The Hebrew letter is Samech. The nineteenth letter in the English alphabet. Its numerical value is 60. The sacred application to the Deity is in the name Somech, Upholder, the Latin Fulcteus or Firmas. The Hebrew letter Shin, a tooth, from its formation, is of the numerical value of 300.
One of a certain Indian sect, who have emigrated Christianity, and who in some remeets resemble the Quakers in their doctrine and mode of life. Sometimes written Saud.
The worship of the sun, moon, and stars, the Tsaba Hashmaim, meaning the host of heaven. It was practised in Persia, Chaldea, India, and other Oriental Countries, at an early period a of the world’s history (see Blazing Star and Sunworship) .
The Hebrew words pronounced Jehovah Tsabaoth, and meaning Jehovah of Costs, a very usual appellation for the Most High in the prophetical books, especially in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Malachi, but not found in the Pentateuch.
Hebrew word, meaning the Burden, the Latin Onus. The name of the sixth step of the mystic ladder of Kadosh of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Sometimes spelled Sabael.
In the lecture of the Second or Fellow Craft’s Degree, it is said, In six days God created the heavens and the earth, and rested upon the seventh day; the seventh, therefore, our ancient Brethren consecrated as a day of rest from their labors, thereby enjoving frequent opportunities to contelnplate the glorious works of creation, and to adore their great Creator.
A availed enclosure without roof. An ornamental chapel Within a church.
In the Rose Croix instructions, sackcloth is a symbol of grief and humiliation for the loss of that Which it is the object of the Degree to recover.
SACRED ASYLUM OF HIGH MASONRY
In the Institutes, Statutes, and Regulations, signed by Adillgton, Chancellor, Which are given in the Rectueil des Actes du Supréme Consetél du France, or Collection of the Acts of the Supreme Council of France, as a Sequence to the Constitutions of 1762, this title is given to any subordinate Body of the Scottish Rite. Thus in Article XVI: “At the time of the installation of a Sacred Asylum of High Masonry, the members composing it shall all make and sign their pledge of obedience to the Institutes, Statutes, and General Regulations of High Masonry.” In this document the Rite is always called High Masonry, and any Body, whether a Lodge of Perfection, a Chapter of Rose Croix, or a Council of Kàdosh, is styled a Sacred Asylum.
The first Tables of Stone, or Commandments, which were delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, are referred to in £, preface to the Mashna, bearing this tradition: God not only delivered the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai, but the explanation of it likewise. When Moses came down from the Mount and entered into his tent. Aaron went to visit him, and Moses acquainted Aaron with the Laws he had received from God,together with the explanation of them. After this Aaron placed himself on the right hand of Moses, and Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, were admitted, to whom Moses repeated what he had just before told to Aaron.
These being seated, the one on the right hand, the other on the left hand of Moses, the seventy elders of Israel, who compose the Sanhedrim, came in, and Moses again declared the same laws to them, as he had done before to Aaron and his sons. Lastly, all who pleased of the comnlon people were invited to enter, and Moses instructed them likewise in the same manner as the rest. So that Aaron heard four times w hat Moses had been taught by God upon Mount Sinai, Eleazar and Ithamar three times, the seventv elders twice, and the people once. Moses afterward reduced the laws which he had received into writing, hut not the explanation of them. These he thought it sufficient to trust to the memories of the above-mentioned persons, who, being perfectly instructed in them, delivered them to their children, and these again to theirs, from age to age.
The Sacred Law is repeated in the instructions of the Fourteenth Degree, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
In the lectures according to the English system, we find the following definition of the Sacred Lodge, the symbol has not been preserved in the American instructions: Over the Sacred Lodge presided Solomon, the greatest of kings, and the wisest of men; Hiram, the great and learned King of Tyre; and Hiram Abif, the widow’s son, of the tribe of Naphtali. It was held in the bowels of the sacred Mount Moriah, under the part whereon was erected the Holy of Holies. On this mount it was where Abraham confirmed his faith by his readiness to offer up his only son, Isaae. Here it was where David offered that acceptable sacrifice on the threshing-floor of Araunah by which the anger of the Lord was appeased, and the plague stayed from his people. Here it was where the Lord delivered to David, in a dream, the plan of the glorious Temple, afterward erected by our noble Grand Master, King Solomon. And lastly, here it was where he declared he would establish his sacred name and word, which should never pass away- and for these reasons this was justly styled the Sacred Lodge.
Tile French is Sacrifant. A Degree in the Archives of the Lodge of Saint Louis des Amis Réunis (Saint Louis of the Reunited Friends) at Calais.
SACRIFICE, ALTAR OF
In French, the word is Sacrificateur. 1. A Degree in the Archives of the Lodge of Saint Louis des Amis Réunis (Saint Louis of the Reunited Friends) at Calais. 2. A Degree in the collection of Pyron.
Persian Saddar, meaning the hundred gates. A work in the Persian tongue, being a summary of the Avesta, or sacred books.
Sometimes Zedukim. A Sect called from its founder Sadoc, or Zadok (see Secund Samuel viii, 17, xv, 24; First Kings i, 34), who lived about 250 B.C. They denied the resurrection, a future state, and the existence of angels. The Sadducees are often mentioned in the New Testament, the Talmud, and the Midrash. The tenets of the Sadducees are noticed as contrasted with those of the Pharisees. While Jesus condemned the Sadducees and Pharisees, he is nowhere found criticizing the gets, words, or doctrines of the third sect of the Jews, the Essenes; wherefore, it has been strongly favored that Jesus was himself one of the last-named sect, who in many excellent qualities resembled Freemasons. The Sadducees were the most conservative of forces, the Pharisees more advanced in the later thoughts and tendencies. The Gospels throw an interesting and significant light upon these circumstances and their effects in that era.
Born 1840, died 1911. One of the most painstaking, patient, and persevering of Masonic students. He was initiated in 1862 in the Lodge of Justice No. 147, being at the time an A. B. in the Mereantile Marine. He became W. M. of this Lodge in 1872. In 1882 he was a founder of the Southgate Lodge, No. 1950, and in 1886 he was a founder and first Master of the Walsingham Lodge, No. 2148; in 1869 he was exalted to the Royal Arch Degree in the Royal York Chapter, No. 7; in 1872 he joined the Temperance Chapter, No. 169, and became its First Principal in 1880. In 1879 he was appointed Grand Tiler of the Grand Lodge of England, and held the post until 1910, when he retired on a pension. In 1887 he was appointed Sub-Librarian to the Grand dodge of England and was promoted to be its Librarian in 1910. His position in the Grand Lodge Library gave him access to all the old records of the Grand Lodge of England, and enabled him to write most valuable books on various points in connection with the history of English Freemasonry.
In 1887 appeared his principal work, Masonic Facts and Fictions, in which he claimed, and his argument was generally accepted, that the Grand Lodge of the Antients was formed in London by some Irish Freemasons, who had not seceded, as had been supposed from the Regular Grand Lodge. In 1589 he published Notes on tile Ceremonny of Installation; in 1891, the Life of Thomas Dunckerley; on 1898, Masonic Reprints and Historical Revelations; in 1904, Some Memorials of the Globe Lodge, No. BS, also the Illustrated lIistory of Emulation Lodge of 11nprovement, No. 256; and in 1906, the Histor1y and Records of the Lodge of Emulation, No. 21.
The keystone of an arch. The abscissa of a curve.
SAILORS, AND FREEMASONRY
Much of the United States and Canada as well as Britain has been for a long time at sea. It is not difficult for Englishmen to think of themselves as a people partly afloat, nor the Norwegians, and still less the Japanese; but America also is partly afloat, and ever has been, though it is hard for Americans to believe it. The Navy itself has more duties in peacetime than in war, and of equal importance, for it is our government abroad, without which consuls, ministers, ambassadors and diplomats in general would carry little weight. Wherever the Navy goes, America goes. The Navy, moreover, is one of America’s proudest achievements, if Americans knew it, and has given to the land it serves a long succession of dedicated men whose intellectual, literary, and scholarly achievements stand second only after the colleges and universities. As for Britain, its fleet has been its alter ego. Freemasonry also, ever since as a world-wide Speculative Fraternity it escaped out of the cocoon of the Time Immemorial Lodges, has been afloat on the merchant ships and with the navies, and has with its Lodges followed them, or has waited for them in more than 3 thousand ports.
Moreover the sea is one of the oldest of callings, millennia older than Homer who celebrated it, for the first ships appeared at the same time as the first houses and the most ancient cities. Also, like the arts and crafts on land, they have from a long time ago had their own gilds and fraternities; the Greek mariners, who went everywhere, had their associations.
the Roman sailors had their collegia, and for many centuries both of them had mithraea to visit on shore. After the gild system arose early in Medieval times seamen had gilds of their own; they took apprentices; had a Patron Saint; had part in pageants with a float depicting Noah; and from the beginning of the theater were favorite stage characters.
If ever a truly complete history of Freemasonry is written, omitting nothing important enough to have a chapter of its own, it will tell the story of how seamen of Britain, America, and the maritime countries of Europe carried Masonry around the world; so that if they had no share in its antiquity they had a large share in that other Landmark, its universality. (For Mariners in the period of the gilds and pageants see The British Tar in Fact and Fiction, by Charles Napier Robinson; Harper & Bros.; London and New York; 1911. The first novel about the sea was written by an American, James Fenimore Cooper; also, it is believed by many; its greatest, Moby Dtck, by Herman Melville; Shakespeare’s last play was “The Tempest,” a poemcomedy-drama of the sea, with a setting off our own Atlantic coast; and the fact is a reminder of the “Odyssey,” attributed to Homer, the greatest sea yarn ever written. See also NAVAL LODGES in this Supplement.)
Introduced into the Cooke Manuscript (line 603), where the allusion evidently is to Saint Amphibalus, which see.
Saint Alban, or Albanus, the proto-martyr of England, was born in the third century, at Verulam, now St. Albans, in Hertfordshire.
In his youth he visited Rome, and served seven years as a soldier under the Emperor Diocletian. On his return to Britain he embraced Christianity, and was the first who suffered martyrdom in the great persecution which raged during the reign of that emperor.
The Freemasons of England have claimed Saint Alban as being intimately connected with the early history of the Fraternity in that island. Anderson (Constitutions, 1738, page 57) says, “This is asserted by all the old copies of the Constitutions, and the old English Masons firmly believed it,” and he quotes from the Old Constitutions:
Saint Alban loved Masons well and cherished them much, and he made their pay right good; viz., two shillings per week and three pence to their cheer; whereas before that time, through all the land, a Mason had but a penny a day and his meat, until Saint Alban amended it. Ho also obtained of the King a Charter for the Free Masons, for to hold a general council, and gave it the name of Assembly, and was thereat himself as Grand Master and helped to make Masons and gave them good charges.
We have another tradition on the same Subject; for in a little work published about 1764, at London, under the title of The Complete Free Mason or Multa Paucis for the Lovers of Secrets, we find the following statement (page 47) in reference to the Masonic character and position of plaint Alban.
In the following (the third) century, Gordian sent many architects over—into England—who constituted themselves into Lodges, and instructed the Craftsmen in the true principles of Freemasonry; and a few years later, Carausius was made emperor of the British Isles and being a great lover of art and science, appointed Albanus Grand Master of Masons, who employed the Fraternity in building the palace of Verulam, or St. Albans.
Both of these statements are simply legends, or traditions of the not unusual character, in which historical facts are destroyed by legendary additions. The fact that Saint Alban lived at Verulam may be true—most probably is so.
It is another fact that a splendid Episcopal palace was built there, whether in the time of Saint Alban or not is not so certain; but the affirmative has been assumed; and hence it easily followed that, if built in his time, he must have superintended the building of the edifice.. He would, of course, employ the workmen, give them his patronage, and, to some extent, by his superior abilities, direct their labors. Nothing was easier, then, than to make him, after all this, a Grand Master. The assumption that Saint Alban built the palace at Verulam was very natural, because when the true builder’s name grass lost—supposing it to have been so—Saint Alban was there ready to take his place, Verulam having been his birthplace.
The increase of pay for labor and the annual congregation of the Freemasons in a General Assembly, having been subsequent events, the exact date of whose first occurrence has been lost, by a process common in the development of traditions, they were readily transferred to the same era as the building of the palace at Verulam. It is not even necessary to suppose, by way of explanation, as Preston does, that Saint Alban was a celebrated architect, and a real encourager of able workmen.
The whole of the tradition is worked out of these simple facts: that architecture began to be encouraged in England about the third century; that Saint Alban lived at that time at Verulam; that a palace was erected then, or at some subsequent period, in the same place; and in the lapse time, Verulam, Saint Alban, and the Freemasons became mingled together in one tradition. The inquiring student of history will neither assert nor deny net Saint Alban built the palace of Verulam. He will be content with taking him as the representative that builder, if he was not the builder himself; and will thus recognize the proto-martyr as the type of Chat is supposed to have been the Freemasonry of his age, or, perhaps, only of the age in which the tradition received its form.
ST. ALBANS, EARL OF
Anderson (Constitutions, 1738, page 101) says, and, after him, Preston, that a General Assembly of the Craft was held on December 27, 1663, by Henry Jermyn, Earl of St. Albans, Grand Master, who appointed Sir John Denham his Deputy, and Sir Christopher Wren and Tohn Webb his Wardens. Several useful regulations were made at this Assembly, known as the Regulations of 1663. These regulations are given by Anderson and by Preston, and also in the Roberts Manuscript, with the addition of the oath of secrecy. The Roberts Manuscript says that the Assembly was held on the 8th of December.
SAINT ALBAN’S REGULATIONS
The regulations said to have been made by Saint Alban tor the government of the Craft are referred to by Doctor Anderson, in his second edition (page 57), and afterward by Brother Preston (see Saint Asian).
The ecclesiastical legend is that Saint Amphibalus came to England and converted Saint Alban, who was the great patron of Freemasonry. The Old Constitutions do not speak of him, except the Cooke Manuscript, which has the following passage (line 602): “And soon after that came Seynt Adhabell into England, and he converted Seynt Albon to Christendom”; where, evidently, Saint Adhabell is meant for Saint Amphibalus. But amphibalus is the Latin name of a cloak worn by Priests over their other garments; and Godfrey Higgins (Celtic Druids, page 201) has argued that there was no such saint, but that the Sanctus Amphibalus was merely the holy cloak brought by Saint Augustine to England. His connection with the history of the origin of Freemasonry in England is, therefore, accepting the reasoning of Godfrey Higgins, altogether apocryphal.
Brother of Saint Peter and one of the twelve Apostles. He is held in high reverence by the Scotch, Swedes, and Russians. Tradition says he was crucified on a cross shaped thus, X. Orders of knighthood have been established in his name (see Knight of Saint Andrew).
SAINT ANDREW, KNIGHT OF
See Knight of Saint Andrew
SAINT ANDREW’S DAY
November 30, was adopted by the Grand Lodge of Scotland as the day of its Annual Communication.
An Order taking its rise from the life and habits of Saint Anthony, the hermit, who died about 357. His disciples, called Anchorites, near Ethiopia, lived in austerity and solitariness in the desert, until John, Emperor of Ethiopia, in 370, created them a religious order of knighthood, and bestowed privileges upon them under the title of Saint Anthony, who was made patron of the empire. They established monasteries, adopted a black habit, and wore a blue cross in the shape of a Tau. The vow of the Order embraced chastity, defense of the Christian faith, to guard the empire, obey their superiors, and go to war when and wheresoever commanded. Marriage required a license. There were two classes—combatants and non-combatants— the second class being composed of those too old for military duty. yet ere they retired they were required to serve three years against Arabian pirates, three against the Turks, and three against the Moors.
The ancient monastery is in the deserts of Thebais, surrounded by an oval wall five hundred paces in circumference and forty feet in height. It is entered by ropes let down from the watch-house, the crane being turned by monks. By age, the cells, which are four by five by seven feet, have been reduced from three hundred to forty. Advantage had been taken of one of nature’s curiosities in obtaining abundant water from a riven rock, which is reached through a subterraneous passage of fifty paces, extending beyond the walls. In France, Italy, and Spain there are ecclesiastical and military organizations styled Knights of Saint Anthony, who wear a plain cross, the principals a double cross. The chief seat is at Vienna. In the Abbey rest the remains of Saint Anthony.
Saint Augustine, or Saint Austin, was sent with forty monks into England, about the end of the sixth century, to evangelize the country Leaning says that, according to a tradition, he placed himself at the head of the Corporations of Builders, and was recognized as their Grand Master. No such tradition, nor, indeed, even the name of Saint Augustine, is to be found in any of the 01s1 Constitutions which contain the Legend of the Craft.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was one of the most eminent names of the Church in the Middle Ages. In 1128 he was present at the Council of Troyes, where, through his influence, the Order of Knights Templar was confirmed; and he himself is said to have composed the Rule or Constitution by which they were afterward governed. Throughout his life he was distinguished for his warm attachment to the Templars, and “rarely,” says Burnes (Sketch of the Knights Templar, page 12), “wrote a letter to the Holy Land, in which he did not praise them, and recommend them to the favor and protection of the great.” To his influence, untiringly exerted in their behalf, has always been attributed the rapid increase of the Order in wealth and popularity.
ST. CLAIR OF ROSSLYN
One of the most curious episodes in the history of Freemasonry occurred at the time of the founding of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1736 when William St. Clair of Rosslyn (or Rossline, or Roslin) tendered his “resignation of the office of hereditary Grand Master” in order that in the future no confusions would arise as between his family and any Grand Master. The “resignation” begins by saying “that the Masons in Scotland did, by several deeds, constitute and appoint William and Sir William St. Clair of Rossline, my ancestors and their heirs, to be their patrons, protectors, judges, or masters,” etc. (See page 899.)
Historians have doubted that any family ever held a suzerainty over the Craft in Scotland. Yet it is not impossible that it should have been true, for similar things occurred elsewhere. During the later Middle Ages and early in the Modern Age, it was not uncommon for a family to organize itself (as Japanese families still do), with a head, ruless and penalties, somewhat like a modern business corporation. Until about the Sixteenth Century France, at least lid its government, army, and church, was little more than a network of such families —the “200 families” still claim ancient and hereditary privileges. The most extraordinary of such families in any country was the Hapsburgs (or Habsburgs) which as early as 1291 became a kind of hansa, or gild, and went into the business of supplying (by contract or agreement) kings, queens, princes, etc., to any country in the market for one, and are still at it. The Fuggers were another, except that they were financiers.
One of these families, the most notorious, has a link with the history of Freemasonry through a link it itself had with the gild system in Florence, Italy. This was the Medici Family (it began as Medici and Sons). The founder of the family was a worker in a gild of weavers and carders in the Fourteenth Century, and became a petty but successful gild politician. Gradually, decade after deeade, one Medici after another became “boss” of a gild, then of a number of gilds, got a monopoly of the silk gild, became wealthy and established a bank, and by a deft manipulation of gild funds and politics became ruler of Florence.
Once in power they produced a line of Popes, beginning with the famous Leo X; they produced the noted Cosimo, the famous Lorenzo, patron of the arts, and finally sent a weakling daughter of the house, Katherine, to be Queen of France, where she helped defeat the Protestant Reformation. The Medici history brought to light a fundamental weakness of the gild system; workers’ gilds could by manipulation be brought under control by merchant gilds; a group of these latter could be brought under control by one of their own gilds; one man, with money enough, could control that gild. A gild had in its own organization no means to fight off that form of monopolization. Once the Medici had learned how it could be done, the capitalist system was invented, and the gild system was doomed; the emphasis passed from work and things to be made to money and wealth to be gained.
The St. Clair family made no such use of the Mason gilds in Scotland; but a case like that of the Medici, and the history of organized families in general, makes the St. Clair tradition more intelligible, and at the same time more credible; they may even have found it an economic advantage to be “judges and masters” of the Masons.
SAINT CLAIR CHARTERS
In the Advocates’ Library, of Edinburgh, is a manuscript entitled Hay’s Memoirs, which is, says Lawrie, “a collection of several things relating to the historical account of the most famed families of Scotland. Done by Richard Augustine Hay, Canon Regular of Sainte Genevefs of Paris, Prior of Sainte Pierremont, etc., Anno Domini 1700.” Among this collection are two manuscripts, supposed to have been copied from the originals by Canon Hay, and which are known to Masonic scholars as the Saint Clair Charters. These copies, which it seems were alone known in the eighteenth century, were first published by Lawrie, in his History of Freemasonry, where they constitute Appendices I and II. But it appears that the originals have since been discovered, and they have been printed by Brother W. J. Hughan, in his Unpublished Records of the Craft, with the following introductory account of them by Brother D. Murray Lyon:
These manuscripts were several years ago accidentally discovered by David Lang, Esq., of the Signet Library, who gave them to the late Brother Aytoun Professor of Belles-Lettres in the University of Edinburgh, in exchange for some antique documents he had. The Professor presented them to the Grand Lodge of Scotland, in whose repositories they now are. There can be no doubt of their identity as originals. We have compared several of the signatures with autographs in other manuscripts of the time.
The Charters are in scrolls of paper— the one 15 by 1l½ inches the other 26 by 11½ inches,— and for their better preservation have been affixed to cloth. The calligraphy is beautiful; and though the edges of the paper haste been frayed, and holes worn in one or two places where the sheets had been folded, there is no difficulty in supplying the few words that have been obliterated and making out the whole of the text. About three inches in depth at the bottom of No. 1, in the right hand corner, is entirely wanting, which may have contained some signatures in addition to those given. The left hand bottom Corner of No. 2 has been similarly torn away, and the same remark with regard to signatures may apply to it. The first document is a letter of jurisdiction, granted by the Freemen Masons of Scotland to William Saint Clair of Roslin. The second purports to have been granted by the Freemen Masons and Hammermen of Scotland to Sir William Saint Clair of Roslin.
Facsimiles and transcripts of these manuscripts are given by D. M. Lyon in his History of the Lodge of Edinburgh. The letter of jurisdiction is probably of a date 1600-1, and the seeund document, probably May 1, 1628.
However difficult it may be to decide as to the precise date of these Charters, there are no Masonic manuscripts whose claim to authenticity is more indisputable; for the statements which they contain tally not only with the uniformly accepted traditions of Scotch Freemasonry, but with the written records of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, both of which show the intimate connection that existed between the Freemasonry of that kingdom and the once powerful but now extinct family of Saint Clair.
SAINT CLAIR, WILLIAM
The Saint Clairs of Roslin, or, as it is often spelled, of Rosslyn, held for more than three hundred years an intimate connection with the history of Freemasonry in Scotland. William Saint Clair, Earl of Orkney and Caithness, was, in 1441, appointed by King James II the Patron anal Protector of the Freemasons of Scotland, and the office was made hereditary in his family. Charles Mackie says of him (Preernasen, May, 1851, page 166) that “he was considered one of the best and greatest Masons of the age.”
He planned the construction of a most magnificent collegiate church at his palace of Roslin, of which, however, only the chancel and part of the transept were completed. To take part in this design, he invited the most skilful Freemasons from foreign countries; and in order that they might be conveniently lodged and carry on the work with ease and despatch, he ordered them to erect the neighboring town of Roslin, and gave to each of the most worthy a house and lands. After his death, whieh occurred about 1480, the office of hereditary Patron was transmitted to his descendants, who, says Lawrie (History of Freemasonry, page 100), “held their principal annual meetings at Kilwinning.”
The prerogative of nominating the office-bearers of the Craft, which had always been exercised by the kings of Scotland, appears to have been neglected by James VI after his accession to the throne of England.
Hence the Freemasons, finding themselves embarrassed for want of a Protector, about the year 1600, if that be the real date of the first of the Saint Clair Manuscripts, appointed William Saint Clair of Roslin, for himself and his heirs, their “Patrons and Judges.” After presiding over the Order for many years, says Lawrie, William Saint Clair went to Ireland, and in 1630 a second Charter was issued, granting to his son, Sir William Saint Clair, the same power with which his father had been invested. This Charter having been signed by the Masters and Wardens of the principal Lodges of Scotland, Sir William Saint Clair assumed the active administration of the affairs of the Craft, and appointed his Deputies and Wardens, as had been customary with his ancestors. For more than a century after this renewal of the compact between the Laird of Roslin and the Freemasons of Scotland, the Craft continued to flourish under the successive heads of the family.
But in the year 1736, William Saint Clair, to whom the Hereditary Protectorship had descended in due course of succession, having no children of his own, became anxious that the office of Grand Master should not become vacant at his death. Accordingly, he assembled the members of the Lodges of Edinhurgh and its vicinity, and represented to them the good effects that would accrue to them if they should in future have at their head a Grand Master of their own choice, and declared his intention to resign into the hands of the Craft his hereditary right to the office. It was agreed by the assembly that all the Lodges of Scotland should be summoned to appear by themselves, or proxies, on the approaching Saint Andrew’s Day, at Edinburgh, to take the necessary steps for the election of a Grand Master.
In compliance with the call, the representatives of thirty-two Lodges met at Edinburgh on the 30th of November 1736, when William Saint Clair tendered the following resignation of his hereditary office:
I, William Saint Clair, of Roslin, Esq., taking into my consideration that the Masons in Scotland did, by several deeds, constitute and appoint trillium and Sir William Saint Clairs of Roslin, my ancestors and their heirs, to be their patrons, protectors judges, or masters, and that my holding or claiming any such jurisdiction, right, or privilege might be prejudicial to the Craft and creation of Masonry, whereof I am a member; and I, being desirous to advance and promote the good and utility of the said Craft of Masonry to the utmost of my power, do therefore hereby, for me and my heirs, renounce quit claim over give, and discharge all right, claim, or pretense that I, or my heirs, had, have, or any ways may have, pretend to, or claim to be, patron, protector, judge, or master of the Masons in Scotland, in virtue of any deed or deeds made and granted by the said Masons, or of any grant or charter made by any of the kings of Scotland to and in favor of the said William and sir William saint Clairs of Roslin, my predecessors, or any other manner or way whatsoever, for now and ever; and I bind and oblige me and my heirs to warrant this present renunciation and discharge at all hands. And I consent to the registration hereof in the books of council and session, or any other judges’ books competent, therein to remain for preservation.
Then follows the usual formal and technical termination of a deed (Lawrie’s History of Freemasonry, page 148).
The deed of resignation having been accepted, the Grand Lodge proceeded to the election of its office bearers, when William Saint Clair, as was to be expected, was unanimously chosen as Grand Master; an office which, however, he held but for one year, being succeeded in 1737 by the Earl of Cromarty. He lived, however, for more than half a century afterward, and died in January, 1778, in the seventy-eight year of his age.
The Grand Lodge of Scotland was not unmindful of his services to the Craft, and on the announcement of his death a funeral Lodge was convened, when four hundred Brethren, dressed in deep mourning, being present, Sir William Forbes, who was then the Grand Master, delivered an impressive address, in the course of which he paid the following tribute to the character of Saint Clair. After alluding to his voluntary resignation of his high office for the good of the Order, he ad fled:
“His zeal, however, to promote the welfare of our Society was not confined to this single instance; for he continued almost to the very close of life, on all occasions where his influence or his example could prevail, to extend the spirit of Masonry and to increase the number of the Brethren…. To these more conspicuous and public parts of his character I am happy to be able to add, that he possessed in an eminent degree the virtues of a benevolent and good heart—virtues which ought ever to be the distinguishing marks of a true brother” (Lawrie’s History of Freemasonry page 224). Brother Charles Mackie, in the London Freemasons Quarterly Retried (1831, page 167), thus described the last day of this venerable patron of the Order:
“William Saint Clair of Roslin, the last of that noble family, was one of the most remarkable personages of his time; although stripped of his paternal title an(l possessions, he walked abroad respected and reverenced. He moved in the first society; and if he did not carry the purse, he was stamped with the impress of nobility. He did not require a cubit to be addled to his stature, for he was considered the stateliest man of his age.”
The preceding account by Doctor Mackey of the connection of the Saint Clairs with Seoteh Freemasonry is based almost entirely on Lawrie’s History of Freemasonry, 1804, but a later anal more critical writer—D. Murray Lyon (History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, 1873, page 3)—considers the statement that James II invested the Earl of Orkney and Cattiness with the dignity of Grand Master and subsequently made the office hereditary to be “altogether apocryphal.” The real fact appears to be, continues Brother Hawkins, that the Operative Masons of Scotland by the Saint Clair Charters did confer upon the Saint Clair family the office of Patron and Protector of the Craft, and that William Saint Clair was made a Freemason in 1735 in order to resign this office, and in return for such apparent magnanimity to be elected in 1736 the first Grand Master of Scotland.
SAINT CLAIR, WILLIAM OF ROSLIN
First Grand Master Mason of Scotland, elected, in 1736 when the Grand Lodge of Scotland was formed, an office he held for one year only. A good deal of discussion has been had pro and con as to the validity of two old documents known as the Saint Clair Charters, one dated about 1601 and one 1628, in which documents the statement is made that the Operative Masons of Scotland had conferred upon the family of Saint Clair of Roslin the honor of being recognized as Patron and Protector of the Craft. In 1736 when a first Grand Master was to be chosen for the Scottish Grand Lodge, William Saint Clair was made a Freemason in the Lodge Canongate Kilwinning and he also formally resigned all claim to be Patron and Protector of the Freemasons in Scotland on November 30 of the same year at a meeting held at Edinburgh. William Saint Clair died in 1778.
SAINT CONSTANTINE, ORDER OF
Presumed to have been founded by the Emperor Isaac Angelus Comnenus, in 1190).
Sañto Domingo. One of the principal islands of the West Indies. Freemasonry was taken there at an early period in the eighteenth century.
Rebold ( History of Three Grants Lodgers, page 687) said in 1746. It must certainly have been in active condition there at a time not long after, for in 1761 Stephen Morin, who had been deputed by the Council of Emperors of the East and West to propagate the advanced Degrees, selected St. Domingo for the seat of his Grand East, and thence disseminated the system, which resulted in the establishment of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Aecepted Seottish Rite at Charleston, South Carolina. The French Revolution, and the insurrection of the slaves at about the same period, was for a time fatal to the progress of Freemasonry in St. Domingo. Subsequently, the island was divided into two independent governments—that of Dominica, inhabited by whites, and that of Hayti, inhabited by blacks. In each of these a Masonie obedience was organized. The Grand Lodge of Hayti was charged with irregularity in its bformation, and was not recognized by the Grand Lodges of the United States. It has been, however, by those of Europe generally, and a representative from it was accredited at the Congress of Paris, held in 1855.
