the following chapter, LII, “Knight Templarism in America.” In pages 1332 to 1336, Chapter LI, is given the history of the suppression of the “Templar Order,” the death of the last Grand Master, Jacques De Molay, and the dispersion of the “Order.”

There is no need to repeat in this place the account of the destruction of the greatest of the three great military orders, the “Poor Fellow-soldiers of Christ and Solomon’s Temple” as they officially described themselves. On March 11, 1314, the Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, was burned to death in Paris, declaring with his last breath that the confessions wrung from him and other knights by torture were untrue, and that the order was innocent. The Papal Bull, issued by Clement V. the year before, had suppressed the order and transferred its estates to the Knights Hospitallers, or Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, for centuries the bitter foes of the Templars. The Templars who escaped the cruelty of the French King, Philip the Fair, fled to other countries.

From this period until the invention of printing there was a slow but gradual increase in learning, which was mostly confined to the priesthood; very few, even of the nobility, could read or write; hence they employed as chaplains the learned class of the clergy, who conducted all of their business affairs, and became domesticated in their families.

After the invention of movable type and the increase of books, “learning” became more popular, and by the political changes in the kingdoms of Europe there were important improvements in science and the arts brought about, so that from the close of the 14th century to the death of Charles II. of England, very important events had taken place and an entire revolution of society had occurred, growing out of the “Reformation” in religion. The great fire in London - although a local affair - had its effects upon other parts of Europe. The reconstruction of the city of London - and particularly of the religious edifices -produced a revolution in architecture under the supervision of Sir Christopher Wren, who was appointed by Charles II. as superintendent of all the public buildings after the great fire. Under the sanction of the King, Wren visited the continent and became familiar with the classic orders of architecture, of which there were few examples in England. There is no doubt that the great cathedral of St. Paul’s in London, in its order of architecture, was a copy of St. Peter’s in Rome.

Sir Christopher Wren has often been called by Masonic writers a Grand Master of Masons, but there is no evidence whatever that he was even an Apprentice Mason when he became the government architect or “ Superintendent.”

Lessing, the German critic, goes so far as to describe Wren as the inventor of Speculative Masonry, but later investigators affirm that while Inigo Jones, the great architect of so many noble buildings in England, is claimed to have held a place in the Masonic order, yet Sir Christopher Wren is only mentioned in a professional capacity.

As the first code of Masonic laws and the first items of Masonic history were published by authority, it may justly be inferred that the triumvirate of compilers had no knowledge of his having ever been a member of the Society. The English Freemasons of the period of the so-called revival of 1717 seemed to have found no reason to believe in Wren’s connection with the Society. Wren was one of the most eminent men of the time, “a prodigy of universal science,” President of the Royal Society, the builder of the new cathedral of St. Paul’s, London, and numerous colleges and other buildings, and, more than all, the rebuilder of London after the Great Fire, and it would be strange that the initiation or affiliation of such a distinguished man as the King’s Architect should have been forgotten by the lodges of Masons subsisting when the revival of 1717 took place.

The invention of new degrees was continuous, in the countries of Europej during the middle portion of the 18th century, but most of them were worked to a limited extent only and soon passed into oblivion. The three degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason were the source from whence this prolific development of degrees sprang, and these three degrees were selected, with twenty-two others, to compose a Rite which was destined to retain its vitality, and to spread its influence, throughout the world. This Rite was known as the “Ancient and Accepted Rite.”

There have been various accounts of the manner in which these degrees were selected and arranged in the so-called “Rite of Perfection.” The most reasonable statement is as follows:

The Chevalier de Bonneville established a chapter of twenty-five degrees of the so called High Degrees in the College of Jesuits of Clermont, in Paris, in 1754. The adherents and followers of the House of the Stuarts had made the College of Clermont their asylum, they being mostly Scotchmen. One of these degrees being the “Scottish Master,” the new Body organized in Charleston, S.C., in 1801, gave the name of “Scottish Rite” to these degrees, which name ever since that time has characterized the Rite all over the world, of which more anon. The name previously given to these degrees was the “Rite of Perfection,” or the Ancient and Accepted Rite.

The Marquis de Lernais carried these degrees to Berlin in 1758 and they were introduced into and adopted by the Grand Lodge of the Three Globes. The Rite was revived in Paris that year under the authority of the “Council of Emperors of the East and West.” In consequence of the interference of the Jesuits, who, finding that their former efforts had not succeeded in finally suppressing the Rite, again forced themselves into the Rite and “sowed seeds of dissension,” the result was that a new organization was formed called the “Council of the Knights of the East;” and as a consequence a rivalry sprung up between these two bodies and the Grand Orient of France. In 1781, however, both of these bodies became incorporated with that Grand Body which held the Rite of Perfection within itself.

In 1762 it is asserted that Frederick the Great, who had taken under his patronage all of Masonry in Germany, formed and promulgated what have been known ever since then as the Grand Constitutions of 1762.

The “Rite of Perfection,” which for a quarter of a century, with many struggles, had not fully accomplished the work proposed for it by its authors, was improved, it is said, by Frederick himself, by a reorganization and reconstruction which placed it on a higher standard in its philosophy and in its teachings; that eight other degrees were added to it, and the name was changed to “The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry,” and that the Grand Constitutions of 1786 were ratified and signed by Frederick in Berlin, in May of that year.

By these Constitutions of 1786, Frederick the Great resigned the authority he had held from 1762 as Grand Commander of the Order of Princes of the Royal Secret, and Supreme Chief of the Scottish Rite or of Perfection. His Masonic prerogatives were by the same document deposited with a council for each nation, to be composed of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General of the Thirty-Third and last degree of legitimate Freemasonry, limited in numbers to that of the years of Christ on earth.

The Grand Constitutions formed in 1762 were ratified in Bordeaux, October 25th of that year, and were proclaimed as the governing laws for all the several Bodies of the “Rite of Perfection” over the two Hemispheres.

Prior to this, in 1761, Stephen Morin was invested with power by the Grand Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret in Paris, on the 27th of August, 1761, to carry the “Rite of Perfection” to America. He received a Patent, as his credential, of which the following is a copy:

Morin’s Patent.

To the glory of the G. A. O. T. U., etc., and by the good will of H. S. H. the very illustrious Brother Louis de Bourbon, Count de Clermont, Prince of the Blood Royal, Grand Master and Protector of all Lodges.

At the Orient of a most enlightened place where reign Peace, Silence, and Concord, Anno Lucis 5761, and according to the common style, 27th August, 1761.

Lux ex tenebris. Unitas, concordia fratrum.

We the undersigned, Substitutes General of the Royal Art, Grand Wardens and Officers of the Grand and Sovereign Lodge of St. John of Jerusalem, established at the Orient of Paris; and we, Sovereign Grand Masters of the Grand Council of the Lodges of France, under the sacred and mysterious numbers, declare, certify, and decree to all the very dear Bros., Knights, and Princes scattered throughout the two hemispheres, that being assembled by order of the Substitute General, President of the Grand Council, a request was communicated to us by the worshipful Bro. Lacorne, Substitute of our very illustrious G. M., Knight and Prince Mason, and was read in due form.

Whereas our dear Bro. Stephen Morin, Grand Perfect Elect (G. elu parfait) and Past Sublime Master, Prince Mason, Knight and Sublime Prince of all orders of the Masonry of Perfection, member of the Royal Lodge of the “Trinity,” etc., being about to depart for America, desires to be able to work with regularity for the advantage and aggrandisement of the Royal Art in all its perfection, may it please the Sovereign Grand Council and Grand Lodge to grant him letters of constitution. On the report which has been made to us, and knowing the eminent qualifications of Bro. S. Morin, we have, without hesitation, accorded him this slight gratification in return for the services which he has always rendered this Order, and the continuation of which is guaranteed to us by his zeal.

For this cause and for other good reasons, whilst approving and confirming the very dear Brother Morin in his designs, and wishing to confer on him some mark of our gratitude, we have, by consent, constituted and invested him, and do by these presents constitute and invest him, and give full and entire power to the said Bro. Stephen Morin, whose signature is in the margin of these presents, to form and establish a Lodge in order to admit to and multiply the Royal Order of Masons in all the perfect and sublime degrees; to take measures that the statutes and regulations of the Grand and Sovereign Lodge, general or special, be kept and observed, and to never admit therein any but true and legitimate brothers of sublime Masonry.

To rule and govern all the members who shall compose his said Lodge, which he may establish in the four quarters of the world wherever he may arrive or shall sojourn, under the title of Lodge of St. John, and surnamed In Perfect Harmony; “we give him power to choose such officers as he may please to aid him in ruling his Lodge, whom we command and enjoin to obey and respect him; do ordain and command all Masters of regular Lodges of whatsoever dignity, scattered over the surface of land and sea, do pray and enjoin them in the name of the Royal Order, and in the presence of our very illustrious G. M., to acknowledge in like manner as we recognise our very dear Bro. Stephen Morin as Worshipful Master of the Lodge of Perfect Harmony, and we depute him in his quality of our Grand Inspector in all parts of the New World to reform the observance of our laws in general, etc., and by these presents do constitute our very dear Bro. Stephen Morin our G. M. Inspector, authorising and empowering him to establish perfect and sublime Masonry in all parts of the world, etc., etc.

We pray, consequently, all brothers in general to render to the said Stephen Morin such assistance and succour as may be in their power, requiring them to do the same to all the brothers who shall be members of his Lodge, and whom he has admitted and constituted, shall admit or constitute in future to the sublime degree of perfection which we grant him, with full and entire power to create Inspectors in all places where the sublime degrees shall not already be established, knowing well his great acquirement and capacity.

In witness whereof we have given him these presents, signed by the Substitute-General of the Order, Grand Commander of the Black and White Eagle, Sovereign Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret, and Chief of the Eminent Degree of the Royal Art, and by us, Grand Inspectors, Sublime Officers of the Grand Council and of the Grand Lodge established in this capital, and have sealed them with the Grand Seal of our illustrious G. M. His Serene Highness, and with that of our Grand Lodge and Sovereign Grand Council. Given at the G. O. of Paris, in the year of light, 5761, or according to the Vulgar Era, 27th August, 1761. (Signed) Chaillon de Jonville, Substitute-General, W. M. of the first lodge in France called “St. Thomas,” Chief of the Eminent Degrees, Commander and Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret. Bro. the Prince de Rohan, Master of the Grand Lodge “Intelligence,” Sovereign Prince of Masonry. Lacorne, Substitute of the Grand Master, W. Dep. M. of Lodge “Trinity,” Grand Perfect Elect, Knight and Prince Mason. Savalette de Bucheley, Grand Keeper of the Seals, Grand Elect, Grand Knight and Prince Mason. Taupin, etc., Prince Mason, Brest-dela-Chaussee, etc., W. M. of the Lodge “Exactitude,” Grand Elect Perfect Master, Knight Prince Mason. Count de Choiseul, etc., Prince Mason Boucher de Lenoncourt, etc., W. M. of the Lodge “Virtue,” Prince Mason.

By order of the Grand Lodge. Daubertin, Grand Elect Perfect Master and Knight Prince Mason, W. M. of the Lodge “Saint Alphonse,” Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge and of the Sublime Council of Prince Masons in France, etc.

The first soil which Morin touched on his mission to America was San Domingo, and afterward, on his arrival at Kingston, Jamaica, he appointed Henry Francken a Deputy Inspector-General Later on other appointments were made by him to this office, and these Deputies he supplied with copies of the Grand Constitutions, which had been adopted in 1762. Soon after his appointment Francken visited the North American Colonies, where he gave an appointment of Deputy Inspector-General to Moses M.  Hayes, at Boston, Mass.

Francken established under his commission from Morin a lodge at Albany, N. Y. This was a Lodge of Perfection of the 14th Degree. On December 20, 1767, he conferred the degree of Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret, the 25th Degree of the Rite, on several Brethren of the order. This lodge seems not to have prospered, and was nearly forgotten when in 1822 Giles Fonda Gates, one of the most active Brethren of the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, discovered the original Warrant, together with some patents of the Brethren of the body, and its books of record.

This was, no doubt, the very first body of the “Rite of Perfection” ever planted on the Continent of North America, and there were, doubtless, several such bodies in the Islands of the West Indies.

Those Masons who have progressed beyond the Blue Lodge degrees, and are familiar with the Capitular and Cryptic Rites, as also the degrees of the Commandery and those of the A.’. A.’. A.’. S.’. R.’. can readily perceive how Thomas Smith Webb was able to manufacture the degrees attributed to him, after his residence in Albany, and his connection with the Masons of that city.

Brother Da Costa was made Deputy Inspector-General for South Carolina by Hayes in 1781; he also appointed Solomon Bush Deputy for Pennsylvania, and B. M. Spitzer Deputy for Georgia.

Da Costa established in Charleston in 1783 a Sublime Grand Lodge of Perfection.

A Council of Princes of Jerusalem was duly constituted in Charleston, and Meyers, Spitzer, and Frost were present and installed the Officers. The Council of Knights Kadosh was organized in Philadelphia in 1796 by refugees from San Domingo. When France again assumed authority over San Domingo, these Brethren returned home and the council became dormant if not entirely extinct.

In New York City a chapter of Rose Croix (18th Degree) was established in 1797, the Grand Constitution of 1786 and the ritual of the eight added degrees having been received in Charleston at that time. The bodies already established in Charleston accepted the new regime and adopted the new degrees, and in 1801 a convention was held and preliminary steps inaugurated to form a Supreme Council of the 33d and Last Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

The name of this new body was “The Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General of the Thirty-third and Last Degree for the United States of America.” It was formed and organized by John Mitchell and Frederic Dalcho, and during the year the full number of members, nine, was admitted.

This new body recognized the Constitutions of 1762, the Secret Constitutions, and the much-discussed Constitutions of 1786.

These latter constitutions are believed to have been approved and ratified by Frederick the Great of Prussia, as Supreme Head and Governor of the Rite, and, as already stated, provide for the government of the Rite, after his death, by a council in each nation. Although these constitutions claim to have been recognized as the Supreme Law of the Rite in 1786, they were not published till 1832, when a French version appeared. A Latin text was published two years afterward which, while agreeing with the French book in essentials, differs in many of the details. It may be broadly stated that the Latin version is more precise, more complete, more in legal form, and, hence, some students have arrived at the conclusion that the Latin constitutions, thus written in a language universally understood, were the original, while the French version was really an adaptation for the use of the Brethren in France.

But the question whether the French or Latin text is the original is a mere trifle of little importance compared with another vital one, namely: “Were the Constitutions of 1786 ever seen or sanctioned by Frederick the Great? Were they not forged in Charleston ?

Those who asserted the falseness of the constitutions made no attempt to demonstrate the commission of forgery at Charleston, but confined themselves to denying that they were ever sanctioned Dy Frederick. The reasons alleged for this opinion were that in 1786 Frederick was mentally and physically incapacitated for business, and, furthermore, that the names subscribed to the Latin version were fictitious. The injurious suspicions as to the veracity of numerous Masonic statements, caused by the injudicious zeal and the uncritical methods of many Masonic writers, led to the general acceptance of the belief that the constitutions as contained in the Latin version were like many of the stories invented by the arch-impostor, Cagliostro, and others, simply stupid forgeries by men ignorant or careless of historical facts and historical probahilities. This belief, it may be repeated, was held not only by men not affiliated to any Masonic order, but by many Masons of good standing. It was reserved for an American Mason, of the highest degree, Brother Albert Pike, to refute this theory. That eminent Mason, in his Historical Inquiry, showed from documents of the period that in 1786 Frederick the Great, while undoubtedly suffering from physical ailments, was still in the habit of attending to business. Brother Pike likewise showed that the names appended to the Constitution of 1786 were those of men who were connected with the Court of Berlin. The result of his investigations, after an extensive and impartial study of all accessible sources of information, was to the effect that the aforesaid constitutions were drawn up at Berlin and duly ratified by Frederick in the year assigned to them. As such they were recognized by the Southern Supreme Council. This refers to the Latin version of the constitutions. Another student of the history of the Rite considers the French version the original, and this is the version which is recognized by the Northern Supreme Council.

Without quoting at length from Bro. Pike’s Historical Inquiry, it may be advisable to give some of his conclusions. He shows that when Francken in 1767 introduced the Rite into the American Colonies it was generally understood that the supreme governing power was in Berlin, and that in 1770 the Lodge of Perfection at Albany was directed to transmit reports to Berlin, while, still earlier, a tracing-board made by one of its members displays the double eagle of Prussia as a symbol of the head of the order.

Moreover, in 1785, the Lodge of Perfection at Philadelphia drew up an address to be presented to Frederick as head of the order. The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of 33d, the title of which heads this chapter, like all the so-called Scottish Masonry, has nothing whatever to do with the Grand Lodge of Scotland. No portion of it, except perhaps the Royal Order of Scotland, ever originated in Scotland, nor were any of these so-called Scottish degrees at any time practiced in Scotland. Gould, in his history, applies the word Scots as distinguished from Scottish to show these additions to Freemasonry made on the Continent. These so-called Scottish or Scots degrees seem to have originated about the year 1740 in France. The statement that Irish chapters existed in Paris from 1739, holding their constitutions from the Grand Chapter of Dublin, cannot be accepted. There is no evidence to support it, and Masonic authorities reject it, holding that a much later date must be assigned to all these Irish degrees. Nor must we confuse the “Orient de Bouillon” with these so-called Scots Masons, for that was simply a Grand Lodge established in Luxemburg, years afterward.

What these Scots lodges taught nobody knows and nobody need care. Rituals exist in lamentable profusion, but unfortunately they do not agree. They are, however, all permeated with one notion, the absurdity of which will show the absurdity of the system.

They state that some Scottish crusaders found in a vault the long-lost ineffable word, and that in their search they worked “with the sword in one hand and the trowel in the other.” This expression is taken from the Hebrew account of the building of the Second Temple of Zerubbabel, and while natural enough as applied to builders; is quite out of place in the case of men rummaging in some subterranean passage. The story of the

long lost, ineffable word” we meet with in the Arabian Nights, where we learn that the knowledge of it made Solomon, the King of Genii, able to perform all kinds of marvels.

The Arabian Nighfs is the fit place for the story. It must be remembered, too, that the temple that the Crusaders saw was not Solomon’s nor Zerubbabel’s, but Herod’s, erected a little before the birth of Christ.

At any rate, relying on this fable, the Scots Master claimed to be in possession of the true secrets of Freemasonry, the true history and the real designs of the order. He claimed also to be in every way superior to the Master Mason, and to hold various peculiar privileges.

In utter contempt for the great principle on which Freemasonry is founded, the perfect equality of all its members with a governing body elective and representative, the Scots Masters claimed to rank before the W.M. of any lodge even when they were only present as visitors. They claimed the right to wear a distinctive dress and to remain covered even in a Master’s Lodge. They claimed to impart the secrets of the E.A., F.C., and W. M. degrees, personally and either with or without ceremony as the whim seized them. They would not, if they were members of a lodge, permit anyone but other Scots Masons to sit in judgment upon them. Matters became still worse when the Scots Lodges were “grafted on the ordinary Lodges,” and increased in number and in arrogance. In these cases the W.M., instead of being elected by the lodge, was nominated by the Scots Lodge, and as was inevitable, he was almost always one of themselves. All questions of ritual and doctrine were decided by the Scots Lodge, all the finances were managed by the Scots Lodge, in fact all the governing powers were usurped by the Scots Lodge. Nay, the Scots Lodge went so far as to arrogate to itself all the powers of a Grand Lodge, and as such to issue Warrants of Constitution. From the exercise of these powers arose the so-called Scots Mother Lodges which became so numerous in France, each Mother Lodge claiming and exercising the right of granting constitutions and warrants to other lodges, and of developing systems of degrees peculiar to themselves, and worked in chapters all independent of each other. France, it has been said, was the inventor of all these novelties, and the most important of its Scots Mother Lodges was the one established in Marseilles in 1751 under the title of St. John of Scotland. To give it some ground for calling itself Scots, it professed to he founded by a traveling Scotsman, and proceeded to grant warrants to a large number of lodges in France and elsewhere. From it descended another so-called Mother Lodge, the Mother Lodge of the county of Venaissin, with its seat at Avignon, which in turn became the mother of the Scottish Philosophic Rite. In all these new systems not only was the true original and beautiful simplicity of the Craft overlaid and disfigured by foolish legends and childish ceremonies, but to quote Br. Gould, “the governing power is autocratic and irresponsible, a hierarchy is formed, the highest class rules all the others, and directs the lower classes without appeal from those below it.” France, we have seen, may be considered as the inventor of what a German historian of Masonry calls “the lying fictions” of the so-called High Degrees, and in the 18th century, as in the present, set the fashion to Europe. The arch impostor Balsamo, who called himself the Count Cagliostro, was in the height of his reputation, preaching the doctrines of his Egyptian Masonry, of which he made himself the Grand Cophta; his dupes were persons of the highest rank, and speedily a flood of imbecile mysticism overwhelmed most of the lodges on the Continent of Europe. From France it spread to Germany, and the name of its introducer into the Empire is given as a Count von Schmettau. In Berlin the members of the lodge entitled the Three Globes erected a Scots Lodge in 1741, Hamburg followed with a Scots Lodge or two in 1744, and the Saxon city of Leipzig in 1747, and the Free City of Frankfort followed suit in 1753. It is stated that between 1742 and 1764 no fewer than forty-seven such lodges were erected in Germany. These Scots Lodges, however, were soon absorbed by the Clermont system with its low chapter degrees, which system in its turn was absorbed by the Templar system of “Strict Observance.” Even now, some of these Scots Lodges, according to Mr. Gould, form the basis of the German Grand Lodge Systems, styled the “Inner Orient.”

To France and to the Scots Lodges in France must be assigned the manufacture of those new degrees which connected the Scots Masons with the Knights Templars and thus gave life to the whole system of Templarism. It was an age of disbelief and credulity, of sensuality and mysticism, of the hardest common-sense and the wildest tomfoolery. It was an age of unrest, of decay, and a longing for a new birth, and the teachings of history were scorned, and every fable - the more improbable the better was eagerly accepted, till men really believed that there was some foundation for the legend that the Military and Religious Order of the Temple, in spite of its having perished in fire and blood, had in some unknown way, preserved a germ of vitality for some four hundred years. In 1741 a degree called the Kadosh degree, representing the Vengeance of the Templars, was invented by the Masons of Lyons, and henceforth all the new rites of French origin contain Knightly and almost all Templar degrees, the connection being in all instances formed by some of the Scots degrees. The German Handbook enumerates over sixty-eight such degrees in various rites, and it is probable this list could be extended. The name Scottish, too, is assumed by many rites to designate the whole system, for instance the Scottish Philosophic Rite. The above-

mentioned system of the chapters of Clermont was a Templar continuation of the Scots degrees, and grew into the so-called Emperors of the East and West, and finally developed into the “Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite 33d.”

It was on the Continent of Europe that these innovations on the simple ceremonies and beneficial doctrines of the Craft spread out most luxuriantly. Under the assumption that the Scots lodges could issue warrants of constitutions, whole swarms of irresponsible lodges were formed, in which the principles of the Craft were little considered. From this period may be dated the enmity of the Church and the Kings of Europe to any association that bore the name or claimed any affiliation with the Freemasons. There is no doubt that most of these lodges became political centers of social and political conspirators. In the hierarchy of these rites, each class is self-elected, and thus admits only those it pleases, while the lower classes have no voice in the management of their affairs or in the election of their rulers.

Our limits will not permit any very extended reference to the varied changes in these so-called is High Degrees “prior to the full establishment of the Ancient and Accepted Rite; but we must mention the most important events, that the reader may appreciate the subsequent and final establishment of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, which took its origin, as such, in Charleston, S.C., in 1801, and the formation of the very first “Supreme Council of Grand Inspectors General of the 33d degree, in South Carolina,” with Colonel John Mitchell Sov. Grand Commander.

From all the authorities which have been examined, in respect to the Chapter of Clermont, the system of Masonry therein practiced gives no definite information. Thory, who wrote sixty years subsequently, states that Chevalier de Bonneville founded a chapter on November 24, 1754. Brother Gould, in his history of this chapter, denies the statement of Thory, that Von Hund took the Templar degrees in that chapter, as he had left France for the last time in 1743, or eleven years previously, and erected his first Templar Chapter in Unwurde in 1751.

Thory also says: “The Chapter was based on the three degrees of Freemasonry, and the Scots or St. Andrew degree, and worked three higher, 5d, the Knight of the Eagle or Select Master; 6d, the Illustrious Knight or Templar; 7d, the Sublime Illustrious Knight.”

The Chevalier de Bonneville, mentioned above, is probably the same person as the Count de Bonneville who founded in 1760 a lodge in the Nouvelle France, near Paris, which is described as being brilliantly conducted and frequented by persons of high rank. The difference in the titles given to Bonneville can be explained by the old French system by which a younger son was styled Chevalier until by the death of older members of the family he attained the higher rank of Count, and such deaths may have occurred between the two dates of 1754 and 1760. Not much information can be found respecting the doings of this lodge created by M. de Bonneville, and it is probable that Kloss’s opinion of it referring to the “Emperors of the East and West” is the nearest to the truth. As to the “Emperors of the East and West,” an account will be given later.

While the history of the Rite, as far as France is concerned, is obscure, its history in Germany is more important.

We will now briefly state the Masonic affairs of Germany in connection with this “Chapter of Clermont.” In 1742 the members of the “Three Globes” erected the Scots Lodge “Union” to work the fourth or Scots degree. The Baron Von Printzen was, in 1750-54 and 1757-61, W.M. of the Mother-Lodge “Three Globes” of Berlin; i.e., he was ex-officio Grand Master of all the lodges of is “Three Globes.” In 1757 the French Marquis Gabriel Tilly de Lernais came to Berlin as a prisoner of war, and in 1758, with Printzen, founded a chapter of the three Clermont degrees, grafted upon the Mother-Lodge of the “Three Globes,” and the Scots Lodge “Union.” On June 10, 1760, this chapter constituted the chapter “Sun” at Rostock; and on July 19, 1760, took the title of “Premier Grand Chapter of Clermont in Germany.” Philip Samuel Rosa was appointed to travel over the north of Germany, to bring the lodges under the control of the “Three Globes” and to institute chapters. A fourth chapter was constituted by Rosa at Stettin, March, 1762; he then, subsequently, instituted eight others, in different cities, until in June, 1763, his career was terminated by being expelled from the Craft; his successor, Schubart, instituted the last and fifteenth German chapter of Clermont, at Magdeburg, November 27, 1763.

It has been thought by some writers that the name of Clermont was derived from the College of Jesuits of that name. Brother Gould, however, does not concur therewith, and says: “I am unable to believe that the Jesuits could have consented to glorify the Knights Templars, nor can I see anything new in these degrees, being, as they were, merely amplifications and rearrangements of previous ones. I prefer to consider the title a delicate compliment to the Duke of Clermont. Grand Master of French Masonry from 1743 to 1770.

Inasmuch as the “Knights of the East” was a body of “improved” Masonry about that period, it becomes proper to give some account of that organization, and we are again indebted to Brother Gould above all other authors for his very impartial examination into the history of not only this particular body, but also in that connection all of those systems which flooded the Continent about the middle of the 18th century and toward the close of it.

The only real attempt to arrive at the facts, in regard to this early system, was made by Dr. Kloss. Other writers had overlooked the separate existence of Masons, who were called “Sovereign Princes of Masonry,” “either confusing them with certain special degrees of other systems, or treating them as an offshoot of the Emperors of the East and West.” Even the usually diffuse Handbuch is excessively meager in the information which it supplies. Yet if Kloss’s extensive and minute researches are to be given their just weight, it is to the rivalry between the Knights and the Emperors that must be attributed the sorrowful picture of discord presented by the Grand Lodge of France, 1760-80.

In 1754 the Grand Lodge of the members of the Chapter of Clermont had been founded, and in the following year the Grand Lodge of France acknowledged the privileges which were claimed to be possessed by the so-called Scottish Masons. This action may probably have been with a desire to counterbalance the influence of the Chapter of Clermont. This chapter seems to have been decidedly of an aristocratic order, and to have enrolled as its members only the high nobility, members of the Court circle, high officers in the military and other professions reserved to nobles, while all less favored individuals were refused admission to it. It was a period in French history

when the lower noblesse, and the noblesse of the robe, as the highest lawyers or judges were entitled, as distinguished from the noblesse of the sword, the designation of the old feudal nobility, with its military traditions, were striving to obtain great influence and higher recognition in the social hierarchy. It was from this class of the lower nobility and less highly placed officials that the association of “Knights of the East, Princes and Sovereigns of Masonry” was formed in 1756. Its separate subdivision took the name of colleges, each of which bore the name of its president. The chief college was that of Valois of Paris. If this college followed the usage of its fellow colleges, Valois must have been a man who as yet remains undiscovered. Under these circumstances, it is more probable that the name is taken from the province of the Valois, adjoining the Isle of France, in which Paris is situated, and which gave its name to the royal family that sat on the throne of France from Francis I. to Henry III. Be this as it may, some names of these Knights of the East survive, and they clearly show that the association was recruited mainly from the lower nobility and the upper middle class.

The occurrence of a name like Baron Tschadi is no objection to this view. In the first place, the name shows he was not a Frenchman, and in the second place the title baron was that reserved to the richer members of the mercantile or financial class.

The statutes of the Rite are elaborate; one article provides that the position of Sovereign shall be held for the space of one year by each member in turn. Another article, No. 7, decrees that the Knights of the East are the born princes of the complete order, just as the Scottish Masters are the Grand Superiors of the Masonic Order. The next article lays down the doctrine that if a Knight of the East comes in his travels to a place where no lodge of the Rite exists, he may dispense the light of the first six degrees to a Master Mason. The term “first six degrees” implies that the degrees were more than that number, and that therefore there were at least seven degrees beyond that of Master, or ten degrees in all, thus working three degrees higher than the Chapter of Clermont.

The dominant position of the College of Valois in the Knights of the East was lost in 1762, as the result of an intestine quarrel. Its place evas taken by a Sovereign Council of the Knights of the East, of which the following officers of the Grand Lodge of France were members: The Grand Keeper of the Seal, Brest de la Chaussee; the President, one of the Wardens; the Grand Orator, the Secretary General and the Grand Secretary. The prime mover of this resolution is said to have been a Parisian tailor named Poilet, but this is improbable, as in 1764 we find a Poilet acting as a leading member of the rival Emperors, and his humble profession would certainly have excluded a tailor from the aristocratic Emperors. There is reason, however, to believe that from this period the aristocratic Emperors of the East and West lost much of their influence in Grand Lodge, while the lower class Knights gained power. The old rivalry still went on and in 1766 the Knights sustained a defeat from the Emperors and many of their members were expelled. The Sovereign Council of the Knights of the East retaliated by a circular in which it requested all lodges to cease working Templar degrees. The Knights evidently did not do so. The Emperors of the East and West, as they were an offshoot and continuation of the Chapter of Clermont, certainly did so.

The quarrels of the Emperors and the Knights continued and grew more bitter, till it became necessary in 1767 for the Government to issue an edict dissolving the Grand Lodge. From that the Knights of the East, as a body, sank into insignificance.

 

 

CHAPTER II

Back to index

 

THE ORIGINAL SUPREME COUNCIL

THE very first Supreme Council of which we have any knowledge whatever, either by tradition or history, was the one organized by John Mitchell, Frederic Dalcho, Emanuel De La Motta, Abraham Alexander, Major T. B. Bowen, and Israel Delieben, at Charleston, S. C., May 31, 1801. This was a transformation of the former in “Rite of Perfection,” or Ancient and Accepted Rite.

 

The Brethren who constituted this new Rite were all members of the several Constituent Bodies, which derived their Masonic life, and constituted authority from Morin through his Deputies duly appointed by him to propagate the Rite on the American Continent, or more extensively the Western Hemisphere.

 

The pedigree is as follows: Morin commissioned Francken, and Francken commissioned Moses M. Hayes; Moses M. Hayes commissioned Barend M. Spitzer, and the latter, on April 2, 1795, commissioned John Mitchell as Deputy Inspector-General, reciting in his patent of commission that he does so by authority of the Convention of Inspectors held in Philadelphia, June 5, 1781. This new Rite, which came into the world apparently fully developed, was really a transformation of the Rite of Perfection.

 

To show conclusively as to when the Supreme Council of the 33d and last degree was organized, we are permitted to furnish herewith a fac-simile copy of the “Register” of the several bodies of the A.’. A.’. A.’. S.’. R.’. which met in the city of Charleston, S. C., in 1802. The original is in the Archives of the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction in Washington, D. C.