Freemasonry was revived in Dominica, Rebold says, in the above mentioned work, in 1822; other authorities say in 1855. A Grand Lodge was organized at the City of St. Domingo, December 11, 1858. Dominican Freemasonry has been established under the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and the National Grand Orient of the Dominican Republic divided into four sections, namely, a Grand Lodge, Grand Chapter General, Grand Consistory General, and Supreme Council. The last Body was not recognized by the Mother Council at Charleston, since its establishment is in violation of the Scottish Constitutions, which prescribe one Supreme Council only for all the West India Islands.
SAINTE CROIX, EMANUEL JOSEPH GUIL HEM DE CLERMONT-LODEVE DE
A French antiquary, and member of the Institute, who was born at Mormoiron, in 1746, and died in 1809. His work, published in two volumes in 1784, and entitled Recherches Historiques et Critiques sur les Mysteres du Paganisme, or Historical and Critical Studies on the Mysteries of Paganism, is one of the most valuable and instructive essays that we have in any language on the ancient mysteries—those religious associations whose history and design so closely connect them with Freemasonry. The later editions were enriched by the valuable notes of Silvestre de Tracy.
SAINT GEORGE’S DAY
The twenty-third of April. Being the Patron Saint of England, his festival is celebrated by the Grand Lodge. The Constitution requires that “there shall be a Grand Masonic festi val annually on the Wednesday next following Saint George’s Day.”
A town in France, about ten miles from Paris, where James II established his Court after his expulsion from England, and where he died. Doctor Oliver says (Historical Landmarks ii, page 28), and the statement has been repeatedly made by others, that the followers of the dethroned monarch who accompanied him in his exile, carried Freemasonry into France, and laid the foundation of that system of innovation which subsequently threw the Order into confusion by the establishment of a new Degree, which they called the Chevalter Maçon Ecossais, and which they worked in the Lodge of Saint Germain.
But Doctor Oliver has here antedated history. James II died in 1701, and Freemasonry was not introduced into France from England until 1725. The exiled House of Stuart undoubtedly made use of Freemasonry as an instrument to aid in their attempted restoration; but their connection with the Institution must have been after the time of James II, and most probably under the auspices of his grandson, the Young Pretender, Charles Edward.
SAINT GERMAIN, THE COUNT OF
Also known as Count de Bellamura in Venice; as the Chevalier de Schöning at Pisa; as Chevalier Well done at Milan; and at Genoa as Count Soltikow. authentic record of his origin. First heard of in Europe as the Count de Saint Germain, in 1750 Introduced into French society and became Popular in Paris. Handsome, able musician, especially upon the violin, expert magician, inveterate gambler accomplished linguist, and the most reasonable account is that he was the natural son of an Italian princess, born about 1710, at San Germano, Savoy This account gives his father as a local tax-collector Rotondo. Some accounts give his birthplace at Letmeritz, in Bohemia; he was pronounced an Alsatian Jew named Simon Wolff by the Marquis de Crequy. Some place him as the Marquis de Betmar, born in Portugal, others state he was a Spanish Jesuit, named Aymar. Frederick II of Prussia named him “a man no one has ever been able to make out.”
He laid claim to the highest rank of Freemasonry, the Order being at that time strong in France, claiming also that he was over five hundred years of age, had been born in Chaldaea, possessed the secrets of the Egyptian sages, master of the art of transmutation of metals, which he said he had learnt in Hindustan, that he could produce pure diamonds by the artificial crystallization of pure carbon.
His familiarity with modern history and the polities of the time were startling and he made a remarkable prophecy in the case of Kinv Louis XV Ellis advertised attainments were of a character to win him renown and he became an intimate of Frederick the Great, remaining long at his Court. He was concerned in the conspiracies at St. Petersburg in 1762. He went to Germany, 1774, later traveled in Italy and Denmark, founded the Society of Saint Jackin which was afterwards known as the Saint Joachim. In 1783 he declared that he was weary of immortality and resigned it at Eckernfiorde, in Schleswig.
An island in the South Atlantic Ocean. Lodges have been chartered from time to time by English authority at James Town, St. Helena. Several-early ones became extinct and the first to be successful was St. Helena Lodge, warranted on April 6, 1843. Itsoriginal papers were lost or destroyedwithin two years and a duplicate Charter was granted on May 3, 1845.
SAINT JOHN, FAVORITE BROTHER OF
The Eighth Degree of the Swedish Rite
SAINT JOHN, LODGE OF
See Lodge of Saint John
SAINT JOHN OF JERUSALEM, KNIGHT OF
See Knight of Saint John of Jerusalem
ST. JOHNS’ AND YORK MASONS
In England, Scotland, and Ireland at the beginning of the first Grand Lodge in 1717 there was an unknown but comparatively large number of Lodges and Masons called generally St. Johns’. St. Johns’ Lodges prwor to 1717 may have been Lodges without any copy of the Old Charges, were therefore seli-constituted as the meaning of that term would have obtained in that time; also, there were a number of Masons not in any Lodge, and apparently in some instances “one Mason Snot in any Lodge] would make another.
” After the new Grand Lodge system was established a number of the St. Johns’ Lodges (one may believe a larger number than existing records account for) continued to work (and not as Operative Lodges) but never joined the Grand Lodge. Yet during the first half of the Eighteenth Century these were accepted as genuine Lodges, and their members often Visited regular (on the Roll of Grand Lodge) Lodges. The Rev. George Oliver had a muddled theory that Free masonry had been revived and reformed by St. John the Evangelist and for that reason he called Craft Masonry “St. John’s Masonry.” Owing to the large circulation of his books in America this term came into general use (it is obsolete now); Oliver’s St. John~s Masons had no connection in thought or theory with the St. Johns’ Masons familiar to Eighteenth Century Lodges.
One of the many proofs of the numerousness of St. Johns’ Masons is given by the records of Old Dundee Lodge, No. 18 (probably older than Grand Lodge). On page 168 of his history of that Lodge Arthur Heiron writes: “In olden days there were certain Lodges who were never regularly constituted, [by Grand Lodge] but merely recognized St. John as their leader. They were looked upon as ‘Unattaehed’ or ‘Independent Lodges,’ but their members w ere allowed to visit the regular [on Grand Lodge Rolls] Lodges on terms of equality, signing themselves as ‘St. Johns’ Men’; paying generally an extra fee.
‘Old Dundee’ received many such Brethren as visitors, and from 1748 to 177O at least 162 [six per year] signed our Minute Book ….”
When the Antient Grand Lodge was formed in 1751 it described itself as founded according to the Aneient Institutions of York. Its members often called themselves, and were called by others, York Masons. When the Antient Provineial Grand Lodge of Canada was formed in 1792 at Montreal (and Canadian Masonry influenced New England and New York Masonry in many ways) it became known AS the York Body and its members called themselves York Masons. The many Antient chartered Lodges which were warranted during or prior to the Revolution in the Colonies also called themselves York Masons. The term “York” was therefore introduced into America by Canadian and British Lodges and Brethren, and hence did not originate here.
In his introduction to Memorials of the Mason* Union, William James Hughan animadverts on the American use of “York,” which he took to be an American-made myth. (This Introduction, famous in 1874, is now obsolete.)
Elsewhere he accuses American Masons of “boasting” of being “York Masons.” Bro. Hughan was in his own generation second to none as a cautious, aeeurate, historical scholar, but he had the misfortune to be in some degree in error, and oftentimes w holly in error, in his statements of fact about American Masonry. His attribution of the York myth and boasting to us is one of his mistakes. We ereated no myth about York, for as said above the term came straight from Britain and Canada; we never boasted about it. Today the word “Yorl;” has lost any meaning it was ever supposed to have, and when used, if ever it still is used, functions as a mere label to distinguish the Craft and Chapter Rites from Templarism and the Scottish Rite.
SAINT JOHN’S MASONRY
The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Scotland (184e,, chapter ii) declare that that Body “practises and recognizes no degrees of Masonry but those of Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason denominated Saint John’s Masonry.”
SAINT JOHN’S ORDER
In a system of Freemasonry which Doctor Oliver says (Mirror for the Johannites, pa(re 58) was “used, as it is confidently affirmed, in the fourteenth century” (but it is doubtful if it could be traced farther back than the early part of the seventeenth), this appellation occurs in the obligation:
That you will always keep, guard, and conceal,
And from this time you never will reveal
Either to M. M., F. C., or Apprentice
Of Saint John’s Order, what our grand intent is.
The same title of Joannis Ordo is given in the document of uncertain date known as the Charter of Cologne.
SAINT JOHN THE ALMONER
The son of the King of Cyprus, and born in that island in the sixth century He was fleeted Patriarch of Alexandria, and has been canonized by both the Greek and Roman churches, his festival among the former occurring on the 11th of November, and among the latter on the 23d of January. Bazot (Manuel du Franc-Mason, page 144) thinks that it is this saint, and not Saint John the Evangelist or Saint John the Baptist, who is meant as the true patron of our Order. “‘He quit his country and the hope of a throne,” says this author, into go to Jerusalem, that he might generously aid and assist the knights and pilgrims.
He founded a hospital and organized a fraternity to attend upon sick and wounded Christians, and to bestow pecuniary aid upon the pilgrims who visited the Holy Sepulcher. Saint John, who was worthy to become the patron of a society whose only object is charity, exposed his life a thousand times in the cause of virtue. Neither war, nor pestilence, nor the fury of the infidels, could deter him from pursuits of benevolence. But death, at length, arrested him in the midst of his labors. Yet he left the example of his virtues to the Brethren, who have made it their duty to endeavor to imitate them. Rome canonized him under the name of Saint John the Almoner, or Saint John of Jerusalem; and the Freemasons—whose temples, overthrown by the barbarians, he had caused to be rebuilt—selected him with one accord as their patron.”
Doctor Oliver, however (Mirror for the Johannite Masons, page 39), very properly shows the error of appropriating the patronage of Freemasonry to this saint, since the festivals of the Order are June 24th and Deeember 27th, while those of Saint John the Almoner are January 23d and November 11th. He has, however, been selected as the patron of the Masonic Order of the Templars, and their Commanderies are dedicated to his honor on amount of his charity to the poor, whom he called his Masters, because he owed them all service, and on account of – his establishment of hospitals for the succor of pilgrims in the East.
SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST
One of the Patron Saints of Freemasonry, and at one time, indeed, the only one, the name of Saint John the Evangelist having been introduced subsequent to the sixteenth century. His festival occurs on the 24th of June, and is very generally celebrated by the Masonie Fraternity. Dalcho (Ahiman Rezon, page 150) says that “the stern integrity of Saint John the Baptist, which induced him to forego every minor consideration in discharging the obligations he owed to God; the unshaken firmness with sA>hieh he met martyrdom rather than betray his duty to his Master; his steady reproval of vice, and continued preaching of repentance and virtue. make him a fit patron of the Masonic institution.” The Charter of Cologne says: “We celebrate, annually, the memory of Saint John, the Forerunner of Christ and the Patron of our Community.” The Knights Hospitaler also dedicated their Order to him; and the ancient expression of our instrucw tions, which speaks of a “Lodge of the Holy Saint John of Jerusalem,” probably refers to the same saint.
Krause, in his Kunsturkunden (pages 295 to 305), gives abundant historical proofs that the earliest Freemasons adopted Saint John the Baptist, and not Saint John the Evangelist as their patron. It is worthy of note that the Grand Lodge of England was revived on Saint John the Baptist’s Day, in 1717 (Constitutions, 1738, page 109), and that the Annual Feast was kept on that day until 1725, when it was held for the first time on the Festival of the Evangelist (see page 119 of the above edition). Lawrie says (history of Freemasonry, page 152) that the Seottish Freemasons always kept the festival of the Baptist until 1737, when the Grand Lodge changed the time of the annual election to Saint Andrew’s Day.
SAINT JOHN THE EVANGELIST
One of the Patron Saints of Freemasonry, whose festival is celebrated on the 27th of December. His constant admonition, in his Epistles, to the cultivation of brotherly love, and the mystical nature of his Apocalyptic visions, have been, perhaps, the principal reasons for the veneration paid to him by the Craft. Notwithstanding a well-known tradition, all documentary evidence shows that the eonneetion of the name of the Evangelist with the Masonie Order is to be dated long after the sixteenth century, before which time Saint John the Baptist was exclusively the patron saint of Freemasonry. The two are, however, now always united, for reasons set forth in the article on the Dedication of Lodges, which see.
See Aldworth, Mrs
SAINT MARTIN, LOUIS CLAUDE
A mystical writer and Masonic leader of considerable reputation in the eighteenth century, and the founder of the Rite of Martinism. He w as born at Amboise, in France, on January 18, 1743, being descended from a family distinguished in the military service of the kingdom. Saint Martin when a youth made great progress in his studies, and became the master of several aneient and modern languages.
After leaving school, he entered the army, in aeeordanee with the custom of his family, becoming a member of the regiment of Foix. But after six years of service, he retired from a profession which he found uncongenial with his fondness for metaphysical pursuits. He then traveled in Switzerland, Germany, England, and Italy, and finally retired to Lyons, where he remained for three years in a state of almost absolute seclusion, known to but few persons, and pursuing his philosophie studies.
He then repaired to Paris, where, notwithstanding the tumultuous scenes of the revolution which was working around, he remained unmoved by the terrible events of the day, and intent only on the prosecution of his thcosophie studies. Attracted by the mystical systems of Boehme and Swedenborg, he became himself a mystic of no mean pretensions, and attracted around him a crowd of disciples, who were content, as they saids to hear, without understanding the teachings of their leader.
In 1775 appeared his first and most important work, entitled Des Erreurs et de la Vérité, ail les Hommes rappelés au principe universel de la Science, or Some Errors and Truth, where Men recall the Universal Principle of Knowledge.
This work, which contained an exposition of the ideology of Saint Martin, acquired for its author, by its unintelligible transcendentalism, the title of the Kant of Germany. Saint Martin had published this work under the pseudonym of the l Unknown Philoso pher, We Philoso pie inconnu; whence he was subsequently known by this name, which was also assumed by solre of his Masonic adherents; and even a Degree bearing that title was invented and inserted in the Rite of Philalethes. The treatise Des Erreurs et de la Vérité was in fact made a sort of text- w book by the Philalethans, and highly recommended by the Order of the Initiated Knights and Brothers of Asia, whose system was in fact a compound of theosophy and mysticism. It was so popular, that between 1775 and 1784 it had been through five editions.
Saint Martin, in the commencement of his Masonic career, attached himself to Martinez Paschalis, of whom he was one of the most prominent disciples. But he subsequently attempted a reform of the system of Paschalis, and established what he called a Rectified Rite, but which is better known as the Rite or system of Martinism, which consisted of ten Degrees. It was itself subsequently reformed, and, being reduced to seven Degrees, was introduced into some of the Lodges of Germany under the name of the Reformed Ecossism of Saint Martin.
The theosophic doctrines of Saint Martin were introduced into the Masonic Lodges of Russia by Count Gabrianko and Admiral Pleshcheyeff, and soon became popular. Under them the Martinist Lodges of Russia became distinguished not only for their Masonic and religious spirit—although too much tinged with the mysticism of Jacob Boehme and their founder—but for an active zeal in practical works of charity of both a private and public character. The character of Saint Martin has been much mistaken, especially by Masonic writers. Those who, like Voltaire, have derided his metaphysical theories, seem to have forgotten the excellence of his private character, his kindness of heart, his amiable manners, and his varied and extensive erudition. Nor should it be forgotten that the true object of all his Masonic labors was to introduce into the Lodges of France a spirit of pure religion. His theory of the origin of Freemasonry was not, however, based on any historical research, and is of no value, for he believed that it was an emanation of the Divinity, and was to be traced to the very beginning of the world.
A considerable sensation was produced in Masonic circles by the appearance at Frankfort, in 1755, of a work entitled Saint Nicaise, oder eine Sammlung merkwürdiger Maürerischer Briefe, für Freimaürer und die es nicht, Saint Nicaise, or a Collection of curious Masonic papers for Freemasons and others. A second edition was issued in 1786. Its title-page asserts it to be a translation from the French, but it was really written by doctor Starck. It professes to contain the letters of a French Freemason who was traveling on account of Freemasonry, and having learned the mode of work in England and Germany, had become dissatisfied with both, and had retired into a cloister in France. It was really intended, although Starck had abandoned Freemasonry, to defend his system of Spiritual Templarism, in opposition to that of the Baron Von Hund. Accordingly, it was answered in 1786 by Von Sprengseisen, who was an ardent friend and admirer of Von Hund, in a work entitled Anti Saint Nicaise, which was immediately followed by two other essays by the same author, entitled Archimedes, and Scala Algebraica (Economica These three works have become exceedingly rare.
SAINT PAUL’S CHURCH
As Saint Paul’s, the Cathedral Church of London, was rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren—who is called (in the Book of Constitutions, 1738, page 107) the Grand Master of Freemasons—and some writers have advanced the theory that Freemasonry took its origin at the construction of that edifice. In the Fourth Degree of Fessler’s Rite—which is occupied in the critical examination of the various theories on the origin of Freemasonry— among the seven sources that are considered, the building of Saint Paul’s Church is one. Nicolai does not positively assert the theory; but he thinks it not an improbable one, and believes that a new system of symbols was at that time invented. It is said that there was, before the revival in 1717, an old Lodge of Saint Paul’s; and it is reasonable to suppose that the Operative Masons engaged upon the building were united with the architects and men of other professions in the formation of a Lsdge, under the regulation which no longer restricted the Institution to Operative Masonry. But there is no authentic historical evidence that Freemasonry first took its rise at the building of Saint Paul’s Church.
The Holy Saints John, so frequently mentioned in the instructions of Symbolic Freemasonry, are Saint John the Baptist and Saint John the Evangelist, which see. The original dedication of Lodges.was to the Holy Saint John, meaning the Baptist.
SAINTS JOHN, FESTIVALS OF
SAINT VICTOR, LOUIS GUILLEMAIN DE
A French Masonic writer, who published, in 1781, a work in Adonhiramite Masonry, entitled Receuil Précieuz de la Maçonnerie Adonhiramite, or Choice Collection of Adonhiramite Masonry. This volume contained the instructions of the first four Degrees, and was followed, in 1787, by another, which contained the higher degrees of the Rite. If Saint Victor was not the inventor of this Rite, he at least modified and established it as a working system, and, by his writings and his labors, gave to it whatever popularity it at one time possessed. Subsequent to the publication of his Receuil Précieuz, he wrote his Origine de la Maçonnerie Adonhiramite, a learned and interesting work, in which he seeks to trace the source of the Masonic initiation to the Mysteries of the Egyptian Priesthood.
The Divine Presence. The Shekinah, which see.
The female energy of Brahma, of Vishnu, or especially of Siva. This lascivious worship was inculcated in the Tantra meaning Instrument of Faith, a Sanskrit work, found under various forms, and regarded by its numerous Brahmanical and other followers as a fifth Veda.
The name of the Arabic form of salutation, which is by bowing the head and bringing the extended arms forward from the sides until the thumbs touch, the palms being down.
More properly Salah-ed-din, Yussuf ibn Ayub, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria, in the time of Richard Coeur-de Lion, and the founder of the Ayubite dynasty. As the great Moslem hero of the Third Crusade, and the beau-ideal of Moslem chivalry, he is one of the most imposing characters presented to us by the history of that period. Born at Takreit, 1137; died at Damascus, 1193. In his man hood he had entered the service of Noureddin.
He became Grand Vizier of the Fatimite Calif, and received the title of the Victorious Prince. At Noured din’s death, Salah-ed-din combated the succession and became the Sultan of Syria and Egypt. For ten succeeding years he was in petty warfare with the Christians until at Tiberias, in 1187, the Christians were terribly punished for plundering a wealthy caravan on its way to Mecca.
The King of Jerusalem, two Grand Masters, and many warriors were taken captives Jerusalem stormed, and many fortifications reduced This roused Western Europe; the Kings of France and England, with a mighty host, soon made their appearance; they captured Acre in 1191, and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, with an invading force, twice defeated the Sultan, and obtained a treaty in 1192, by which the coast from Jaffa to Tyre was yielded to the Christians. Salah-ed-din becomes a prominent character in two wof the Consistorial Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, mainly exemplifying the universality of Freemasonry Brother Lessing has in his dramatic poem, Nathan the Wise, presented a most romantic and edifying character in an Eastern Monarch of this kind to illustrate Masonic toleration.
An Italian philosopher and litterateur, who was born at Cozenza, in Calabria January 1, 1759, and died at Passy, near Paris, September, 1832. He was at one time Professor of history and Philosophy at Milan. He was a prolific writer, and the author of many works on history and political economy. He published, also, several poems and dramas, and received, in 1811, the prize given by the Lodge at Leghorn for a Masonic essay upon the utility of the Craft and its relation to philanthropy and morals, and entitled Della utiltà delta Franca Massoneria sotto it rapporto filantropico é morale.
A significant word in the advanced Degrees, invented, most probably, at first for the system of the Council of Emperors of the East and West, and transferred to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. It is derived, say the old French rituals, from the initials of a part of a sentence, and has, therefore, no other meaning.
SALLE DES PAS PERDUS
A French expression meaning the Hall of the Lost Steps. The French thus call the anteroom in which visitors are placed before their admission into the Lodge. The Germans call it the Fore-Court, Vorhof, and sometimes, as with the French, der Saal der verlornen Schritte. Lenning says that it derives its name from the fact that every step taken before entrance into the Fraternity, or not made in accordance with the precepts of the Order, is considered as lost.
SALOMONIS SANCTIFICATUS ILLUMINATUS, MAGNUS JEHOVA
The elaborate title, somewhat extravagant as Sanctified, illuminated, of the reigning Master or third class of the Illuminated Chapter according to the Swedish system.
An island in the Bay of Bombay, celebrated for stupendous caverns excavated artificially out of the solid rock, with a labor which must, says Grose, have been equal to that of erecting the Pyramids, and which were appropriated to the initiations in the Ancient Mysteries of India.
In the Helvetian or Swiss instructions, salt is added to corn, wine, and oil as one of the elements of consecrations because it is a symbol of the wisdom and learning which should characterize a Freemason’s Lodge. When the foundation-stone of a Lodge is laid, the Helvetian ceremonial directs that it shall be sprinkled with salt, and this formula be used: “May this undertaking, contrived by wisdom, be executed in strength and adorned with beauty, so that it may be a house where peace, harmony, and brotherly love shall perpetually reign.” This is but carrying out the ancient instructions of Leviticus (ii, 13).” And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.” Significant as are the references in the Bible to salt, as the rubbing of salt on the new-born child (Ezekiel xvi, 4); the allusions in Mark (ix, 49, 50).”
For every one shall be salted with fire and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltiness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another;” the burnt offerings of Ezekiel (xliii, 24) were sprinkled with salt, “And thou shalt offer them before the Lord, and the priests shall east salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the Lord;” the “covenant of salt for ever before the Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee” of Numbers (xvii, 19) and again in Second Chronieles (xii, 5), these are all reminders of the ancient importance of salt, the symbol of pledged affiliation, as in the weighty and warning utterance of Jesus in Matthew (v, 13).”
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It ins thenceforth good for nothing, but to be east out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” Salt to the ancient world was pronounced a substance dear to the gods (Plato, Timaeus) and to break bread and eat salt at a meal with others were symbols of lighted faith and loyalty.
Leaning says, that in accordance with the usage of the Operative Masons, it was formerly the custom for a strange Brother, when he visited a Lodge, to bring to it such a salutation as this: “From the Right Worshipful Brethren and Fellows of a Right Worshipful and Holy Lodge of Saint John.” The English salutation, at the middle of the eighteenth century, was: “From the Right Worshipful Brothers and Fellows of the Right Worshipful and Holy Lodge of Saint John, from whence I come and greet you thrice heartily well. ” The custom has become obsolete, although there is an allusion to it in the answer to the question, “Whence come you?” in the modern catechism of the Entered Apprentice’s Degree. But Leaning is incorrect in saying that the salutation went out of use after the introduction of Certificates. The salutation was, as has been seen, in use in the eighteenth century, and Doctor Mackey noted that Certificates were required as far back at least as the year 1683.
The Latin word for Health and used as a greeting. When the Romans wrote friendly Setters they prefixed the letter S as the initial of Salutem, or health, and thus the writer expressed a wish for the health of his correspondent. At the head of Masonic documents we often find this initial letter thrice repeated, thus: S.-.S.-.S.-., with the same signification of Health, Health, Health. It is equivalent to the English expression, Thrice Greeting.
Among the Stone-Masons of Germany, in the Middle Ages, a distinction was made between the Grussmaurer or Wortmaurer, the Salute Mason or Word Mason, and the Schriftmaurer or Letter Mason. The Salute Masons had signs, words, and other modes of recognition by which they could make themselves known to each other; while the Letter Masons, who were also called Brieftrager or Letter Bearers, had no mode, when they visited strange Lodges, of proving themselves, except by the Certificates or written testimonials which they brought with them. Thus, in the examination of a German Stone-Mason, which has been published in Fallou’s Mysterien der Freimaurerei (page 25), and copied thence by Findel ( History of Freemasonry, page 659), we find these questions proposed to a visiting Brother, and the answers thereto:
Warden. Stranger, are you a Letter Mason or a Salute Mason?
Stranger. I am a Salute Mason.
Warden. How shall I know you to be such?
Stranger. By my salute and words of my mouth.
See San Salvador
A city situated near the center of Palestine, and built by Omri, King of Israel, about 925 B.C. It was the metropolis of the Kingdom of Israel, or of the Ten Tribes, and was, during the exile, peopled by many Pagan foreigners sent to supply the place of the deported inhabitants. Hence it became a seat of idolatry, and was frequently denounced bv the prophets (see Samaritans).
See Good Samaritan
The Samaritans were originally the descendants of the ten revolted tribes who had chosen Samaria for their metropolis. Subsequently, the Samaritans were conquered by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser, who carried the greater part of the inhabitants into captivity, and introduced colonies in their place from Babylon, Cultah, Ava, Hamath, and Sepharvaim. These colonists, who assumed the name of Samaritans, brought with them of course the idolatrous creed and practices of the region from which they emigrated. The Samaritans, therefore, at the time of the rebuilding of the second Temple, were an idolatrous race, and as such abhorrent to the Jews. When they asked permission to assist in the pious work of rebuilding the Temple, Zerubbabel, with the rest of the leaders, replied, “Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as King Cyrus, the king of Persia, has commanded us.”
Hence it was that, to avoid the possibility of these idolatrous Samaritans polluting the holy work by their co-operation, Zerubbabel found it necessary to demand of every one who offered himself as an assistant in the undertaking that he should give an accurate account of his lineage, and prove himself to have been a descendant, which no Samaritan could be, of those faithful Giblemites who worked at the building of the first Temple.
There were many points of religious difference between the Jews and the Samaritans. One was, that they denied the authority of any of the Scriptures except the Pentateuch; another was that they asserted that it was on Mount Gerizim, and not on Mount Moriah, that Melehizedek met Abraham when returning from the slaughter of the kings, and that here also he came to sacrifice Isaac, whence they paid no reverence to Moriah as the site of the Holy House of the Lord. A few of the sect have long survived at Nabulus. They did not exceed one hundred and fifty. They had a High Priest, and observed all the feasts of the ancient Jews, and especially that of the Passover, which they kept on Mount Gerizim with all the formalities of the ancient rites.
The Mysteries of the Cabiri are sometimes so called because the principal seat of their celebration was in the Island of Samothrace. “I ask,” says Voltaire (Dictionary of Philosophy), “who were these Hierophants, these sacred Freemasons, who celebrated their Ancient Mysteries of Samothracia, and whence came they and their gods Cabiri?” (see Cabiric Mysteries).
The Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon (see Holy of Holies).
Latin for Holy of Holies, which see.
In the Rabbinieal system of Angelology, one of the three angels who receive the prayers of the Israelites and weave crowns from them Longfellow used this idea in a most beautiful poem.
Freemasonry was first introduced into those far islands of the Pacific by the Grand Orient of France, which issued a Dispensation for the establishment of a Lodge about 1848, or perhaps earlier; but it was not prosperous, and soon became dormant. In 1852, the Grand Lodge of California granted a Warrant to Hawaiian Lodge, No 21, on its register at Honolulu. Royal Arch and Templar Freemasonry have both been since introduced. Honolulu Chapter was established in 1859, and Honolulu Commandery in 1871 (see Oceania).
Derived, probably, from the old French, sang real, the true blood; although other etymologies have been proposed. The San Graal is represented, in legendary history, as being an emerald dish in which our Lord had partaken of the last supper. Joseph of Arimathea, having further sanctified it by receiving into it the blood issuing from the five wounds, afterward carried it to England. Subsequently it disappeared in consequence of the sins of the land, and was long lost sight of. When Merlin established the Knights of the Round Table, he told them that the San Graal should be discovered by one of them, but that he only could see it who was without sin. one day, when Arthur was holding a high feast with his Knights of the Round Table, the San Graal suddenly appeared to him and to all his chivalry, and then as suddenly disappeared.
The consequence was that all the knights took upon them a solemn vow to seek the Holy Dish. The Quest of the San Graal became one of the most prominent myths of what has been called the Arthuric Cycle. The old French romance of the forte d’Arthur, or Death of Arthur, which was published by Caxton in 1485, contains the adventures of Sir Galahad in search of the San Graal.
There are several other romances of which this wonderful vessel, invested with the most marvelous properties is the subject. The Quest of the San Graal very foreibly reminds us of the Search for the Lost Word. Thc symbolism is precisely the same—the loss and the recovery being but the lesson of death and eternal life—so that the San Graal in the Arthurian Myth, and the Lost Word in the Masonic Legend, seem to be identical in object and design. Hence it is not surprising that a French writer, De Caumont, should have said (Bulletin Monument, page 129) that “the poets of the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, who composed the romances of the Round Table made Joseph of Arimathea the chief of a military and religious Freemasonry.”
There is a considerable literature attached to the history of this romance written about the famous talisman. Even the name has been subjected frequently, as Doctor Mackey points out, to various interpretations. Probably the most of these commcntators today accept the first word as a mutiliated form from the Latin meaning holy. The text compiled and translated by Sir Thomas Malory, and the one best known to English students, is now usually mentioned as the Quest of the Holy Grail, from the French Quête du Saint Grail. Malory himself, by the way, being also much of a puzzle, Sir Sidney Lee (Dictionary of National Biography) admits he could find no one of that name to meet the conditions.