 

ANNUAL REGISTER

OF THE

BRETHREH WHO COMPOSE THE

SUBLIME GRAND LODGE OF PERFECTIONW OF

SOUTH-CAROLINA,

 

ESTABLISHED AT CHARLESTON, ANNO LUCIS 5783

ALSO,

THE LIST OF THE OFFICERS OF THE

GRAND COUNCIL OF PRINCES OF JERUSALEM:

OFFICERS OF THE SOVEREIGN CHAPTER OF ROSE CROIX DE HERODEN;

OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE GRAND

CONSISTORY,

AND

GRAND INSPECTORS GENERAL OF THE

33d DEGREE,

 

Hoc maxime officii, ut quisque masume opis indigeat, ita ei potissumum opitulari.

 

TULL

REGISTER FOR THE YEAR 5802.

CHARLESTON (SOUTH CAROLINA)

 

PRINTED BY T.B. BOWEN, NO 3, BROAD-STREET BY THE GLORY OF THE GRAND ARCHITECT OF THE UNIVERSE.

Officers of the SUBLIME GRAND

LODGE of PERFECTION of South

Carolina

 

Sublime Grand Master

FREDERICH DALCHO, native of Maryland, Doctor of Medicine, Member of the Medical Society of South Carolina, Honoury Member of the Chemical and Medical Societies of Philadelphia, and one of the Physicians of the Charleton Dispensary, &c. &c. aged 32 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d degree, and Lieutenant Grand Commander for the United States.

(4)

Sublime Deputy Grand Master.

JOSEPH JAPAN, native of Montargisa en Gatinois, Planter of Saint Domingo, aged 43 years, Master of the Lodge la Candeur, N. 12, Past Sublime Grand Master, R.’ *.’. K.H. P. R. S.

Sublime Senior Grand Warden.

ISAAC AULD, native of Pennsylvania, Doctor of Medicine, Member of the Medical Society of South-Carolina, Honorary Member of the Medical and Chemical Societies of Philadelphia. and one of the Physicians of the Charlston Dispensary. &c. aged 32 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d degree.

Sublime Junior Grand Warden

WILLIAM PORTER, native of Ireland, Commission Merchant, aged 37 years, Prince of Jerusalem.

(5)

Grand Orator and Keeper of Seals.

JAMES MOULTRIE, native of South Carolina. Doctor of Medicine Port Physician, Vice-President of the Medical Society of South-Carolina, and one of the Physicians of the Charleston Dispensary, &c. aged 38 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector

General of the 33d degree.

Sublime Grand Treasurer.

JAMES ALLISON native of North Britain, Cooper, aged 46 years, R.’ *.’.

Sublime Grand Secretary.

 

JOHN PETER PROYS, native of Hanovser. Accountant, aged 33 years, Prince of Jerusalem.

Grand Master of Ceremonies.

ALEXANDER PLACIDE, native of Bourdeaux, Manager of the Charleston Theatre, agent 45 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S.

(6)

Captain of the Guards

PlERRE RIGAUD, native of Nantz, Planter of Saint-Domingo, aged 31 years, R.’ *.’.

K.H. - P. R. S.

Grand Tyler.

DAVID LABAT, native of Hamburgh, Storekeeper, aged 42 years, Perfection.

Members

JOHN MITCHELL, native of Ireland, Justice of the Quorum and Notary Public, late a Lieutenant-Colonel in the American Army, Member of the Cincinnati; and Past Sublime Grand, Master, aged 60 years. R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d Degree and Grand Commander for the United States.

THOMAS BARTHOLOMEW BOWEN, native of Ireland, Printer, late a Major in the American Army and Member of the Cincinnati; Past Sublime Grand-Master, aged 60 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d Degree and Ill.

Grand Master of Cereomies.

ARAHAM SASPORTAR, native of Bourdeaux, Merchant, ageds 56years, R.’ *.’. Knight of the Sun.

PIERRE BOUYSSOU, native of Cape Francois, Plantet, late Captain of Gendarmerie, and Orator of the Lodge la Candeur, aged 48 years. R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S.

ISRAEL DELIEBEN, native of Bohema, Commission Merchant, aged 61 years, R.’ *.’.

K.H. - P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d degree.  MICHEL FRONTY, native of Saint- Martial, en Limodn, Doctor of Medicine, aged 50 years. R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S.

EMANUEL DE LA MOTTA, Native of Santa Croix, Commission Merchant and Auctioner, aged 42 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the B. Empire

 

ROBERT L’ALLEMAND, native of Post Republican, Planter of St Domingo, aged 53 years R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S.

JOSEPH BEE, native of South Carolina, Planter, aged 56 years R.’ *.’. - Grand Pontiff.

ETIENNE DUBARRY, native of Jarbes, en Bigore, Planter of St Domingo, aged 49 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S..

PETER SMITH, native of South-Carolina, Factor, aged 53 years, Prince of Jerusalem.

JOSEPH CLARET, native of Narbonne, Master of Lodge No. 45, aged 36 years, R.’ *.’.

SOLOMON HARBY, native of London, Commission merchant and Auctioneer, aged 40 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S..

JEAN ANDRE PELLETANT, native of Planter of St. Domingo aged years, R.’ *.’.

THOMAS BAKER, native of England Insurance Broker, aged 27 years, Secret Master.

JEAN REIGNE, native of Castillon, near Bourdeaux, aged 30 years . R.’ *.’.

JOSEPH DICKINSON, native of South Carolina, Inspector of Exports, late a Captain of

Infantry, aged 33 years, Intimate Secretary.

JEAN JACQUES THOMAS, native of London,. Merchant, aged 42 years, R.’ *.’.

JACOB DELEON, native of Jamaica, Commission Merchant and Auctioneer, aged 38

 

years, Intendant of the Building.

JEAN DESBEAUX, native of Buzet, Cooper, aged 37 years, R.’ *.’.

FRANCIS LOUVRIER SAINT MARY, native of Nevers, aged 39 years, Intimate Secretary.

PIERRE JOSEPH MORE, native of Fonttaine, en Franche Comte, Surgeon, aged 50

years, Knight of the East and West

 

JEREMIAH WILCOX, native of Rhodes Island, Painter; aged 33 years, Provost and Judge.

GEORGE ESTILLET, native of New Orleans, aged 28 years, Intimate Secretary.

ISAAC CANTER, naiive of Santa Croix, Auctioneer, aged 33 years, Knight of the East.

JOHN HINCKLEY MITCHEL, native of South Carolina, Justice of the Peace, and Notary Public, aged 33 years, Secret Master.

WILLIAM ALEXANDER, native of South-Carolina, Factor, aged 26 years, Secret Master.

LEWIS T. RAYNAL, native of South Carolina, Accountant, aged 24 years, Elected of Nine.

JOHN BANKS, native of England, Accountant, aged 30 years, Intimate Secretary.

MORRIS GOLDSMITH, native of London. Merchant, aged 21 years, Secret Master.


JOHN BILLEAUD, native of Saint Sezaire, en Xaintonge, aged 30 years, Elected of Fifteen.

THOMAS NAPIER, native of North-Britain, Merchant aged 30 years, Knight of the East.

EMANUEL CANTOR, native of Santa Croix, Merchant, aged 30 years, Intimate Secretary.

Honorary Members

His Royal Highness CHARLES, Hereditary Prince of the Swedes, Goths and Vandals, Duke of Sudermania, Heir of Norway, Duke of Sleswick, Holitein, Stormarric and Dittmarche, Count of Oldenburg and Delmeahorst. Grand Admiral of Sweden, Vicar of Solomon of the 7th and 9th Province, and National Grand Master of the Kingdom of Sweden, R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S.

(12)     

Count ALEXANDER FRANCOIS AUGUSTE DE GRASSE, native of Verfailles, Planter of Saint Domingo, aged 36 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S.. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d degree, Grand Commander for the French West Indies, and Representative of the Sublime Grand Lodge of South-Carolina in and to the Sublime Lodge in Saint Domingo.

JEAN BAPTISTE MARIE DELAHQGUE, native of Paris, Planer of Saint Domingo, aged 58 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S..Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d degree, and Lieutenant Grand Commander for the French West Indies.

JOHN SUCKLEY, native of London, Merchant of Saint Domingo, aged 24 years, R.’ *.’. K.H. - P. R. S.

NICOLAS SAMSON PANEL, native of Normandy, Merchant of Porto Rico, aged 28 years, R.’*.’.

JONATHAN BAYARD SMITH, native of Pennsylvania, aged 50 years, late Grand Master of the State of Pennsylvania, R.’ *.’.K.H. - P. R. S.

SAMUEL MYERS, native of New York, Merchant of Virginia, aged 43 years, R.’ *.’. K.H.P. R. S..

MOSES MICHAEL HAYES, native of Merchant, of Boston R.’ *.’. K.H. -P. R. S.

ADDRESS:

TO DOCTOR FREDERICK DALCHO, East- Bay Charleston, (South Carolina)

The Sublime Grand Lodge, meets at the Ineffable Lodge Room, Meeting-Street, everyother Saturday evening at six o’clock, from the Autumnal to the Vernal Equinox, and on the first Saturday in every month at Seven o’clock, in the evening, from the Vernal to the Autumnal Equinox.


 

(15)     

(XV -& XVI)

BY THE GLORY OF THE GRAND ARCHITECT OF THE UNlVERSE.

 

LUX E TENEBRUS

HEALTH, STABILlTY AND POWER,

Officers of the Grand Council of Princes of Jersalem, in South Carolina A.L. 5802.

ILL. Bro.: Col~ JOHN MITCHELL -Most Equitable DR. FREDERlCK DALCHO – Senior Most Enlightened DR. ISAAC AULD - Junior Most Enlightened ABRAHAM ALEXANDER - K.D.

SOLOMON HARBY - Grand Orator and Keeper of the Seals

ISRAEL DELlEBIN - Grand Treasurer

JOSEPH BEE - Grand Secretary.

ALEXANDER PLACIDE - Master of Ceremonies

 

(16)     

Representative in St Domingo

AUGUSTUS DE GRASSE - K. H - P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d Degree.

Conventions are held on the first Sundays of February, May, August and November, at

12 oclock, M. at the Ineffable Lodge Room.

 

(17)

XVIII.

IN THE NAME OF THE MOST HOLY AND UNDIVIDED TRINITY.

SS. SS. SS.

Officers of the Sovereign Chapter of Rose Croix de Hereden, in South Carolina, A.D.

BRO. COL . JOHN MITCHELL - E. M. Perfect Soverign.

Dr. FREDERICK DALCHO - M.E.P. Senior Warden

DR. ISAAC AULD - M.E.P. Junior Warden

EMANUEL DE LA MOTTA Grand Treasurer

ABRAHAM ALEXANDER Grand Secretary

Major T.B. BOWEN Grand Master of Ceremonies.

Grant Tyler (vacant)

 

(18)     

Assemblages of the Knights are held in the Ineffable Lodge Room at Meridian, on the day of the Annual Feast, Shrove Tuesday, Tuesday after Easter, the day of Ascension, the day of Penticost, all Saints day and the two festivals of St John.

(19)     

AD GLORIAM DEI

Knights of K. H. and Members of the Grand Consistory of Princes of the Royal Secret in

South Carolina, A. L. 5802.

COL. JOHN MITCHELL - T. Ill. Grand Commader.

DR. FREDERICK DALCHO -T. E Lieutenant Grand Commander.

JOSEPH JAHAN -T. L Lieutenant Grand Commander.

DR. JAMES MOULTRIE -Minister of State and Grand Orator

DR. MICHAEL FRONTY - Grand Chancellor

EMANUEL DE LA MOTTA -Grand Treasurer

ABRAHAM ALEXANDER - Grand Secretary

PIERRE BOUYSSOU - Grand Master Architect and Engineer

DR. ISAAC AULD - Physician General

ISRAEL DELIEBEN - Keeper of the Seals and Archives

MAJOR T. B. BOWEN -Grand Master of Ceremonies

PIERRE RIGAUD -Captain of the Guards

 

(20)     

(S. Tyler vacant)

(J. Tyler vacant)

SOLOMON HARBY ETIENE DUBARRY ROBERT L ALLEMAND.

ALEXANDER PLACIDE

MOSES C. LEVY

Representative in St. Domingo.

AUGUSTUS DE GRASSE - K. H - P. R. S. Sov. Grand Inspector General of the 33d Degree.

Consistories are held at M. at the Ineffable Lodge Room, on the 21st March, 25th June. 21st September and 27th December.

( 21)

(XVII -to - XXXIII inc)

Universi Terrarum Orbis Architectonis gloris

ab ingentis.

DEUS MEUMQUE JUS.

ORDO AB CHAO.

Supreme Council of Grand Inspectors General of the 33d degree, in South-Carolina.

COLONEL JOHN MITCHEL - Sov. Grand Commander.

DR. FREDERICK DALCHO - Lieutenant Grand Commander.

EMANUEL DE LA MOTTA -Ill. Treasurer General of the the H. Empire.

ABRAHAM ALEXANDER -Ill. Secretary General of the H. Empire.

MAJOR T. B. BOWEN -Ill Grand Master of Ceremonies.

ISRAEL DELIEBEN - Sov. Grand Inspector General.

 

(22)

DR. ISAAC AULD - Sov; Grand Inspector General

MOSES C LEVY - Sov. Grand Inspector General.

DR. JAMES MOULTRIE - Sov. Grand Inspector General.

Ill. Capt. of the Life Guards (vacant)

 

(23)

Representative in Saint Domingo

AUGUSTUS DE GRASSE - Sov. Grand Commander for the French West Indies

Councils are held at the house of the Grand Commander at Meridian, every third new

Moon, reckoning from the new Moon in May.

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

Back to index

THE SCOTTISH RITE IN THE UNITED STATES

COUNCIL of Princes of Jerusalem was duly constituted in Charleston, February 20, 1788, and Brothers Joseph Meyers, Behrend M. Spitzer, and A. Forst installed the Officers.

Notwithstanding that in planting the Scottish Rite, or, as it was then known, the “Rite of Perfection,” in many States, by the appointment of Inspectors, who had only received what was at that early date recognized as the 25th Degree or “Prince of the Royal Secret,” the Rite was only worked in Charleston. In consequence of the zeal of the Brethren in that city and their devotion to the Rite, we owe the foundation of the first bodies, as shown in the fac-similes given, the last one being the “Supreme Council of the 33d and last degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Mother-Supreme Council of the World.” A council of Knights Kadosh was organized in Philadelphia in 1796, by Masons who were refugees from San Domingo, during the negro insurrection on that island. This body soon ceased to exist, in consequence of the return of the Brethren to that island very soon after its organization In New York, in 1797, a chapter of Rose Croix was instituted.

In 1792 it is said a Lodge of Perfection was formed at Baltimore, Md., by Henry Wilmans. There is no certainty as to his authority for such establishment. Brother Edward T. Schultz gives a list of seventy-six members. There was also a Lodge of Perfection at Albany, N.Y., which was in accord with the symbolic lodge, and at one time had the same Brother for Master; and we notice also that the symbolic lodges in Philadelphia were in union with the Lodge of Perfection in that city.

Jurisdiction, which contains the history of “Sublime Free-Masonry in the United States of America. Being a Collection of all the Official Documents which have appeared on both sides of the question with Notes and an Appendix. By Joseph McCosh, Charleston, S. C., 1823.”

A circular, which we give in part below, was issued by the Supreme Council at Charleston (adopted October 10, 1802), under date of December 4, 1802, and copies were sent to every Grand Lodge then in existence in the United States and also in other countries.

“Circular”

“As Society improved, and as discoveries of old records were made, the numbers of our degrees were increased, until, in progress of time, the system became complete.

“From such of our records as are authentic, we are informed of the establishment of the Sublime and Ineffable degrees of Masonry in Scotland, France, and Prussia, immediately after the crusades. But from some circumstances, which to us are unknown, after the year 4658 they fell into neglect until the year 5744, when a nobleman from Scotland visited France and re-established the Lodge of Perfection in Bordeaux.

“In 5761 the Lodges and Councils of the Supreme degrees being extended throughout the Continent of Europe, his Majesty the King of Prussia, as Grand Commander of the Order of Prince of the Royal Secret, was acknowledged by all the Craft as the head of the Sublime and Ineffable degrees of Masonry throughout the two hemispheres. His Royal Highness Charles, Hereditary Prince of the Swedes, Goths, and Vandals, Duke of Sudermania, Heir of Norway, was, and still continues the Grand Commander and protector of the Sublime Masons in Sweden; and his Royal Highness Louis of Bourbon, Prince of the Blood, Duke de Chartres, and the Cardinal Prince and Bishop of Rouen, were at the head of these degrees in France.

“On the 25th of October, 5762, the Grand Masonic Constitutions were finally ratified in Berlin and proclaimed for the government of all the Lodges of Sublime and Perfect Masons, Chapters, Councils, Colleges, and Consistories of the Royal and Military art of Free-Masonry, over the surface of the two hemispheres. There are Secret Constitutions, which have existed from time immemorial, and are alluded to in these instruments.

“In the same year the Constitutions were transmitted to our illustrious Brother, Stephen Morin, who had been Appointed (1) on the 27th of August, 5761, Inspector-General over all Lodges in the new World, by the Grand Consistory of Princes of the Royal Secret convened in Paris, at which presided the King of Prussia Deputy, ‘Chaillon de Joinville, substitute General of the Order, Right Worshipful Master of the first Lodge in France, called St. Anthony’s, Chief of the Eminent degrees, Commander and Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret,’ etc.

“The following Illustrious Brethren were also present: The Brother Prince of Rouen, Master of the Grand Intelligence Lodge and Sovereign Prince of Masonry, etc.

“La Coine, substitute of the Grand Master, Rignt Worshipful Master of the Trinity Lodge, Grand Elect, Perfect, Knight and Prince of Masons.

“Maximillian de St. Simon, Senior Grand Warden, Grand Elect, Perfect and Knight and Prince of Masons.

“Savalette de Buchelay, Grand Keeper of the Seals, Grand Elect, Perfect Knight and Prince of Masons.

“Duke de Choiseuil, Right Worshipful Master of the Lodge of the Children of Glory, Grand, Elect, Perfect Master, Knight and Prince of Masons.

“Topin, Grand Embassador from his Serene Highness, Grand, Elect, Perfect Master, Knight and Prince of Masons.

“Boucher de Lenoncour, Right Worshipful Master of the Lodge of Virtue, Grand, Elect, Perfect Master, Knight and Prince of Masons.

“Brest de la Chausee, Right Worshipful Master of the Exactitude Lodge, Grand, Elect, Perfect Master, Knight and Prince of Masons. The Seals of the Order were affixed and the Patent countersigned by

“Daubertiny, Grand, Elect, Perfect Master, Knight and Prince of Masons, Right Worshipful Master of the Lodge of St. Alphonso, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge and Sublime Council of Princes of Masons, etc.

“When Brother Morin arrived in St. Domingo, he, agreeably to his patent, appointed a Deputy Inspector General for North

A copy of his commission is in the archives of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, and is given in chapter i of A.A.S.R.  America. This high Honor was conferred on Brother M. M. Hayes, with the power of appointing others, where necessary. Brother Morin also appointed Brother Frankin Deputy Inspector-General of Jamaica and the British Leeward Islands, and Brother Colonel Provest for the Windward Islands and the British Army.

“Brother Hayes appointed Brother Isaac Da Costa Deputy Inspector General for the State of South Carolina, who, in the year 5783, established the Sublime Grand Lodge of Perfection in Charleston. After Brother Da Costa’s death, Brother Joseph Myers was appointed Deputy Inspector-General for his State, by Bro. Hayes, who, also, had previously appointed Brother Colonel Solomon Bush Dep. Insp. Gen. for the State of Pennsylvania, and Bro. Barend M. Spitzer to the same rank for Georgia, which was confirmed by a Convention of Inspectors when convened in Philadelphia, on the 15th of June, 5781.

“On the 1st of May, 5786, the Grand Constitutions of the Thirty-Third Degree, called the Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, was ratified by his Majesty the King of Prussia, who as Grand Commander of the Order of Prince of the Royal Secret, possessed the Sovereign Masonic power over all the Craft. In the New Constitution this Power was conferred on a Supreme Council of Nine Brethren in each nation, who possess all the Masonic prerogatives in their own district that his Majesty individually possessed, and are Sovereigns of Masonry.

“On the 20th of Feb., 5788, the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem was opened in this City (Charleston, S. C.), at which were present Bros. J;. Myers, D.I.G. for South Carolina, B.M. Spitzer, D.I.G. for Georgia, and A. Forst, D.I.G. for Virginia. Soon after the opening of the Council, a letter was addressed to his Royal Highness, the Duke of Orleans, on the subject, requesting certain records from the Archives of the Society in France, which in his answer through Col. Shee, his Secretary, he very politely promised to transmit, but which the commencement of the French Revolution most unfortunately prevented.

“On the 2d of Aug., 5795, Brother Colonel John Mitchell, late Dep. Quarter Master Genl. in the Armies of the United States, was made a Dep. Ins. Genl. for this State by Bro. Spitzer, who acted in consequence of Bro. Myers’ removal out of the Country.

“Bro. Mitchell was restricted from acting until after Bro. Spitzer’s death, which took place in the succeeding year.

“As many Brethren of eminent degrees had arrived from Foreign parts, consistories of Princes of the R. S. were occasionally held, for initiations and other purposes.

“On the 31st of May, 5801, the Supreme Council of the Thirty-third degree for the United States of America was opened with the high honors of Masonry, by Brothers John Mitchell and Frederick Dalcho, Sov: Gr: Insp: Genl:; and in the course of the present year the whole number of Grand Inspectors General was completed, agreeably to the Grand Constitutions.

“On the 21st of January, 5802, a Warrant of Constitution passed the Seal of the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem for the establishment of a Master Mark Mason’s Lodge in this City (Charleston, S. C.).

“On the 21st of February, 5802, Our Illustrious Brother, Count Alexandre Francois Auguste Degrasse, Deputy Inspector General, was appointed by the Supreme Council a Grand Inspector General, and Grand Commander of the French West-Indies; and our Illustrious Brother, Jean Baptiste Marie De La Hougue, Dep. Insp. Genl., was also received as an Insp. Genl. and appointed Lieut. Grand Commander of the same Islands.

“Oon the 4th of December, 5802, a Warrant of Constitution passed the seal of the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem, for the establishment of a Sublime Grand Lodge in Savannah, Georgia

THE NAMES OF THE MASONIC DEGREES ARE AS FOLLOWS, VIZ.:

1st degree, called Entered Apprentice.

2nd “ “ Fellow Craft

3rd “ “ Master Mason

4th “ “ Secret Master

5th “ “ Perfect Master

6th “ “ Intimate Secretary

7th “ “ Provost and Judge

8th “ “ Intendent of the Building

9th “ “ Elected Knights of 9

10th “ “ Illustrious Elected of 15

11th “ “ Sublime Knight elected

12th “ “ Grand Master Architect

13th “ “ Royal Arch

14th “ “ Perfection

15th degree, called Knights of the East.

16th “ “ Prince of Jerusalem.

17th “ “ Knight of the East and West

18th “ “ Sovereign Prince of Rose Croix de Heredom.

19th “ “ Grand Pontiff.

20th “ “ Grand Master of all Symbolic Lodges.

21st “ “ Patriarch Noachite, or Chevalier Prussian.

22d “ “ Prince of Libanus.

23d “ “ Chief of the Tabernacle.

24th “ “ Prince of the Tabernacle.

25th “ “ Prince of Mercy.

26th “ “ Knight of the Brazen Serpent.

27th “ “ Commander of the Temple.

28th “ “ Knight of the Sun.

29th “ “ Knight of St. Andrew.

30th “ “ K-H.

31st “ “ Grand Inquisitor Commander.

32d “ “ Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret Prince of Masons.

33d “ “ Sovereign Grand Inspectors General. Officers appointed for life.

“Besides the degrees, which are in regular succession, most of the inspectors are in possession of a number of detached degrees, given in different parts of the world, and which they generally communicate, free of expense, to those brethren who are high enough to understand them. Such as Select Masons of 27 and the Royal Arch as given under the Constitution of Dublin. Six degrees of Maconnerie D’Adoption, Compagnon Ecossais, Le Maitre Ecossais and Le Grand Maitre Ecossais, making in the aggregate 52 degrees.

“The Committee respectfully submit to the consideration of the Council the above report on the principles and establishment of the Sublime degrees in South Carolina extracted from the Archives of the Society. They cannot, however, conclude without expressing their ardent wishes for the prosperity and dignity of the institution over which this Supreme Council preside; and they flatter themselves that if any unfavorable impressions have existed among the Brethern of the Blue degrees, from a want of a knowledge of the principles and practices of Sublime Masonry, it will be done away, and that harmony and affection will be the happy cement of the Universal Society of Free and Accepted Masons. That as all aim at the improvement of the general condition of Man-kind by the practice of Virtue, and the exercise of benevolence, so they sincerely wish that any little differences which may have arisen, in unimportant ceremonies of Ancient and Modern, may be reconciled, and given away to the original principles of the order, those great bulwarks of Society, universal benevolence and brotherly love, and that the extensive fraternity of Free-Masons, throughout the two Hemispheres, may form but one band of Brotherhood. ‘ Behold how good and how pleasant it is for Brethren to dwell together in Unity.’

“They respectfully Salute your Supreme Council by the Sacred Numbers. Charleston, South Carolina, the 10th day of the 8th Month, called Chisleu 5553, A.L. 5802, and of the Christian Era, this 4th day of December, 1802.

“FREDERICK DALCHO. “ K-H.P.R.S., Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33d, and Lieutenant Grand Commander in the United States of America.

“ISAAC AULD “K-H. P.R.S., Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33d.

“E. DE LA MOTTA. “K-H.P.R.S., Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33d, and Illustrious Treasurer

General of the H. Empire.

“The above report was taken into consideration, and the Council was pleased to express the highest approbation of the same.

“Whereupon, Resolved, That the foregoing report be printed and transmitted to all the Sublime and Symbolic Grand Lodges, throughout the two Hemispheres.

“JNO. MITCHELL

“K-H . P. R. S., Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33d. and Illustrious Secretary General of the H. Empire.”

The major part of this circular recites the history of Masonry, as generally understood at that early day, and which we omit, confining our extracts to that part which refers only to the A:A:A:S:R.

The Supreme Council, having been thus established and made known to the whole world of Masonry, is the mother of all the other regular Supreme Councils which have since been organized either immediately or mediately by her authority.

The council in Charleston conferred the 33d Degree on Count de Grasse Tilley, Hacquet, and de la Hogue; and through these Brethren by the authority of letters patent dated February 21, 1802, were established the Supreme Councils of France and also of the French and English West India colonies. Illustrious de Grasse Tilley installed the Supreme Council of France on December 22, 1804, at Paris. This was the first and only Supreme Council established in France; many years subsequently it was divided into two branches, in consequence of the dissension heretofore mentioned; one was called the Supreme Council of France, and the other the Supreme Council of the Grand Orient of France. Both of these bodies are still in existence; the former only, however, is in relations of comity with the Mother Supreme Council, and all the other regular Supreme Councils of the world. The Supreme Council of the Grand Orient is not so.

The Supreme Councils of Italy, Naples, Spain, and the Netherlands were also established by de Grasse Tilley.

Only one Supreme Council of the 33d Degree can exist in each nation or kingdom (by Article V. of the Grand Constitution of 1786); two in the United States of America, as far as possible one from the other; one in the British Islands of America, and one also in the French colonies.

The first Supreme Council at Charleston, S. C., began its labors on May 31, 1801, as hereinbefore stated, and its jurisdiction covered all of the United States of America, until August 5, 1813, at which date the “ Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States” was established by special Deputy Emmanuel de la Motta at New York. This Supreme Council was substituted for the Grand Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret, 32d Degree. Brother D.D. Tompkins, Vice-President of the United States of America, was M.P.S. Grand Commander.

At a later period the seat of the Northern Supreme Council was changed to Boston. The jurisdiction of the Northern Supreme Council included all the northern and northeastern States east of the Mississippi River, viz.: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. The other States and Territories were reserved for itself by the Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States.

The Supreme Council of England and Wales was created by the Northern Supreme Council in March, 1846, and that body created the Supreme Councils of Scotland and of the Canadian Dominion. The Supreme Council for Ireland was established by the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction.

From August 5, 1813, Article V. of the Constitutions of 1786 has been complied with, and there have been consequently in the United States of America but two legitimate Supreme Councils, which have ever endeavored to preserve and enforce their authority: and they have always discountenanced all attempts against that authority which rightfully, according to the Grand Constitutions, belongs to them.

A third Supreme Council could not be established in the United States of America, without a violation of the Constitutions of 1786. Neither the 33d Degree nor a Supreme Council can exist without a compliance with that constitution. The establishment of a second Supreme Council in the United States was not a wise measure, although the constitutions provided for it, as subsequent events demonstrated. It was a remarkable coincidence that in the very year when the two Grand Lodges of Blue Masonry in England were consolidated into one, Scottish Masonry in the United States was amicably divided into two organizations, in consequence of which each Supreme Council altered and amended its own constitutions and statutes, and changed and made material alterations in the rituals, and thereby destroyed the harmony and uniformity of the work.

The injurious and pernicious consequences of this division were soon manifested and both Supreme Councils were called upon to make their defense against the invasion of illegitimate bodies, which not only affected Scottish Rite Masonry, but also all the other Grand Bodies of Masonry, from the Grand Lodges to the Grand Commanderies of Knights Templars, illegitimate bodies of which were soon established, as well as of the Scottish Rite, by these unauthorized parties.

On October 7, 1856, Foulhouze formed a new Supreme Council and commenced making Masons at sight, and manufacturing Thirty-thirds. Pursuing the same system of misrepresentation as in 1850-51, he succeeded in causing two lodges to withdraw their allegiance from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. This rebellion was short-lived; in 185859 these lodges memorialized the Grand Lodge to be reinstated on its register, and with difficulty obtained their request. On February 4, 1859, the Grand Orient of France expelled Foulhouze, and his so-called Supreme Council soon became dormant. In the early part of 1867 an attempt was made to revive it, and it obtained recognition from the Grand Orient of France; that recognition, however, failed to give it vitality, and in a short time it either became dormant or ceased to exist.

It would be useless to waste valuable time in tracing out all these irregular bodies; yet it would be unwise not to acknowledge that they have had an existence, and that some still continue to the detriment of Freemasonry.

We quote from a letter of the late Ill. Bro. Dr. Henry Beaumont Leeson, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of England and Wales and their Dependencies, to the Grand Commander of the Southern Supreme Council of the United States, written at London in 1860, in which he says: “Our own Council is now in a flourishing condition, nearly all of the elite of Masonry in England being ranged under our banners; although we are distinct from Grand Lodge, who acknowledge only the first three degrees, and the Royal Arch, and Grand Conclave, governing the Knights Templars. These two last degrees are in this country, perfectly different and distinct from any of the Ancient and Accepted Degrees, and of very modern origin, neitherhaving existed previous to the middle of the last century. The Knight Templar Degreewas concocted in France AND I POSSESS THE ACTUAL MINUTES AND OTHER RECORDS OF THE FRENCH CONVENT. The Royal Arch (Dermott’s) was concocted by Ramsay, and modernized by a Chaplain (G. Brown) of the late Duke of Sussex.” (Grand Master.)

This spurious French Knight Templar Degree differed from the Webb Templar Degree;it was carried to England and established there; it was also brought to the UnitedStates by Joseph Cerneau, who made Templars of New Orleans Masons (1) as well ashe did those in New York, where he and his coadjutors also established bodies ofTemplars, and of the Rite of Perfection with twenty-five degrees, in New Orleans andNew York, changed the names of his bodies as suited his pleasure, and declared himself and his coadjutors Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General of the 33d Degree.

There is no evidence that Cerneau ever had received the 33d Degree. We give below acopy of the only document he ever had to showv his status as a Mason.

 

[Translation.]

TO THE GLORY OF THE [Gr.’. ARCH.’. OF THE UNIV:]

 

Lux en Tenebris.

 

From the Orient of the Very Great and Very Puissant Council of the Sublime Princes [of the Royal Secret], Chiefs of Masonry, under the C: C: of the Zenith [which responds] to the 20d 25’ N: Lat.:

 

To our Ill: and Very Valiant Knights and Princes, Masons of all the Degrees, over the surface of the two Hemispheres:

 

HEALTH !