But Professor S. L. Kittredge in his inquiry, Who was Sir Thomas Malory? Harvard Studies and Notes (1896, volume v), identifies him with a Warwickshire, England, gentleman who died on March 14, 1470. Professor W. W. Skeat in the preface to Joseph of Arimathie, published by the Early English Text Society, traces the word grail through the older French to graal and great, thence to a Low Latin original gradale, gradalis or grasale, a flat dish, but on the surface this derivation appears to us more hopeful than scientifically convincing. The legend has been exquisitely told in choice prose and verse since at least the Middle Ages gave it prominence.
The highest judicial tribunal among the Jews. It consisted of seventy-two persons besides the High Priest. It is supposed to have originated with Moses, who instituted a Council of Seventy on the occasion of a rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness. The room in which the Sanhedrim met was a rotunda, half of which was built without the Temple and half within, the latter part being that in which the judges sat. The Nasi, or Prince, who was generally the High Priest, sat on a throne at the end of the hall; his Deputy, called Ab-beth-din, at his right hand; and the Subdeputy, or Chaean, at his left; the other senators being ranged in order on each side. Most of the members of this Couneil were Priests or Levites, though men in private stations of life were not excluded.
According to the English system of the Royal Arch, a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons represents the Sanhedrim, and therefore it is a rule that it shall never consist of more than seventy-two members, although a smaller number is competent to transact any business. This theory is an erroneous one, for in the time of Zerubbabel there was no Sanhadrim, that tribunal having been first established after the Macedonian conquest. The place in the Temple where the Sanhedrim met was called Gabbatha, or the Pavement; it was a room whose floor was formed of ornamental square Stones, and it is from this that the Masonic idea has probably arisen that the floor of the Lodge is a tessellated or mosaic pavement.
The capital of the Rcpublie of Salvador, Central America. Freemasonry was brought into this State quite early, but in 1882 it was suppressed. On March 5, 1882, Rafael Zaldwar, President of the Republic, organized the brethren into a Lodge, Excelsior No. 17, chartered by the Grand Orient of Central America. Another, Caridad y Constancia (Charity and Constancy) No. 18,was opened at Tecla.
On July 14, 1908, the Grand Lodge Cuscatlan do San Salvador was formed by three Lodges, Excelsior, Fuerza y Materia, and Manazan. It was recognized in 1917 by the Grand Lodge of New York. Brother Street, however, in 1922 report, writes:—”It has discredited itself very much in the eyes of the regular Jurisdictions by the readiness with which it recognizes the irregular bodies.”
SANTA FE, LODGE AT.
The Mexican War was fought in the Far West by young volunteers from the still-new States of Illinois and Missouri. It happened that John Rolls, Colonel of the Third Regiment of Missouri Volunteers, was Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Missouri; when he discovered a number of Masons in his lines he issued a dispensation for Missouri Military Lodge, No. 86; on June 15, 1847, this Lodge was instituted at Independence, into., the eastern terminal of the Santa Fe Trail; and on October 14, 1847, received its Charter. The Lodge held one Communication there; it held its next Communication in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Between those two Communications the young men Of Missouri marched 900 miles—a feat of epic proportion; and why it has so nearly escaped the attention of historians, novelists, and poets is one among the many mysteries of the West, which today, and excepting only for a few small populated enclaves, is as empty and almost as unknown as it was then; and especially was it epic because the men marched where never an army had marched before, through lands of hostile tribes, and deserts, and rattlesnakes without number (the existence of which, and still without number, is kept a secret by every Chamber of Commerce west of the Pecos River, they and earthquakes both). From Santa Fe the troops moved down into Old Mexico; the last Minutes (of a little book in the archives of the Grand Lodge of Missouri) recorded a Communication in Santa Cruz, Old Mexico, July 15, 1848. The soldiers they had left behind formed another regimental Lodge at Santa Fe, and it worked as No. 87 until Aug. 14, 1848.
The Masons left permanently behind in New Mexico after peace was declared petitioned the Grand Lodge of Maryland for a Dispensation; receiving no reply it petitioned Missouri, but again received no immediate answer. Then, under date of May 8, 1851, it received a Charter from Missouri under the name of Montezuma, No. 109, and it was instituted the following Aug. 22. This Lodge stood alone in an unsettled empire now divided among thirteen Grand Jurisdictions; a thousand miles from the fringes of the frontier; among an unfriendly, Spanish-speaking, Roman Catholic populace, with Pueblo, Apache, and Navajo Indian peoples along the edges, and at the same time the rendezvous for some of the wildest, most intractable white adventurers on the Continent. But it flourished, and for many years was Lodge, social center, meeting hall, church—it had even to make a cemetery, since the local Romanists would permit no Protestant burials. But the Lodge was strong because in its membership were the men who were to make new Mexico, first as a Territory, then as a State, among them being Christopher Carson, St. Vrain, Lafayette Head.
Carson himself later was to become a charter member of the Lodge at Taos, founded in 1859. Carson’s brother in law, Charles Bent, first Territorial Governor, svas also a member in Taos, and it was there that he was assassinated by a crew of Indians, drunken white men, etc., egged on by the notorious Padre Martinez. Carson himself had once been a runaway apprentice, who “took to the Santa Fe Trail,” and who found “out there” the country “for which he was born” a gentleman, a man of great dignity, intelligent, a master authority on Indians, an heroic leader in battle, one of the truly great men of the West—who had nothing in common with the boys’ books hero “Kit” Carson who was supposed to go about scalping Indians and carrying two revolvers. He was loved, trusted, admired by everybody, Spanish Americans, Indians, and “Americans,” even by the beaver trappers, “the mountany men,” a tougher, wilder, more primitive set than the Apaches themselves.
NOTE. On page 181 it is stated that Carson died in Santa Fe. This was an error. He died of heart failure aged 58, on his ranch on the Los Animas, in Texas. Masons employed a Spanish-American native to bring his body back for re-interment in his old home, at Taos N. M., in a small plot of ground near his house. In the long tedious return with the body the Spanish-Ameriean began to have supernatural fears. His peneil-written memo of expenses is in the vault of the Grand Lodge of New Mexieo at Albuquerque; in an entry probably unique in Masonie expense accounts is the explanation of what he did to allay his fears: $5.00 for an image of the Virgin Mary!
See Saint Domingo
Thory (Acta Latomorum i, page 339) says that a Degree by this name is cited in the nomenclature of Fustier, and is also found in the collection of Viany.
The Hebrew word, sometimes pronounced sap-peer. The second stone in the second row of the High Priest’s breastplate, and was appropriated to the Tribe of Naphtali, The Chief Priest of the Egyptians wore round his neck an image of truth and justice made of sapphire.
Although originally only an Arab tribe, the word Saracens was afterward applied to all the Arabs who embraced the tenets of Mohammed. The Crusaders especially designated as Saracens those Mohammedans who had invaded Europe, and whose possessions of the Holy Land gave rise not only to the Crusades, but to the organization of the military and religious orders of Templars and Hospitalers, whose continual wars with the Saracens constitute the most important chapters of the history of those times.
An unfriendly fate dogs the steps of women who write about Freemasonry, and pro or con; if one of them makes up a book about it by rewriting some old volume too obscure for anybody ever to have heard of, a Masonic book-worm (and there are many of them) ungallantly turns up that obscure volume and gives her away; if she writes an attack on the Fraternity from “original documents loaned by one of the chancelleries” some unexpected expert spoils everything by proving it to be a forgery. This fate shadowed the unfortunate Miss Elizabeth Durham, an English lady, who set out to prove that Masons had both planned and carried out the assassination of the Austrian Arch Duke and his wife at Sarajevo in 1914.
She had for authority a document which she had been told was the official minutes of the trial, and this document proved that the accused men had been Masons, and had received their instructions from a Grand Lodge. But when the actual and official records were finally made public they contained nothing in common with Miss Durham’s document; she had been “had.”
Her document purported to have been written by “Professor Pharos”; it was discovered that “Professor Pharos” was Father Puntigam, leader of the Jesuits in Sarajevo. Even the Rev. Father Hermann Gruber, S. J., who was an Anti-Mason by profession, protested against this dreadful hoax; he pointed out among other things that whereas the assassins were under twenty years of age, it was the common rule in Danubian Masonry to accept no candidate under twenty-five. Miss Durham also relied on a Mr. H. C. Norman, another English Anti-Mason, and on Horatio Bottomley, later to be proved a swindler. Her book was entitled The Sarajevo Crime.
NOTE.—The continent-wide Anti-Masonic campaign which was carried on between the two World Wars shows nowhere any evidence of spontaneity, and still less of sincerity; both the external and internal evidences prove it to have been planned; character assassination, the outright forging of documents, newspaper campaigns of innuendo, open attacks known to be false but made to start talk, these same techniques appear and re-appear from Czecho-Slovakia to Spain, and including both Ireland and France—there was much more open and dangerous Anti-Masonry in England than American Masons heard about because of the lack of any press of their own.
Freemasonry was introduced into this kingdom in 1737 (Rebold, History of Three Grand Lodges, page 686).
Hebrew, Odem. The first stone in the first row of the High Priest’s breastplate. It is a Species of carnelian of a blood-red color, and was appropriated to the Tribe of Reuben.
A pretended exposition of Freemasonry, published at Baumberg, Germany, in 1816, under the title of Sarsena, or the Perfect Architect, created a great sensation at the time among the initiated and the profane. It professed to contain the history of the origin of the Order, and the various opinions upon what it should be, “faithfully described by a true and perfect Brother, and extracted from the papers which he left behind him.” Like all other expositions, it contained, as Gadicke remarks, very little that was true, and of that which was true nothing that had not been said before.
An old regulation noted by Doctor Mackey on the subject of wearing sashes in a procession is in the following words: “None but officers, who must always be Master Masons, are permitted to wear sashes; and this decoration is only for particular officers.” In the United States the wearing of the sash appears, very properly, to be confined to the Worshipful Master, as a distinctive badge of his office.
The sash is worn by the Companions of the Royal Arch Degree, and is of a scarlet color, with the words holiness to the Lord inscribed upon it. These were the words placed upon the miter of the High Priest of the Jews.
In the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the white sash is a decoration of the Thirty-third Degree. A decree of the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction confined its use to honorary members, while active members wore the collar.
The sash, or scarf, is analogous to the Zennar, or sacred cord, which was placed upon the candidate in the initiation into the mysteries of India, and which every Brahman was compelled to wear. This cord was woven with great solemnity, and being put upon the left shoulder, passed over to the right side and hung down as low as the fingers could reach.
The Brethren of the Province of Saskatehewan assembled at Regina on the 10th day of August, 1906, and formally resolved themselves into the Grand Lodge of Saskatehewan. Twenty-five Lodges out of twenty-eight in the Province were represented. Brother H. H. Campkin was elected Grand Master and was installed by Brother McKenzie, Grand Master of Manitoba.
One of the sacred books of the Hindu law.
SAT B’HAI, ROYAL ORIENTAL ORDER OF THE
Said to have originated in India, and so named after a bird held sacred by the Hindus, whose flight, invariably in sevens, has obtained for the Society the appellation of the Seven Brethren, hence the name. It embosoms seven Degrees—Arch Censor, Arch Courier, Arch Minister, Arch Herald, Arch Scribe, Arch Auditor, and Arch Mute. It promises overmuch. The figure illustrated here is termed the Mystery of the Apex.
The title given by the Greek writers to the Persian Governors of Provinces before Alexander’s conquest. It is from the Persian word Satrab. The authorized version calls them the Kings Lieutenants; the Hebrew, achashdarpenim, which is doubtless a Persian word Hebraized. These were the Satraps who gave the Jews so much trouble in the rebuilding of the Temple. They are alluded to in the congeneric Degrees of Companion of the Red Cross and Prince of Jerusalem.
SAVALETTE DE LANGES.
Founder of the Rite of Philalethes at Paris, in 1773. He was also the President and moving spirit of the Masonic Congress at Paris, which met in 1785 and 1787 for the purpose of discussing many important points in reference to Freemasonry. The zeal and energy of Savalette de Langes had succeeded in collecting for the Lodge of the Philalethes a valuable cabinet of natural history and a library containing many manuscripts and documents of great importance. His death, which occurred soon after the beginning of the French Revolution and the political troubles that ensued, caused the dispersion of the members and the loss of a great part of the collection. The remnant subsequently came into the possession of the Lodges of Saint Alexander of Scotland, and of the Social Contract, which constituted the Philosophic Scottish Rite.
The first Masonic Lodge in Saxony appeared at Dresden, in 1738; within four years thereafter two others had been established in Leipzig and Altenburg. The Grand Lodge was formed in 1811.
At the Revival in 1717, “Mr. Antony Sayer, gentleman,” was elected Grand Master (Constitutions, 1738, page 110). He was succeeded in the next year by George Payne, Esq. In 1719, he was appointed Senior Grand Warden by Grand Master Desaguliers. Afterward he fell into bad circumstances and in 1730 a sum of £15 was granted to him by Grand Lodge, followed by a further grant of £2.2.0 in 1741. In December, 1730, a complaint was made to Grand Lodge of some irregular conduct on his part, and he was acquitted of the charge, whatever it was, but told to do nothing so irregular for the future. When he died, either late in 1791 or early in 1742, he was Tiler of what is now the Old King’s Arms Lodge, No. 28. A portrait of him by Highmore, the celebrated painter, is in existence, mezzotinto copies of which are not uncommon (see also a paper “Mr. Anthony Sayer, gentleman,” by Brother J. Walters Hobbs, Transactions, Quatuor Coronati Lodge, 1924, volume xxxvii, page 218). The Freemason, June 6, 1925, says of Brother Sayer:
We also find the name among the worthies of the Old King’s Arms Lodge, No. 28, London, England, the name of that somewhat elusive character, Anthony Sayer the first Grand Master of England, about whom less definite information is known than of any of his successors in that high office. After serving the office of Grand Master in 1717, he, like George Payne, descended, in 1719, to the Chair of Grand Warden.
His name appears among the lists of members of the Lodge which met at the Queen’s Head in Knave’s Acre, in Wardour Street, for the years 1723, 1725, and 1730, which Lodge stands as No. 11 on the Engraved List in the Library of Grand Lodge, and is now known as the Lodge of Fortitude and Old Cumbelland, No. 12. It is now known that he became Tyler of the Old King’s Arms Lodge in 1733. It is also known that he received assistance from the Charity Fund of Grand Lodge in 1730 and again in 1741, and the Minute Books of the Old King’s Arms Lodge reveal the fact that he received assistance from their funds in 1730 and 1740.
According to a notice in the London Evening Post of January 16, 1742, ten days after the election of his successor of Tyler, he passed away a few days prior to that date, evidently in good Masonic order since the funeral cortege set out from the Shakespeare’s Head Tavern, in Covent Garden, then the meeting-place of the Stewards’ Lodge, followed by a great number of members of the Ancient and Honorable Society of Freemasons “of the best quality,” the body being “decently interred in Covent Garden Church.” According to the Church Register the funeral took place on January 5, 1742.
A name given to a set of persons who, in 1741, formed a mock procession in derision of the Freemasons. Sir John Hawkins, speaking (in his Life of Johnson, page 336) of Paul Whites head, says:
In concert with one Carey, a surgeon, he planned and exhibited a procession along the Strand of persons on foot and on horseback, dressed for the occasion, carrying mock ensigns at the Symbols of Freemasonry; the design of which wits to expose to laughter the insignia and ceremonies of that mysterious Institution; and it was not until thirty years afterward that the Fraternity recovered from the disgrace which so ludicrous a representation had brought on it.
The incorrectness of this last statement will be evident to all who are acquainted with the successful progress made by Freemasonry between the years 1741 and 1771, during which time Sir John Hawkins thinks that it was languishing under the blow dealt by the mock procession of the Scald Miserables.
A better and fuller account is contained in the London Daily Post, March 20, 1741.
Yesterday, some mock Freemasons marched through Pall Mall and the Strand as far as Temple Bar in procession, first went fellows on jackasses, with cows’ horns in their hands, then a kettlek rummer on a jackass having two butter firkins for kettle-drums; then followed two carts drawn by jackasses, having in them the stewards with several badges of their Order; then came a mourning-coach drawn by six horses, each of a different color and size, in which were the Grand Master and Wardens; the whole attended by a vast mob. They stayed without Temple Bar till the Masons came by, and paid their compliments to them, who returned the same with an agreeable humor that possibly disappointed the witty contriver of this mock Scene, whose misfortune is that, though he has some mit, his subjects are generally so ill chosen that he loses by it as many friends as other people of more judgment gain.
April 27th, being the day of the Annual Feast, a number of shoe-cleaners, chimney-sweepers, etc,. on foot and in carts, with ridiculous pageants carried before them, went in procession to Temple Bar, by way of jest on the Freemasons.”
A few days afterward, says the same journal, “several of the Mock Masons were taken up by the constable empowered to impress men for his Majesty’s service, and confined until they can be examined by the Justices.” Hone remarks (Ancient Mysteries, page 242), it was very common to indulge in satirical pageants, which were accommodated to the amusement of the vulgar, and he mentions this procession as one of the kind. A plate of the mock procession has engraved by A. Benoist, a drawing-master, under the title of A Geometrical View of the Grated Procession of the Scald Miserable Masons, designed as they were drawn up over against Somerset House in the Strand, on the 27 th day of April Anno 1742. Of this plate there is a copy in Clavel’s Histoire Pittoresque. With the original plate Benoist published a key, as follows, which perfectly agrees with the copy of the plate in Clavel:
1. The Grand Sword-Bearer, or Tyler, carrying the Sward of State, a present of Ishmael Ahiff to old Hvram Iting of the Saraeens, to his Graee of Wattin, Grand Master of the Holy Lodge of Saint John of Jorusalem ln Clerkenwell.
2. Tylers or Guarders.
3. Grand Chorus of Instruments.
4. She Stewards. in three Gutt-carts drawn by Asses.
5. Two famous Pillars.
6. Three great Lights: the Sun, Hibroglyphical, to rule the Day- the Moon, Enblematical, to rule the Night; a Master Mason, Political, to rule his Lodge.
7. The Entered Prentice’s Token.
8. The letter G. famous in Masonry for differencing the Fellow Craft’s Lodges from that of Prentices.
9. The Funeral of a Grand Master according to tho Rites of the Order. with the Fifteen loving brethren.
10. A Master Mason’s Lodge.
11. Grand Band of Musiek.
12. Two Trophies; one being that of a Black-shoe Boy and a Sink Boy, the other that of a Chimney-Sweeper.
13. The E4uipage of the Grand Master, all the Attendants wearing Mystical Jewells.
The historical mock procession of the Scald Miserables was, it thus appears, that which occurred on April 27, and not the preceding one of March 20, which may have been only a feeler, and having been well received by the populace there might have been an encouragement for its repetition. But it was not so popular with the higher classes, who felt a respect for Freemasonry, and were unwilling to see an indignity put upon it. A writer in the London Freemasons Magazine (1859 i, page 875) says: “The contrivers of the mock procession were at that time said to be Paul Whitehead, Esq., and his intimate friend (whose real Christian name was Esquire) Carey, of Pall Mall, surgeon to Frederick, Prince of Wales. The city officers did not suffer this procession to go through Temple Bar, the common report then being that its real interest was to affront the annual procession of the Freemasons. The Prince was so much offended at this piece of ridicule, that he immediately removed Carey from the office he held under him.”
Captain George Smith (Use and Abuse of Freemasonry, page 78) says that “about this time (1742) an order was issued to discontinue all public processions on feast days, on account of a mock procession which had been planned, at a considerable expense, by some prejudiced persons, with a riew to ridicule these public cavalcades.” Smith is not altogether accurate. There is no doubt that the ultimate effect of the mock procession was to put an end to what was called the March of Procession on the Feast Day, but that effect did not show itself until 1747, in which year it was resolved that it should in future be discontinued (see Constitutions, 1756, page 248. On the subject of these mock processions there is an article by Dr. W. J. Chetwode Crawley, Transactions, Quatuor Coronati Lodge, volume xviu).
SCALES, PAIR OF
“Let me be weighed in an even balance,” said Job, “that God may know mine integrity”; and Solomon says that “a false balance is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight.” So we find that among the ancients a balanse, or pair of scales, was a well-known recognized symbol of a strict observation of justice and fair dealing. This symbolism is also recognized in Freemasonry, and hence in the Degree of Princes of Jerusalem, the duty of which is to administer justice in the inferior Degrees, a pair of scales is the most important symbol.
The scallo pushed, the staff, and sandals form a part of the costume of a Masonic Knight Templar in his character as a Pilgrim Penitent. Shakespeare makes Ophelia sing—
And how shall I my true love know
From any other one?
O. by his scallop-shell and staff
And by his sandal shoon!
The scallop-shell was in the Middle Ages the recognized badge of a pilgrim; so much so, that Doctor Clarke (Travels ii, page 538) has been led to say: “It is not easy to amount for the origin of the shell as a badge worn by the pilgrims, but it decidedly refers to much earlier Oriental customs than the journeys of Christians to the Holy Land, and its history will probably be found in the mythology of eastern nations.” He is right as to the question of antiquity, for the shell was an ancient symbol of the Syrian goddess Astarte, Venus Pelagia, or Venus rising from the sea.
But it is doubtful whether its use by pilgrims is to be traced to so old or so Pagan an authority. Strictly, the scallop-shell was the badge of pilgrims visiting the shrine of Saint James of Compostela, and hence it is called by naturalists the Pecten Jacobacus—the comb shell of Saint James. Fuller (Church History ii, page 228) says: “All pilgrims that visit Saint James of Compostela in Spain returned thence obsiti conchis, ‘all beshelled about’ on their clothes, as a religious denotive there bestowed upon them.”
Pilgrims were, in fact, in medieval times distinguished by the peculiar badge which they wore, as designating the shrine which they had visited. Thus pilgrims from Rome wore the keys, those from Saint James the scallop-shell, and those from the Holy Land palm branches, whence such a pilgrim was some times called a palmer. But this distinction was not always rigidly adhered to, and pilgrims from Palestine frequently wore the shell. At first the shell was sewn on the cloak, but afterward transferred to the hat; and while, in the beginning, the badge was not assumed until the pilgrimage was accomplished, eventually pilgrims began to wear it as soon as they had taken their vow of pilgrimage, and before they had commenced their journey.
Both of these changes have been adopted in the Templar ceremonies. The pilgrim, although symbolically making his pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulcher in Palestine, adopts the shell more properly belonging to the pilgrimage to Compostela; and adopts it, too, not after his visit to the shrine, but as soon as he has assumed the character of a pilgrim, which, it will be seen from what has been said, is historically correct, and in accordance with the later practice of medieval pilgrims.
From the Latin Scarabaeus, a beetle, the ancient Egyptian symbol usually combining representations of the sacred insect with a pellet suggesting the sun, the whole sacred to the sun-god. Sometimes the venerated beetle as a living soul is shown with outstretched wings or with the horned head of a ram. Scarabs often are inscribed with mottoes or other similar lettering.
In the Ancient Mysteries scenic representations were employed to illustrate the doctrines of the resurrection, which it was their object to inculcate. Thus the allegory of the initiation has more deeply impressed, by being brought vividly to the sight as well as to the mind of the aspirant. Thus, too, in the religious mysteries of the Middle Ages, the moral lessons of Scripture were dramatized for the benefit of the people who beheld them.
The Christian virtues and graces often assumed the form of personages in these religious plays, and fortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice appeared before the spectators as living and acting beings, inculcating by their actions and by the plot of the drama those lessons which would not have been so well received or so thoroughly understood, if given merely in a didactic form.
The advantage of these scenic representations, consecrated by antiquity and tested by long experience, is well exemplified in the ritual of the Third Degree of Freemasonry, where the dramatization of the great legend gives to the initiation a singular force and beauty. It is surprising therefore, that the English system never adopted, or if adopted, speedily discarded, the drama of the Third Degree, but gives only in the form of a narrative what the American system more wisely and more usefully presents by living action. Throughout the United States, in every State excepting Pennsylvania, the initiation into the Third Degree constitutes a scenic representation. The latter State preserves the didactic method of the English system. The ceremonies on the Continent of Europe pursue the same scenic form of initiation, and in Doctor Mackey’s opinion it is therefore most probable that this was the ancient usage, and that the present English arrangement of this feature is of comparatively recent date (see Ritual).
An ensign of sovereign authority, and hence carried in several of the advanced Degrees by officers who represent kings.
This is a code of laws for the government of the Operative Seasons of Scotland, drawn up by William Schaw, the Master of the Work to James VI. It bears the following title: “The Statutis and Ordinanceis to be obseruit be all the Maister-Maissounis within this realme sett down be William Schaw, Maister of Wark to his Maieste and general Wardene of the said Craft, with the consent of the Maisteris efter specifeit.”
As will be perceived by this title, it is in the Scottish dialect. It is written on paper, and dated XXVIII December, 1598, Although containing substantially the general regulations which are to be found in the English manuscripts, it differs materially from them in many particulars. Masters, Fellow Crafts, and Apprentices are spoken of, but simply as gradations of rank, not as Degrees, and the word Lodge or Lodge is constantly used to define the place of meeting.
The government of the Lodge was vested in the Warden, Deacons, and Masters, and these the Fellow-Crafts and Apprentices were to obey. The highest officer of the Craft is called the General Warden. The Manuscript is in possession of the Lodge of Edinburgh, but has several times been published—first in the Laws and Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, in 1848 then in the American edition of that work, published by Doctor Robert Morris, in the ninth volume of the Universal Masonic Library; afterward by W. A. Laurie, in 1859, in his History of Freemasonry and the Grand Lodge of Scotland; D. Murray Lyon in History of the Lodge of Edinburgh gives a transcript and the last part in facsimile, and, by W. J. Hughan, in his Unpublished Records of the Craft, and in Doctor Mackey’s revised History of Freemasons the Scotch Manuscript has extended treatment in comparison with the various codes of English origin.
A name which is intimately connected with the history of Freemasonry in Scotland. For the particulars of his life, we are principally indebted to the writer, said to have been Sir David Brewster, Lylon’s History of Lodge of Edinburgh, page 55, of Appendix Q. 2, in the Constitutions, 1848, of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. William Schaw was born in the year 1550, and was probably a son of Schaw of Sauchie, in the Shire of Clackmannon.
He appears from an early period of life to have been connected with the royal household. In proof of this we may refer to his signature attached to the original parchment deed of the National Covenant, which was signed by King James VI and his household at Holyrood Palace January 28,1580-1, old style. it not being until an Act of the Privy Council in Scotland, 1599, made January 1 New Year’s Day, from 1600.
In 1581, Schaw became successor to Sir Robert Drummond of Carnock, as Master of Works. This high Official appointment placed under his superintendence all the royal buildings and palaces in Scotland; and in the Treasurer’s accounts of a subsequent period various sums are entered as having been paid to him in connection with these buildings for improvements, repairs, and additions. Thus, in September, 1585, the sum of £315 was paid “to William Schaw, his Majestie’s Maister of Wark, for the reparation and mending of the Castell of Striueling,” and in May, 1590, £400, by his Majesty’s precept, was “delyverit to William Sehaw, the Maister of Wark, for reparation of the house of Dumfermling, before the Queen’s Majestic passing thereto.”
Sir James Melville, in his Memoirs, mentions that, being appointed to receive the three Danish Ambassadors who came to Scotland in 1585, with overtures for an alliance with one of the daughters of Frederick II, he requested the King that two other persons might be joined with him, and for this purpose he named Schaw and James Meldrum, of Seggie, one of the Lords of Session. It further appears that Schaw Wad been employed in various missions to France. He accompanied James VI to Denmark in the winter of 1589, previous to the King’s marriage with the Princess Anna of Denmark, which was celebrated at Upslo, in Norway, on the 23d of November. The King and his attendants remained during the winter season in Denmark, but Schaw returned to Scotland on the 16th of March, 1589-90, for the purpose of making the necessary arrangements for the reception of the wedding-party. Schaw brought with him a paper subscribed by the King, containing the “Order set down be his Majestic to be effectuate be his Hienes Secret Counsel, and prepared again his Majestic’s return in Scotland,” dated in February, 1589-90.
The King and his royal bride arrived in Leith on the 1st of May, and remained there six days, in a building called the King’s Work, until the Palace of Holylood was prepared for their reception. Extensive alterations had evidently been made at this time at Holyrood, as a Warrant was issued by the Provost and Council of Edinburgh to deliver to William Schaw, Maister of Wark, the sum of £1000, “restante of the last taxation of £20,000” granted by the Royal Buroughs in Scotland, the sum to be expended “in biggin and repairing of this Hienes Palice of Halyrud-house,” 14th March, 1589-90. Subsequent payments to Schaw occur in the Treasurer’s accounts for broad scarlet cloth and other stuff for burde claythes and coverings to forms and windows bayth in the Kilk and Palace of Halyrud-house.”
On this occasion various sums were also paid by a precept from the King for dresses, etc., to the ministers and others connected with the royal household. At this time William Schaw, Maister of Wark, received £133 6s. 8d. The Queen was crowned on the 17th of May, and two days following she made her first public entrance into Edinburgh. The inscription on Schaw’s monument states that he was, in addition to his office of Master of the Works, Sacris ceremoniis praepositus and Reginae Quaestor, which Monteith has translated as Sacrist and Queen’s Chamberlain. This appointment of Chamberlain evinces the high regard in which the Queen held him; but there can be no doubt that the former words relate to his holding the office of General Warden of the ceremonies of the Masonic Craft, an office analogous to that of Substitute Grand Master as now existing in the Grand Lodge of Scotland.
William Schaw died April 18, 1602, and was buried in the Abbey Church of Dunfermline, where a monument was erected to his memory by his grateful mistress, the Queen. On this monument is his name and monogram cut in a marble slab, which, tradition says, was executed by his own hand, and containing his Freemason’s Mark, and an inscription in Latin, in which he is described as one imbued with every liberal art and science, most skillful in architecture, and in labors and business not only unwearied and indefatigable, but ever assiduous and energetic. No man appears, from the records, to have lived with more of the commendation, or died with more of the regret of others, than this old Scottish Freemason.
Thory ( History of the Foundation of the Grand orient) thus calls the Brethren who, expelled by the Grand Lodge of France, had formed in the year 1772, a rival Body under the name of the National Assembly. Any Body of Freemasons separating from the legal obedience, and establishing a new one not authorized by the laws of Freemasonry—such, for instance, as the Saint John’s Grand Lodge in New York—is properly schismatic.