 

We, ANTOINE MATHIEU DUPOTET, Grand Master of all the Lodges, Colleges, Chapters, Councils, Chapters and Consistories, of the higher degrees of Masonry, Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Pennsylvania, in the United States of America; and of the Grand Lodge and Sovereign Provincial Grand Chapter of Heredom of Kilwinning, of Edinburgh, for America, under the distinctive title of the Holy Ghost, Grand Provincial of San Domingo in the Ancient Rite, Grand Commander or Sovereign President of the Th: Puissant Grand Council of the Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret, established at Port au Prince, Island of San

 

Domingo, by constitutive patent of 16 January and 19 April, 1801, under the distinctive title of The Triple Unity; transferred to Baracoa, Island of Cuba, on account of the events of war,

Do declare, in the name of the Sublime and Th: Puissant Grand Council, do certify and attest, that the Very Resp: Gr: Elect Knight of the White and Black Eagle, Joseph Cerneau, Ancient Dignitary of the Lodge No. 47, Orient of Port au Prince, Grand Warden of the Provincial Lodge, same Orient, Venerable founder of the Lodge of the Ancient Constitution of York, No. 103, under the distinctive title of The Theological Virtues, Orient of the Habana, Island of Cuba, has been regularly initiated in all the Degrees of the Sublime Masonry, from that of Secret Master to and including that of Grand Elect Knight of the White and Black Eagle; and wishing to give the strongest proofs of our sincere friendship for our said Very Dear Bro: Joseph Cerneau, in recognition of the services which he has rendered to the Royal Art, and which he is rendering daily, we have initiated him in the highest, in the most eminent and final Degree of Masonry; we create him our Deputy Grand Inspector, for the Northern part of the Island of Cuba, with all the powers that are attached thereto, giving him full and entire power to initiate the Bros: Masons, whom he may judge [worthy ?], to promote them to the Sublime Degrees, from the 4th up to and including the 24th; provided, however, that these Masons shall have been officers of a Lodge regularly constituted and recognized, and in places only where there may not be found Sacred and Sublime and regularly constituted Asyla; from which Bros: he will receive the obligation required and the authentic submission to the Decrees of the Sublime Princes; consulting, however, and calling to his aid the BB: whom he shall know to be decorated with the Sublime Degrees; we give him full and entire power to confer in the name of our aforesaid Grand Council the highest Degrees of Masonry on a Kt: Prince Mason, one only each year, whose virtues he shall recognize, and the qualities required to deserve this favor; and to the end that our dear Bro: Joseph Cerneau, so decorated, may enjoy, in this quality, the honours, rights, and prerogatives which he has justly deserved, byhis arduous labors in the Royal Art, we have delivered to him these presents, in the margin whereof he has placed his signature, that it may avail him everywhere, and he useful to him alone.

 

We pray our Resp: BB: regularly constituted, spread over the two Hemispheres, with whatever Degree they may be decorated, whether in Lodge, Ch:, Col:, Sovereign Council . . . Sublime, to recognize and receive our dear Bro:, the Very Illustrious Sov: and Subl: Prince, Joseph Cerneau, in all the Degrees above mentioned; promising to pay the same attention to those who in our Orients shall present themselves at the doors of our Sacred Asyla furnished with like authentic titles.

 

Given by us, S: Sublime Princes, G: C: G: I: G’al: of our aforesaid Grand and Perfect Council, under our Mysterious Seal, and the Grand Seal of the Princes of Masonry, in a place where are deposited the greatest treasures, the sight whereof fills us with consolation, joy, and gratitude for all that is great and good.

 

At Baracoa, Island of Cuba, anno 5806, under the sign of the Lion, the 15th day of the 5th month called Ab, 7806, of the Creation 5566, and according to the Common Style the 15th July, 1806.

 

Signed, MATHIEU DUPOTET,

President, Sov: ...... G’al:

 

A true copy:

Signed, MATHIEU DUPOTET, President, S:G:I: G’al:

 

I certify that what is transmitted above and the other portions are conformable to my

Register.

 

TIPHAINE,

 

 

S:P:R:S:D:I:G’al:G: Comm:

 

The foregoing translation of the ancient copy in French has been correctly and faithfully

made by me.

 

March 20, 1 882.

ALBERT PIKE

 

The Northern Supreme Council for a few years was divided into two factions and one of them compromised with and affiliated some of these irregular Masons and took them in, which resulted in a very unfavorable condition of the Northern Supreme Council, which for a time was infected with an unhealthy absorption of bad material, by this unwise compromise, which was made, as was supposed, for the good of Freemasonry.

Some of these irregular Masons had caused a division even in the Grand Lodge of New York, and the original chief of them, Joseph Cerneau, had previously represented the irregular Knights Templars of New Orleans and the irregular council of the Rite of  Perfection of Louisiana in the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of New York, as is found in the records, viz.: “ on the 4th day of May, 1816, a meeting of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of New York was called to act upon an application by a collected body of Sir Knights Templar, Royal Arch Masons and members of the Sov. Grand Council of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret for the State of Louisiana, sitting at New Orleans, praying that a constitutional charter be granted them, etc. They had previous to this application elected and installed their officers. The charter, by resolution, was granted them. and it was also

“Resolved, That the Ill. Bro. Joseph Cerneau, having been designated by the Louisiana Encampment to be their representative and proxy near this Grand Encampment, be and is hereby acknowledged and accredited as such.”

In this manner the irregular French Templar Degree that was carried from France to England got into the United States at New Orleans, and allied with an irregular rite and body, became amalgamated with the American Webb Templar Degree at New York.

These evils which have beset the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, have not prevented its great advancement and prosperity; and during the past decade, in the Northern Jurisdiction alone, it has increased over fifty per cent in numbers.

The Southern Supreme Council did not meet from February, 1862, until November 17, 1865, which was in Charleston, S. C. Six members only were present, and all of them are now dead.

There were no bodies of the Rite working anywhere except in New Orleans.

With indomitable energy and zeal the Illustrious Sovereign Grand Commander, Albert Pike, 33d Degree, who during the last two years and a half of the war had been engaged in rewriting and restoring the rituals of the degrees, and whose scholarship and knowledge of the Ancient Mysteries and their philosophy, assisted by Albert Gallatin Mackay, 33d Degree, the late Secretary General of the Southern Supreme Council, reconstructed the Rite at Charleston, S.C.

The Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction has now its headquarters in Washington, D.C. Its library of nearly fifty thousand volumes is not surpassed by any other in the country in rare and valuable works.

The constituency is constantly increasing, with five hundred and twenty-five organized bodies of the Rite over its extended territory, and nearly approaching in numbers that of its more prosperous sister council of the Northern Jurisdiction, which was exempt from the calamities of war, as a reference to the tabular statements following this chapter will show.

The legitimate Supreme Councils duly recognized by each other around the globe are the following:

Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A Constituted May 31, 1801

France (Supreme Council) “ Sept. 22, 1804

Northern Jurisdiction, U.S.A “ Aug. 5, 1813

Belgium “ Mar. 11, 1817

Ireland “ June 11, 1825

Brazil “ April 6, 1826

Peru “ Nov. 2, 1830

New Granada “ 1833

England, Wales and Dependencies “ Mar. 1846

Scotland “ 1846

Uruguay “ 1856

Argentine Republic “ Sept. 13, 1858

Turin, of Italy “ 1848

Colon (Cuba) “ ----1855

Venezuela “ 1864

Mexico “ April 28, 1868

Portugal “ 1842

Chili “ May 24, 1862

Central America “ May 27, 1870

Hungary “ Nov. 25, 1871

Greece “ June 24, 1872

Switzerland “ Mar. 30, 1873

Canada “ Oct. 1874

Rome, of Italy “ Jan. 14, 1877

Egypt “ ------- 1878

Spain “ 1879

Tunis “ May 11, 1880

Canada “ ----

 

“The following Supreme Councils have been formed, but have not received formal recognition and the courtesy of an exchange of representation: Naples, of Italy, Dominican Republic, Turkey, Palermo, of Italy, Florence, of Italy, and Luxemburg.”

The rituals of the degrees differ very much in their dramatic representations. In the Northern Jurisdiction they apply more directly to the history and scenes of the Crusades; in the Southern Jurisdiction they are very much more intellectual, philosophical, and historic.

Councils of Deliberation are held in each State in the Northern Jurisdiction of all the bodies from the 14th to the 32d degrees inclusive, which are presided over by the deputies for the States. In these are presented all matters of local legislation, action upon which must subsequently be approved, or otherwise, by the Supreme Council.

The Supreme Council of the Rite is the governing body over all, and as such it makes and promulgates laws and statutes for the various divisions of the organized body. This Supreme Council confers the Governing Degree, namely, 33d Degree, Grand Master of the Kadosh or Sovereign Grand Inspector-General. The active members, according to the Statutes of the Southern Supreme Council, are limited to thirty-three active members of the 33d Degree and no more, but in the Northern Supreme Council this number is doubled, so that the active members of the 33d Degree are sixty-six. These active members are for their respective States relatively the Grand Masters of the Rite.

The title of Honorary Inspectors-General is given to those who are elevated to the degree with specifically delegated powers and no others, or they are sent as special delegates to establish new bodies or propagate the Rite by communicating the degrees. These special delegates have a voice in council but no vote.

In the Southern Supreme Council, with its number of active members of the 33d Degree limited to thirty-three, there is a “Court of Honor,” which may be called the vestibule to the 33d Degree. This Court of Honor comprises two grades or ranks, both of which are carefully reserved and can only be conferred as a free

NOTE. - In the Southern Supreme Council, the council or preceptory of the Knights Kadosh or 30th degree is separate from the consistory of 31st and 32d degrees, but in the Northern Supreme Council it is within the consistory.

gift, and a mark of appreciation for services rendered. Each active member and each Emeritus member of the Southern Supreme Council is ex-officio a member of both grades. These grades are, first, that of Knight Commander. This is conferred upon Brethren of the 32d Degree for general meritorious service rendered to the Rite, and only upon the recommendation of the Grand Consistories or by the Active Inspectors General of the respective States. The second grade, which is higher than the grade of Knight Commander, is that of Knight Grand Cross. It is conferred with the jewel upon Brethren of the 32d Degree for extraordinary services to the Rite. Neither of these grades can be given to anyone who solicits for them; it must be repeated that they are special marks of honor, gratuitously conferred. According to the Statutes of the Southern Jurisdiction the possession of at least the first of these grades is a condition precedent of eligibility for the reception of the 33d Degree.

The difference in the working of the degrees in the rituals of the Rite, between the ritual of the Southern and that of the Northern Jurisdiction, may require some explanation, which likewise will explain why the changes were necessarily made in working the degrees. The late Ill. Brother Azariah T. Pearson, 33d Degree, Active Inspector-General for the State of Minnesota in the Southern Jurisdiction, a little while before his death, made the following statement: “ That the late Masonic firm of Macoy and Sickles of New York City, both of whom are 33d degree, and belong to the Northern Supreme Council, printed in the rituals for the supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction as well, but who unfortunately failed in business, and that the stereotype plates which belonged to either or both regular Supreme Councils, were surreptitiously seized upon and taken by persons connected with the Cerneau fraud, who had claimed that they had bought them with the rest of the property of Macoy and Sickles, which was sold for the benefit of their creditors; and that it was with these stereotype plates of the rituals thus surreptitiously obtained that the fraudulent Cerneau Supreme Council was thus enabled to improve its own meagre skeleton, and give its subordinate bodies a semblance of the true work conferred under the authority of the regular Supreme Councils, which for self-protection against impostors and clandestine Scottish Rite Masons, had to call in all the rituals then out, and to issue new ones in lieu thereof.”

It must be again repeated, with a degree of reiteration which may be tiresome but is necessary, that the Scottish Rite confers no degrees but those of its own Rite, and also that while many of its members belong to legitimate bodies of other rites of Masonry, it has no conflict with any such. The Scottish Rite has doubled its members in the last few years, and year by vear gains new accessions.

Antoine Bideaud, who had been created a Deputy Grand Inspector-General and a Sovereign Grand Inspector-General, September 10, 1802, by De Grasse Tilley, at Cape Francois, in San Domingo, so soon as he had opened his Supreme Council, after the return of the French to that island, was in New York and on August 4th conferred upon J. J. Gourgas, John B. Tardy, Lewis de Soulles, John B. Desdoity, and Pierre Du Peyrot all the degrees of the A: A: S: Rite to the 32d. Two days thereafter a consistory was opened, which although exceeding his patent, was afterward confirmed by proper authority. John B. Tardy was subsequently appointed Deputy Inspector-General by Du Plessis, of Philadelphia, who had received his appointment in 1790 from Augustine Prevost, who derived his authority directly from Francken in 1774, at Jamaica.

Abraham Jacobs, who claimed to be a Grand Inspector-General, made such by Moses Cohen in 1790, came to New York in 1804, and began his work of conferring degrees.

He states, in his register, that by the wishes of J. B. Tardy there was opened a council of Princes of Jerusalem November 6, 1808, there being present J. J. Gourgas, John B. Desdoity, Maduro Peixotto, Moses Levy, John B. Tardy, and Abraham Jacobs. At this time Richard Riker received the degrees. It appears from a statement by Gourgas that Jacobs had exceeded his authority by interlining words in his patent, for which he was afterward expelled. Gourgas also says that on November 8, 1808, Daniel D. Tompkins, Richard Riker, and Sampson Simpson received the degrees, including the 32d Degree, in the consistory which was formed August 6, 1806, and that he was made a Deputy Inspector-General on November 12, 1808, Desdoityon the 8th, and Peixotto on the 16th.

In consequence of a rumor of the irregularities which had occurred in the bodies in New York having reached the Supreme Council in Charleston, De la Motta, who was an officer in that body, was sent to New York with authority from the Supreme Council to investigate the whole matter, in 1813. August 5th he conferred the 33d Degree upon J.J. Gourgas and Sampson Simpson; these three then opened a Supreme Council and conferred the degree on Richard Riker, John B. Tardy, Daniel D. Tompkins, and Maduro Peixotto. On the same day, De la Motta, by authority of the Mother Supreme Council at Charleston, regularly and constitutionally organized what was then called the “Second Grand and Supreme Council” for the United States. Daniel D. Tompkins was installed Grand Commander; the other Officers were appointed and installed. At the next meeting of the “Mother Supreme Council,” at Charleston, the following December, these proceedings were duly confirmed.

As heretofore stated, a treaty was entered into by and between the two Supreme Councils, and the jurisdiction over the various States and Territories of the United States was determined for each of these.

Like all human voluntary institutions, the histories of both the Northern and Southern Supreme Councils are records of bitter controversies growing out of rival bodies which were irregularly started in opposition to each of these duly constituted Supreme Councils, and which greatly retarded the advancement of this valuable Rite.

In the Southern Jurisdiction these controversies continued to keep the Scottish Rite entirely in the shade, as it were, until General Albert Pike received the several degrees and was elected the Grand Commander. Since the close of the war in 1865 the progress has been onward and upward, as has been shown in the preceding pages of this chapter.

In the Northern Supreme Council the Rite encountered a more bitter and relentless opposition in the bodies organized by Joseph Cerneau, originally in 1807, and although that body repeatedly declined, until it would appear to be utterly extinguished, yet it would quite unexpectedly arise again, deceive the unwary, and so soon as the sunlight of Truth was poured upon it would again decline, wither, and disappear.

The opposition to which the Northern Supreme Council was subjected was of such a character that it is incumbent on us to take some notice thereof to demonstrate what the Scottish Rite of the Northern Supreme Council had to contend against in defense of the truth.

Giles Fonda Yates, of Albany, became, at an early date (1822), interested in the study of Masonry. He discovered the Warrant of the Lodge of Perfection granted by Francken at Albany and a copy of the Constitutions of 1762; he then succeeded in resuscitating the old lodge. After this a Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem was organized at Albany, and several lodges of Perfection were constituted in other places. A consistory was instituted in 1824 at Albany, and several bodies were established in Boston. These were under patents of the Supreme Council at Charleston. Yates received the 33d Degree from McCosh, who was the special Deputy of this council. Afterward, in 1828, Yates became a member of the Northern Supreme Council. Just at this period, from 1826, the Morgan affair having occurred, nearly all the Masonic bodies at the North became extinct, as recited in the chapter devoted to that subject. In 1832 Gourgas suspended all efforts in the affairs of the Scottish Rite. In 1842, however, the great excitement had mostly died out and the fire of persecution, bigotry, and fanaticism having had no fuel for many years, waned, and all efforts against the Institution ceased.

Yates having conferred with Gourgas and other Brethren who had not succumbed under their severe ordeal, they determined to resume their labors. June 15, 1844, a meeting was held; Gourgas was then Grand Commander, and Yates Lieutenant Grand Commander. These two, by a law of the Rite, that if only one member of a Supreme Council survives, that council does not cease to exist, opened the Supreme Council.