This, which was originally an ecclesiastical term, and signifies, as Milton defines it, “a rent or division in the church when it comes to the separating of congregations,” is unfortunately not unknown in Masonic history. It is in Masonic, as in canon law, a withdrawing from recognized authority, and setting up some other authority in its place.
The first schism recorded after the revival of 1717, was that of the Duke of Wharton, who, in 1722, caused himself to be irregularly nominated and elected Grand Master. His ambition is assigned in the Book of Constitutions as the cause, and his authority was disowned “by all those,” says Anderson, “that would not countenance irregularities.” But the breach was healed by Strand Master Montague, who, resigning his claim to the chair, caused Wharton to be regularly elected and installed (see Constitutions, 1738, page 114).
The second schism in England was when Brother Preston and others in 1779 formed the Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent owing to a dispute with the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, which continued for ten years (see Preston).
In France, although irregular Lodges began to be instituted as early as 1756, the first active schism is to be dated from 1761, when the dancing-master Lacorne, whom the respectable Freemasons refused to recognize as the substitute of De Clermont, the Grand Master, formed, with his adherents, an independent and rival Grand Lodge; the members of which, however, became reconciled to the legal Grand Lodge the next year, and again became schismatic in 1765. In fact, from 1761 until the organization of the Grand Orient in 1772, the history of Freemasonry in France is but a history of schisms.
But in Germany, in consequence of the Germanic principle of Masonic law that two or more controlling Bodies may exist at the same time and in the same place with concurrent and coextensive jurisdiction, it is legally impossible that there ever should be a schism. A Lodge or any number of Lodges may with draw from the parent stock and assume the standing and prerogatives of a mother Lodge with powers of constitution or an independent Grand Lodge, and its regularity would be indisputable, according to the German interpretation of the law of territorial jurisdiction. Such an act of withdrawal would be a secession, but not a schism.
On the other hand, in the United States of America, there have been several instances of Masonic schism. Thus, in Massachusetts, by the establishment in 1752 of the Saint Andrew’s Grand Lodge; in South Carolina, by the formation of the Grand Lodge of York Masons in 1787; in Louisiana, in 1848, by the institution of the Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons; and in New York, by the establishment in 1823 of the city and country Grand Lodges; and in 1849 by the formation of the Body known as the Philtp’s Grand Lodge. In all of these instances a reconciliation eventually took place; nor is it probable that schisms will often occur, because the principle of exclusive territorial jurisdiction has been now so well settled and so universally recognized, that no seceding or Schismatic Body can expect to receive the countenance or support of any of the Grand Lodges of the Union.
There are these essential points of difference between ecclesiastical and Masonic schism; the former, once occurring, generally remains perpetual. Reconciliation with a parent church is seldom effected. The schisms of Calvin and Luther at the time of the Reformation led to the formation of the Protestant Churches, who can never be expected to unite with the Roman Church, from which they separated. The Quakers, the Baptists, the Methodists, and other sects which seceded from the Church of England, have formed permanent religious organizations, between whom and the parent body from which they separated there is a breach which will probably never be healed. But all Masonic schisms, as experience has shown, have been temporary in their duration, and sometimes very short-lived among sincere Brethren.
The spirit of Masonic Brotherhood which continues to pervade both parties, always leads, sooner or later, to a reconciliation and a reunion; concessions are mutually made, and compromises effected, by which the schismatic Body is again merged in the parent association from which it had seceded. Another difference is this, a religious Schismatic body is not necessarily an illegal one, nor does it always profess a. system of false doctrine. “A schism,” says Milton “may happen to a true church, as well as to a false.” But a Masonic schism is always illegal; it violates the law of exclusive jurisdiction; and a schismatic Body cannot be recognized as possessing any of the rights or prerogatives which belong alone to the supreme dogmatic Masonic power of the State.
The unknown author (possibly William Preston), or authors who wrote the Dionitorial Lectures of the Fellowcraft Degree used the Liberal Arts and Sciences as a symbol of the kind of education which grown men need, and which is represented by college and university; he gave the traditional list of them (see page 590 this Encyclopedia) which had been current in the Middle Ages:
grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy.
The extraordinary fact about this list is that though it is supposed to contain the sciences as well as the arts it includes only one science, astronomy, and does not include the fundamental sciences of physics and chemistry. The number of “arts” is equally incomplete, and equally confused. The list has no worth as a list of the subjects on the curriculum (and never did!) but it serves well enough as a symbol, or rather as an emblem, of education. It is unfortunate that in our Masonic literature the great number of commentators on the symbol have given their attention almost exclusively to the “arts” in the list, and almost none to the “sciences,” because there is one whole side of Freemasonry and its history which comes under that head. Among the many things which we must have in order to keep alive are those which belong to the two sciences of physics and chemistry.
As organized sciences, carried on in laboratories by specialists, physics and chemistry are not many centuries old; but the materials used by them, and for sake of which the specialists work, have been used by men from the earliest beginnings because there never has been a way to have food, clothing, shelter, tools, weapons, and medicines without them. If by “science” is meant these materials instead of the specialists and their modern, technical methods, then science is as old as man, and the most primitive peoples had the sciences, just as at the present time tribes in the still uncivilized areas of the world have them, and always have.
There are thousands of things in the sciences, and new ones are evermore being discovered, and they differ widely among themselves; but they together have one property in common, that they can be found, used, worked on, and worked with, only by technical methods; and these techniques can be used on all of them. First, the materials themselves are useless lentil made over or modified or manufactured, are very difficult to know and understand, or are poisonous, explosive, rare, costly, or dangerous—thus, sulphur may turn into a poison in ignorant hands, and ordinary cotton can turn into an explosive. Second, the materials are such that units of them are interchangeable, so that what is true of any one is true for any other unit of the same material; it is because of this that physical and chemical formulas are possible.
Third, since the units are interchangeable (any gram of mercury can be used when “gram of mercury” is called for) the materials are mathematizable; and mathematics are so necessary, in fact, that without them there could be no science.
Fourth, the materials require technical treatment, Scientific instruments, and technical knowledge; guesswork is ruled out.
Fifth, the materials are used universally; salt, sulphur, mercury, steam, electricity, the pulley, the cog, force, weight, etc., are not only found and used everywhere but are made or manufactured everywhere by the same methods—the formula for sulphuric acid is the same in every country, and in every period of time.
Whatever the above is true of, belongs to science; if the above is not true of a thing it does not belong to science; since the only things of which it is true are the materials used in physics and chemistry and their sum divisions, they are the only sciences. If the Word “scientific” were used exclusively of the materials and methods of physics and chemistry it would clear up a mass of confusion in thought, especially in “popular ” thought; if men, careless of accuracy in speech, insist upon using “scientific” for other fields and methods and materials the fact remains that physics and chemistry (with their subdivisions) remain unique, and stand apart, and do not admit of being mixed with anything else.
In countries and periods of time in Europe and America many names have been used for what is now called science, such as wisdom, philosophy, natural philosophy, etc.; the word “science” itself has had a similarly checkered history; it has meant at different times knowledge, dialectics, medicine, philosophy, ethics, etc. In the present stage of the English language it should be used exclusively of physics and chemistry.
Biology, botany, ethnology, zoology, etc. are Systems of Observation.
They are not sciences because their units are not interchangeable, and the units do not continue to maintain their identity without change—what is today an ounce of alcohol will next week be the same ounce of alcohol, but what is a seed today may be a plant next week an egg today will be a chicken in ten days.
Mathematics, logic, statistics, etc., are Disciplines; they are composed of rigorously accurate formulas which must never vary (they are indifferent to the mathematician’s feelings) and must be learned by heart. History, economics, sociology, psychology, etc., are subjects; each man working in them can work where he wishes, as much or as little as he wishes, for any purpose he desires, and can make use of any method he finds will work; they occupy “fields.”
Music, architecture, oratory, literature, drama, dancing, sculpture, etc., are Fine Arts. Pottery making, silver and gold work, engravings, carving, etc., belong to the Skilled Crafts. Theology, in its subdivisions, and philosophy, divided into its eight subdivisions, are together describable by no other word than Thought.
In addition there are a number of fields of study and endeavor which are sui generis, unique, and not to be classified; they cannot be described in terms of anything else but must be described in terms of themselves; scholarship is one, antiquarianism is another; Freemasonry itself belongs to this last category; it is not, as Dr. Hemming tried to have us believe, “a system”—scarcely anything could be less a system, but is merely itself, and In a rigorous use of words it would not be a tautology to define it as: “Freemasonry is freemasonry.”
When Dr. Hemming defined Freemasonry as “a system of morality” he forgot or else he had never known, that ethics is a sub-division of philosophy, and is wholly unconnected, even remotely, with either of the two sciences. Like many commentators who have followed him he had no eye for anything in Freemasonry except the religion in it; this is especially true of American Masonic writers because from the time of the Rev. George Oliver they have written about that side of the Craft as if it were the only side it had. ‘This has been a misfortune because it has given millions of American Masons a distorted, misshapen picture of Freemasonry, and because it has ignored the salient role of the sciences in Freemasonry from the first Operative Masonry until now.
The Operative Freemasons had to know and use more science than any other men in the Middle Ages; they made tools, understood engineering and constructed engines such as elevators, cranes, etc., used chemicals in staining of glass, knew mechanics, and had to employ mathematics, geometry especially, at every step in their work. The sciences were forbidden; the populace dreaded them as something supernatural, or miraculous, and they believed that chemistry was of the devil because they had the superstition that hell is a place filled with living chemicals. The Freemasons ignored these notions; and though they kept their sciences to themselves they continued to use them against fulminations from either lords or bishops. This use of science was as much a part of Freemasonry as was either morality or brotherhood, and to omit it is to leave us with a falsified picture of the Operative Craft.
In the beginning of Speculative Fraternity under the Grand Lodge system the Masons avowed their devotion to the sciences more boldly, and even almost dramatically. The Royal Society was in the British public mind synonymous with science, and for more than a century it, and its offshoots, were the only exponents and practitioners of science in Britain.
It began in 1660 A.D. and took its first organized form at a meeting of scholars in Gresham College who had assembled to hear a lecture by Bro. Sir Christopher Wren. Sir Robert Moray was elected its first president, March 6, 1661 A.D. he is supposed to have been matte a Mason in 1640 A.D.
Dr. Desaguliers, who later became its secretary for a long period of years, was the “father of the Grand Lodge system,” and was one of Sir Isaac Newton’s closest friends.
A Lodge largely composed of Royal Society members met in a room belonging to the Royal Society Club in London. At a time when preachers thundered against these scientists, when newspapers thundered against them, street crowds hooted at them, and neither Oxford nor Cambridge would admit science courses, Masonic Lodges invited Royal Society members in for lectures, many of which were accompanied by scientific demonstrations; and it was these scientific lectures which became the pattern for the Monitorial Lectures of the next generation. The enthusiasm for science spread from England to France, and from there to Austria, and Russia; Masons and Lodges had an extraordinarily large and important part in spreading it. The fraternity had an historical justification as well as a symbolic need to set in the midst of the Fellowcraft degree (the Master Masons Degree at that time) the symbol of the Liberal Arts and it would rectify the general conception of Freemasonry and its history if Masonic writers were to cease to drop the and Sciences from that phrase.
(For references see any standard history of science. For the history of Masonry and the sciences see titles on Masonic history, etc., in the General Index to this supplement; in conjunction with them read histories of architecture. A work of especial usefulness to Masonic students is Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages, by Geo. Haven Putnam; II Vol.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; New York; 1896. As one of the countless proofs that the Tomes of the Liberal Arts and Sciences were never taken at their face value Putnam cites De Artibus ac Disciplints Liberalium Litterarum, by Casidorus, in which that teacher of St. Benedict divides the “Mathematics” in the list into Astronomy, Arithmetic, Music, and Geometry. The book was written about 570 A.D.)
SCHLEY, WINFIELD SCOTT
American Admiral, born October 9, 1839, and died in 1911. On July 3, 1898, Admiral Cervera’s fleet was destroyed at Santiago by the American fleet under the command of Admiral Sampson and Admiral Schley. Admiral Schley was a Thirty-third Degree Freemason (see New Age, July, 1924).
SCHNEIDER, JOHANN AUGUST
A zealous and learned Freemason of Altenburg, in Germany, where he was born May 22, 1755, and died August 13, 1816. Besides contributing many valuable articles to various Masonic journals, he was the compiler of the Constitutions such of the Lodge Archimedes zu den drei Reissbretten, or Archimedes of the Three Tracing-boards, at Altenburg, in which he had been initiated, and of which he was a member; an important but scarce work, containing a history of Freemasonry, and other valuable essays.
None of the charities of Freemasonry have been more important or more worthy of approbation than those which have been directed to the establishment of schools for the education of the orphan children of Freemasons; and it is a very proud feature of the Order, that institutions of this kind are to be found in every country where Freemasonry has made a lodgment as an organized society.
In England, the Royal Freemasons Girls School was established in 1788. In 1798, a similar one for boys was founded. At a very early period charity schools were erected by the Lodges in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden. The Freemasons of Holland instituted a school for the blind in 1808. In the United States much attention has been paid to this subject and particularly in the promotion of the Public Schools. In 1842, the Grand Lodge of Missouri instituted a Masonic college, and the example was followed by several other Grand Lodges. But colleges have been found too unwieldily and complicated in their management for a successful experiment, and the scheme has generally been abandoned. But there are numerous schools in the United States which are supported in whole or in part by Masonic Lodges.
SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS
Doctor Oliver (Historical Landmarks ii, page 374) speaks of “the secret institution of the Naboom” as existing in the time of Solomon, and says they were established by Samuel “to counteract the progress of the Spurious Freemasonry which was introduced into Palestine before his time.” This claim of a Masonic character for these institutions has been gratuitously assumed by the venerable author. He referred to the well-known Schools of the Prophets, which were first organized by Samuel, which lasted from his time to the closing of the canon of the Old Testament. They were scattered all over Palestine, and consisted of Scholars who devoted themselves to the study of both the written and the oral law, to the religious rites, and to the interpretation of Scripture. Their teaching of what they had learned was public, not secret, nor did they in any way resemble, as Doctor Oliver suggests, the Masonic Lodges of the later day. They were, in their organizational rather like our modern theological colleges, though their range of studies was very different..
The Hebrew , the Latin Albus Bos, meaning White ox, or morally, Innocence or Candor. Sometimes written, as in the old French manuscripts, Charlaban. The name of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite
SCHREPFER, JOHANN GEORG
The keeper of a coffee-house in Leipsic, where, having obtained a quantity of Masonic, Rosierucian, and magical books, he opened, in 1768, what he called a Scottish Lodge, and pretended that he had been commissioned by Masonic superiors to destroy the system of Strict Observance, whose adherents he abused and openly insulted. He boasted that he alone possessed the great secret of Freemasonry, and that nearly all the German Freemasons were utterly ignorant of anything about it except its external forms. He declared that he was an Anointed Priest, having power over spirits, who were compelled to appear at his will and obey his commands, by which means he became acquainted not only with the past and the present, but even faith the future.
It was in thus pretending to evoke spirits that his freemasonry principally consisted. Many persons became his dupes; and although they soon discovered the imposture, shame at being themselves deceived prevented them from revealing the truth to others, and thus his initiations continued for a considerable period, and he was enabled to make some money, the only real object of his system. He has himself asserted, in a letter to a Prussian clergyman, that he was an emissary of the Jesuits; but of the truth of this we nave only his own unreliable testimony. He left Leipsic at one time and traveled abroad, leaving his Deputy to act for him during his absence. On his return he asserted that he was the natural son of one of the French princes, and assumed the title of Baron Von Steinbach.
But at length there was an end to his practices of jugglery. Seeing that he was beginning to be detected, fearing exposure, and embarrassed by debt, he invited some of his disciples to accompany him to a wood near Leipsic called the Rosenthal, where, on the morning of October 8, 1774, having retired to a little distance from the crowd, he blew out his brains with a pistol Clavel has thought it worth while to preserve the memory of this incident by inserting an engraving representing the scene in his Histoire Pittoresque de la Franc-Maçonnerie (page 183). Schrepfer had much low cunning but was devoid of education. Lenning sums up his character in saying that he was one of the coarsest and most impudent swindlers who ever chose the Masorlic Brotherhood for his stage of action.
SCHROEDER, FRIEDRICH JOSEPH WILHELM
A. Doctor and Professor of Pharmacology in Marburg; was born at Bielefeld, in Prussia, March 19, 1733, and died October 27, 1778. Of an infirm constitution from his youth, he still further impaired his bodily health and his mental faculties by his devotion to chemic, alchemical, and theosophic pursuits.
He established at Marburg, in 1766, a Chapter of True and Ancient Rose Croix Masons, and in 1779 he organized in a Lodge of Sarreburg a School or Rite founded on Magic, Theosophy, and Alchemy, which consisted of seven Degrees, four advanced Degrees founded on these occult sciences being separated to the original three Symbolic Degrees. This Rite, called the Rectifed Rose Croix, was only practiced by two Lodges under the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg, Clavel (Histoire Pittoresque, or Picturesque second step of the Mystic Ladder of Kadosh of the History, page 183) calls him the Cagliostro of Germany, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite because it was in his school that the Italian charlatan learned his first lessons of magic and theosophy.
Doctor Oliver, misunderstanding Clavel, styles him an adventurer (Historical Landmarks ii, page 710).
But it is perhaps more just that ne should attribute to him a diseased imagination and misdirected studies than a had heart or impure practices. He must not he confounded with Fried. Ludwig Schroeder, who was a man of a very different character.
SCHROEDER, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG
An actor and a dramatic and Masonic writer, born at Schwerin, November 3, 1744, and died near Hamburg, September 3, 1816. He commenced life as an actor at Vienna, and was so distinguished in his profession that Hoffmann says “he was incontestably the greatest actor that Germany ever had, and equally eminent in tragedy and comedy.” As an active, zealous Freemason, he acquired a high character. Bode himself, a well-known Freemason, was his intimate friend.
Through his influence, he was initiated into Freemasonry, in 1774, in the Lodge Emanuel zur Maienblume. He soon after, himself, established a new Lodge working in the system of Zinnendorf, but which did not long remain in existence. Schroeder then went to Vienna, where he remained until 1785, when he returned to Hamburg. On his return, he was elected by his old friends the Master of the Lodge Emanuel, which office he retained until 1799.
In 1794 he was elected Deputy Grand Master of the English Provincial Grand Lodge of Lower Saxony, and in 1814, in the seventieth year of his life, he was induced to accept the Grand Mastership.
It was after his election, in 1787, as Master of the Lodge Emanuel at Hamburg, that he first resolved to devote himself to a thorough reformation of the Masonic system, which had been much corrupted on the continent by the invention of almost innumerable advanced Degrees, many of which found their origin in the fantasies often credited to Alchemy, Rosierucianism, and Hermetic Philosophy. It is to this resolution, thoroughly executed, that we owe the Masonic scheme known as Schroeder’s Rite, which, whatever may be its defects in the estimation of others, has become very popular among many German Freemasons. He started out with the theory that, as Freemasonry had proceeded from England to the Continent, in the English Book of Constitutions and the Primitive English Ritual we must look for the pure unadulterated fountain of Freemasonry.
He accordingly selected the well-known English Exposition entitled Jachim and Boaz as presenting, in his opinion, the best formula of the old initiation. He therefore translated it into the German language, and, remodeling it, presented it to the Provincial Grand Lodge in 1801, by whom it was accepted and established. It was soon after accepted by many other German Lodges on account of its simplicity. The system of Schroeder thus adopted consisted of the three Degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry, all the higher Degrees being rejected.
But Schroeder found it necessary to enlarge his system, so as to give to Brethren who desired it an opportunity of further investigation into the philosophy of Masonry. He, therefore, established an England, or Select Historical Union, which should be composed entirely of Master Masons, who were to be engaged in the study of the different systems and Degrees of Freemasonry. The Hamburg Lodges constituted the Mutterbund, or Central Body, to which all the other Lodges were to be united by correspondence.
Of this system, the error seems to be that, by going back to a primitive ritual, which recognizes nothing higher than the Master’s Degree, it rejects all the developments that have resulted from the labors of the philosophic minds of a century. Doubtless in the sol advanced degrees of the eighteenth century there was an abundance of chaff, but there was also much nourishing wheat. Schroeder, with the former, has thrown away the latter. He has committed the logical blunder of arguing from the abuse against the use. His system, however, has some merit, and is still practiced by the Grand Lodge of Hamburg.
See Schroeder, Friedrich Joseph Wilhelm
See Schroeder, Friedrich Ludwig
SCHULTZ, EDWARD T
Born August 23, 1827; died March 11, 1913, at Baltimore, Maryland. Initiated on June 3, 1854, in Concordia Lodge No. 13, and for five years was elected Master. He became Senior Grand Warden of Maryland in 1884. From 1880 to 1887 he was engaged upon an authoritative work, The History of Freemasonry in Maryland. For twenty-six years he wrote the reports on Foreign Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of Maryland and for thirty-six years also prepared similar reports for the Grand Chapter of his State. He was totally blind for more than fifteen years and his industry and sacrifice in bringing to a successful issue his many literary labors were truly splendid achievements.
See Aberal Arts and Sciences
SCIENTIFIC MASONIC ASSOCIATION
The German title is Scientifischer Freimaurer Bund. A society founded in 1803 by Fessler, Mossdorf, Fischer, and other distinguished Freemasons, the object being, by the united efforts of its members, to draw up, with the greatest accuracy and care, and from the most authentic sources, a full and complete history of Freemasonry, of its origin and objects, from its first formation to the present day, and also of the various systems or methods of working that have been introduced into the Craft. Such history, together with the evidence upon which it was founded, was to be communicated to worthy and zealous Brethren The members had no peculiar ritual, clothing, or ceremonies; neither were they subjected to any fresh obligation; every just and upright Freemason who had received a liberal education, who was capable of feeling the truth, and desirous of investigating the mysteries of the Order, could become a member of this Society, provided the ballot was unanimous, let him belong to what Grand Lodge he might. But those whose education had not been sufficiently liberal to enable them to assist in those researches were only permitted to attend the meetings as trusty Brethren to receive instruction.
A genus of Arachnida, of numerous species, with an elongated body, but no marked division between the thorax and abdomen. Those of the south of Europe and on the borders of the Mediterranean have six eyes. This reptile, dreaded by the Egyptian, was sacred to the goddess Selk, and was solemnly cursed in all temples once a year.
The tradition of the Scotch Freemasons is that Freemasonry was introduced into Scotland by the architects who built the Abbey of Kil winning; and the village of that name bears, therefore, the same relation to Scotch Freemasonry that the city of York does to English. “That Freemasonry was introduced into Scotland,” says Laurie ( History, page 89) “by those architects who built the Abbey of Kilwinning, is manifest not only from those authentic documents by which the Kilwinning Lodge has been traced back as far as the end of the fifteenth century, but by other collateral arguments which amount almost to a demonstration.”
In Sir John Sinclair’s Statistical Account of Scotland, the same statement is made in the following words: “A number of Freemasons came from the Continent to build a monastery there, and with them an architect or Master Mason to superintend and carry on the work. This architect resided at Kilwinning, and being a good and true Mason, intimately acquainted with all the arts and parts of Masonry known on the continent, was chosen Master of the meetings of the Brethren all over Scotland. He gave rules for the conduct of the Brethren at these meetings and decided finally in appeals from all the other meetings or Lodges in Scotland.” His statement amounts to about this: that the Brethren assembled at Kilwinning elected a Grand Master, as we should now call him, for Scotland, and that the Lodge of Kilwinning be came the Mother Lodge, a title which it has always assumed. Manuscripts preserved in the Advocates Library of Edinburgh, which were first published by Laurie, furnish further records of the early progress of Freemasonry in Scotland.
It is said that in the reign of James II, the office of Grand Patron of Scotland was granted to William Saint Clair, Earl of Orkney and Caithness and Baroll of Roslin, “his heirs and Successors,” by the King’s Charter. But, in 1736, the Saint Clair who then exercised the Grand Mastership, “taking into consideration that his holding or claiming any such jurisdictions right, or privilege might be prejudicial to the Craft and vocation of Masonry,” renounced his claims, and empowered the Freemasons to choose their Grand Master. The consequence of this act of resignation was the immediate organization of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, over whom, for obvious reasons, the hereditary Grand Master or Patron was unanimously called to preside.
Brother A. M. Mackey, Past Master and Historian, Lodge Saint David sends us this information of old customs. In the early days of “Canongate Kilwing from Leith,” now Lodge Saint David, Edinburg, number 36, it was the usual custom to confer Degrees at Special or Emergency Meetings, and to reserve the Monthly Meetings for the transaction of ordinary business and—more especially—for the reception and entertainment of Deputations from the Sister Lodges in and about the town. On these occasions the evening was devoted to “Harmony.” The following Minute of the Monthly Meeting held in April 1740 is not only typical of others of the period, but is also of more than usual interest in the references it contains to matters Masonic and Military:
Canongate Killlvinning from Leith 9th April 1740.
Year of Masonry 5740.
The Right Worshipful being necessary absent, The Senior Warden Brother Collin Mitchell assumed the Chair. Brother Calender appointed Senior Warden, Brother Aitkine Junior Warden, Then the Lodge being met and duly formed conform to adjournment Wee were upon this occasion Visited from the following Lodges, from Leith Killwinning by Brother Dickson, from Canongate Leith, Leith and Canongate by Br Hall and Brother Smith. It was moved by Brother Aitkine, Junior Warden pro tempore that Brother David Buchanan his health should be drunk, whom wee had in the last Mondays news to have been the man who first got in at the Iron port of Portobelo when taken, and did place the British Collours there, which was unanimously agreed to by the Lodge, and his health drunk with three Claps and three Hussa’s. Thereafter the Right Worshipful toasted and drunk the uses wall healths upon this occasion, and the Lodge was closed by their proper officers, and adjourned till the fourteen day of May One thousand Seven hundred and forty years. ARCH SMART. Master
COLLIN MITCHELL S:W:
The episode referred to in the Minute is obviously an incident in the war declared in October 1739, between the forces of George II, and of Philip V of Spain. In those days news necessarily traveled slowly, and it was only on March 13, 1740, that word reached England of a victory achieved in the previous November.
Additional interest attaches to the Minute quoted in respect that it acquaints us with the form in toast drinking which obtained in the Lodge. The “three Claps and three Hussa’s” constitute the earliest known record in Scottish Freemasonry of a custom which bears a curious resemblance to a form of “Masonic Firing” not unknown to the Fraternity at the present time (see also Squaremen, Corporation of).
SCOTLAND, ROYAL ORDER OF
See Royal Order of Scotland
SCOTT, CAPTAIN ROBERT FALCON
Explorer, born 1868 at Outlands, Devenport, England. Initiated into Freemasonry at the beginning of the twentieth century in Drury Lane Lodge, No. 2127, London, England, and received his Master Mason Degree in Saint Alban’s Lodge, Christchurch, New Zealand, on his return from the National Antarctic expedition of 1901-4 which he commanded. In 1910 he headed the British Antarctic Expedition and reached the South Pole on January 18, 1912. Brother Scott and the four men who accompanied him perished on the return trip (see Drury Lane Lodge, No. 2127, Its Founding and Record from 1886 to 1918, by E. T. Pryor, page 5).
American author of The Analogy of Ancient Craft Masonry to Natural and Revealed Religion, 1850, and The Keystone of the Masonic Arch; a Commentary on the Universal Laws and Principles of Ancient Masonry, 1856.
Published Pocket Companion and History of Freemasonry, 1754, London.
Famous novelist and poet. Initiated at thirty years of age. Born at the College Wynd, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 15, 1771, and educated at the High School. Previous to entering the University in November, 1783 he spent some weeks at Kelso attending daily the Public Schools At fifteen he was indentured an apprentice to his father, an attorney. On December 16, 1799, he was appointed to the Sheriffdom of Selkirkshire. At an emergency meeting held on Monday, March 2, 1801, Walter Scott was Initiated, Passed and Raised in Lodge Saint David, No. 36, Edinburgh. The father and the son of Brother Scott were Freemasons, the former Initiated in Lodge Saint David, January, 1754, the latter in Lodge Canongate Kilwinning No. 2, November 29, 1826.
June 4, 1816, Scott, in the presence of the Provincial Grand Master of the district, the most Noble the Marquis of Lothian, laid the foundation of a new Lodge-room at Selkirk and was elected and Honorary Member of the Lodge there, Saint John, now No. 32, on the Grand Lodge roll. Scott was announced as a Baronet in the Gazette on April 1, 1820, the first Baronet made by King George IV. The reference to the Oblong Square of the tournament field in his romance Ivanhoe is familiar, and the Lay of the Last Minstrel by Scott is inscribed to the Earl of Dalkeith, a member of the same Lodge and then Grand Master. Scott was in 1823 offered the Grand Mastership of the Royal Grand Conclave of Knights Templar of Scotland.
He declined because of his “age and health not permitting me to undertake the duties which whether convivial or charitable, a person undertaking such an office ought to be in readiness to perform when called upon.” His reasons are all she more impressive when referred to his noble diligence in satisfying a debt not wholly his own, a labor that surely shortened his life.
The failure of the printing house of Ballentyne & Company occurred in 1826. Scott’s liabilities as a partner amounted to nearly 150,000 pounds. Determined that all his creditors should be paid, he refused to be a party to a compromise or to accept any discharge. He pledged himself to devote the whole labor of his subsequent life to the payment of his debts and he fulfilled this promise. In the course of four years his literary works yielded nearly 70,000 pounds and ultimately his creditors received every penny of their claims. He paid, indeed. In February, 1830, he had an apoplectic seizure and never thoroughly recovered. After another severe shock in April, 1831, he was persuaded to abandon literary work. He died at Abbotsford, on September 21, 1832, in his sixty-second year. Five days later the remains of Sir Walter Scott were laid in the sepulcher of his ancestors in the old Abbey of Dryburgh. (These details furnished by the late Brother A. M. Mackay, Past Master, Lodge Saint David. See also Treasury of Masonic Thought, George M. Martin-John W. Callaghan, 1924, page 93.)
We are accustomed to use indiscriminately the word Scotch or Scottish to signify something relating to Scotland. Thus we say the Scotch Rite or the Scottish Rite; the latter is, how ever, more frequently used by Masonic writers. This has been objected to by some purists because the final syllable ish has in general the signification of diminution or approximation, as in brackish, saltish, and similar words. But ish in Scottish is not a sign of diminution, but is derived, as in English, Danish, Swedish, etc., from the German termination ische. The word is used by the best writers.
The advanced Degrees so frequently credited to Ramsay, under the name of the Irish Degrees, were subsequently called Scottish Degrees in reference to that theory of the promulgation of Freemasonry derived from Scotland (see Irish Chapters) .
SCOTTISH PROV. C. L’S
The history of the Scottish Provincial Grand Lodge constituted in Boston with Joseph Warren as first Grand Masterand of his jurisdiction over certain Lodges in and around Boston for 100 miles, has been written many times, and has made the names of Boston’s St. Andrews Lodge and of Joseph Warren and Paul Revere famous throughout Freemasonry. Warren was installed Provincial Grand Master in it in 1769.
(NOTE.—on page 322, Vol. 5, of Gould’s History of Freemasonry, it is stated that when Jeremy Gridley, Grand Master of St. John’s Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, died in 1767, he “was Grand Master of Masons in North America.” He had no jurisdiction over Antient or Scottish Lodges in Boston. There were at the same time other Grand Masters in America; also Gridley was only a Provincial Grand Master. Antient, Irish, and Seottish Warrants had as much validity in America as did Warrantc from the Modern Grand Lodge of EnRland. There was no exclusive territorial jurisdiction in America until after the Revolution.)
For a reason difficult to explain a second Provincial Grand Lodge of Scotland, set up at about the same time, has been to an opposite extent almost wholly forgotten. Florida had been a Spanish Colony since 1512 (Ponce de Leon) and set up its capital at St. Augustine in 1565. In 1763 it was ceded to England. Then it was ceded back to Spain. It was won by the United States in 1822, and became a Territory in 1822, a State in 1845. On March 15, 1768, during British control, James Grant, Governor of East Florida, and Henry Cunningham, Past Senior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, “craved a Charter” from that Grand Lodge for a Lodge and for a Provincial Grand Lodge. Scotland granted the Charter and commissioned Grant as Provincial Grand Master.
In this wise came into existence Grant’s East Florida Lodge, No. 143, “on the Scottish register,” at St. Augustine. Grant’s title was: “Provincial Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge over the Lodges of the Southern District of North America.” The wording sounds as if the Grand Lodge of Scotland planned at that date to have two Provincial Grand Lodges in America; a Northern District, with its center at Boston; a southern one with its center temporarily in Florida. Scottish Lodges were regular and legitimate, were so recognized by both Grand Lodges in England, and there is nothing in any of the original documents or in the practices of Scottish American Lodges to indicate that they owed any allegiance to the St. John’s Grand Lodge of Massachusetts (see note above) or to any other Masonic authority.
This new Provincial Grand Lodge issued Warrants; how many, is not known, but records exist to show that it constituted a regimental Lodge, St. Andrews, No. 1, at Pensacola, in 1771; and another regimental Lodge, Mt. Moriah, at St. Lucia, in 1779.
In 1783 Britain gave Florida back to Spain, and the Dominican priests immediately drove Masonry out of it. St. .indrew’s No. 1 moved up to Charleston, S. C., worked under a temporary dispensation, and was rechartered by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania as Lodge No. 40 in 1783. In 1787 it helped to form the Grand Lodge of South Carolina.
Some authorities call this the Ancient and Accepted Rite, but as the Latin Constitutions of the Order designate it as the Antiquus Scoticus Ritus Acceptus, or the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, that title has now been very generally adopted as the correct name of the Rite.
Although one of the youngest of the Masonic Rites, having been established not earlier than the year 1801, it is at this day most popular and the most extensively diffused. Supreme Councils or governing Bodies of the Rite are to be found in almost every civilized country of the world, and in many of them it is the only Masonic Obedience. The history of its organization is briefly this: In 1758, a Body was organized at Paris called the Council of Emperors of the East and West. This Council organized a Rite called the Rite of Perfection, which consisted of twenty-five Degrees, the highest of which was Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret.
In 1761, this Council granted a Patent or Deputation to Stephen Morin, authorizing him to propagate the Rite in the Western Continent, whither he was about to repair. In the same year, Morin arrived at the City of Santo Domingo, where he commenced the dissemination of the Rite, and appointed many Inspectors, both for the West Indies and for the United States. Among others, he conferred the Degrees on Moses M. Hayes, with a power of appoint ing others when necessary. Hayes accordingly appointed Isaac Da Costa Deputy Inspector-General for South Carolina, who in 1783 introduced the Rite into that State by the establishment of a Grand Lodge of Perfection in Charleston. Other Inspectors were subsequently appointed, and in 1801 a Supreme Council lvas opened in Charleston by John Mitchell and Frederick Dalcho.
There is abundant evidence in the Archives of the Supreme Council that up to that time the twenty-five Degrees of the Rite of Perfeetion were alone recognized. But suddenly, vith the organization of the Supreme Council, there arose a new Rite, fabricated by the adoption of eight more of the continental advanced Degrees, so as to make the Thirty-third and not the Twenty-fifth Degree the summit of the Rite.
The Rite consists of thirty-three Degrees, which are divided into six sections, each section being under an appropriate Jurisdiction, and are as follows:
I. SYMBOLIC LODGE
1. Entered Apprentice
2. Fellow Craft
3. Master Mason
These are sometimes called the Blue or Symbolic Degrees. They are not conferred by the Scottish Rite in England, Scotland, Ireland, or in the United States because the Supreme Councils refrain from exercising jurisdiction through respect to the older authority in those countries of the York and American Rite.
II. LODGE OF PERFECTION
4. Secret Master
5. Perfect Master
6. Intimate Seeretary
7. Provost and Judge
8. Intendant of the Building
9. Elu, or Elected Knight, of the Nine
10. Illustrious Elect, or Elu, of the Fifteen
11. Sublime Knight Elect, or Elu, of the Twelve
12. Grand Master Architect
13. Knight of the Ninth Areh, or Royal Arch of Solomon
14. Grand Elect, Perfeet and Sublime Mason or
III. CHAPTER OF ROSE CROIX
15. Knight of the East
16. Prince of Jerusalem
17. Knight of the East and West
18. Prince Rose Croix
IV. COUNCIL OF KADOSH
19. Grand Pontiff
20. Grand Master of Symbolic Lodges
21. Noachite, or Prussian Knight
22. Knight of the Royal Ax, or Prince of
23. Chief of the Tabernacle
24. Prince of the Tabernacle
25. Knight of the Brazen Serpent
26. Prince of Mercy
27. Knight Commander of the Temple
28. Knight of the Sun, or Prince Adept
29. Grand Scottish Knight of Saint Andrew
30. Knight Kadosh
V. CONSISTORY OF SUBLIME PRINCES OR MASTERS, OF THE ROYAL SECRET
31. Inspector Inquisitor Commander
32. Sublime Princo of the Roya1 Secrets VI
33. Sovereign Grand Inspector-General
The classification of the above Degrees is as they are arranged in the Southern Jurisdiction. In the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction the Consistory grades begin at Grand Pontiff, the nineteenth, and include the thirty-second, Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret, and the Council of Princes of Jerusalem governs the fifteenth and sixteenth grades Several of the titles of the Degrees vary in their use by the Supreme Councils but the above table covers most of these variations. The Southern Jurisdiction for example omits the word Grand from the names of the twelfth, fourteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-ninth grades, and also uses Elu instead of the other designations, omits Commander from the thirty-first, and specifies Master in the thirty-second.
A full account of the Rite is in Doctor Mackey’s revised History of Freemasonry but numerous details under individual headings are in the present work (see Educational Foundalions).
SCOTTISH RITE SCHOLARSHIPS
See Educational Foundations
See Templars of Scotland
See Prince of Mercy
The Scribe is the third officer in a Royal Arch Chapters according to the American system and is the representative of Haggai. The Sofer, or Seribe in the earlier Scriptures, was a kind of military secretary; but in the latter he was a learned man, and Doctor of the Laws, who expounded them to the people. Thus Artaverres calls Ezra the priest, “a Scribe of the law of the God of heaven.” Horne says that the Scribe was the King’s Secretary of State, who registered all acts and decrees. It is in this sense that Haggai is called the Scribe in Royal Arch Masonry. In the English system of Royal Arch Masonry there are two Scribes, who represent Ezra and Nehemiah, and whose position and duties are those of Secretaries.
The American Scribe is the Third Principal. The Scribes, according to the English system, appear to be analogous to the Soferim or Scribes of the later Hebrews from the time of Ezra. These were members of the Great Synod, and were literary men, who occupied themselves in the preservation of the letter of the Scriptures and the development of its spirit.
SCRIPTURES, BELIEF IN THE
The Grand Lodge of Ohio resolved in 1820, that “in the first degrees of Masonry religious tests shall not be a barrier to the admission or advancement of applicants, provided they profess a belief in God and His Holy Word”; and in 1854 the same Body adopted a resolution declaring that “Masonry, as we have received it from our fathers, teaches the Divine Authenticity of the Holy Scriptures.” In 1845, the Grand Lodge of Illinois declared a belief in the authenticity of the Scriptures a necessary qualification for initiation. Although in Christendom very few Freemasons deny the Divine authority of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, yet to require, as a preliminary to initiation, the declaration of such a belief, Doctor Mackey was of opinion, is directly in opposition to the express regulations of the Order, which demand a belief in God and, by implication, in the immortality of the soul as the only religious tests (see Bible).
SCRIPTURES, READING OF THE
By an ancient usage of the Craft, the Book of the Law is always spread open in the Lodge. There is in this, as in everything else that is Masonic, an appropriate symbolism. The Book of the Law is the Great Light of Freemasonry. To close it would be to intercept the rays of divine light which emanate from it, and hence it is spread open, to indicate that the Lodge is not in darkness, but under the influence of its illuminating power. Freemasons in this respect obey the suggestion of the Divine Founder of the Christian religion, “Neither do men light a Candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.”
A closed book, a sealed book, indicates that its contents are secret; and a ,book or roll folded up was the symbol, says Wemyss, of a law abrogated, or of a thing of no further use. Hence, as the reverse of all this, the Book of the Law is opened in our Lodges, to teach us that its contents are to be studied, that the laxv which it ineuleates is still in force, and is to be “the rule and guide of our conduct.”
But the Book of the Law is not opened at random. In each Degree there are appropriate passages, whose allusion to the design of the Degree, or to some part of its ritual, makes it expedient that the book should be opened upon those passages. Masonic usage has not always been constant, nor is it now universal in relation to what particular passages shall be unfolded in each Degree. The custom in the United States of America, at least since the publication of Webb’s Monitor, has been fairly uniform, and in general is as follows:
In the First Degree the Bible is opened at Psalm cxxxiii, an eloquent description of the beauty of brotherly love, and hence most appropriate as the illustration of a society whose existence is dependent on that noble principle.
In the Second Degree the passage adopted is Amos vii, 7 and 8, in which the allusion is evidently to the plumb line, an important emblem of that Degree.
In the Third Degree the Bible is opened at Ecclesiastes xii, 1-7, in which the description of old age and death is appropriately applied to the sacred object of this Degree.
But, as has been said, the choice of these passages has not always been the same. At different periods various passages have been selected, but always with great appropriateness, as may be seen from the following brief sketch. Formerly, the Book of the Law was opened in the First Degree at the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, which gives an account of Abraham’s intended sacrifice of Isaae.
As this event constituted the first grand offering commemorated by our ancient Brethren, by which the ground floor of the Apprentice’s Lodge was consecrated, it seems to have been very appropriately selected as the passage for this Degree. That part of the twenty-eighth chapter of Genesis which records the vision of Jacob’s ladder was also, with equal appositeness, selected as the passage for the First Degree. The following passage from First Kings vi, 8, was, during one part of the eighteenth century, used in the Second Degree: “The door of the middle chamber was in the right side of the house, and they went up with grinding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third.” The appositeness of this passage to the Fellow Craft’s Degree will hardly be disputed.
At another time the following passage from Second Chronicles iii, 17, was selected for the Second Degree its appropriateness will be equally evident: “And he reared up the pillars before the Temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left; and he called the name of that on the right hand Jachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz.”
The words of Amos v, 25 and 26, were sometimes adopted as the passage for the Third Degree: “Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.” The allusions in this paragraph are not so evident as the others. They refer to historical matters, which were once embodied in the ancient lectures of Freemasonry. In them the sacrifices of the Israelites to Moloch were fully described, and a tradition, belonging to the Third Degree, informs us that Hiram Abif did much to extirpate this idolatrous worship from the religious system of Tyre.
The sixth chapter of Second Chronicles, which contains the prayer of King Solomon at the dedication of the Temple, was also used at one time for the Third Degree. Perhaps, however, this was with less fitness than any other of the passages quoted, since the events commemorated in the Third Degree took place at a somewhat earlier period than the dedication. Such a passage might more appropriately be annexed to the ceremonies of the Most Excellent Master as practiced in the United States.
At present the usage in England differs in respect to the choice of passages from that adopted in the United States of America. There the Bible is opened, in the First Degree, at Ruth iv, 7: “Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel.”
In the Second Degree the passage is opened at Judges xii, 6: “Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth; for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan. And there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. ” Let not the reader hastily assume that there is but one meaning to be given these figures. The suggestion is offered that the reference may be taken as readily for two thousand and forty as forty-two thousand. We must not overlook the probable size of the population nor for that matter, the tendency in the East for exuberance of expression.
In the Third Degree the passage is opened at First Kings vii, 13 and 14: “And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was a widow’s son of the Tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to King Solomon, and wrought all his work.” While from the force of habit, as well as from the extrinsic excellence of the passages themselves, the American Freemason will, perhaps, prefer the selections made in the Lodges of the United States, especially for the First and Third Degrees, he at the same time will not fail to admire the taste and ingenuity of the English Brethren in the selections that they have made. In the Second Degree the passage from Judges is undoubtedly preferable to that used in the United States.
In conclusion it may be observed, that to give these passages their due Masonic importance it is essential that they should be covered by the Square and Compasses. The Bible, square, and compasses are significant symbols of Freemasonry. They are said to allude to the peculiar characteristics of our ancient Grand Masters. The Bible is emblematic of the wisdom of King Solomon; the Square, of the power of Hiram; and the Compasses, of the skill of the Chief Builder. Some Masonic writers have still further spiritualized these symbols by supposing them to symbolize the wisdom, truth, and justice of the Great Architect of the Universe. In any view they become instructive and inseparably connected portions of the true Masonic Ritual, which, to be under stood, must be studied together (see Bible).
The written portion of the Jewish Law read at stated periods before the congregation, and preserved in the Synagogue Witty great security.
In the classic mythology, the scythe was one of the attributes of Saturn, the god of time because that deity is said to have taught men the use of the implement in agriculture. But Saturn was also the god of time; and in modern iconography Time is allegorized under the figure of an old many with white hair and beard, two large wings at his back, an hour-glass in one hand and a scythe in the other. It is in its cutting and destructive quality that the scythe is here referred to. Time is thus the great mower who reaps his harvest of men. Freemasonry has adopted this symbolism, and in the Third Degree the seythe is described as an emblem of time, which cuts the brittle thread of life and makes havoc among the human race.
SEA AND FIELD LODGES
The Grand Lodge of England has warranted three Naval Lodges as follows: One on board His Majesty’s ship the Vanguard. This Lodge was warranted in 1760 and is now known as the London dodge No. 108, it having removed to that city 1768.
Another Lodge was warranted in 1762 on board the ship Prince at Plymouth. This lodge was removed in 1764 on board the ship Guadaloupe (see Ro7yal Somerset House and Inertness Lodge). Later on this Lodge was again moved to Somerset House in 1766.
A Lodge, warranted in 1768 on the ship known as Canceaux at Quebec, was erased in 1792.
A petition for a fourth Sea Lodge to be known as Naval Kilwinning and to be held on board the Ardent was made in 1810 to the Grand Lodge of Scotland, which petition was refused. There seems to be no question as to Dunckerley being responsible for the formation of the first two of the Sea Lodges here listed although he had nothing to do with the third (see Thomas Dunckerley, Henry Sadler, London, 1891, pages 68-73; also Military Lodges).
That seafaring man who appears in one of the Degrees, and who as a character is of Shakespearean brevity and poetic power, was always followed by eager interest and applause in the Eighteenth Century by one kind of Masonic audience, the Brethren among the “salt water Lodges” in cities along the coasts; these were the “sea brothers,” “mariner Masons, ” “our Brethren and Lodges in ships,” the famous and far-going seamen of the Craft in the days of sail. A reader of the Minutes of these Lodges is tempted to believe at the end that every Jack Tar in Britain must have been a Mason.
Thus, Sir Francis Columbine, many years the Right Worshipful Master of Royal Naval Lodge at Bapping, is credited with having raised 600 American captains and 400 British Naval officers in twenty years; Old Dundee, its neighbor Lodge, had 267 “Sea-members” (a special classification) in 1810.
The great Thomas Dunckerley, the largest figure in the first days of Grand Chapter and Grand Encampment, u as made a Mason in the latter in 1761, and found there twenty-six others who, like himself (he was in the Navy), were “sea-members.” These seafaring Brothers of Britain, along with other thousands from America, Canada, Europe, and the West Indies, carried the Craft into almost every port in the world, and often were the first to plant it in newly-opened countries, as in South Africa, New Zealand, Hawaii, China, India, Egypt.
Can any Brother explain why the historians of Masonry (and mea culpa) have failed to give a chapter to them? they were the missionaries, they and Army and Naval Lodges, of Freemasonry as a universal, a worldwide Brotherhood. Many of the rumors, whispers, traditions of Masonry in America long before 1730 become credible and understandable if it is remembered how many Mason “sea captains” were coming into the ports of Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, and Norfolk.
A stamp on which letters and a device are carved for the purpose of making an impression, and also the wax or paper on which the impression is made. Lord Coke defines a seal to be an impression on wax, sigillum est cera impressa, and wax was originally the legal material of a seal. Many old Masonic Diplomas and Charters are still in existence, where the seal consists of a eireular tin box filled with wax, on which the seal is impressed, the box being attached by a ribbon to the parchment But now the seal is placed generally on a piece of circular paper.
The form of a seal is circular; oval seals were formerly appropriated to ecclesiastical dignitaries and religious houses, and the shape alluded to the old Christian symbol of the Vesica Piscis. No Masonic document is valid unless it has apes pended to it the seal of the Lodge or Grand Lodge. Foreign Grand Lodges never recognize the transactions of subordinate Lodges out of their Jurisdictions, if the standing of the Lodges is not guaranteed by the seal of the Grand Lodge and the signatures of the open officers.
SEAL, THE GREAT
On the reverse of the silver certificate for one dollar (“dollar bill”) issued by the Treasury Department of the United States is a symbolic design representing a truncated pyramid on a shield surrounded by two mottoes in Latin. It has been stated or intimated in Masonic periodicals that this is a Masonic design, or else was suggested by Masonic symbolism, but this is a mistake; the design is nothing other than the reverse side (and therefore the less familiar side) of the Great Seal of the United States, has no Masonic significance, and was not suggested by Masonic symbols; and, as will be seen, of the three men responsible for the design only one was a Mason.
On July 4, 1776, the Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson a special Committee to draw up the design for a Great Seal. Many designs were submitted to the Committee; one made by William Barton, somewhat altered, was adopted by the Congress on June 20, 1782. The obverse (“face”) and reverse sides of the shield are described in technical heraldic language as follows:
“Arms. Poleways stripes of thirteen pieces argent and gules; a chief azure; the escutcheon on the breast of the American eagle displayed proper, holding in his dexter talon an olive branch, and in his sinister a bundle of thirteen arrows, all proper; and in his beak a scroll, inscribed with the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM.
“For the Crest: over the head of the eagle which appears above the escutcheon, a glory breaking through a cloud proper, and surrounding thirteen stars, forming a constellation, argent and on an azure field “Reverse. A pyramid unfinished. In the zenith an eye in a triangle, surrounded with a glory, proper; over the eye these words ‘Annuit Coeptis.’ On the base of the pyramid the numerical letters ‘MDCCLD and underneath, the following motto: ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’.”
The poleways were vertical stripes. Argent was white; gules was red; azure was blue; the eseutcheon, was the shield; proper meant upright; dexter is the right hand, toward the right; sinister is the left Loosely translated Annuit Coeptis is “God has fax ored; or prospered, the undertaking”; Norus Ordo Seclorum is “A new series of ages,” that is, a new order of things. The obverse side of the Seal is really the Chat of Arms of the United States. Mr. Barton, the designer, explained the eseutcheon, etc., as “denoting the confederacy of the United States of America, and the preservation of their union through Congress.” He explained that the pyramid on the reverse side “signifies strength and duration; the eye over it and the motto alludes to the many signal interpositions of Providence in favor of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence; and the words under it signify the beginning of the new American era, which commences from that date.”
It is significant for American history that the Great Seal was adopted five years before the Constitution was written, and reflects the then prevalent idea of a confederation of thirteen independent nations loosely tied together by a Congress. This was a unilateral government, and consisted wholly of Congress. The Constitution introduced a wholly different system, a tripartite government with three equal departments of the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary, each in balance with the other two. It is for this reason that the Great Seal does not include emblems of either the Presidency or of the Supreme Court.
SEAL OF SOLOMON
The Seal of Solomon or the Shield of David, for under both names the same thing was denoted, is a hexagonal figure consisting of two interlaced triangles, thus forming the outlines of six-pointed star. Upon it was inscribed one of the sacred names of God, from which inscription it was opposed principally to derive its talismanic powers.
These powers were very extensive, for it was believed that it would extinguish fire, prevent Wounds in a anfliet, and perform many other wonders. The sews called it the Shield of David in reference to the protection which it gave to its Possessors. But to we other Orientalists it was more familiarly known s the Seal of Solomon. Among these imaginative people, there was a very prevalent belief in the magical character of the King of Israel. He was esteemed rather as a great magician than as a great monarch, and by the signet which he wore, on which this talismanic seal was engraved, he is supposed to have acomplished the most extraordinary actions, and by it to have enlisted in his service the labors of the genil for the construction of his celebrated Temple.
Robinson Crusoe and the Thousand and One Nights are two books which every child has read, and which no man or woman ever forgets. In the latter are many allusions to Solomon’s Seal. Especially is there a story of an unlucky fisherman who fished up in his net a bottle secured by a leaden stopper, on which this seal was impressed. On opening it, a fierce Afrite, or evil genii, came forth, who gave this account of the cause of his imprisonment. Solomon,” said he, “the son of David, exhorted me to embrace the faith and submit to his authority; but I refused; upon which he called for this bottle, and confined me in it, and closed it upon me with the leaden stopper and stamped upon it his seal, with the great name of God engraved upon it. Then he gave the vessel to one of the genii, who submitted to him, with orders to cast me into the sea.”
Of all talismans, there is none, except, perhaps, the cross, which was so generally prevalent among the ancients as this Seal of Solomon or Shield of David. It has been found in the cave of Elephanta, in India, accompanying the image of the Deity, and many other places celebrated in the Brahmanical and the Buddhist religions. Hay, in an exploration into Western Barbary, found it in the harem of a Moor, and in a Jewish synagogue, where it was suspended in front of the recess in which the sacred rolls were deposited. In fact, the interlaced triangles or Seal of Solomon may be considered as par excellence, by merit, the Creat Oriental talisman.
In time, with the progress of the new religion, it ceased to be invested with a magical reputation, although the Hermetic philosophers of the Middle Ages did employ it as one of their mystical symbols; but true to the theory that superstitions may be repudiated but never will be forgotten, it was adopted by the Christians as one of the emblems of their faith, but with varying interpretations. The two triangles were said sometimes to be symbols of fire and water, sometimes of prayer and remission, sometimes of creation and redemption, or of life and death, or of resurrection and judgment. But at length the ecclesiologists seem to have settled on the idea that the figure should be considered as representing the two natures of our Lord—His Divine and His human nature.
Thus we find the Seal of Solomon dispersed all over Europe, in medallions, made at a very early period, on the breasts of the recumbent effigies of the dead as they lie in their tombs, and more especially in churches, w here it is presented to us either carved on the walls or painted in the windows. Everywhere in Europe and now in the United States, where ecclesiastics architecture is beginning at length to find a development of taste, is this old Eastern talisman to be found doing its work as a Christian emblem. The spirit of the old talismanic faith is gone, but the form remains, to be nourished by us as the natural homage of the present to the past.
Among the old Cabalistic Hebrews, the Seal of Solomon was, as a talisman, of course deemed to be a sure preventive against the danger of fire. The more modern Jews, still believing in its talismanic virtues placed it as a safeguard on their houses and on other buildings, because they were especially liable to the danger of fire. The common people, seeing this figure affixed always to brew-houses, mistook it for a sign, and in time, in Upper Germany, the hexagon, or Seal of Solomon, was adopted by German innkeepers as the sign of a beer house, just as the ehequers have been adopted in England, though with a different history, as the sign of a tavern (see Magic Squares).
SEALS, BOOK OF THE SEVEN
“And I saw,” says Saint John (Apocalypse or Revelation v, 1), “in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the back side, sealed with seven seals.” The seal denotes that which is secret, and seven is the number of perfection; hence the Book of the Seven Seals is a symbol of that knowledge which is profoundly Secured from all unhallowed search. In reference to the passage quoted, the Back of the Set in Seals is adopted as a symbol in the Apocalyptic Degree of the Knights of the East and West, the seventeenth of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
SEALS, KEEPER OF THE
An officer who has charge of the seal or seals of the Lodge. It is found in some of the advanced Degrees and in Continental Lodges, but not recognized in the York or American Rites. In German Lodges he is called Siegelbewahrer, and in French, Garde des Sceauz.
SEARCH FOR TRUTH
This is the object of all Freemasonry and it is pursued from the first to the last step of initiation. The Apprentice begins it seeking for the light which is symbolized by the WORD, itself only a symbol of Truth. At a Fellow Craft he continues the search, still asking for more light. And the Master Mason, thinking that he has reached it, obtains only its substitute; for the True Word, Divine Truth, dwells not in the first temple of our earthly life, but can be found only in the second temple of the eternal life.
There is a beautiful allegory of the great Milton, who thus describes the search after truth: Truth came into the world with her Divine Master and was a perfect shape and glorious to look Upon. Put when He ascended, and His apostles after Him were laid asleep, there straight arose a wicked race of deceivers, who, as the story goes of the Egyptian Typhon, with his conspirators, how they dealt with the good Osiris, took the virgin Truth, hewed her lovely frame into a thousand pieces, and scattered them to the four winds of heaven. Ever since that time the friends of Truth, such as dust appear, imitating the careful search that Isis made for the mangled body of Osiris, went up and down, gathering up limb by limb still as they could find them.
During the anti-Masonic excitement in the United States of America, which gave rise to the Anti-Masonic Party, many Freemasons, fearing the loss of popularity, or governed by an erroneous view of the character of Freemasonry, withdrew from the Order, and took a part in the political and religious opposition to it. These men called them selves, and were recognized by the title of, seceders or seceding Masons.
See Temple of Zerubbabel
SECRECY AND SILENCE
These virtues constitute the very essence of all Masonic character; they are the safeguard of the Institution, giving to it all its security and perpetuity, and are enforced by frequent admonitions in all the Degrees, from the lowest to the highest. The Entered Apprentice begins his Masonic career by learning the duty of secrecy and silence. Hence it is appropriate that in that Degree which is the consummation of initiation, in which the whole cycle of Masonic science is completed, the abstruse machinery of symbolism should be employed to impress the same important virtues on the mind of the neophyte or newcomer. The same principles of secrecy and silence existed in all the ancient Mysteries and systems of worship. When Aristotle was asked what thing appeared to him to be most difficult of performance, he replied, “To be secret and silent.”
“If we turn our eyes back to antiquity,” says Calcott (Candid Disquisition, page 50), “we shall find that the old Egyptians had so great a regard for silence and secrecy in the mysteries of their religion, that they set up the god Harpocrates, to whom they paid peculiar honor and veneration, who was represented with the right hand placed near the heart, and the left down by his side, covered with a skin before, full of eyes and ears, to signify, that of many things to be seen and heard, few are to be published.”
Apuleius, who was an initiate in the Mysteries of Isis, says: “By no peril will I ever be compelled to disclose to the uninitiated the things that I have had intrusted to me on condition of silence.” Lobeck, in his Aglaophamus, has collected several examples of the reluctance with which the ancients approached a mystical-subjeet, and the manner in which they shrank from divulging any explanation or fable which had been related to them at the Mysteries, under the seal of secrecy and silence.
Lastly, in the school of Pythagoras, these lessons were taught by the Sage to his disciples. A novitiate of five years was imposed upon each pupil, which period was to be passed in total silence, and in religious and philosophical contemplation. And at length, when he was admitted to full fellowship in the society, an oath of secrecy was administered to him on the sacred tetraetys, which was equivalent to the Jewish Tetragrammaton.
Silence and secrecy are called “the cardinal virtues of a Seleet Master,” in the Ninth or Select Master’s Degree of the American Rite.
Among the Egyptians the sign of Silence was made by pressing the index finger of the right hand on the lips. It was thus that they represented Harpoerates, the god of silence, whose statue was placed at the entrance of all temples of Isis and Serapis, to indicate that Silence and secrecy were to be preserved as to all that occurred within.
SECRECY, SILENCE, CIRCUMSPECTION
In his article on this subject on page 920 Albert G. Mackey followed the clues of the Ancient Mysteries.
The use of such clues has a value even if a student is unable to find any historical connection between the old Mystery Cults which were destroyed along with the Roman Empire, and Freemasonry, the first beginnings of which were not made for some seven or so centuries after that destruction, because the data Mackey cites show that secrecy has often been used by societies of the most honored and exalted reputation. Secrecy in and of itself is neither good nor bad; those adjectives can only apply to the use to which it is put. It was argued by the American Anti-Masons of 1826-1850 that Freemasonry would not have secrets did it not carry on practices which could not endure inspection.
They abandoned their argument after everything in the Craft had been exposed, inspected, and published countless times; they could have abandoned it sooner had they only paused to think that each of them had secrets of his own, had privacies in his family, that he discussed matters in confidence with associates, that there are secret formulas in science and in business, that any committee or board of directors meeting in executive session is meeting in t secrecy—that the world’s diplomacy seldom lets the peoples concerned know what it is doing.