At this meeting, November 13, 1844, applications were received from Edward A.  Raymond, Ruel Baker, and Charles W. Moore (all of Massachusetts), who, having received the 32d Degree, were crowned Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General.

At the meeting held April 3-5, 1845, Gourgas declared that the recent publication by

Clavel, relating to the Ancient and Accepted Rite, was utterly incorrect, and stated that Cerneau’s name was struck from the Tableau of the Grand Orient of France in 1830, the Grand Orient having written to him that it was a matter quite inexplicable to them that it should have remained there so long.

At this meeting Gourgas reorganized the Supreme Council, the officers being appointed by the constitutional provisions. From this time the Supreme Council became very industrious in establishing bodies in many cities; harmony prevailed over this jurisdiction, and the Rite, although slowly, was steadily extended.

At an important meeting held September 4, 1851, Gourgas’s resignation as Grand Commander and his appointment of Yates as his successor were received. Yates presided at this meeting, the Sovereign Grand Consistory was organized, and the degrees in the various bodies were conferred. At the close of the meeting Yates resigned as Grand Commander and appointed Raymond to that position. In his address Yates gave a forcible exposition of the laws, the objects, and the history of the Rite, and it contains so much information, of interest and value to its members, that we give

it in full:

ADDRESS OF M.P. BRO. GILES FONDA YATES

Respected and Beloved Associates: You have been listening to the valedictory address of our honored friend, long trieds true, and trusty. His sentiments, I am well assured, are reciprocated. He has been called by our transatlantic Brethren “ the patriarch of our ‘Illustrious Order,”’ and not without appropriateness. John James J. Gourgas - clarum et venerabile nomen!

He has been pleased to allude to my own participation in some of the works and administrative duties of our order, but such participation, as you are well aware, has been at a later day and for a shorter period. Under the circumstances in which I now appear before you, it can hardly be deemed egotistic in me if I advert briefly to a few of the humble contributions to the cause of “ Sublime Freemasonry” previous to 1840, which it fell to my lot to render. These, with the “ sublime works “ performed by other Brethren of our order before and since, in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, furnish altogether evidence supplemental to that given by my predecessor, in complete confutation of the preposterous charge that “ Sublime Freemasonry” has been dormant in our jurisdiction since its establishment among us. A charge of this kind has been the stereotype apology of surreptitious Masons for their occasional attempts to foist their spurious creations upon our “Sublime System” within our Masonic territory. The abundant parole testimony which can be adduced to show how untrue is this charge, can be corroborated by our archives, and will be found iterated in manifestoes issued by our own and our sister council for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States.

I turned my attention to the history of the “Sublime Degrees” very soon after my initiation as a Mason. My intercourse in 1822 with several old Masons in the city of Albany, led to the discovery that an “ Ineffable Lodge of Perfection” had been established in that ancient city on December 20, 1767. I also discovered that not only the Ineffable, but the Superior Degrees of our Rite, had been conferred at the same time on a chosen few, by the founder of the lodge, Henry A. Francken, one of the Deputies of Stephen Morin of illustrious memory. It was not long, moreover, before I found the original Warrant of this lodge, its book of minutes, the patents of Ill. Brother Samuel Stringer, M.D., Jeremiah Van Rensselaer and Peter W. Yates, Esquires, Dep. Inspectors-General, under the old system; also “the regulations and contributions of the nine commissioners,” etc., 1761, and other documents that had been left by Bro. Francken with the Albany Brethren when he founded their lodge. With the concurrence of the surviving members of said lodge residing in Albany, Dr. Jonathan Eights and the Hon. and R. W. Stephen Van Rensselaer, P.G.M. of the Grand Lodge of New York, I aided in effecting its revival. The necessary proceedings were thereupon instituted to place the same under the superintendence of a Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem, as required by the old constitutions; and such Grand Council was subsequently opened in due form in said city.

Having been made aware of “the new Constitution of the Thirty-third degree,” ratified on the first of play, 1786, conferring the Supreme Power over our Rite on “Councils of Nine Brethren,” I hastened to place myself in correspondence with Moses Holbrook, M.D., at the time S.G. Commander of the Supreme Council at Charleston, and with my esteemed friends, Joseph M’Cosh, Ill. Gr. Sec. Gen. of the last-named council, and Bro. Gourgas, at that

Stephen Morin was on the 27th day of August, 1761, appointed “Inspector General over all Lodges, &c., &c., &c., in the new world by the Grand Consistory of Princes of the Royal Secret convened in Paris, at which presided the King of Prussia’s Deputy, Chaillon De Joinville, Substitute General of the Order.” See circular issued by the Supreme Council at Charleston, S. C., December 4, 1802. time III. Gr. Sec. Gen. of the H.E. for this Northern Jurisdiction. Lodges of Perfection in the counties of Montgomery, Onondaga, Saratoga, and Monroe in the State of New York, were successively organized, and placed agreeably to the constitutions under the superintendence of the Grand Council before named. The establishment of this last-named body was confirmed, and all our proceedings in “Sublime Freemasonry” were legalized and sanctioned by the only lawful authorities in the United States, the aforesaid Supreme Councils.

On the 16th day of November, 1824, I received a patent, appointing me S. of S. of a consistory of S.P.R.S., established in the city of Albany. I would here also state that on the 13th day of February, 1825, a Charter was granted to III. Bro. Edward A. Raymond, of Boston, Mass., and eight associates, constituting them a Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem; a Charter was also granted them for a consistory of S.P.R.S., both bodies to be holden in the city of Boston. All these several bodies named, as well as the Albany Grand Council and Consistory, have since their establishment paid due faith and allegiance to our Northern Supreme Council.

In the organization of the New York State Grand Council, and of the different lodges of Perfection under its superintendence, I received the most effective aid and cooperation of several dear companions whom “it delights me to remember.” These lodges numbered on their lists of initiates some of the brightest and worthiest Masons that State produced, and enjoyed for a series of years a good share of prosperity, until the persecuting fires of anti-Masonry swept over the land. Their labors were then intermitted for awhile, in common with those of other departments of the Masonic Institution, from the same cause. But the consequences were not in the main inauspicious. The legitimate effect was to purify and cement more closely the materials subjected to the fiery ordeal.

In 1825 I took my vows as a “Sovereign Grand Inspector General” “between the hands” of our Brother Joseph M’Cosh, he having been specially deputized for that purpose. I was shortly after constituted and accredited the “Representative” of the Southern Supreme Grand Council near this Northern Supreme Grand Council, of which last I was made, and have ever since been a member.

I would fain have you to believe, my dear Brethren, that, as a member of the Masonic Institution, if I have had my ambition, it has been to study its science, and to discharge my duties as a faithful Mason, rather than to obtain its official honors or personal benefits of any kind. Self-aggrandizement has never formed any part of my Masonic creed, and all who know me can bear witness that it never has of my practise. I accordingly shall never shirk any just responsibility imposed upon me by my obligations as a “Sublime Freemason,” but continue to prefer, as I have ever done, since it is most congenial to my own taste, those i’ works “ and labors of the Craft not necessarily connected with its administrative duties.

As Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General, it cannot be bootless to inquire what is the charge committed to our keeping -what the trust reposed in us? Is it true that the degrees and orders of our Rite are, as our enemies allege, only superfetation? Are they naught but excrescences on the great pyramid of Freemasonry ? Have they no antiquity ? Are they of an irreligious character? Allow me to deliver a few of my own views on this subject -views, as you are well assured, I have not arrived at hastily.

As Brother Gourgas has well observed, our degrees and orders constitute of themselves a perfect system and Rite, which we denominate the “ Sublime system,” and the ‘is Ancient and Accepted Rite.” They have been called “Honorary.” Such they are, in the true sense of the term, but not in the sense generally used, which is construed as synonymous with “side,” or “detached degrees.” We, however, possess, in addition to our regular series of degrees, “ detached degrees,” of more or less value, subsidiary to our regular degrees. But none of our degrees are, per se, subordinate or subsidiary to any other system or Rite, much less to any system or Rite which had no existence when our Rite was reorganized at the beginning of the last century. All attempts to make them so, we, as faithful conservators and guardians of our Rites, are bound to resist. Ours are not, as many have represented them, “loose,” “floating,” or “side degrees,” nor yet are they “waifs of Masonic stragglers.” If the star of “Sublime Freemasonry” is never permitted

We are indebted to our Worthy Brother Philip C. Tucker, of Vermont, for this appropriate designation of Masonic pretenders of a certain description. We refer to those who occasionally spring up in this country and elsewhere, and engage in “peddling” Masonic Degrees (“Marchands de Maconnere”), and who assume prerogatives which they do not possess; and over degrees which most probably they never received in a to culminate in the zenith it deserves a better fate than to become a satellite to any other orbs, albeit these may shine with more distinguished luster. If it ever becomes depressed to the nadir of the Masonic horizon, it will not be because of its want of value or merit.

Our “Sublime Brother” Dalcho remarks in one of his orations that our degrees imparted to him knowledge, which he had vainly sought for in the lower degrees - that they elucidated the origin and principles of the Masonic Institution and its connection with science and religion more intimately than the symbolic degrees. I have myself noticed that in the latter general ideas only are communicated and these obscurely, while in the “Sublime Degrees” these ideas become clear as particular truths; though still, like all truths regarding the mind and heart, which are invisible, they can be expressed only by figurative terms and external symbols.

By imagery, and through a veil of metaphor, the light of truth and the most sublime allusions are disclosed. We may be well versed in the ceremonials of our order and yet not understand their true import; we may correctly read “the letter” of our traditions and legends, and yet remain blind to their “spirit,” and ignorant of the principles and inferences they involve. By study alone can we solve the enigma, “ de duo fabula narratur?” Many of the characteristic allegories, legends, symbols, and ceremonies of “Sublime Freemasonry” are counted as insignificant and valueless, because they are not palpable to the senses, and fully comprehended at the first blush. Some of our most sacred mysteries are lightly esteemed, because they furnish no disclosures that strike dumb with amazement our “hidden treasures,” and spiritual “riches of secret places” are unappreciated; and no “Royal Secret” which humbly professes to have a relation only to the life of the heart seems to be cared for; nor yet any “precious stone” in our mystic edifice, if the “philosopher’s lawful manner. These men, perchance too, may have surreptitiously obtained some partial information from garbled MSS.; or if they have obtained any degrees lawfully, are guilty of a violation of a fundamental Masonic law in regard to “ allegiance “ by using and transmitting to others Masonic knowledge under assumed authority, in a manner different from that in which they received it.

“Upon the arts of building and architecture the Order of Free and Accepted Masonry rises like a fair stupendous pyramid from a broad, square basis, tending regularly up to a summit of attainments, ever concealed by intervening clouds from the promiscuous multitude of common observers below.” (1) The first fourteen degrees of our Rite are in a part an amplification of “Ancient Craft” Masonry; while the “superior degrees” are founded on those Christian and “religious and military Orders” which are declared by the oldest book of York Constitutions to be cognate to the Craft degrees of Freemasonry.

The proofs are undeniable that the learning contained in the “Sublime Degrees” was taught long previous to the last century; our M. P. Brother Dalcho thinks shortly after the first crusade. In Prussia, France, and Scotland the principal degrees of our Rite appeared in an organized form in 1713. The unfortunate Lord Der Wentwater and his associate English Brethren were working in lodges of Harodim, in 1725, at Paris, when the Grand Lodge of England transmitted to France the Ancient York Constitutions.

Many Scotch Brethren (adherents of Charles Edward Stuart) being in France about this time, also cultivated some of the high degrees of our Rite. Some of the important mysteries celebrated in the superior degrees were instituted by the successors of Jacques de Molay, and others derive their origin from the renowned Robert Bruce. The former gave the military, the latter the Christian, character to the degrees and orders of our Rite; and from what has been alluded to relative to the connection of our Scotch Brethren with our degrees and orders, I think we may readily account for the terms Ecossazs, or Scotch as applied to them.

No person can pretend that any one department or system of Freemasonry or any particular Masonic Rite, however unexceptionable, has from time immemorial existed in the same form in which it appears at the present day. But we contend that the (historical epoch) traditions and grades of knowledge embodied in the degrees and orders of the Rite we profess, have descended to us from remote antiquity. This fact can be proved to the reasonable satisfaction

of the most skeptical, by the writings of learned Brethren who have spent years in investigating the subject. To the same effect, too, we have the incidental testimony of writers who never belonged to the Fraternity, as well as the unwilling admission of those opposed to us. Even a brief recapitulation of such proofs is not demanded by present occasion. My referring to this topic at this time is merely to remind my Brethren that our “Ancient and Accepted Rite” is incorrectly designated as a “modern Rite.”

When we use the term “modern” as applicable to any of our orders or degrees, it is to be taken in a comparative sense, and not in its vulgar acceptation. It refers to ours “religious and military orders” instituted since the commencement of the Christian era, and after that of “the holy wars!” of a verity, our Rite is not born of yesterday.

Many of our degrees imply prerequisites in candidates peculiarly stringent, and unknown in other departments of Freemasonry; and not a few partake of the character of official degrees. Even the lowest degrees of our Rite, the eleven “Ineffable,” are designed for the “Select few” only. This is especially the case with our principal superior degrees, Prince of Jerusalem, Sov.’. Prince of Rose Cross, elected Knight K. H. Grand Inquisitor Commander, and Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret, which are virtually orders of Harodim. Some of our superior degrees confer the titles of “Commander,” “Patriarch,” “Grand Master,” if “Prince,” and “Sovereign.” But it behoves me to observe that the Masonic titles in our “Inner Easts,” like the jewels on our breasts, are not cherished and worn by us for show or aggrandizement; they are suggestive of holy truths and self-perfecting duties, which every conscientious “Sublime Freemason” will strive to learn and perform.

Some persons who have written and discoursed about our degrees, have obtained what little knowledge they possess of them from spurious and corrupted sources. I do not speak unadvisedly on this subject; for I have critically examined rituals identical with those in use among the clandestine and “soi-disant” Supreme

It is doubtless the case that some persons confound our Rite with “the French or Modern Rite,” which is confessedly modern and was invented within the last half century. It embraces the three symbolic degrees and forms the basis, and is part, of the spurious “Scotch Rite,” which aims at supplanting us. It is the same cultivated in some French lodges in this country, and by the Louisiana and other spurious Supreme Councils.

Councils, and usurping propagandists of “Sublime Freemasonry.” Now and then an orthodox hieroglyphic symbol or allegory is surreptitiously obtained, but its true solution is not attained to, by the vulgar interpretations of superficialness, or it is purposely perverted by the infidel, or bigot, or sectarian, to suit his narrow purposes or by intriguers, who

“Like scurvy politicians, seem to see

The things they do not.”

Such rituals, too, often penned by blundering copyists, may not inaptly be likened to human skeletons, stripped of all the arteries, nerves, and muscles of the living man, deprived of soul, life-blood, and spirit.

There are some writers, who, while they may not deny antiquity to the doctrines and traditions on which some of the “ high degrees” are founded, yet with a Barruel and Robison purposely confound our “Ineffable” and “philosophical degrees” with those of the political society of the Illuminati and certain infidel systems of philosophy. A learned philosophers has well observed that philosophy is not possible, unless it be founded on, and guarded by, Christianity. Christianity is the basis, and philosophy the superstructure of the edifice.” It is with philosophy such as this that true Freemasonry has to do. It is worthy of note in this connection that speculative science as well as practical wisdom once ranked among the virtues. The knowledge of the Eternal Being, as understood by philosophy, reason, and religious revelation, is the basis and apex, as well of the Masonic as the scientific pyramid.

“ No art or learning serveth useful ends,

But as the heart it guides, and life amends.”

 

However great the acquisitions of the most successful cultivator of “the Royal art “ and science, all will be vain without a practical application of the knowledge acquired. The understanding should be strengthened that the conduct may be directed and truth discovered, that it may be used “for the better endowment and help of man’s life.” One of the cardinal ends designed to be answered by Freemasonry, in any of its departments, is to make men better as well as wiser. The eulogy pronounced by Bro. T. S. Webb (1) on “the eleven ineffable degrees,” is applicable to the whole system of “Sublime Freemasonry,” that it is “intended for the glory of the Deity, and the good of mankind.”