When the normally everlasting uses of secrecy are so common, the Anti-Masons had no grounds to accuse Masons of crimes merely because Masons were using for their Own purposes what every man and every family and almost every association uses every day for unexceptionable purposes. Freemasonry is not a secret society; everybody knows that it exists; its rooms and temples are public and are conspicuously marked; it has printed its Constitutions and each year it publishes its Proceedings; in the United States it has maintained as many as 120 journals or magazines at one time; many tens of thousands of books have been written about it, and it maintains hundreds of libraries. Freemasonry is a society with secrets, but is not a secret society.
Silence has no necessary connection with secrecy; may or may not be its corollary. Silence is often maintained in the most public places and for the most public purposes; spectators sit silent in courtroom and in the theater, the congregation sits silent in church or synagogue, the audience sits silent while the orator speaks, the general maintains silence about his battle plans. There are secrets in nature which scientists search out; the silences of nature are of a different kind, the silence of the seas, the silence of the wilderness, the silence of the desert.
A Masonic Lodge is not a club, a forum, a public gathering, a debating society, or a platform meeting, but is a lodge—a unique form of organization; it is organized within and without, from top to bottom; each member has his place or station in it, and no man is foot-loose; from beginning to end it goes according to a fixed procedure, and conducts its affairs according to a strict Order of Business; anything extraneous or irrelevant to that procedure is out of order, and the Master cannot permit it to be brought on the floor because he is not a presiding officer who can act according to his own will but an installed officer and therefore can act only as the rules governing his office compel him to act.
It is for this reason that the Fraternity maintains silence about the outside world at times when almost every other society or association is most vocal, and naturally so—in a time of political crisis, at the making of a war, in periods of social upheaval, etc. The young Italian Fascists hoodlums who broke into Lodge rooms were agog because of what they expected to find—a weird machinery, an alehemists’ laboratory, a magicians’ den, what not; they were astounded to find nothing but an empty room. The Fraternity was in silence.
A historian of the Craft goes through analogous experience; he reads through Lodge Minutes or Grand Lodge Proceeding (or Chapters, Consistories, Councils, Commanderies) expecting to find records there of an old excitement about the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War, or the Anti-Masonic Crusade, or the World Wars; he finds only a silence.
Paradoxically enough there is neither silence nor secrecy within the walls. The nervous Pope Leo XIII who all his days was afraid of bogeys, wrote into his Encyclical against Freemasons on April 20, 1884: “Nay, there are in them many secrets which are by law carefully concealed not only from the profane, but also from many associated [members viz., the lost and intimate intentions, the hidden and unknown chiefs, the hidden and secret meetings, the resolutions and methods and means by which they will be carried into execution.” Leo had been misinformed. The Fraternity maintains neither secrecy nor silence within itself about its own affairs; everything that is lawfully carried on in a Lodge is carried on without silence and in the full light. Grand Officers live in glass houses; a Master acts in the presence of his Lodge—if it is not there he cannot even declare it open.
Nothing is hidden from any member. Any member of a Lodge is privileged by the laws to demand any information about what is done by his Lodge. There are no “hidden and unknown chiefs” (the Pope must have had the Italian Black Hand Society in mind) because every “chief” is elected by ballot, and he has nowhere to hide.
Silence is connected with circumspection in a phrase which Masons have learned by heart. Circumspection is a self-defining word, being a contraction of two Latin terms slightly altered, and meaning “to look around,” to make sure of having the facts before making a decision or beginning an action. In Freemasonry it is used in a sense somewhat different from its use elsewhere, having a peculiarity in our nomenclature which is the expression of the “peculiarity” (or uniqueness) of Freemasonry itself.
It means that Freemasonry follows a path which was surveyed long ago and staked out with the Ancient Landmarks; it is one that Freemasons themselves understand but not outsiders; in consequence it is easy for outsiders to misunderstand Freemasonry, or to be misled by appearances, or to attribute to it purposes it does not have, hence the Craft must act circumspectly, taking such facts into consideration, and in order not to misrepresent itself. For centuries before the first Grand Lodge, Masons like men everywhere had a great fondness for pageants and processions, and this was especially true in London, where the old Mason Company often spent large sums of money on costumes, music, floats, etc., and great throngs would stand for hours to watch the spectacle.
This ancient custom was continued by Lodges for some years after 1717— the Grand Lodge went in a body, in full regalia, to bring the newly elected Grand Master from his home to the Grand Lodge room for his installation; Lodges went in procession in regalia to attend church, theater, corner-stone laying, etc. But by the middle of the century a great change came over London crowds and London street manners; gangs of hoodlums roved about, drunkards were everywhere, and these crowds began to hoot and throw stones and to run through processions, and to break them up; and there grew up the custom of holding “mock” processions, roistering, ribald, derisive, coarse, in order to ridicule something or somebody. The Grand Lodge ordered a complete discontinuance of Masonic processions when the public began to take Masonry to be a roistering, irreverent society of drinkers and mockers because it appeared on the streets. That was an act of circumspection. It was a case of “Don’t do it,” “Don’t say it,” and as it works out in practice that usually is what circumspection calls for, therefore it has become connected with secrecy and silence.
SECRETARIES GUILD OF FREEMASONRY FOR NORTH AMERICA
See the Masonic Grand Secretaries Guild
The recording and corresponding officer of a Lodge. It is his duty to keep a just and true record of all things proper to be written, to receive all moneys that are due the Lodge, and to pay them over to the Treasurer. The jewel of his office is a pen, and his position in Lodges of the United States is on the left of the Worshipful Master in front, but in English Lodges he is usually found with the Treasurer at the right, in the North.
SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE HOLY EMPIRE
The title given to the Secretary of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
See Grand Secretary
The secret doctrine of the Jews was, according to Steinschneider, nothing else than a system of metaphysics founded on the Commentaries on the Law and the legends of the Talmudists. Of this secret doctrine, Maimonides says: “Beware that you take not these words of the wise men in their literal signification, for this would be to degrade and sometimes to contradict the sacred doctrine. Search rather for the hidden sense; and if you cannot find the kernel, let the shell alone, and confess that you cannot understand it.” All mystical societies, and even liberal philosophers, were, to a comparatively recent period, accustomed to veil the true meaning of their instructions in intentional obscurity, lest the unlearned and uninitiated should be offended. The Ancient Mysteries had their secret doctrine; so had the school of Pythagoras, and the sect of the Gnostics.
The Alchemists, as Hitchcock has clearly shown, gave a secret and spiritual meaning to their jargon about the Transmutation of Metals, the Elixir of Life, and the Philosopher’s Stone. Freemasonry alone has no secret doctrine. Its philosophy is open to the world. Its modes of recognition by which it secures identification, and its rites and eeremonies which are its method of instruction, alone are secret. All men may know the tenets of the Masonic Creed.
The Fourth Degree in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite and the first of what are called the Ineffable Degrees. It refers to those circumstances which occurred at the Temple when Solomon repaired to the building for the purpose of supplying the loss of its illustrious builder by the appointment of seven experts, among whom were to be divided the labors which heretofore had been entrusted to one gigantic mind. The lecture elaborately explains the mystic meaning of the sacred things which were contained in the Sanctum Sanctorum, or Holy of Holies. The Lodge is hung with black curtains strewed with tears, symbolic of grief. There should be eighty-one lights, distributed by nine times nine; but this number is often dispensed with, and three times three substituted. Later instructions reduce them to eight.
There are but two presiding officers—a Master, styled Puissant, and representing Wing Solomon, and an Inspector representing Adoniram, the son of Abda, who had the inspection of the workmen on Mount Lebanon, and who is said to have been the first Secret Master Solomon is seated in the east, clothed in mourning robes lined with ermine, holding a scepter in his hand, and decorated with a blue sash from the right shoulder to the left hip, from which is suspended a triangle of gold. Before him is placed a triangular altar, on which is deposited a wreath of laurel and olive leaves.
Adoniram, called Venerable Inspector, is seated in the west, but without any implement of office, in commemoration of the fact that the works were suspended at the time of the institution of this Degree. He is decorated with a triangular white collar, bordered with black, from which is suspended an ivory key, with the letter Z engraved thereon, which constitute the collar, and jewel of the Degree. These decorations are worn by all the Brethren. The apron white edged with black and with black strings; the flap blue, with an open eye thereon embroidered in gold. The modern instruction prescribes that two branches of olive and laurel crossing each other shall be on the middle of the apron.
An honorary or side Degree once commonly conferred in the United States. The communication of it was not accompanied, it is true, with any impressive ceremonies, but it inculates a lesson of unfaltering friendship which the prospect of danger could not appall, and the hour of adversity could not betray. It is, in fact, devoted to the practical elucidation of the Masonic virtue of Brotherly Love. In conferring it, those passages of Scripture which are contained in the twentieth chapter of the First Book of Samuel, from the sixteenth to the twenty-third, and from the thirty-fifth to the forty-second verses inclusive, are usually considered as appropriate.
It may be conferred on a worthy Master Mason by any Brother who is in possession of its Ritual. There was in Holland, in 1778, a secret Masonic society called the Order of Jonathan and David, which was probably much the same as this American Degree. Kloss in his Catalogue, of 1844, gives the title of a book published in that year at Amsterdam which gives its statutes and formulary of reception.
The Grand Recorder W. C. Spratling, of London, England, where a Grand Council of the Order of the Secret Monitor was formed on June 17, 1887, has furnished information from which the following notes have been prepared.
He has found that the Order of the Secret Monitor is developed from a still more ancient Degree known as the Brotherhood of Dated and Jonathan, and is at least as old as Freemasonry itself, its principles and watch-words being founded upon the examples set by the two Hebrew Princes, as recorded in the his history and traditions of the Jews. He points out that it is often forgotten that the Israelites, slaves in Egypt for more than four hundred years, absorbed much of the ancient lore of their taskmasters who long before Jewish history begins, were already an ancient race in an advanced state of civilization. They indeed trace their mysteries as a heritage Mom a still more ancient people who overran Asia Minor long before the dawn of written history.
Brother Spratling says that Statutes covering such a Body as the above are on record in Amsterdam having the date of 1773 and indicating that the organization had been founded three years earlier. Further traces of this brotherhood of David and Jonathan are found in ] 77S hut the working of the degree seems to have had its development in the United States where it was carried by immigrants to view Amsterdam and from thence it spread through the Republic in a very simple form and capable of considerable variation. However, the prevailing ceremonies were adopted and then somewhat adapted for English use by the Grand Council in that country. The Degree had been communicated to any Master Mason with little ceremony at any time or place. In this way it was communicated to the following Brethren at or about the dates mentioned;
1840—Dr. Issachar Zacharie in California.
1845—Colonel Shadwell E. Clerke, in Malta.
1846—James Lewis Thomas, in St. Vincent, the West Indies.
1848—Rev. J. Oxley Oxland, M.A., in Jerusalem
1865—Charles Fitzgerald Alatier, by an American passing through London.
Three Degrees have been prepared for use in England. The Council of Allied Masonic Degrees in the United States and the similar Body in England have also worked the Secret Monitor, but independently.
SECRET OF THE SECRETS, THE
A Degree cited in the nomenclature of Fustier
Secret societies may be divided into two classes: First, those whose secrecy consists in nothing more than methods by which the members are enabled to recognize each other; and in certain doctrines, symbols, or instructions which can be obtained only after a process of initiation, and under the promise that they shall be made known to none who have not submitted to the same initiation, but which with the exception of these particulars, have no reservations from the public. Second, those societies which, in addition to their secret modes of recognition and secret doctrine, add an entire secrecy as to the object of their association, the times and places of their meeting, and even the very names of their members.
To the first of these classes belong all those moral or religious secret associations which have existed from the earliest times. Such were the Ancient Mysteries, whose object was, by their initiations, to cultivate a purer worship than the popular one; such, too, the schools of the old philosophers, like Pythagoras and Plato, who in their esoteric instructions taught a higher doctrine than that which they Communicated to their exoteric scholars. Such, also, are the modern secret societies which have adopted an exclusive form only that they may restrict the social enjoyment which it is their object to cultivate, or the system of benevolence for which they are organized, to the persons who are united with them by the tie of a common covenant, and the possession of a common knowledge.
Such, lastly, is Freemasonry, which is a secret society only as respects its signs, a few of its legends and traditions, and its method of inculcating its mystical philosophy, but which, as to everything else—its design, its object, its moral and religious tenets, and the great doctrine which it teaches—is as open a society as if it met on the highways beneath the sun of day, and not within the well-guarded portals of a Lodge.
To the second class of secret societies belong those which sprung up first in the Middle Ages, like the Vehmgericht of Westphalia, formed for the secret but certain punishment of criminals; and in the eighteenth century those political societies like the Carbonari, which have been organized at revolutionary periods to resist the oppression or overthrow the despotism of tyrannical governments. It is evident that these two classes of secret societies are entirety different in character; but it has been the great error of writers like Barruel and Robison, who have attacked Freemasonry on the ground of its being a secret association that they utterly confounded the two classes.
An interesting discussion on this subject took place in 1848, in the National Assembly of France, during the consideration of those articles of the law by which secret societies were prohibited. A part of this discussion is worth preserving, and is in the following words:
Bolette: I should like to have some one define what in meant by a secret society. Coquerel: Those are secret societies which have made none of the declarations prescribed by law.
Paulin Gillon: I would ask if Freemasonry is also to be suppressed?
Flocon: I begin by declaring that, under a republican government, every secret society having for its object a change of the form of such government ought to be severely dealt with. Secret societies may he directed against the sovereignty of the people, and this is the reason why I ask for their suppression; but, from the want of a precise definition, I would not desire to strike, as secret societies, assemblies that are perfectly innocent.
All my life, until the 24th of February, have I lived in secret societies Now I desire them no more. Yes, we have spent our life in conspiracies, and we had the right to do so, for we lived under a government which did not derive its sanctions from the people. To-day I declare that under a republican government, and with universal suffrage, it is a crime to belong to such an association Conquered. As to Freemasonry, your Committee has decided that it is not a secret society. A society may have a secret, and yet not be a secret society. I have not the honor of being a Freemasons.
The President: The thirteenth article has been amended and decided that a secret society is one which seeks to conceal its existence and its objects.
Secret societies, whose members take any oath binding them to engage in mutiny or sedition, or disturb the peace, or whose members and officers are concealed from society at large have been declared unlawful in various countries, England adopting measures to that end in 1799, l817 and 1846, but on these occasions specific exemption was made of Masonic Lodges. On the Continent of Europe the Carbonari has been confused by some authorities with Freemasonry or, at least, assumed to be a sort of political branch of it though this is, of course, far from the understanding of our institution possessed by those within te fold The Carbonari was founded in Naples by the Republicans in 1808 to destroy French rule in Italy The King of Naples in 1814 soon found the armed Carbonari useful as a means of driving Murat, a Freemason, out of the country. Later on the organization assisted the Austrians also to drive out the French and, gathering numbers up to what is claimed to be half a million members, spread into France and other countries.
Other secret societies found on the Continent and active in various countries are the Camorra and the Mafia. These secret societies need only to be mentioned here because the Roman Catholic Church has united Freemasonry with such political organizations in its condemnation (see Section Act, Politics, Carbonari, Camorra, and Mafia).
See Vault, Secret
Freemasonry repudiates all sectarianism, and recognizes the tenets of no sect as preferable to those of any other, requiring in its followers assent only to those dogmas of the universal religion which teach the existence of God and the resurrection to eternal life (see Toleration)
The epithet Secular has sometimes, but very incorrectly, been applied t o Subordinate Lodges to distinguish them from Grand Lodges. In such a connection the word is unmeaning, or, what is worse, is a term bearing a meaning entirely different from that which was intended by the writer. “Secular,” says Richardson, “is used as distinguished from eternal, and equivalent to temporal; pertaining to temporal things, things of this world; worldly; also opposed to spiritual, to holy. ” Every other orthoepist gives substantially the same definition. It is then evident, from this definition, that the word secular may be applied to all Masonic Bodies, but not to one class of them in contradistinction to another. All Masonic Lodges are secular, because they are worldly, and not spiritual or holy institutions. But a subordinate Lodge is no more secular than a Grand Lodge.
On July 12, 1799, the British Parliament alarmed at the progress of revolutionary principles enacted a law commonly known as the Sedition Act, for the suppression of secret societies. But the true principles of Freemasonry were so well understood by the legislators of Great Britain many of whom were members of the Order, that the following clause was inserted in the Act:
And whereas certain Societies have been long accustomed to be holden in this Kingdom, under the denomination of Lodges of Freemasons, the meetings whereof have been in a great measure directed to charitable purposes, be it therefore enacted, that nothing in this Act shall extend to the meetings of any such society or Lodge which shall, before the passing of this Act, have been usually holden under the said denomination. and in conformity to the rules prevailing among the said Societies of Freemasons.
One of the five human senses, whose importance is treated of in the Fellow Craft’s Degree. By sight, things at a distance are, as it were, brought near, and obstacles of space overcome. So in Freemasonry, by a judicious use of this sense, in modes which none but Freemasons comprehend, men distant from each other in language, in religion, and in politics, are brought near, and the impediments of birth and prejudice are overthrown. But, in the natural world, sight cannot be exercised without the necessary assistance of light, for in darkness we are unable to see so in Freemasonry, the peculiar advantages of Masonic sight require, for their enjoyment, the blessing of Masonic light. Illuminated by its divine rays, the Freemason sees where others are blind; and that which to the profane is but the darkness of ignorance, is to the initiated filled with the light of knowledge and understanding.
The French word is Chercheurs. The First Degree of the Order of Initiated Knights and Brothers of Asia.
A secret Moslem society, called also the Candidati, from being clothed in white. They taught that the wicked would he transformed, after death, into beasts, while the good would ho reabsorbed into the Divine Creator. The Chief was known as the Veiled Prophet (see Grotto).
The Arabic register of all the wicked, also the title of the residence of Eblis.
SELAMU ALEIKUM, ES
The Arabic salutation of Peace be with you; which meets with the response Aleikum es Salaam. These expressions are prominently in use by ancient Arabic Associations (see Salaam) .
Sermons on Maconic subjects, and delivered in churches before Masonic Bodies or on Masonic festivals, are peculiar to the British and the American Freemasons. Neither the French nor German, nor, indeed, any continental literature of Freemasonry, supplies us with any examples. The first Masonic sermon of which we have any knowledge, from its publication, was “A General Charge to Masons, delivered at Christ Church, in Boston, on the 27th of December, 1749, by the Rev. Charles Brockwell, A.M., published at the request of the Grand Officers and Brethren there.”
It was, however, not printed at Boston, Massachusetts, where it was delivered, but was first published in the Freemasons’ Pocket Companion for 1754. Brockwell was chaplain of the English troops stationed at Boston. But in the United States of America, at least, the custom of delivering sermons on Saint John’s day prevailed many years before. In Doctor Mackey’s History of Freemasonry in South Carolina (pages 1520) will be found the authentic evidence that the Lodges in Charleston attended Divine Service on December 27, 1738, and for Several years after, on each of which occasions it is to be presumed that a sermon was preached. In 1742 it is distinctly stated, from a contemporary gazette, that “both Lodges proceeded regularly, with the ensigns of their Order and music before them, to church, where they heard a very learned sermon from their Brother, the Rev. Mr. Durand.”
The first Masonic sermon we have recorded here eloquently paid tribute to the virtues taught among the Craftsmen and after the centuries of years is stimulating reading- A copy of it by Brother Dudley Wright was reprinted in the New Age Magazine, October, 1924- This sermon was preached at Boston, Massachusetts, by Brother Rev. Charles Brockwell, M.A., one of the Chaplains of King George II. The sermon is entitled Brotherly Love.
Recommended, and it was preached before the “Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons” in Christ Church, Boston- It was published “at the request of the Society” and on the flyleaf is the following official Minute:
In the Grand Lodge, held at the Exchange Tavern in Boston on Wednesdays 27th December 1749. Agreed That the thanks of the Ancient and Honorable Society be given to our Brother the Rev. Mr. Charles Brockwell, For his sermon preached this day before the said society and that the Right Worshipful Brother Hugh McDaniel, Brother Henry Price and Brother Aston request a copy of the same to be printed by the society.
Charles Pelham, Secretary.
The sermon is dedicated to the Brethren as follows:
To the Right Worshipful Thomas Oxnard, Esquire Provincial Grand Master of North America; Mr. Hugh McDaniel, Deputy Grand Master, Mr. Benjamin Hallowel, Mr. John Box, Grand Wardens, and others, the Worshipful Brothers and Fellows of the Ancient and honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons, this sermon, preached and published at your request, is dedicated by their most affectionate Brother and humble servant, Charles Brockwell.
The text chosen was First Thessalonians iv, 9: “But as touching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you; for ye yourselves are taught of God b to love one another,” and in the course of his discourse, Brother Brockwell said:
The principal intention in forming societies is undoubtedly uniting men in the stricter bonds of love, for men, considered as social creatures, must derive their happiness from each other, every man being designed by Providence to promote the good of others. The apostle displays the necessity of brotherly love from a standpoint far more noble than that of interest. Our obligations to resemble God in this favored attribute of love should be incentives to our most earnest endeavors thereafter, should infuse our love and charity by that irresistible influence of example. I have had the honor of being a member of this Aneient and Honorable Soeiety for many years, have sustained many of its offices, and can and do aver in this sacred place and before the Great Architect of the World that I never could observe aught therein but what was justifiable and commendable according to the strictest rules of society.
Thus, being founded on the rules of the Gospel, the doing the will of God, and the subduing our passions, are highly conducive to every sacred and social virtue Our very Constitutions furnish a sufficient argument to confute all gainsayers. For no combination of wicked men, for wicked purposes, ever lasted long. The want of virtue on which mutual trust and confidence is founded, soon i divides and breaks them to pieces.
Nor would men of unquestionable wisdom, known integrity, strict honor, undoubted veracity, and good sense ever continue it as all the world may see they have done and now do, or contribute towards supporting it and propagating it to prosperity. As to any objections that have been raised against this Society, they are as ridiculous as they are groundless.
For what can discover more egregious folly in any man than to attempt to villify what he knows nothing of? He might with equal justice abuse or ealumniate anything else that he is unacquainted with. But there are some peculiar customs amongst us: surely these can be liable to no censure. Has not every Society some peculiarities which are not to be revealed to men of different communities?
But some among us behave not so well as might be expected: we fear this is too true, and are heartily sorry for it. But it might be inferred by parity of reason that the misconduct of a Christian is argument against Christianity, a conclusion which, I presume no man will allow. Let us rejoice in every opportunity of serving and obliging each other, for then, and only then, are we answering the great need of our institution.
Brotherly love, relief, and truth oblige us not only to be compassionate and benevolent, but to demonstrate that relief and comfort which the compassion of any members requires and we can bestow without manifest inconvenience to ourselves. The regulations of this Society are calculated not only for the prevention of enmity wrath, and dissension; but for the promotion of love peace, and friendship.
He who neither contrives mischief against others, nor suspects any against himself, has his mind always serene and his affections composed; all the faculties rejoice in harmony and proportion: by these our society subsists and upon these depend its wisdom, strength, and beauty. What are our secrets? If a Brother in necessity seeks relief, ’tis an inviolable secret, because true charity vaunteth not itself. If an overtaken Brother be admonished, ’tis in secret, because charity is kind. If possibly little differences, feuds, or animosities should invade our peaceful walls, they are still kept secret, for charity suffereth long, is not easily provoked thinketh no evil.
These and many more are the embellishments that emblazon the Mason’s escutcheons.
The occasion did not pass without an attempt to burlesque in print the Masonic celebration of the day. This was done in a peculiar poem of 1750, published at Boston, Massachusetts, with the following title: Entertainment for a Winter’s Evening: Being a Full and True Account of a Very Strange and Wonderful Sight Seen in Boston on the Twenty-seventh of December at Noon-day. The Truth of Which can be Attested by a Great Number of People who Actually Saw the Same with Their Own Eyes. By Me, the Hon’ble B. B. Esq.
This article bears the imprint Boston, Printed and Sold by G. Rogers, next to the Prison in Queen Street. The poem, published in 1750, had an introduction addressed To the Reader as follows: Courteous and Loving Reader. I thought it necessary to aequaint thee with three things, which thou wilt, perhaps, be inquisitive about. First, Why thou hast not had the following entertainment sooner. Seeondly. Why it now appears abroad without sheltering itself under the name of some powerful patron. And, Thirdly, Why I have given myself the title I have assumed in the front of it.
As for the first article thou must know, that my great distance from the Press near one hundred miles at this difficult season of the year, made it impossible for me to convey it there sooner. As to the second, I had fully determined to select a number of suitable patrons, but was prevented by finding all of them engaged already, not so much as one being left, under whose wings this poor sheet might retire for protection.
Thirdly, the title I have taken to myself, sourlds, I confess somewhat oddly. Nor indeed should I have ventured upon it, had I not been warranted by a Famous Society in an Example whieh they have lately set me. For though this Society is, perhaps, the only one in the world that ever gave itself those pompous epithets, yet it is allowed to be the standard of Antiquity and Honour. Of Antiquity—as it can boast an Era many years higher than that of the world. Of Honour—as it is invested with that distinguishing badge, whieh is, at this day, the glory of the greatest Potentates on earth. And lf so, I see no reason why Thou and I should not submit to it as a standard of propierty too I am, Loving Reader, with the Greatest Humility, thine,
The Hon’ble B. B. Esq.
The full text of this quaint and interesting old poem follows:
Oh Muse, renowned for story-telling
Fair Clio leave thy airy dwelling.
Now while the streams like marble stand
Held fast by winter’s icy hand;
Now, while the hills are clothed in snow;
Now while the keen north west winds blow
From the bleak fields and chilling air
Unto the wormer hearth repair;
Where friends in cheerful circle meet,
In social conversation sit.
Come, Goddess, and our ears regale
With a diverting Christmas tale.
Oh come, and in thy verse declare
Who were the men, and what they were,
And what their names, and what their fame
And what the cause for which they came
To house of God from house of ale,
And how the parson told his tale;
How they returned, in manner odd,
To house of ale from house of God.
Free Masons, so the story goes,
Have two saints for their patrons chose,
And both Saint Johns, one the Baptist,
The other the Evangelist.
The Baptist had the Lodge which stood
Whilom by Jordan’s ancient flood.
But for what seeret cause the other
Has been adopted for a Brother,
They cannot, and I will not say,
Nee seire fas est omnia.
The Masons by procession
Having already honored one,
(Thou, to perpetuate their glory,
Clio, did’st then relate the story.)
To show the world they mean fair play,
And that each saint should have his day,
Now ordered store of belly-timber
‘Gainst twenty-seventh of December.
For that’s the day of Saint John’s feast
Fixst by the holy Roman priest
They then in mode religious chose
Their Brother of the roll and rose
The sermon to commence:
He from the sacred eminence
Must first explain and then apply
The duties of Free Masonry.
At length in scarlet apron drest,
Forth rushed the n orning of the fest,
And now the bells in steeple play,
Hark, ding, dong, bell, they chime away,
Until, with solemn toll and steady,
The great bell tolls—the parson’s ready.
Masons at ehureh! Strange auditory!
And yet we have as strange a story,
For saints, as history attests,
Have preached to fishes, birds and beasts,
Yea stones so hard: tho’ strange, ’tis true,
Have sometimes been their hearers too,
So good Saint Franeis, man of grace,
Himself preached to the braying rnee,
And further, as the story passes,
Addressed them thus—” My brother asses.”
Just so old British Wereburga
As ecclesiastic writers say
Harangued the keener both far and wide;
Just so the geese were edified.
The crowds attending gaze around,
And awful silence reigns profound,
Till from the seat which he’d sat an—on
Uprose and thus began the parson.
Rhite Worshipful, at your command
Obedient I in Rostra stand;
It proper is and fit to show ‘
Unto the crowds that gape below
and wonder much, and well they may,
What on this occasion I can say,
Why in the church are met together,
Especially so in such cold weather,
Such folk as never did appear
So overfond of being there.
Know then, my friends without more pother
That these are Masons I’m a Brother,
Masons, said I?—Yes Masons Free,
Their deeds and title both agree.
While other sects fall out and fight
About a trifling mode or rite
We firm on Love cemented stand,
‘Tis Love unites us heart and hand,
Love to a party not confined
A love embracing all mankind,
Both Catholiek and Protestant,
The Scots and eke New England saint,
Antonio’s followers, and those
Who’ve Crispin for their patron chose,
And they who to their idol goose
Oft sacrifice the blood of louse.
Oh Pine Salubrious! From thy veins
Distils the cure of human pains.
Hail Sacred Tree! To thee I owe
This freedom from a world of woe
My heart though grateful, weak my strain,
To show thy worth I strive in vain.
Could Thracian Orpheus but impart
Sit tuneful Iyre and matchless art,
And would propitious fates decree
Old Nestor’s length of days to me
That Iyre, that art, that length of days
I’d spend in sounding forth thy praise.
Still thou shalt never want my blessing;—
But to return from this digressing.
Those who with razor bright and keen,
And careful hand, each morn are seen
Devoting to Saint Nicholas
The manly honors of the face
Him too who works, Ah! cruel deed,
The fatal, tough Muscovian weed!
And twists the suffocating string
In which devoted wretches swing
(And, oh my gracious Heaven defend
The Brethren from dishonest end.)
Her cauldron’s smoke with juice of Pine
An offering to Saint Catherine.
Rhode-Island’s differing, motly tribes,
Far more than Alec. Ross describes,
And light that’s new and light that’s old,
We in our friendly arms enfold,
Free, generous and unconfined
To outward shape or inward mind.
The high and low and great and small.
F. s P. as short and A- n tall
F. n. n as bulky as a house,
And W-. d smaller than a louse,
The grave and merry, dull and witty;
The fair and brown, deformed and pretty,
We all agree, both wet and dry
From drunken L to sober I,
And Hugh- . But hark, methinks I hear
One assuredly whisper in my ear:
“Pray, parson, don’t affirm but prove;
Do they all meet and part in love?
Quarrels ofttirmes don’t they delight in
And now and then a little fighting?
Did there not (for the Secret’s out)
In the last Lodge arise a route?
M- with a fist of brass
Laid T-. ‘s nose level with his face,
And scarcely had he let his hand go
When he received from T-.a d—d blow
Now parson, when a nose is broken,
Pray, is it friendly sign or tokens
‘Tis true—but trifling is the objection.
Oft from themselves the best men vary
Humanum enim est errare.
But what I’ve said I’ll say again,
And what I say I will maintain,
‘Tis Love, pure Love cements the whole,
Love—of the Bottle and the Bowl.
But ’tis nigh time to let you go
Where you had rather be,
I know; And by proceeding I delay
The weightier business of the day;
For it solid sense affords,
Whilst nonsense lurks in many words.
Doubting does oft arise from thinking,
But truth is only found in drinking—
Thus having said, the reverend vicar
Dismissed them to their food and liquor.
From church to Stones they go to eat;
In order walking through the street,
But no Right Worshipful was there
Pallas forbade him to appear,
For, foreseeing that the job
Would from all parts collect a mob
He wisely cought a cold and stayed
At home, at least, if not in bed
So when the Greeks ‘gainst the Trojans went,
Achilles tarry’d in his tent
Ashamed he hides himself, nor draws
A conquering sword in harlot’s cause.
See B- k before the aproned throng
Marches with sword and book along;
The stately ram with courage bold,
So stalks before the fleecy fold
And so the gander, on the brink
Of river, leads his geese to drink
And so the geese descend, from gabbling
On the dry land, in stream to dab’ling.
Three with their white sticks next are seen,
One on each side and one between
Plump L-W- marches on the right
Round as a hoop, as bottle tight,
With face full orbed and rosy too
So ruddy Cynthia oft we view,
When she, from tippling eastern streams,
First throws about her evening beams
‘Tis he the Brethren all admire,
Him for their Steward they require.
‘Tis he they view with wondering eyes,
‘Tis he their utmost art defies,
For though with nicest skill they work all,
None of ’em e’er could square his circle
Next B- r with M-l paces
Though Brothers, how unlike their faces
So limners better representing
By artful contrast, what they paint.
Who’s he comes next?—’Tis P. e by name
P- e, bv his nose well known to fame
These, when the generous choose recruits,
Around the brighter radiance shoots.
So, on some promontory’s height
For Neptune’s sons the signal light
Shines fair, and bed by unctuous stream
Sends off to sea a livelier beam.
But see the crowds, with what amaze
That on the apothecary gaze!
‘Tis he, when belly suffers twitch
Caused by too retentive breech
Adjusts with finger nice and thumb,
The ivory tube to patient’s bum.
A-n high rising offer the rest
With tall head and ample chest;
So towering stands the tree of Jove
And proud o’erlooks the neighboring grove.
Where’s honest L-ke, that cook from London.
For without L-ke the Lodge is undone
‘Twas he who oft dispelled their sadness,
And filled the Brothers’ hearts with gladness
For them his ample bowls o’erftowed,
His table groaned beneath its load
For them he stretched his utmost art
Their honors grateful they impart,
L-ke in return is made a Brother
As good and true as any other,
And still, tho’ broke with age and wine
Preserves the token and the sign.
But still I see a numerous train
Shall they, alas, unsung remain?
Sage H. I of public soul
And laughing F- k, friend to the bowl,
Meek R- half smothered in the crowd,
And R- who sings at church so loud
Tall de la R- of Gallic city,
Short B- who trips along so pretty,
B- d so truss, with gut well fed,
He to the hungry deals out bread.
And twenty more crowd on my fancy
All Brothers—and that’s all you can say.
Whene’er, for aiding nature frail,
Poor bawd must follow the cart’s-tail
As through fair London’s streets she goes
The mob, like fame, by moving grows,
They shouldering close, press, stink and shove,
Scarcely can the procession move.
Just sueh a street-eolleeted throng
Guarded the brotherhood along
Just such a noise, just such a roar,
Heard from behind and from before.
Till lodged at Stones nor from pursued,
The mob with three huzzas conclude.
And now, withdrawn from public view,
What did the Brethren say and do?
Had I the force of Stentor’s lungs,
A voice of brass, a hundred tongues
My tongues and voice and lungs would fail
E’er I had finished half my tale,
E’er I had told their names and nation
Their virtue, arts and occupation,
Or in fit strains had half made known
What words were spoke, what deeds were done,
Clio, ’tis thou alone canst show ’em,
For thou’rt a Goddess and must know ’em.
But now suppress thy further rhyme
And tell the rest another time.
Once more, perhaps, the aproned train
Hereafter may invite thy strain
Then Clio, with descending wing,
Shall downward fly again and sing.
The few following comments may be added: The Honorable B. B. Esq. is the pen name of Joseph Green, born in Boston, Massachusetts, 1706, was a graduate of Harvard University, 1726, he became a merchant, espoused the Royalist cause, was exiled, and in 1780 died in England. He had a great reputation as a wit. This epitaph was written by a friend for his tombstone long before his death:
Siste, Viator! (Stop, Traveler!) Here lies one
Whose life was whim, whose soul was pun
And if you go too near his hearse,
He’ll joke you both in prose and verse.
See also Onderdonk’s History of American Verse, pages 41, 42 and 168; Drake’s History of Boston, page 629, a reprint of the poem by Sam Briggs of Cleveland, Ohio, with notes on the almanacs of Nathaniel Ames, and articles by Brother R. I. Clegg in the American Freemason, particularly in November, 1911. The preacher, Charles Brockwell was assistant rector of King’s Chapel, inducted in 1747, he died in 1755. Drake gives several names of the participants which may be compared with the initials scattered through the poem; Buck, James Perkins, Johnson, Wethred, Captain Benjamin Hallowell, the builder of the ship mentioned in the article in this work headed Clothed, Rea—”probably Mr. John Rea, who kept in Butler’s Row in 1748—he was a ship handler,” Rowe—”John Rowe was a merchant, an importer, kept on Belcher’s Warf in 1744, he lived on Essex Street in 1760.”
The Latin phrase, from Horace, thirtieth line of poem, means And to know all things is not permitted.
Brother Briggs gives L-w-s as meaning Lewis Twiner, P-e as Pue, A-n for Doctor Ashton, apothecary at Boston about 1738, died in 1776 aged 74, Luke for Luke Vardy who kept the Royal Exchange Tavern at Boston in 1733, and F-k for Francis Johannot, a distiller and prominent member of the Sons of Liberty, who died in 1775. Stone’s was a well-known Tavern. The various Saints mentioned in the text Antonio, Crispin, Nicholas, Catherine, are the patrons of sailors, shoemakers, barbers, and ropemakers (see also Clothed, and Regalia).
Brockwell’s, however, is the first of these early sermons which has had the good fortune to be embalmed in type. But though first printed, it was not the first delivered. In 1750, John Entick, afterward the editor of an edition of Anderson’s Constitutions, delivered a sermon at Walbrook, England, entitled The free and Accepted Mason Described. The text on this occasion was from Acts xxviu, 22, and had some significance in reference to the popular character of the Order. “But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against.” Entiek preached several other sermons, which were printed.
From that time, both in England and the United States of America, the sermon became a very usual part of the public celebration of a Masonic festival. One preached at Neweastle-upon-Tyne, in 1775, is in its very title a sermon of itself: “The Basis of Freemasonry displayed; or, an Attempt to show that the general Principles of true Religion, genuine Virtue, and sound Morality are the noble Foundations on which this renowned Society is established: Being a Sermon preached in Newcastle, on the Festival of Saint John the Evangelist, 1775, by Brother Robert Green.”
In 1799, the Rev. Jethro Inwood published a volume of Sermons, in which are expressed and enforced the religious, moral, and political virtues of Freemasonry, preached upon several occasions bed ore the Provincial Grand Officers and other Brethren in the Counties of Kent and Essez. In 1849 Brother Spencer published an edition of this work, enriched by the valuable notes of Doctor Oliver.
In 1801 the Rev. Thaddeus Mason Harris, Grand Chaplain of the Grand Lodge and Grand Chapter of Massachusetts, published at Charlestown, Massachusetts, a volume of Discourses delivered on Public Occasions, illustrating the Principles, displaying the Tendency, and vindicating the Design of Freenssonr1y. This work has also been annotated in a new edition by Doctor Oliver, and republished in his Golden Remains of Early Masonic Writers. During this nineteenth century there has been an abundance of single sermons preached and published, but for a long period no other collected volume of any by one and the same author has been given to the public since those of Doctor Harris. Yet the fact that annually in Great Britain and America hundreds of sermons in praise or in defense of Freemasonry are delivered from Christian pulpits, is a valuable testimony given by the clergy to the purity of the Institution.
There is a famous medal in existence bearing a message of such dignity and force that it has well been called a Masonic sermon and is known by that name on the Continent of Europe. A splendid specimen of this medal with its forty-one beautiful lines of engraving is in the possession of Brother Thomas T. Thorp of Leicester, England, where it was examined for the purpose of description here.
This is a bronze medal representing on one side a serpent biting a file and having around the border the words La Mac vivra, Dieu le veut. Gr. . or. . de Belgique 5838, meaning Masonry will live, God wills it. Grand Orient of Belgium, 5838. This medal was struck in consequence of an interdict pronounced against the Masonic Order by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Mechlin in December, 1838, which however had no effect unless to increase the prosperity of the Fraternity and to revive the loyalty of those whose interest had waned.
The inscription on the reverse of this medal is known as the Masonic Sermon. Here it is:
Masonic conduct is to adore the Grand Architect of the Universe .
Love thy neighbor: do no evil: do good: suffer man to speak:
The worship most acceptable to the Grand Architect of the Universe consists of good morals and to the practice of all the virtues
Do good for the love of goodness itself alone:
Ever keep thy soul in a state so pure as to appear worthily before the presence of the Grand Architect, who is God:
Love the good, succor the weak, fly from the wicked, but hate no one:
Speak seriously with the great, and prudently with thy equals, sincerely with thy friends, pleasantly with the little ones, tender with the poor:
Do not flatter thy Brother, that is treason:
If thy Brother flatter thee, beware that he doth not corrupt thee:
Listen always to the voice of conscience
Be a father to the poor: each sigh drawn from them by thy hard-heartedness will increase the number of maledictions which will fall upon thy head:
Respect the stranger on his journey and assist him: his person is sacred to thee:
Avoid quarrels, forestall insults:
Ever keep the right on thy side:
Respect Woman, never abuse her weakness:
die rather than dishonor her:
If the Grand Architect hath given thee a son, be thankful, but tremble at the trust He hath confided to thee:
be to that Child the image of Divinity:
until he is ten years old let him fear thee:
until he is twenty let him love thee and until death let him respect thee:
until he is ten years old be his master, until twenty his father and until death his friend:
aim to give him good principles rather than elegant manners, that he may hare enlightened rectitude, and not a frivolous elegance:
make of him an honest man rather than a man of dress:
If thou blushes at thy condition it is pride:
Consider that it is not the position which honors or degrades thee, but the manner in which thou dost fill it:
Read and profit, see and imitate, reflect and labor:
Do all for the benefit of thy Brethren, that is working for thyself:
Be Content in all places, at all times, and with all things:
Rejoice in justice, despise iniquity, suffer without murmuring:
Judge not lightly the conduct of men, blame little, and praise still less:
It is for the Grand Architect of the Universe who sews the heart to value His work.
The Ninth Degree in the American Rite, and the last of the two conferred in a Council of Royal and Select Masters. Its officers are a Thrice Illustrious Grand Master, Illustrious Hiram of Tyre, Principal Conductor of the Works, Treasurer, Recorder, Captain of the Guards, Conductor of the Council, and Steward. The first three represent the three Grand Masters at the building of Solomon’s Temple. The Symbolic colors are black and red, the former significant of secrecy, silence, and darkness; The latter of fervency and zeal. A Council is supposed to consist of neither more nor less than twenty-seven; but a smaller number, if not less than nine, is competent to proceed to work or business The candidate, when initiated, is said to the “chosen as a Select Master.” The historical object of the Degree is to Commemorate the deposit of an important secret or treasure which, after the preliminary preparations, is said to have been made by Hiram Abif. The place of meeting represents a Secret vault beneath the Temple.
A controversy has sometimes arisen among ritualists as to whether the Degree of Select Master should precede or follow that of Royal Master in the order of conferring. But the arrangement now existing, by which the Royal Master is made the First and the Select Master the Second Degree of Cryptic Masonry, has been very generally accepted, and this for the best of reasons. It is true that the circumstances referred to in the Degree of Royal Master occurred during a period of time which lies between the death of the Chief Builder of the Temple and the completion of the edifice, while those referred to in the Degree of Select Master occurred anterior to the Builder’s death. Hence, in the order of time, the events commemorated in the Select Master’s Degree took place anterior to those which are related in the Degree of Royal Master; although in Masonic sequence the latter Degree is conferred before the former. This apparent anachronism is, however, reconciled by the explanation that the secrets of the Select Master’s Degree were not brought to light until long after the existence of the Royal Master’s Degree had been known and recognized.
In other words, to speak only from the traditional point of view, Select Masters had been designated, had performed the task for which they had been Selected, and had closed their labors, without ever being openly recognized as a class in the Temple of Solomon.
The business in which they were engaged was a secret one. Their occupation and their very existence, according to the legend, were unknown ta the great body of the Craft in the first Temple. The Royal Master’s Degree, on the contrary, as there was no reason for concealment, was publicly conferred and acknowledged during the latter part of the construction of the Temple of Solomon; whereas the Degree of Select Master, and the important incident on which it was founded, are not supposed to have been revealed to the Craft until the building of the Temple of Zerubbabel. Hence the Royal Master’s Degree should always be conferred anterior to that of the Select Master.
The proper jurisdiction under which these Degrees should be placed, whether under Chapters and to be conferred preparatory to the Royal Arch Degree or under Councils and to be conferred after it, has excited discussion The former usage has prevailed in Maryland and Virginia, but the latter in all the other States. There is no doubt that these degrees belonged originally to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and were conferred, as honorary Degrees by the Inspectors of that Rite. This authority and jurisdiction the Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction of the Rite continued to claim until the year 1870; although, through negligence, the Councils of Royal and Select Masters in some of the States had been placed under the control of independent Jurisdictions called Grand Councils. Like all usurped authority, however, this claim of the State Grand Councils does not seem to have ever been universally admitted or to have been very firmly established.
Repeated attempts have been made to take the Degrees out of the hands of the Councils and to place them in the Chapters, there to be conferred as preparatory to the Royal Arch. The General Grand Chapter, in the Triennial Session of 1847, adopted a resolution granting this permission to all Chapters in States where no Grand Councils exist. But, seeing the manifest injustice and inexpediency of such a measure, at the following session of 1850 it refused to take any action on the subject of these Degrees. In 1853 it disclaimed all control over them, and forbade the Chapters under its jurisdiction to confer them. As far as regards the interference of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, that question was set at rest in 1870 by the Mother Council, which at its session at Baltimore, formally relinquished all further control over them.
An officer in the Sixth Degree of the Modern French Rite, known as the strand Master of Despatches.
The mot de semestre, or semi-annual word, is used only in France. Every six months a secret word is communicated by the Grand Orient to all the Lodges under its jurisdiction. This custom was introduced October 28, 1773, during the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Chartres, to enable him the better to control the Lodges, and to afford the members a means whereby they could recognize the members who were not constant in their attendance, and also those Freemasons who either belonged to an unrecognized Rite, or who were not affiliated with any Lodge. The Chapters of the advanced Degrees receive a word annually from the Grand Orient for the same purpose. This, with the password, is given to the Tiler on entering the Temple.
When the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite meets in the Thirty-third Degree, it is said to meet in its Senatorial Chamber.
An officer found in some of the higher Degrees, as in the Thirty-second of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, where his duties are similar to those of a Warden of a Lodge, he acting as the deputy of the presiding officer. The title is derived from the old German senne, meaning house, and schalk, servant. The Seneschals in the Middle Ages were the lieutenants of the Dukes and other great feudatories, and took charge of the castles of their masters during their absence.
SENIOR ENTERED APPRENTICE
In the ritual of the early part of the eighteenth century the Senior and Junior Entered Apprentices acted in the place of the Deacons, which offices were then unknown. The Senior Entered Apprentice was placed in the south, and his duty there was “to hear and receive instructions, and to welcome strange Brethren” (see Junior Entered Apprentice) .
The second officer in a Symbolic Lodge. He presides over the Craft during the hours of labor, as the Junior does during the hours of refreshment, and in the absence of the Master he performs the duty of that officer (see Wardens).
See Five Senses
An officer in a Royal Arch Chapter, in a council of Knights of the Red Cross, and in a Commandery of Knights Templar, whose duties are similar to those of a Tiler in a Symbolic Lodge. In some Bodies the word Janitor has been substituted for Sentinel, but the change is hardly a good one. Janitor is usually applied to the porter of a collegiate institution, and has no old Masonic authority.
The Hebrew word is a plural noun, the singular being Sephira. Buxtorf (Talmudic Lexicon) says the word means numerations, from Saphar, to number; but the Cabalistic writers generally give it the signification of splendors, from Saphiri, splendid. The account of the creation and arrangement of the Sephiroth forms the most important portion of the secret doctrine of the Cabalists, and has been adopted and referred to in many of the high philosophic Degrees of Freemasonry. Some acquaintance with it, therefore, seems to be necessary to the Freemason who desires to penetrate into the more abstruse arcana of his Order (see Cabala).
Wife of Moses, and daughter of Raguel or Jethro, Priest of Midian. Mentioned in the Fourth Degree of the French Rite of Adoption.
The number Seven, which see.
The spirit of gratitude has from the earliest period led men to venerate the tombs in which have been deposited the remains of their bene. factors In all of the ancient religions there were sacred tombs to which worship was paid. The tombs of the prophets, preserved by the Israelites, gave testimony to their reverence for the memory of these holy personages. After the advent of Christianity the same sentiment of devotion led the pilgrims to visit the Holy Land, that they might kneel at what was believed to be the sepulcher of their Lord. In many of the churches of the Middle Ages there was a particular place near the altar called the Sepulcher which was used at Easter for the performance of solemn rites coromel1lorative of the Savior’s resurrection. This custom still prevails in some of the churches on the Continent. In Templar Freemasonry, which is professedly a Christian system, the Sepulcher forms a part of the arrangements of a Commandery. In England, the sepulcher is within the Asylum, and in front of the Eminent Commander. In the United States of America it is placed without; and the scenic representation observed in every well-regulated and properly arranged Commandery furnishes a most impressive and pathetic ceremony.
SEPULCHER, KNIGHT OF THE HOLY
See Knight of the Holy Sepulcher
The Hebrew word is the singular form of the word is Seraph, signifying burning, fiery. Celestial beings in attendance upon Jehovah, mentioned by Isaiah (vi, 2-7). Similar to the Cherubim, having the human form, face, voice, two hands, and two feet, but six wings, with four of which they cover their faces and feet—as a sign of reverence— while with two they fly. Their specific office is to sing the praises of the Holy One, and convey messages from heaven to earth.
SERAPHIM, ORDER OF
A Swedish Rite, instituted in 1334, revived in 1748. The number of knights, exclusive of the royal family, was twenty-four.
SERAPIS, MYSTERIES OF
See Egyptian Mysteries
As a symbol, the serpent obtained a prominent place in all the ancient initiations and religions Among the Egyptians it was the symbol of Divine Wisdom when extended at length, and the serpent with his tail in his mouth was an emblem of eternity. The winged globe and serpent symbolized their triune deity. In the ritual of Zoroaster, the serpent was a symbol of the universe. In China, the ring between two serpents was the symbol of the world governed by the power and wisdom of the Creator. The same device is several times repeated on the Isiae Table. Godfrey Higgins (Anacalypsis i, pare 521) says that, from the faculty which the serpent possessed of renewing itself, without the process of generations as to outward appearance, by annually casting its skin, it became, like the Phenix, the emblem of eternity; but he denies that it ever represented, even in Genesis, the evil principle.
Faber’s theory of the symbolism of the serpent, as set forth in his work on the Origin of Pagan Idolatry, is ingenious. He says that the ancients in part derived their idea of the serpent from the first tempter, and hence it was a hieroglyphic of the evil principle. But as the deluge was thought to have emanated from the evil principle, the serpent thus became a symbol of the deluge.
He also represented the good principle; an idea borrowed from the winged Seraphim which was blended with the Cherubim who guarded the tree of life—the Seraphim and Cherubim being sometimes considered as identical; and besides, in Hebrew, lot means both a seraph and a serpent. But as the good principle was always male and female, the male serpent represented the Great Father, Adam or Noah, and the female serpent represented the ark or world, the microcosm and the macrocosm. Hence the serpent represented the perpetually renovated world, and as such was used in all the Mysteries.
Doctor Oliver brings his peculiar views to the interpretation, and says that in Christian Freemasonry the serpent is an emblem of the fall and the subsequent redemption of man. In Ancient Craft Masonry, however, the serpent does not occur as a symbol. In the Templar and in the Philosophy Degrees—such as the Knight of the Brazen Serpent, where the serpent is combined with the cross—it is evidently a symbol of Christ; and thus the symbolism of these Degrees is closely connected with that of the Rose Croix.
SERPENT AND CROSS
A symbol used in the Degrees of Knights Templar and Knight of the Brazen Serpent. The cross is a tau cross T. and the serpent is twined around. Its origin is found in Numbers xxi, 9, where it is said, “Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole.” The Hebrew word Nes, here translated a pole, literally means a standard, or something elevated on high as a signal, and may be represented by a across as well as by a pole. Indeed, Justin Martvr calls it a cross.
SERPENT, KNIGHT OF THE BRAZEN
See Knight of the Brazen Serpent
In ancient times, the serpent was an object of adoration in almost all nations. It was, in fact, one of the earliest deviations from the true system, and in almost all the ancient rites we find some allusion to the serpent. It was worshiped in India, Egypt, Phenicia, Babylonia, Greece, and Italy. Indeed, so widely was this worship distributed, presenting everywhere so many similar features, that it is not surprising that it has been regarded by some writers as the primitive religion of man. And so long did it continue, that in the Sect of Ophites—from the Greek word Ophis, meaning a serpent, it became one of the earliest heresies of the church. In some nations, as the Egyptians, the serpent was the representative of the good principle; but in most of them it was the emblem of the evil principle.
Formerly a kingdom of the Balkan Peninsula, in southeastern Europe, now combined with Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Slovenia, and Voyvodina to form Jugoslavia (see Austria Hungary and Czecho-Slouakia). Two Lodges warranted by the Grand Orient of Italy were working in Belgrade in 1885. A governing body for Serbia was opened in 1912 at a Convention beginning on May 10 and lasting for thirteen days. In 1914 it controlled four Lodges whose membership totaled less than 100 in all.
Freemasons whose duty it is to serve the Lodge as Tilers, waiters at the Lodge table, and to perform other menial services, are called in European Lodges Serving Brethren. They are not known in the United States of America, but were long recognized as a distinct class in England and on the Continent. In 1753 the Grand Lodge of England adopted a regulation for their initiation, which, slightly modified is still in force. By it every Lodge is empowered to initiate without charge Serving Brethren, who cannot, however, become members of the Lodge, although they may join another.
In military Lodges private soldiers may be received as Serving Brethren. On the Continent, at one time, a separate and preliminary form of reception, with peculiar signs, etc., was appropriated to those who were initiated as Serving Brethren, and they were not permitted to advance beyond the first Degree; which, however, worked no inconvenience, as all the business and refreshment of the Lodges were done at that time in the Entered Apprentice’s Degree.
The regulation for admitting Serving Brethren arose from the custom of Lodges meeting at taverns; and as at that period labor and refreshment were intermixed, the waiters for the tavern were sometimes required to enter the room while the Lodge was in session, and hence it became necessary to qualify them for such service by making them Freemasons. In France they are called Freres Servants; in Germany, Dienenden Brüder.
The Knights Templar had a class called Serving Brothers, who were not, however, introduced into the Order until it had greatly increased in wealth and numbers. The form of their reception varied very slightly from that of the Knights; but their habit was different, being hlsek They were designated for the performance of various services inside or outside of the Order. Many rich and well-born men belonged to this class. They were permitted to take part in the election of a Grand Master. The Treasurer of the Order was always a Serving Brother. Of these Serving Brothers there were two kinds: Servants at Arms and Artificers. The former were the most highly esteemed; the latter being considered a very inferior class, except the flrzllorers, who were held, on account of the importance of their occupation, in higher estimation.
It is a theory of some Masonic writers that the principles of t he Pure or Primitive Freemasonry were preserved in the race of Seth, which had always kept separate from that of Cain, but that after the Flood they became corrupted by a secession of a portion of the Sethites, who established the Spurious Freemasonry of the Gentiles. This theory has been very extensively advanced by Doctor Oliver in all his works. The pillars erected by Seth to preserve the principles of the arts and sciences are mentioned by Josephus. But although the Old Constitutions speak of Seth, they ascribe the erection of these pillars to the children of Lamedh. But in the advanced Degrees of Freemasonry the erection is attributed to Enoch (see Enoch).
In 1731, the Abbe Terrasson published at Paris a work entitled Sethos histotre ou vie tirée files monuments, anecdotes de l’ancienne Egypte. It has passed through a great many editions and has been translated into German and English. This work is a romantic history, life taken from the monuments, anecdotes of ancient Egypt. Under the form of fiction it contains an admirable description of the initiation into the ancient Egyptian Mysteries. The labors and researches of Terrasson have been very freely used by Lenoir, Clavel, Oliver, and other writers on the ancient initiations.
A wooden hammer used by Operative Masons to set the stones in their proper positions. It is in Speculative Freemasonry a symbol, in the Third Degree, reminding us of the death of the builder of the Temple, which is said to have been effected by this instrument. In some Lodges it is improperly used by the Master as his gavel, from which it totally differs in form and in Symbolic signification.. The gavel is a symbol of order and decorum; the setting-maul, of death by violence.
The most famous of Setting Mauls is one treasured by the Lodge of Antiquity, No. 2, United Grand Lodge of England. It once belonged to Sir Christopher Wren, and was by him presented to the Lodge of which he was a member (as was also his son after him). In a written Lodge record called Book E, in what there is said to be a copy of an old Minute Book, an item dated March 18, 1722, refers to “the Old Mallet used at laying the foundation stone of St. Paul’s Cathedral.” In the Lodge Inventory of 1778 is a record: “the Mallet with which Sir Christopher Wren laid the foundation Stone of St. Paul’s Cathedral.” In 1827 the Duke of Sussex, Grand Master, caused an engraved silver plate to be affixed to it, reading: “that this is the same Mallet with which his Majesty King Charles the 2nd leveled the foundation Stone of St. Paul’s Cathedral A. L. 1677, A. D. 1673, and vv as presented to the Old Lodge of Saint Paul now the Lodge of Antiquity acting by immemorial Constitution by Brother Sir Christopher Wren R.W.D.G.H., W. . M.-. of this Lodge, and Architect of that Edifice.” (The date should have been 1675.
A number of textual difficulties center in these and other references to Sir Christopher Ren; they are analyzed by Bros. Rylands and Firebrace in their two-volume Pvecord of the Lodge of Antiquity, No. ma. Bro. Albert F. Calvert devotes nine pages to Wren in his Title Grand Lodge of England, beginning at page 45. Gould devoted some fifty pages of his History to trying to prove that Wren was not a Masons had never been a member of Antiquity, etc.; the amount of space is out of proportion to the subject, and was turned to waste, at least was neutralized, by Bro. Ryland’s discovery of Antiquity MSS. which Gould had no knowledge of.)
It is a common fact that the Gavel is one of the Working Tools, and thereby a major symbol, whereas the Maul is but one of many emblems, though the Gavel is almost never mentioned in the older records (Operative Masons used a stone axe) and the Maul often is. The Maul was a thick-bodied mallet, sometimes spherical in shape, sometimes square, by which a finished stone was tapped into place; it came for that reason to stand for the completing of a piece of work. (It is also curious that the Plumb, Square, Level, and Gage, or ruler, were called Working Tools when they were not tools but instruments.)
It is illuminating to assemble the whole set of symbols and emblems having to do with the stone in a single system: the Ashlar. the instruments for measuring it, the tools for cutting it, the maul for putting it in place, etc., for when thus assembled one tool throws light upon the other. When that is done it becomes clear that in the Third Degree there are in reality two mauls: ones a working tool, in the form of an emblem, which explains itself; the second, a weapon. In consequence, there are two separate symbolisms.
It was the duty of the Senior Wardens to pay and dismiss the Craft at the close of day, when the sun sinks in the West; so now the Senior \Narden is said in the Lodge to represent the pettily sun.
In the Tracing-Board of the Seventeenth Degree, or Knight of the East and West, is the representation of a man clothed in a white robe, with a golden girdle round his waist, his right hand extended, and surrounded with seven stars. The Seventeenth is an apocalyptic Degree, and this symbol is taken from the passage in Revelation (i, 16), “and he had in his right hand seven stars.” It is a symbol of the seven churches of Asia.
SEVENTY YEARS OF CAPTIVITY
This period must be computed from the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish, in the same year that the prophecy was given, when Nebuchadnezzar reduced the neighboring nations of Syria and Palestine, as well as Jerusalem, under his subjection At the end of seventy years, on the accession of Cyrus, an end was put to the Babylonish monarchy.
One of the names of God in Hebrew. In Exodus vi, 3, the word translated God Almighty is, in the original, Shaddai, me; it is there fore the name by which he was known to the Israel ites before he communicated the Tetragrammaton to Moses. The word has been credited to a root meaning to overthrow, and signifies All-powerful Omnipotent. The prefix El is usually understood as the Ruler or Mighty One, but may have mainly a poetical use when compounded as here with a word of even greater power.
SHALAL SHALOM ABI
A Hebrew phrase, Diripuit pacem patri. A covered word in the Fifteenth Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
A Hebrew expression, Derby tit, meaning twenty-three, and refers to a day in the month Adar, noted in the Sixteenth Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
King Solomon is said, in a Rabbinical legend, to have used the worm Shamir as an instrument for building the Temple. The legend is that Moses engraved the names of the twelve tribes on the stones of the breastplate by means of the blood of the worm Shamir, whose solvent power was so great that it could corrode the hardest substances. When Solomon was about to build the Temple of stones without the use of any metallic implement, he was desirous of obtaining this potent blood; but the knowledge of the source whence Moses had derived it had been lost by the lapse of time.
Solomon enclosed the chick of a bird, either an ostrich or a hoopoe, in a crystal vessel, and placed a sentinel to watch it. The parent bird, finding it impossible to break the vessel with her bill so as to gain access to the young one, flew to the desert, and returned with the miraculous worm, which, by means of its blood, soon penetrated the prison of glass, and liberated the chick. By a repetition of the process, the King of Israel at length acquired a sufficiency of the dissolving blood to enable him to work upon the stones of the Temple.