Those who bring the charge of irreligion against our Rite would do well to bear in mind that learned authors unfriendly to our Institution have expressed their conviction that the pure doctrines of the Zabians, which are incorrectly stigmatized as astrological and idolatrous, and the doctrines of St. John the Baptist, were essentially identical; while Brethren learned in the secrets of “Ineffable Masonry,” delivered only “behind the veil,” and versed in the doctrines of “Sublime Freemasonry,” have become penetrated with the conviction that these secrets and doctrines are in essence the same with those which were taught by the Pythagorean and Essenean rituals.

After the French revolution of 1793, Christianity in France was ridiculed into obsoleteness. Among the mass of the people who became atheists were the mass of the Masons. Numerous copies of that holy book, which we esteem as the first great light in Masonry, were committed to the flames. Under this state of things, “Sublime Freemasonry” fell into desuetude; and it was not until after the establishment of the Supreme Council at Charleston, S. C., on the 31st day of May, 1801, that the “Sublime System” was revived in France by the establishment of a Supreme Council at Paris, to wit, in 1804, by Count De Grasse, Grand InspectorGeneral, under authority from the Charleston Supreme Council. The Paris Supreme Council has been in continuous operation ever since.

They were esteemed as symbols of a higher power and as ‘symbols’ only. A species of images (as for example the four-faced Cherubim) was recognized even in the early worship of the Hebrews when under the immediate government of God himself I would not be understood to say: that the pure doctrines alluded to were not perverted, or that there were no persons obnoxious to the charge made by St. Paul in Rom. i. 23. since. And here truth compels me to advert to the fact that the “Grand Orient” of

France, which had a legal existence only as a “Symbolic” Grand Lodge of Master Masons, now commenced her assumption of jurisdiction over all the degrees of the “Ancient and Accepted Rite.” Disputes hereupon ensued between the French Supreme Council and Grand Orient, which have never been fully settled up to the present day.

Every lover of Masonic order and constitutional authority cannot but regret this unhappy occurrence; and none the less the conduct of the Parisian Brethren on sundry occasions during the last half century, in extending their jurisdiction in both the Symbolic and Sublime degrees over territory on this continent, already lawfully occupied. Their example in this last respect has been repeatedly followed and is at this present moment producing consequences deleterious to the Craft at large. The present occasion is not the most appropriate one for descending to particularities on this head.

It is unnecessary for me to make more than a passing allusion to the troubles that have been experienced from analogous causes by our sister council at Charleston and our own Supreme Council, from 1806 to the present time. In assaulting our Supreme Councils our enemies tried to shift the issue from principals to individuals, and resorted to wilful perversions of facts; and failing to find legitimate and real subjects to attack, they for the nonce fabricated them. As “the droppings of their lips” were anything but “sweet-smelling myrrh,” or the “perfume of hearty counsel,” as true gentlemen and Masons we could not meet them on their own ground, or do aught else than simply pronounce their allegations false and unfounded.

A word or two with regard to the charge of interference on the part of the two only lawful Supreme Councils in this country, with the prerogatives of other departments of Freemasonry. No Supreme Councils of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General were established anywhere in the world till after 1786. Previously, Inspectors General under the enlightened Frederick of Prussia were charged with the powers and duties now vested in such Supreme Councils and the Grand Bodies under them. By them the degrees and orders of our Rite were conserved and propagated in the constitutional manner. It was not the Grand Orient of France, as is by many erroneously supposed, nor any other Grand Body on the Continent of Europe, except the Grand Consistory, over which presided Frederick’s “Substitute General” before named, that had any authority to act in the premises. For the authors of the numerous new rites and innovations committed on the old system of Freemasonry, which were erst so rife on the European Continent, we must look elsewhere than to the lawful Deputies Inspectors-General under the old system.

The original minutes and documents left by Ill. Brother Francken, who established the Albany Lodge of Perfection in 1767, evince the most scrupulous avoidance of interference with the Master’s Lodge in that city or the Symbolic Degree. As there were no R. A. Chapters or Encampments of Knights Templars established in this country till thirty years afterward, to speak of interference with them would be an anachronismic absurdity, akin to those recently spawned by ignorance or design to mislead uninformed Brethren, or for other unworthy purposes.

The first Supreme Council ever established under the new Constitution of 1786 was that at Charleston, whose jurisdiction extended constitutionally over the whole of the United States, until they constituted, by their Special Deputy, E. De La Motta, III. Treas. Gen. H.E., this Northern Supreme Council in 1813. Then on May 31, 1801, the Supreme Council of the 33d Degree for the United States of America was opened with the high honors of Masonry by Bros. John Mitchell and Frederick Dalcho, Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General; and in the course of the year the whole number of Grand Inspectors-General was completed agreeably to the Grand Constitutions. The other members of this Grand Council admitted in 1801 were Emanuel De La Motta, Dr. J. Auld, Dr. James Moultrie, Abraham Alexander, M. C. Livy, Thomas B. Bowen, and J. De Lieban.

The Supreme Grand Council for the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States was founded on August 5, 1813, by the M. Ill. Brothers E. De La Motta, “Special Deputy-Representative” from the said Supreme Grand Council at Charleston, Daniel D. Tompkins, S. Simson, John J. J. Gourgas, Richard Riker, J. G. Tardy, and M. L. M. Peixotto. In the words of a manifesto issued by the last-named council, dated August 2, 1845, the establishment of our Northern Supreme Council is shown “ by authenticated documents in the possession of this (the Charleston) Council, in accordance with the Secret Constitutions, by Emanuel De La Motta as the Representative and under the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions were defined and regulated. A candid review of all the acts of the constitutional regulators and governors of our Rite in these United States cannot fail to establish the falsity ot this charge of interference on their part. If I am not much mistaken, they have been “more sinned against than sinning.” If we have not claimed the benefit of the legal maxims, Quad prius est, verius est, et quod prius est tempore, potious est jure, it has not been because we were not entitled to this benefit.

On December 4, 1802, our Southern Supreme Council published a report from which I make the following extracts. They speak for themselves:

“Although many of the Sublime degrees are in fact a continuation of the Blue degrees, yet there is no interference (1) between the two bodies. Throughout the continent of Europe and the West Indies, where they are very generally known, they are acknowledged and encouraged. The Sublime Masons never initiate any into the Blue degrees, without a legal warrant obtained for that purpose from a Symbolic Grand Lodge; but they communicate the secrets of the chair to such applicants as have not already received them, previous to their initiation into the Sublime Lodge; yet they are at the same time informed that it does not give them rank as sanction and authority of the Council at Charleston. The Masonic Jurisdiction of the Northern Council is distributed over the Northern, North-western, and North-eastern parts of the United States. And this, with the Council at Charleston, are the only recognized Councils which exist or can exist, according to the Secret Constitutions, in the United States. Their labors have never been suspended, though withdrawn for a time from the public eye - their authority has never been, and cannot be, abrogated.

They hold in their archives certified copies of the Secret Constitutions, derived from the Grand Consistory held at Paris in 1761. Their succession of officers and members has been regularly and duly continued, and the Great Light of ‘Sublime Masonry,’ which has been confided to their keeping, like the sacred fire of the Vestals, has been preserved unextinguished on their altars.”

“In deference to the Constitution of the York Rite practiced in this country, it waves its rights and privileges, so far as they relate to the first three degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry, which long before the establishment of any Supreme Council in this hemisphere, were under the control of Symbolic Grand Lodges “ See circular letters of both Northern and Southern Supreme Councils, 1845. “The object of the Supreme Council is not to interfere with the rights of any other bodies, but simply to preserve from decay or innovation those Sublime truths and ineffable mysteries which, while they throw a brighter light upon the pure system of Ancient Craft Masonry, can be attained only by those who have sought for light in the deepest recesses of the Masonic Temple. They ask, therefore, as the legal guardians of these invaluable treasures, the sympathy and fraternal kindness of their Brethren, to whom they take this occasion of offering the right hand of brotherly love and affection.” - Charleston Circular, 1845.

Past Masters in the Grand Lodge.”  “On January 21, 1802, a warrant of constitution passed the seal of the Grand Council of Princes of Jerusalem for the establishment of a Master Mark Mason’s Lodge in the City of Charleston, S.C.” “ Besides those degrees, which are in regular succession, most of the Inspectors are in possession of a number of detached degrees given in different parts of the world; and which they generally communicate free of expense, to those Brethren who are high enough to understand them. Such as select Masons of 27, etc., making in the aggregate fifty-three degrees.”

As to the Mark and Past Master’s Degrees, all authority over them was surrendered to the R.A. Chapters, at that time springing into existence. Independent lodges of Mark Master Masons having no governing head were afterward established in this country, and continued in operation for a series of years; until the Gen. Grand Chapter assumed jurisdiction over both the Mark and Past Master’s Degrees as “honorary grades,” and incorporated them into their system.

No! Brethren, the intermeddling complained of, lies at the door of the spurious bodies established by the impostor Joseph Cerneau, et id omne genus, progeniesque, whose illegitimate works are ever and anon exhumed and revamped for sinister purposes. It ought, methinks, to be a sufficient refutation of the charge of our intermeddling with other departments of Masonry, that the leading Brethren of both our Northern and Southern Supreme Councils, ever since their establishment, have been active leaders in Symbolic Grand Lodges, Grand Chapters of R.A. Masons, and Grand Encampments of Knights Templar, the only other departments of Freemasonry in our land which we recognize and acknowledge.

“No Masonic power professing our Rite, or any of its dependent associations, can, under any pretense whatever, amalgamate or associate by representation or otherwise, with any other power, or with any association depending on any other Rite, nor consent to become a section or dependence thereof, without renouncing the object of its institution, and losing de facto its sovereign attributes.” This fundamental law applicable to any department of Freemasonry is a truism, and surely needs no argument to support it.

I a well persuaded that our Supreme Grand Council will ever continue, as it has heretofore done, to illustrate the truth of one of its own sentiments, that “ Sublime Freemasonry is unobtrusive, a divine manna for the clear-sighted to gather - everyone according to his own taste and ability.” We claim not to keep the vineyards of others, and we challenge to the proof that we have ever trenched upon them. And while we guard, as we are bound to do, our own possessions, we hope to be permitted to sit peaceful and undisturbed if under our own vine and fig-tree”!

The institution of the official dignity of Sovereign Grand Inspector-General, in 1786, and the adoption of the constitutional provisions, by which, on the decease of the great Frederick, his authority and duties over our order in both hemispheres were transferred to a limited number of Brethren in each nation, operated practically as a distribution among many Brethren of the high Masonic powers and prerogatives, originally possessed by one Grand Master. Notwithstanding the numerous efforts made to enlighten Brethren as to the true nature of the 33d Degree “governing itself and all others” of our said Rite, and conferring rights and powers, and imposing duties

agreeably to the Grand Constitutions” of our order, of an executive character, it is still generally “By the Constitution of the Order, which was ratified on October 25, 1762, the King of Prussia was proclaimed as the chief of the Eminent Degrees, with the rank of Sovereign Grand Inspector-General and Grand Commander. The higher Councils and Chapters could not be opened without his presence or that of his substitute, whom he must appoint. All the transactions of the Consistory of the thirty-second degree required his sanction, or that of his substitute, to establish their legality; and many other prerogatives were attached to his Masonic rank. No provision, however, had been made in the Constitutions for the appointment of his successor; and, as it was an office of the highest importance, the utmost caution was necessary to prevent an improper person from obtaining it. The King, being conscious of this, established the thirty-third degree. Nine Brethren in each nation, from the Supreme Council of Grand Inspectors-General, after his decease possessed all his Masonic prerogatives and power over the Craft. They are the Executive Body of the Masonic Fraternity, and their approval is now necessary to the acts of the Consistory, before they can become laws; and from their decision there can be no appeal.”

In 1825 I received from Moses Holbrook, M.D., at that time Sov. Grand Commander of the Charleston Supreme Council, a letter in answer to some inquiries relative to the subject in question, from which letter I make the following extracts: “All the transactions of S.P.R.S. required the sanction of Frederick William II. (who had for many years been the head and patron of the Order), or that of his substitute, to establish their but most erroneously considered as an “honorary” distinction merely, and as an ordinary degree in Freemasonry; and one to which all Brethren having the usual qualifications required for initiation into most of the lower degrees have a right to aspire.

The tenure of office in a Supreme Grand Council being for life, a seat in such a body can be vacated only by death, resignation, or removal from its jurisdiction. This is a fundamental law, and may not be changed, though its inevitable tendency is to exclude from our little circle some good, true, and worthy Brethren, who would, no doubt, adorn our assemblies, and prove faithful conservators, regulators, and governors of our Rite.

By being tenacious of official station, I may be the means of excluding Brethren whose councils are needed; and I may also stand in the way of the just preferment of my compeers. Moved by reasons like these I have named, and desirous of setting an example, which if discreetly followed may, without violation of our organic laws, serve in a degree to modify what is, albeit without good reason, deemed too exclusive a feature in our “sublime system,” I have concluded to resign the official station I now hold in this council. There are other considerations also which induce me to adopt this course.

By a constitutional regulation of our order, the office of chief custodian of our archives devolves upon the Sov. Grand Commander, who should, for this and analogous reasons well understood by us, be a resident of one of the Easts in our jurisdiction.

Living as legality. Many other prerogatives were attached to his Masonic rank; and not least in the consideration of the day, it was thought that in the United States, just emerged from the thraldom of the mother country, after a long and arduous struggle for their liberty, it would be highly improper to have the Masonic head and jurisdiction over the Ineffable and Sublime degrees in another country, and to pay allegiance of any kind to a foreign potentate. These difficulties, added to the importance attached to the highest office in Freemasonry, and the very great caution necessary to prevent an unsuitable person from obtaining an office so respectable, influential, and important, weighed with the King and the high Consistory over which he presided. Upon reading the respectful petitions and statements made to them during the years 1784 and 1785, the subject was referred to a highly learned and able committee, who reported this degree (thirty third) to constitute nine S.P.R.S. in each nation, a Streme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General; and they being duly organized, accredited, and approved, should at his decease possess all his Masonic prerogatives over the concerns of the Craft within the country or territory over which their jurisdiction extended; and their appointment was ad vitam. They became the Executive Body of the Masonic Fraternity within their territory. This arrangement annulled all former powers granted to individuals

(Dep. Ins.-Gen.) in different parts of the world.”

I do in the interior of my native State, it is not meet for me to become such custodian. Our archives, valuable and voluminous, should have a fixed and permanent depository, under the charge of their constitutional guardian.

My association for a quarter of a century with this Supreme Grand Council, and my active participation in its works and administrative duties, I have spoken of in my antecedent remarks. I avert to the fact again, and in this connection, to remind you, that it places me before you in such a position as to render, in a measure applicable to my own case, the reason for abdication advanced by my venerable predecessor, deducible from his long term of service.

My much esteemed compeer, your “Most Illustrious Inspector Lieutenant Grand Commander,” Edward A. Raymond, in the event of my abdication of the presidency of this council, is pointed out by the constitutions as my successor. It gratifies me to reflect that such is the case. If there were no constitutional provision restricting my duty in the emergency named, and the selection of my successor were left to my own free choice, I could not make a selection more congenial to my feelings, or more in accordance with my convictions of duty. I have known him for three times three years twice told as a “Brother of the mystic tie,” and a possessor of “the high degrees.” His Masonic age and experience, derived from long and repeated services as a ruler in other departments of Masonry,’ and the satisfaction he has given to his companions in the discharge of his administerial duties, afford an earnest that he will not be found wanting as a chief administrator in our ancient and Accepted Rite.” I am assured that he has the requirements demanded by our Book of Constitutions, that he “can be entirely depended on, that his discretion is proof against all trials, his capacity acknowledged, and his probity untouched.”

In 1859 the ambition of one man caused some trouble in this Supreme Council. Grand Commander Raymond contended that “the powers of Frederick were vested in him as Grand Commander and not in the Council as a body.” He had conferred the 33d Degree upon Paul Dean, and the Supreme Council had

Bro. Raymond is the present Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and has been at the head of the Grand Chapter Encampment of Massachusetts (1851). tacitly recognized him as a member. In 1860 an extra session was held, and the controversy with the Grand Commander reached the climax.

The Grand Commander refused to put certain motions. A motion was made to close the council, to be opened at four o’clock; this he refused to put, and declared the council closed until ten o’clock on the following morning.

At that hour the council was opened and the minutes read, whereupon the Grand Commander declared the council closed sine die.

Some of the members (five) conferred together, and being advised by Gourgas, reopened the council and proceeded with the business.

Upon the report of a committee on rules, etc., previously appointed, the council adopted the Constitutions of 1860.

The record of this session was signed by Van Rensselaer, who was elected Lieutenant Grand Commander, Starkweather, Moore, Christie, Case, and Young. A preamble and resolution were adopted, deposing the Grand Commander in effect. Gourgas, Turner, Bull, and Hubbard formally approved the proceedings; Carson also did so with some qualifications.

The Grand Commander, Raymond, disregarded the action of these members after he had left the council. Both parties published the proceedings of 1860, those for the regular session being alike Raymond’s being a record of his action in conferring the 33d Degree upon Lawson, Starkweather, and Field, who, it is alleged, by him were elected in 1857. It is said, however, that the records of 1857 show only the election of Starkweather.

Both of these factions continued to operate; we shall not, however, dwell upon the minutiae, but state that the Van Rensselaer body grew in numbers and importance.  There was a large accession in 1862 of very distinguished and prominent Masons; among these were Josiah H. Drummond, of Maine, and Benjamin Dean, of Massachusetts, both of whom subsequently became Grand Commanders; Hubbard, who had been elected Grand Commander, having positively declined to serve, Van Rensselaer was chosen. Raymond and Robinson having been summoned to attend, and failing to appear, were tried and expelled.

Notwithstanding the controversies between these two bodies, the Van Rensselaer body continued to prosper until 1867. With

UNIVERSI TERRARUM ORBIS ARCHITECTONIS PER GLORIAM INGENTIS.

Dues Meumque Jus. Ordo ab Chao.

From the Orient of the Supreme Grand Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the 33d and last Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, for the United States of America, their Territories and Dependencies, whose Sacred Asylum is beneath the C.’. C.’., at the V.’. P.’. of the Z.’., near the B.’. B.’., corresponding with 40d 42’ 40” N. Lat., and 2d 0’ 57” E. Lon.

To ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:

Be it Known, That on the 17th day of the Hebrew month Shebat, Anno Mundi 5623, answering to the 7th day of February, 1863 (E.V.), by solemn articles, the Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the 33d and last Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Rite for the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States of America, sitting at Boston, was duly consolidated with the Supreme Grand Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the 33d and last Degree of the A. and A. Rite for the United States of America, their Territories and Dependencies, sitting at New York, upon terms honorable and just alike to all parties interested therein.

Be it further Known, That the following Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, in pursuance of such consolidation, comprise the Officers of the Supreme Grand Council for the United States of America, their Territories and Dependencies. They will be recognized and respected accordingly.

III.’. EDMUND B. HAYS -M.’.P.’. Sov.’. Gr.’. Commander.

“ EDWARD A. RAYMOND - Asst.’.Sov.’.Gr.’.Com.’.

“ SIMON W. ROBINSON -1st Lieut.’.Gr.’. Com.’.

HOPKINS THOMPSON - 2d Lieut.’.Gr.’. Com.’.

“ BENJAMIN C. LEVERIDGE - Gr.’. Orater.

“ GEORGE M. RANDALL - Gr.’. Minister of State.

“ LUCUS R. PAIGE - Gr.’. Chancellor.

“ DANIEL SICKELS -Gr.’. Sec.’. General H.’.E.’.

“ ROBERT E. ROBERTS - Gr.’. Treas.’. Gen.’. H.’.E.’.

“ HENRY C. BANKS -Gr.’. Marshal General.

“ AARON P. HUGHES - Gr.’. Sword Bearer.

“ H. J. SEYMOUR - 1st Gr.’. Mas.’. of Cer.’.

“ CHARLES T. McCLENACHAN - 2d Gr.’. Mas.’. of Cer.’.

“ PETER LAWSON -Gr.’. Ex.’. Introductor.

“ JOHN INNES - Gr.’. Standard Bearer.

“ WM. FIELD -1st Gr.’. Capt.’. of the Guard.

“ WILLIAM H. JARVIS - 2d Gr.’. Capt.’. of the Guard.

 

All which is promulgated, and ordered to be transmitted to whom it may concern.

 

Done at the Grand East, New York city, this 8th day of the Hebrew month Adar, A.’. M.’.

5623, answering to March 1st, 1863 (E.’. V.’.)

 

In Testimony of all which I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the Supreme Grand Council to be affixed.

 

[SEAL.]

EDMUND B. HAYS 33.’.

 

Attest, M.’. P.’. Sov.’. G.’. Commander.

DANIEL SICKELS 33.’.

 

Gr.’.Sec.’.Gen.’. H.’. E.’. [SEAL.]

 

the exception of four bodies in the city of New York, which had been organized prior to the schism, all others continued in their allegiance to this body. In 1867 there were twenty-eight active members on the roll.

In 1862 three Supreme Councils claimed jurisdiction over the Northern section of the United States. In April, 1862, by the records of Raymond Council, the Cerneau body, presided over by Hays, had made overtures to the Raymond faction for a union of the two, and committees were appointed to meet for the purpose of organizing for such union. January 23, 1863, it was reported to the Raymond body that there was a reasonable prospect of effecting the union, and the committee was granted full power to act. January 19, 1863, in the Hays body similar action ensued.

Under date of February 7, 1863, Articles of Union were agreed upon by which the two councils were consolidated. The number of members was increased to seventeen, and each member, and body, was required to take the oath of allegiance to the new body when they had the same status as they respectively had under the original bodies.

Raymond, Randall, Paige, Hughes, Robinson, Lawson, Field, and McClenachan of the Raymond body; and Hays, Thompson, Sickles, Roberts, Leveridge, Seymour, Banks, Jarvis, and Innis of the Hays body, constituted the membership of the united body. On the preceding page is shown the copy of the “ Article of Consolidation.”

 

April 15, 1863, Hays, having been agreed upon as Grand Commander, installed the Officers. All the members of both the former bodies were required to take the oath of fealty to the newly united body, hence the claim, set up a few years subsequently, that the Raymond body was merged in the Hays Council is entirely without foundation; moreover, when a few of the old Hays Council withdrew from the united body, the large majority, and the most eminent Brethren, remained true in their allegiance to that body.

A change was made in the constitution by which the active membership was increased to twenty-four, besides the nine officers.

The members of this united body became very active; a very large number received the 33d Degree; many new bodies were instituted, particularly in States where the Scottish Rite had not heretofore been worked, all in the Northern Jurisdiction.

 

Until 1864 the tenure of office had always been ad vitas but at the meeting this year, amendments were passed for the triennial election of the officers and for a reduction to nine.

September 11, 1865, a session was held. Communication had been resumed with the officials of the Southern Supreme Council, but the Hays Council having declared itself as having jurisdiction over the United States, this body was not in a condition to ask the recognition of the Southern Supreme Council, as it had denounced as spurious all the various bodies which had originated in New York.

At this meeting charges were presented against Harry J. Seymour, who was Asst. Grand Master of Ceremonies. A committee of his friends of the old Hays body was appointed to try these charges. At a subsequent date the committee reported. Seymour had been duly notified to appear, but he refused to do so, and he was expelled, as will be seen by the following:

 

SUPREME COUNCIL, 33d

NORTHERN MASONIC JURISDICTION U.S.A.

Gr.’. Orient, Boston. Massachusetts,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GEN.’.H.’.B.’.

New York, 27 A.’.M.’., 5631

 

 

At a session of the Supreme Council 33d. for the Northern Jurisdiction U. S., held on the 10th day of the Hebrew month Elul, Anno Heb. 5625, answering to the 11th day of September, 1865, V.E., the following action was had:

 

III.’. Bro.’.C.T. McClenachan, Rose +.’. 33.’. preferred a charge with three specifications of the violation of sundry obligations by Henry or Harry J. Seymour Rose+.’. 33d, said obligations being those of the 14d. - 16d - 17d - 18d. - 32d and 33d. degrees of theA.’.A.’. Scottish Rite, as set forth in the Ritual of the degrees.

The charge and specifications were read in the presence of the Gr.’. Commander, and the Inspectors General present.

III.’. Bro.’. Henry C. Banks, Rose+.’. 33d., moved that the charge and specifications be referred to a Commission, which was carried, and the Gr.’. Commander announced

Ill.’. Bros.’. Henry C. Banks, 33.d,

John Innes, 33d.,

Hopkins Thompson, 33d.

 

said commission for the trial.

 

At an adjourned session of the Sup.’. Council for the Northern Jurisdiction of the U. S., held December 14, 1865, the Commission rendered the following report:

 

Ill.’. Bro.’. Banks, chairman of the commission appointed to investigate certain charges and specifications presented to this Supreme Council against Harry J. Seymour, a past officer of this Supreme Council, reported that they had carefully examined the said charges and specifications, and the proofs thereof; that the aforesaid Harry J. Seymour had been duly notified to attend the meetings of the commission; had been served with a copy of the charges and specifications; that in all cases he had refused or neglected to pay any attention to such notices; and that your commission have arrived at the conclusion that the charges and specifications have been fully sustained, and offer the following resolution:

 

Resolved, “ That the said Harry J. Seymour be, and he is hereby, expelled from all the rights and privileges of Masonry in every branch of the A.’.A.’. Scottish Rite.”

 

Signed, HENRY C. BANKS, 33d,

JOHN INNES, 33d,

HOPKINS THOMPSON, 33d,

 

 

On motion the report was received, and the resolution unanimously adopted, the members voting “viva voce” by roll-call, beginning with the Junior Member.

 

A true copy from the records,

 

Attest: DANIEL SICKELS, 33d

[GREAT SEAL] Gr.’.Sec.’.Gen.’.H. E.

 

 

A committee was appointed to take into consideration the propriety of resuming the old name, viz.: the Supreme Council of the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States of America “in lieu of the one at present adopted.” Also it was resolved “that the Grand Commander appoint one or more delegates to repair to Charleston, South Carolina, at the meeting of the Southern Supreme Council.” The report of the committee was unanimously adopted in favor of resuming the old name of the “ Supreme Council of the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States.” Thus it appears that this Supreme Council, composed of the most distinguished Masons among the old members of the two councils, fully recognized the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction.

 Brothers Paige and McClenachan had visited the council at Charleston and an oral report was made to the Supreme Council, December 14, 1865, but it does not appear on record. Hays resigned his office of Grand Commander, and Robinson was elected. It is generally inferred that the Southern Supreme Council did not agree that they would enter into recognition with a council whose chief officer was not considered a regular member of the Scottish Rite, and had denied the regularity of the union, and Raymond being dead, Robinson was his successor. As above shown, the election of Robinson followed, so that both by election and succession his title would be perfect. The record says: “A majority of all the officers and active members of the Supreme Council were present.” Lucius R. Paige was appointed to visit the Southern Supreme Council at their meeting held April 16, 1866.

 At the meeting of the council held in New York June 5, 1866, in the address of Robinson, Grand Commander, he stated that the Raymond Council was forced into the union with the Hays Council for self-preservation, and referred to the Brethren the question of securing friendly relations with the Southern Supreme Council.

 At the Southern Supreme Council meeting held April 6, 1866, the Grand Commander entered at some length upon the occurrences in the Northern Jurisdiction, which was placed in the hands of a committee, whose report was in consonance with the views of the Grand Commander.

 The report of the committee was to the following effect, namely, that Robinson had been duly appointed Lieutenant Grand Commander by Raymond before tne deposition of the latter; and hence if Raymond had been legally deposed, Robinson, on his depositions would naturally succeed him as Grand Commander, and if Raymond had not been legally deposed, still Robinson, now that Raymond was dead, would be his legitimate successor. The report added that the only legitimate members of the council at the time, after the death of Hubbard, were Moore, Case, Young, and Starkweather, that both of the factions had acted in a manner that was illegal and neither of them could be recognized. This decision did not find general acceptance and was challenged on the allegation that the assumption that the Northern Supreme Council could have only nine members was erroneous in point of law. Whether this assumption by the committee was or was not erroneous is a matter of no moment at this time, as it is generally admitted that the Northern Supreme Council had the right to increase at pleasure the number of its active members.

The Northern Supreme Council, upon a summons from the Grand Commander, Robinson, met in Boston December 11, 1866. Moore, Case, Starkweather, and Young, although included in the summons, did not appear, and Robinson declared their seats vacant; thereupon, being himself as the only member, he then proceeded to fill the vacancies according to the provisions of the Constitution of 1786. There were then present twelve of the active and ten of the honorary members of the united council. The Grand Commander said that he was acting “with the unanimous consent of every member of that council.”

The legal effect of these proceedings was a reorganization of the United Council, just as if the officers and members had elected themselves again. In form, no doubt, there was a dissolution of the United Council, and the organization of a new council, but the substance was as stated above. All members had the same status, no new oath was required, everyone was recognized as Grand Inspector-General, all the acts of the United Council were confirmed, and its actions of every kind recognized as still in full force. In every way the proceedings were nothing more or less than a formal reorganization of an existing body in deference to the requirements of the Southern Supreme Council. But although the action of the committee was intended to meet the wishes of the Southern Supreme Council, it did not satisfy the latter body, which desired to effect a perfect union, and had hoped to see the five members whom it had decided to be active members uniting in the action to be taken. The position of the New York Council was therefore still in doubt. In December, 1866, it published a full report of its proceedings; and it had already adopted a resolution, with a view to securing a union with the Boston Council,which was a copy of the one previously adopted with the same view to union, by the Boston body.

The committees appointed were as follows: Boston Council, Evans, of New York, Woodbury, of Massachusetts, Drummond, of Maine, Ely, of Ohio, Foss, of Illinois, Harmon G. Reynolds, of Illinois, an Honorary Member, and later Gardner, of Massachusetts. New York Council, Lewis Paige, McClenachan, and Sickles, of New York, Paige, of Massachusetts, Palmer, of Wisconsin, and Barrett, of New Hampshire.

These two committees met in May, 1867, a short time before the annual session of the Boston Council. There was considerable discussion as to the details of the union, although the general terms were soon settled. Local interests as well as personal considerations created such difficulties that at one moment it seemed as if the negotiations would have to be broken off; indeed so hopeless was the outlook that several members left their seats, prepared to quit the room. Then, to quote Drummond’s account, “a brother invited all to ‘break bread together,’ and insisted that all should accept the invitation.” Before they returned to the committee-room everything had been satisfactorily arranged. The report was signed by all the members of the two committees, and adopted by the unanimous vote of each body, and the approval of the honorary members. The two councils met as equals, and all their previous actions were held to be valid, “ except expulsions on account of former differences,” which were rescinded. Each council consisted of twentyeight active members, the New York Council consenting to the admission of Charles Levi Woodbury, of Massachusetts, “in recognition of his services in bringing about the union.”

The two bodies by a concurrent vote met as one council. The two great commanders, Killian H. van Rensselaer, of the New York, and John L. Lewis, of the Boston Council, then conducted the Grand Commander elect of the united body to the altar, and administered to him the oath of fealty in the presence of the members of the Supreme Council. In his turn the Grand Commander administered the oath to all the members present. Other officers were then elected and installed, and a constitution was adopted, and the Northern Supreme Council was fully organized.

Until 1872 harmony prevailed in the Northern Jurisdiction. In that year H. J. Seymour, who had been expelled in 186 -, put forsward a claim that Hays, when Grand Commander of the “rump Council” of the Cerneanites, had given him a patent empowering him to create 33d Degree Masons and to institute a Supreme Council. He had previously, however, authorized an application to Grand Commander Drummond to be reinstated in all his rights as a member of the Supreme Council, on condition of his surrendering all his papers to the Supreme Council. It was after the rejection of this application that Seymour began his active work, and the success of his efforts, limited as it was, encouraged others who had been members of the old Hays Council, before

the union with the Northern Council, to start an annexation, styled “Cernean Supreme Council revived.” These men, Hopkins Thompson, Robert Folger and others, had been members of the United Council reorganized in 1867 and had remained therein till 1881, and now set the claim that in December, 1866, the Union Council was, and that all the members were, released from their allegiance to it. They did not deny that they had taken the oath of fealty to the reorganized United Council, and had been loyal members for fourteen years, but they pleaded that their conduct arose from their ignorance of the proceedings of the council in 1866, and therefore they claimed to be a revival of the old Hays Council. As such they claimed also jurisdiction over the Southern territory, a claim which Thompson and Folger and others had unanimously surrendered in 1867. They deny also the loyalty of the Southern Supreme Council, which is everywhere accepted as the “Mother Council of the World,” and the source from which came the 33d and last degree.

No regular Supreme Council has ever been acknowledged as either the Cernean Supreme Council revived or the Seymour association.