It is supposed that the legend is based on a corruption of the word Smiris, the Greek for emery, which was used by the antique engravers in their works and medallions, and that the name Shamir is merely the Hebrew form of the Greek word.
In every system of antiquity there is a frequent reference to this number, showing that the veneration for it proceeded from some common cause. It is equally a sacred number in the Gentile as in the Christian religion. Doctor Oliver says that this can scarcely be ascribed to any event, except it be the institution of the Sabbath. Godfrey Higgins thinks that the peculiar circumstance, perhaps accidental, of the number of the days of the week coinciding exactly with the number of the planetary bodies probably procured for it its character of sanctity. The Pythagoreans called it a perfect number, because it was made up of three and four, the triangle and the square, which are the two perfect figures. They called it also a virgin number, and without mother, comparing it to Minerva, who was a motherless virgin, because it cannot by multiplication produce any number within ten, as twice two does four, and three times three does nine; nor can any two numbers, by their multiplication, produce it.
It is singular to observe the important part occupied by the number seven in all the ancient systems There were, for instance, seven ancient planets, seven Pleiades, and seven Hyades; seven altars burned continually before the god Mithras; the Arabians had seven holy temples; the Hindus supposed the world to be enclosed within the compass of seven peninsulas the Goths had seven deities, namely, the Sun, the Moon, Tuisco, Woden, Thor, Friga, and Seatur, from whose names are derived our days of the week; in the Persian Mysteries were seven spacious caverns, through which the aspirant had to pass; in the Gothic Mysteries, the candidate met with seven obstructions, which were called the Road of the Seven Stages; and, finally, sacrifices were always considered as most efficacious when the victims were seven in number.
Muell of the Jewish liturgy was governed by this number, and the etymology of the word shows its sacred import, for the radical meaning of the Hebrew word shabang, is, says Parkhurst, sufficiency or fulness. The Hebrew idea, therefore, like the Pythagorean, is that of perfection. To both the seven was a perfect number. Again: 7, means to swear, because oaths were confirmed either by seven witnesses, or by seven victims offered in sacrifice, as we read in the Covenant of Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis xxi, 28). Hence, there is a frequent recurrence to this number in the Scriptural history.
The Sabbath was the seventh day; Noah received seven days’ notice of the commencement of the deluge, and was commanded to select clean beasts and fowls by sevens; seven persons accompanied him into the ark; the ark rested on Mount Ararat in the seventh month; the intervals between despatching the dove were, each time, seven days; the walls of Jericho were encompassed seven days by seven priests, bearing seven rams’ horns; Solomon was seven years building the Temple, which was dedicated in the seventh month, and the festival lasted seven days; the candlestick in the tabernacle consisted of seven branches; and, finally, the tower of Babel was said to have been elevated seven stories before the dispersion.
Seven is a sacred number in Masonic symbolism. It has always been so. In the earliest instructions of the eighteenth century it was said that a Lodge required seven to make it perfect; but the only explanation to be found in any of those ceremonies of the sacredness of the number is the seven liberal arts and sciences, which, according to the old Legend of the Craft, were the foundation of Freemasonry. In modern ritualism the symbolism of seven has been transferred from the First to the Second Degree, and there it is made to refer only to the seven steps of the Winding Stairs; but the symbolic seven is to be found diffused in a hundred ways over the whole Masonic system.
The sun was naturally the great central planet of the ancient seven, and is ever represented as the central light of the seven in the branched candlestick. Of the days of the week one was known as Sol’s day, or Sunday, and as the Sun was the son of Saturn, he was ushered in by his father Saturn, or Saturdays whom he superseded.
The Jews got their Sabbath from the Babylonians about 700 B.C. (Ancient Faiths, page 863) also see Philo Judoeus, Josephus, and Clement of Alexandria, while Sol’s day dates from time immemorial, and was always a sacred one. In a phallic sense, when the sun has been in conjunction with the moon, he only leaves Luna after impregnation, and as Forlong, in his Rivers of Life, expresses it, “the young sun is that faint globe we so often see in the arms of the new moon,” which is in gestation with the sun.
The occult meaning of the word Mi-mi perhaps is here revealed, as mentioned in First Kings (xviii, 97), being defined Firewater. Mi is the name of the sun, and as well signifies gold. It is designated in the musical scale, and is also the name of fire in Burmese, Siamese, and cognates tongues, as mentioned by Forlong in treating of the Early Faiths of Western Asia (volume ii, page 65). Next to the sun in beauty and splendor the moon leads all the hosts of heaven. And the Occidental, as well as the Oriental, nations were wrongly moved in their imaginations by the awful majesty, the solemn silence, and the grandeur of that brilliant body progressing nightly through the starry vault: from the distant plains of India to ancient Egypt, and even those far-off lands where the Incas ruled, altars were erected to the worship of the Moon. On every seventh day the moon assumed a new phase, which gave rise to festivals to Luna being correspondingly celebrated; the day so set apart was known as Moon-day, or the second day of the week, that following Sun-day. “The Moon, whose phases unasked and appointed their holy days” (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, book i, chapter 28) . In the Hebrew, Syrian, Persian, Phenician, Chaldean, and Saxon, the word Seven signifies full or complete, and every seventh day after the first quarter the moon is complete in its change. In all countries the moon is best known under the beautiful figure of the unveiling Queen of Heaven.
The relative values of Seven in the musical scale and in the ancient planetary formula are as follows:
Si …….. Moon ………. Silver
Ut ……. Mercury …… Quicksilver
Re …… Venus ………. Copper
Mi …… Sun …………. Gold
Fa …… Mars ……….. Iron
Sol ….. Jupiter ……….Tin
La …… Saturn ……… Lead
The eminent professor of music, Carl Bergstein, in connection herewith, furnishes the information that Cuido Aretinus, Monk, in the eleventh century, the great reformer of music, invented the staff, several keys, and the names at, re, mi, pa, sol, la, si; they being taken from a prayer to Saint John to protect the voice, running thus:
Ut queant laxis ….. Resonare fibris
Mira gestorum ….. Pamuli tuorum
Solve polluti …….. Labii reatum,
……………………….. Sancte Johannes
The literal translation of which vould be rendered:
For that (or to enable) With expanded breast
Shy servants are able to sing the praise of Thy
Deeds, forgive the pollute lips the sins uttered.
The syllable at has since been changed for the more satisfactory do.
In the vear 1562 there was printed at Leipzic a work entitled Heptalogium Virgilii Salsburgensis, in honor of the number Seven.
It consists of seven parts each embracing seven divisions. In 1624 appeared in London a curious work on the subject of numbers, bearing the following title: The Secret of Numbers according to Theological, Arithmetical, geometrical, and Harmonical Computation; drawn for the better part, out of those Ancients, as well as Neoteriques. Pleasing to read, profitable to understand, opening themselves to the capacities of both learned and unlearned; being no other than a key to lead men to any doctrinal knowledge whatsoever. In the ninth chapter the author has given many notable opinions from learned men, to prove the excellency of the number Seven. “First, it neither begets nor is begotten, according to the saying of Philo. Some numbers, indeed, within the compass of ten, beget, but are not begotten; and that is the unarie. Others are begotten, but beget not, as the octonarie. Only the septenaries have a prerogative above them all, they neither beget nor are they begotten. This is its first divinity or perfection. Secondly, this is a harmonical number, and the well and fountain of that fair and lovely Sigamma, because it includeth within itself all manner of harmony.
Thirdly, it is a theological number, consisting of perfection. Fourthly, because of its compositure; for it is compounded of the first two perfect members equal and unequal, three and four; for the number trio, consisting of repeated unity, which is no number, is not perfect. Now every one of these being excellent of themselves, as hath been demonstrated, how can this number be but far more excellent, consisting of them all, and participating, as it were, of all their excellent virtues?”
Hippocrates says that the septenary member, by its occult virtue, tends to the accomplishment of all things, is the dispenser of life and fountain of all its changes; and, like Shakespeare, he divides the life of man into seven ages. In seven months a child may be born and live, and not before. Anciently a child was not named before seven days, not being accounted fully to have life before that periodical day. The teeth spring out in the seventh month, and are renewed in the seventh year, when infancy is changed into childhood. At thrice seven years the faculties are developed, manhood commences, and we become legally competent to all civil acts; at four times seven man is in full possession of his strength; at five times seven he is fit for the business of the world; at six times seven he becomes grave and wise, or never; at seven times seven he is in his apogee, and from that time he decays; at eight times seven he is in his first elimaeterie; at nine times seven, or sixty-three, he is in his grand climacteric, or years of danger; and ten times seven, or threescore years and ten, has, by the Royal Prophet, been pronounced the natural period of human life.
Shakespeare’s seven ages are lines in the play of As You Like It (act ii, scene 7) as follows:
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant
Mervling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last seene of all
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans every thing.
Famous playwright and poet, born at Stratford-on-Avon, England, on April 22 or 23,1564; died, April 23, 1616, at Stratford. Brother Henry F. Evans has in the Rob Morris Bulletin of Denver, March, 1918, collected a number of items from the writings of Shakespeare having some bearing on words and phrases common among Freemasons. An article, “Was William Shakespeare a Freemason,” by Robert I. Clegg, appeared in the Builder, February, 1910, examined among many others certain references to the letter G. in Richard III i, 1; the grip and whisper, King John iv, 2; the North for darkness and for evil, Henry VI v, 3, Henry IV ii, 4, Merry Wives of Windsor ii, 2; the plant that discovered the grave and thus revealed the murder of Polydorus to the patient seeker, Aeneas, is in Virgil, book iii, 22, and in Macbeth iii, 4, we have similar testimony that murder will out though stones must move and trees speak. These at least show the age of various ritualistic expressions and the advisability of carefully weighing past usefulness before making changes as is sometimes advised with what is now not so familiar in common usage as formerly.
SHARESPEARE, WILLIAMS AND MASONRY
There is no obvious connection between Masonic research and Shakespearean research; Freemasonry as a Fraternity does not appear in the plays, and there is no indication that Shakespeare belonged to any one of the Time Immemorial Lodges. But out of Shakespearean research and theory arose two or three theories which became connected with the Craft, and Masonic research was thereby drawn into “the Shakespearean question ”
1. There was the theory that Bacon, not the actor Shakespeare. had written the plays at about the same time, and in consequence, there was the theory that Bacon had organized a secret society and that this was the origin of Freemasonry. The discovery of new documents of unquestioned authenticity since Delia Bacon launched “the Baconian Hypothesis’ has completely once and for all, destroyed any possibility of the truth of it.
These documents prove that Shakespeare lived for some thirteen years in London, first in the neighborhood of Blackfriars Theater, then in the neighborhood of the Globe Theater; that he was actor, manager, a re-writer and a writer of plays, etc.; that the principal characters in the plays were adapted to fit the personality, physique, and talents in Shakespeare’s company; the names and number of these players are known, etc.; Bacon’s name nowhere appears in these records, or any representative of Bacon or any of Bacon’s ideas. Shakespeare is proved to have lived neighbor to Decker and Jonson for years, which gives their testimony to his authorship the weight of firsthand knowledge. The author of the plays indubitable was William Shakespeare of Stratford; therefore the flounder of any Baconian secret society was not their author. Meanwhile no evidence of any connection between Bacon and Freemasonry has been discovered, on the other hand a massive accumulation of evidence proves that Freemasonry was at work centuries before Bacon was born.
2. Shakespeare was living in London when the commerce, trade, and crafts were still divided among chartered City Companies; these Companies comprised the framework of London, and contributed most of the Lord Mayors for about six centuries In the manuscript of a play entitled “Sir Thomas More” are three pages in Shakespeare’s handwriting. This material has a peculiar interest for Freemasons for a reason that must be explained:
One of the rules of the City Companies (the Mason Company among them) gave London workmen monopolistic control of work in London. Any non-London workman brought in was called a “stranger.” It might happen under extraordinary circumstances that an exception would be made in favor of a “stranger’ but if not it was considered that any work he might do was “bootlegged,” or “clandestine”—Scottish Masons would have called them “cowans.” The records of the Mason Company are interspersed with protests against and condemnations of “strangers” in the building crafts. Once in a while the members of a City Company might gather on the street to drive “strangers” out; these were called riots or mobs. It happens that the scene written into “Sir Thomas More” by Shakespeare for use on the stage concerned just such a “mob.” In a speech for the character of Sir Thomas More he wrote a powerful denunciation of this mobbing in that overwhelming poetry which was uniquely his own.
3. One of the main supports of the anti-Shakespeare theory of authorship of the plays was the argument that a man from Stratford could not have possessed the encyclopedic knowledge revealed in them. This argument has lost its point.
First, Shakespearean research has proved that Shakespeare lived and worked in the very focus of British government and learning, was a boon companion of scholars, met men from travels in distant countries, was received by the Queen, helped to receive the all-important Spanish Ambassador, produced plays in the Inns of the Temple, the center and home of British law, etc.
Second, it has proved that in writing a play he adhered as closely as possible to some volume by Plutarch, Holinshed, Malory, Montaigne, etc.; much of the erudition which went into the plays, and which has constituted the great puzzle, was therefore not his own erudition but belonged to the books he wed. If he introduced here and there some detail strikingly similar to a Masonic word or phrase, or custom it does not follow that he himself had any knowledge of the Craft. A Shakespeare Lodge constituted at Stratford expressly with the hope of proving Shakespeare to have been a Mason admitted its failure. Evidence may be discovered in the future; if it is it will be welcome; until it is, there are no grounds for believing that he ever entered a Lodge. As for his plays themselves their large themes are historical, political, military; architecture and the gilds have no place in them except as furnishing background for some detail or are mentioned in from passing auction.
Dr. Charles William Wallace, of the University of Nebraskan made in 1919 the discovery of the records of a trial in which Shakespeare was a witness and to one of which he attached his signature. He also discovered in the Record Office the exact location of the Globe Theater. Dr. Leslie Hotson, Haverford College, America, discovered a deed belonging to Shakespeare for a house near Blackfriars; and a subpoena issued to a set of persons who had made threats against a certain William Waytes in 1596, with William Shakespeare among five accused persons named. Shakespeare lampooned this Wayte’s close friend Justice William Gardiner as Justice Swallow in two plays. The Countess Clara Longworth de Chambrun discovered the copy of Holinshed which Shakespeare had used.
Discoveries of records and correspondence in late years have cleared up the question of Shakespeare’s religion. He spent his boyhood at the period when Roman Catholicism was being driven out of Stratford, and his father, the town’s leading citizen, Mayor a number of terms, and until his last years a man of wealth, was the leader of the Protestants who stripped the Stratford Church of its images and other Popish trappings; his mother, on the other hand, was an Arden, a very old family, and famous for its devotion to the Roman Church; she was compelled by law to abandon her creed, but it is probable that she continued to cherish it in secret. Since Shakespeare was as much attached to one parent as to the other it is reasonable to believe that he had no strong inner attachment to either Protestantism or Romanism.
Moreover, Stratford had become not only Protestant but Puritan; since his had been a forced marriage, and since he had gone off to London to work in a theater, the Puritan circles at home could not have looked upon him with approval. He returned, however, a wealthy man, and for that reason was accepted back into respectability, though after his death when London actors arrived in Stratford with a bust to place at his tomb they were ill received, and given one day to leave the town because they belonged to a profession which the Puritans were determined to destroy.
(See Mr. Shakespeare of the Globe, by Frayne Williams; E. P. Dutton & Co.; Stew York; 1941; 396 pages; abundant references Francis Bacon and his secret society. by Mrs. Pott. Speddings Life of Bacon. .Shakespeare: Creator of Freemasonry by Alfred Dodd; Slider & Co.; London.)
SHARP INSTRUMENT 1
The emblematic use of a sharp instrument, as indicated in the instructions of the First Degree, is intended to be represented by a warlike weapon, the old rituals call it “a warlike instrumented such as a dagger or sword. The use of the point of a pair of compasses, as is sometimes improperly done, is an erroneous application of the symbol, which should not be tolerated in a properly conducted Lodge. The compasses are, besides, a symbol peculiar to the Third Degree.
SHARP INSTRUMENT 2
The Minutes of the Lodge of Antiquity (one of “the Four Old Lodges”) record that on March 26, 1834 “a poignard for the I. G. was given by Bro. R. W. Jennings . . . ” Prior to the Union there had been in general no protection of the door except by the Tiler, who stood outside, armed with a weapon, which, in Speculative Freemasonry, had symbolic purposes only yet was for those purposes inexorably wielded. The story of the sword in early Speculative Freemasonry is an interesting one—it is recommended to Masonic essayists. In the Eighteenth Century young blades wore a sword almost everywhere; sometimes even in Church (if they mere armigerous ” or entitled to bear arms, Which ”commoners” were not permitted to do). Should Lodges permit swords to be worn in the Lodge Room?
A weapon was out of place there. The young men insisted that they would; the Lodges insisted that they should not; Grand Lodge weakened once and gave permission, but at the end of a year recanted and withdrew permission; swords were left in the Anteroom. But it is probable that as a kind of compromise the Tiler, who was not only a “commoner” but of a lower order still, namely, a “servant,” had to give over his ancient practice of carrying about the gentlemen’s weapon, and took to wearing a poignard which was really a foreign weapon. When an Inner Guard was added to the Lodge officers after the Union of 1813 he also was armed, and also with what one Secretary wrote down as a “p – – – d. ” In the course of time (at least in America) the Inner Guard (or Junior Deacon) went without even that weapon, and the now unlawful sword was returned to the Outer Guard, or Tiler.
What a visitor, or stranger, or a Candidate encountered at the Outer Door of the Lodge was not a door, but a sword! To outsiders the “sword” is a challenge and a warning; to members it is a guard and a protection. (The “border”—or boundary, or tees sellated edge of a Lodge room—is thus an actuality) There is no data to show when or why the symbolism of the Sharp Instrument was introduced, but it is a reasonable theory that it is a symbolical modification of the old custom in which the Tiler (or Outer Guard) guarded the Inner Door with his blade—certainly he never guarded it with a pair of compasses.
Hindu word meaning instruction. Any book held more or less sacred among the Hindus, whether included in the Sruti or not. The Great Shasters comprise the Vedas, the Upavedas, and the Vedangas, with their appended works of learning, ineluding the Puranas, the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata (see puranas, Ramaydna, and Mahabharata).
The sacred book of the Hindus, which contains the dogmas of their religion and the ceremonies of their worship. It is a commentary on the Vedas, and consists of three parts: the moral law, the rites and ceremonies of the religion, and the distribution of the people into tribes. To the Hindu Freemason it would be the Greater Light and his Book of the Law, as the Bible is to his Christian Brother.
SHEBA, QUEEN OF
In the Books of Kings and Chronicles (see First Kings x, 1-13, and Second Chrolliele3 ix, 1-12), we are told that “when the Queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon coneerning the name of the Lord, she came to prove him with hard questions.” Sheba, or Saba, is supposed to have been a province of Arabia Felix, situated to the south of Jerusalem. The Queen, whose visit is thus described, is spoken of nowhere else in Seripture. But the Jews and the Arabs, who gave her the name of lSalkis, recite many traditions concerning her. The Masonic one will be found under the words Admiration, Sign of, which see.
The Hebrew word The fifth month of the Hebrew civil year, and corresponding with the months January and February, beginning with the new moon of the former.
In the Fourth or Mark Master’s Degree, it is said that the value of a Mark is “a Jewish half-shekel of silver, or twenty-five cents in the curreney of this country.” The shekel of silver was a weight of great antiquity among the Jews, its value being about a half-dollar. In the time of Solomon, as well as long before and long after, until the Babylonish exile, the Hebrews had no regularly stamped money, but generally used in traffic a currency which consisted of uncoiled shekels, which they weighed out to one another. The earliest specimens of the coined shekel which we know are of the coinage of Simon Maceabeus, issued about the year 144 B.C. Of these, we generally find on the obverse the sacred pot of manna, with the inscription, Shekel Israel, in the old Samaritan character; on the reverse, the rod of Aaron, having three buds, with the inscription, Jerushalem Kadoshah, or Jerusalem the Holy, in a similar character.
The Hebrew word brad, derived from Shakan, meaning to dwell. A term applied by the Jews, especially in the Targums, to the divine glory which dwelt in the tabernacle and the Temple, and which was manifested by a visible cloud resting over the merey-seat in the Holy of Holies. It first appeared over the Ark when Moses consecrated the Tabernacle; and was afterward, upon the consecration of the Temple by Solomon, translated thither, where it remained until the destruction of that building.
The Shekinah disappeared after the destruction of the first Temple, and was not present in the second. Christie, in his learned treatise on the Worship of the Elements, says that “the loss of the Shekinah, that visible sign of the presence of the Deity, induced an early respeet for solar light as its substitute. ” Now there is mueh that is signifieative of Masonic history in this brief sentence. The sun still remains as a prominent symbol in the Masonic system. It has been derived by the Masons from those old sunworshipers. But the idea of Masonic light is very different from their idea of solar light. The Shekinah was the symbol of the Divine glory; but the true glory of divinity is Truth, and Divine Truth is therefore the Shekinah of Freemasonry. This is symbolized by light, which is no longer used by us as a “substitute” for the Shekinah, or the Divine glory, but as its symbol—the physical expression of its essence.
The password of the Order of Felicity. It is of Arabic root, signifying, Peace be with you! (see Selamu Aleikum).
The Name. The Jews in their sacred rites often designated God by the word Name, but they applied it only to him in his most exalted eharaeter as expressed by the Tetragrammaton, JEHOVAH. To none of the other titles of God, such as El, Eheyeh, or Adonai, do they apply the word. Thus, Shemchah Sadosh, Thy name is holy, means Thy name Jehovah is holy. To the Name thus exalted, in its reference to the Tetragrammaton, they applied many epithets, among which are the following used by the Talmudists, Shem shal arbang, the name of four, i.e., four letters, Shem hamjukad, the appropriated name, i.e., appropriated solely to God. Shem haggadol, the great name, and Shem hakkadosh, the holy name. To the Jew, as to the Freemason, this great and holy name was the symbol of all Divine truth. The Name was the true name, and therefore it symbolized and represented the true God.
SHEM, HAM, JAPHETH
The three sons of Noah, who assisted him in the construction of the Ark of Safety, and henee they became significant words in the Royal Arch Degree according to the American system. The interpolation of Adoniram in the place of one of these names, which is sometimes met with, is a blunder of some modern ritual maker.
A Hebrew expression, meaning the Separated Name. The Tetragrammaton is so called because, as Maimonides, in the More Nebukim, Guide of the Perplexed, says, all the names of God are derived from his works except the Tetragrammaton, which is called the separated name, because it is derived from the substance of the Creator, in which there is no participation of any other thing. That is to say, this name indicates the self-existent essence of God, which is something altogether within Himself, and separate from His works.
One of the three historical divisions of religion—the other two being the Turanian and the Aryan—and embraces Mosaism, Christianity, the Eddaic Code, and Moslemism.
According to Brother Preston, the sheriff of a County possessed, before the Revival of 1717, a power later confined to Grand Masters. He says (Illustrations, page 182) that “A sufficient number of Masons met together within a certain district, with the consent of the Sheriff or chief magistrate of the place, were empowered, at this time, to make Masons, and practise the rites of Masonry without a warrant of Constitution.”
This is confirmed by the following passage in the Cooke Manuscript (lines 901-12): “When the masters and fellows be forewarned and are come to such congregations, if need be, the Sheriff of the Country, or the Mayor of the City, or Aldermen of the Town in which such Congregation is holden, shall be fellow and soeiate to the master of the congregation in help of him against rebels and (for the) upbearing the right of the realm.”
See Insect Shermah
One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, born at Newton, Massachusetts, April 19, 1721; died in New Haven, Connecticut, July 23, 1793. Was Judge, Superior Court, Connecticut, 1766; Treasurer, Yale University, 1765; Delegate, Continental Congress, 1774; Mayor, New Haven, 1784; United States Senator, 1791; member, Committee Drafting Declaration of Independence and Articles of Federation. He was made a Freemason just prior to the breaking out of the American Revolution (see New Age, April, 1924, and Masonic Presidents, Vice Presidents and Signers, by William L. Boyden).
The seven-headed serpent floating in the eosmical ocean, upon which the throne of Brahrna rested.
The twelve loaves which were placed upon a table in the sanctuary of the Temple, and which were called the shewbread or bread of the presence, are represented among the paraphernalia of a Lodge of Perfection in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Bähr (Symbolik) says that the shew bread was a symbol of the bread of life—of the eternal life by which we are brought into the presence of Cod and know Him; an interpretation that is equally applicable to the Masonic symbolism.
The Hebrew word neat The word which the Gileadites under Jephthah made use of as a test at the passages of the river Jordan after a victory over the Ephraimites. The word has two meanings in Hebrew: First, an ear of corn; and second, a stream of water. As the Ephraimites were desirous of crossing the river, it is probable that this second meaning suggested it to the Gileadites as an appropriate test word on the occasion. The proper sound of the first letter of this word is sh, a harsh breathing which is exceedingly difficult to be pronounced by persons whose vocal organs have not been accustomed to it. Such was the ease with the Ephraimites, who substituted for the aspiration the hissing sound of s.
Their organs of voice were incapable of the aspiration, and therefore, as the record has it, they “could not frame to pronounce it right ” The learned Burder remarks (Oriental Customs ii, page 782) that in Arabia the difference of pronunciation among persons of various districts is much greater than in most other places, and such as easily accounts for the circumstance mentioned in the passage of Judges. Hutchinson (Spirit of Masonry, page 182), speaking of this word, rather fancifully derives it from the Greek Gags, I revere, and a stone, and, therefore, he says Sibbolithon, Colo Lapidem, implies that they—the Freemasons—retain and keep inviolate their obligations, as the Juramentum per Jovem Lapidem, the most obligatory oath held among the heathen.”
It may be remarked that in the instructions of the Fellow Graft’s Degree where the story of the Ephraimites is introduced, and where Shibboleth is symbolically interpreted as meaning plenty, the word waterford is sometimes used incorrectly, instead of waterfall Shibboleth means a Stood of water, a rapid stream, not a ford. In Psalm lxix, 3, the word is used in this exact sense. Shibboleth shetafatni, meaning the Stood has overwhelmed me.
And, besides a waterfall is an emblem of plenty, because it indicates an abundance of water; while a waterford, for the converse reason, is, if any symbol at all a symbol of scarcity. This explanation by Doctor Mackey has been criticized, the first comment being that the passage of Scripture cited here contains no allusion whatever to a waterfall. Of course it does refer to “the passages of the Jordan” which were certainly waterfords. At these places the test was made to ascertain whether those who came to cross were Ephraimites. Further comment made is that Doctor Mackey seems to have based his opinion on the assumption that the symbol of plenty referred to an abundance of water, and it is urged as opposing this conclusion that an abundance of water is nowhere else a Masonic suggestion of plenty, while corn is so employed in speech. The further point is made that if the reference were to the quantity of water the reasoning is not conclusive.
A running stream may have as much water at a ford as at a fall. All the running water must pass the ford as well as at the cataract.
The water at the ford may be more shallow, but there i8 just as much of it. Indeed it often happens that a fall does not extend entirely across a river, so that the quantity passing over it may not be equal to that at the ford. For this reason it is claimed a waterfall is not a symbol of plenty any more than a waterford. This reasoning is said to be strengthened by consideration of the Hebrew meaning of Shibboleth. One authority gives two meanings, an ear of corn and a stream.
The first is translated oftener. These suggestions have much value for us, and we may add that the references by Doctor Mackey to water, are as with all his comments, very much to the point. Water in some form is essential to life. The fertility of the ground depends upon the use of water. The scarcity of water gives importance to the use of the word as a symbol. The rainfall in Palestine was limited and uncertain, and the rivers few, and of very limited use. A waterfall became a symbol of abundance while a waterford indicated the Scarcity of water in the river, permitting its passage. The two are not the same thing by any means in their allusions.
They do suggest, as Brother Mackey pointed out, the difference between scarcity and abundance. If we consider the reference by Brother Mackey in this light, we see the force of his reasoning very clearly. It is true that the same body of water may at one place widen out and be shallow and then it is crossed at that point by easy passage, while at another place the same amount of water may tumble over a rock and form a waterfall.
If we start out by supposing the same amount of water is falling in each ease, we get the understanding of the critic, but this was not Doctor Mackey’s argument. He was thinking of that abundance of water which tumbles plentifully over a precipice, and comparing it with a river which is almost dry and permits easy passage, the one indicating plenty and the other scarcity.
Let it not be forgotten that nowadays we look upon the slaughter of the Ephraimites somewhat differently than formerly. We are told that at that time there fell forty and two thousand. This was once generally understood as meaning forty-two thousand, but it is today usually accepted as two thousand and forty only.
The pronunciation of the word Shibboleth is usually with the stress on the first syllable, the I short, and the o obscure as in the word theory.
Doctor Young’s Analytical Concordance puts the stress on the first syllable and gives the o as obscure in sound, but he also places on record an alternative pronunciation in which the o is marked long. Another authority, Concise Dictionary of Hebrew and Chaldee Terms in the Bible, Hunt and Eaton, 1894, puts the stress on the second syllable with the o long. Here the word is traced to a Hebrew one, pronounced showable, from a root meaning to flow, and therefore shibboleth as meaning a stream that is flowing, an ear of corn groung out, and by analogy a flood; an ear of corn is given as shibboleth, with the o long. But a careful search among English Bibles including the Jewish Encyclopedia unearthed no alternative pronunciations.
However, the Fonolexika Langenscheidt,, Hebrew English Dictionary, a vocabulary of the Hebrew Old Testament based upon the pronunciation of the Sephardirn or Jews of Western Europe, does give on page 339 the word with the stress on the second syllable and the o long, the definition being ear (of corn), point, branch, stream, water-course. For those who may hear the alternative pronunciation and are tempted to mention it, then it is well to understand that both sets of sounds and stresses of syllables have substantial support, one from Jewish authority, the other from English acceptance. In any event, there is nothing to justify between critic and speaker a repetition of the Bible history as told by John Milton:
That sore battle, when so many died
Without reprieve, adjudged to death
For want of well pronouncing Shibboleth.
In commenting upon the use of picturesque phrases the London Times, 1924 asked: How many of those who talk glibly of shibboleths have before them the picture of the wretched Ephraimites at the for d striving frantically to frame the word which is going to be the arbiter for them of life and death? Rev. Walter Crick, of Oving Vicarage, in answer, mentions a striking repetition, not of the word, but of the facts which the word connotes, as related to him by Major General Sir George Mac Munn:
After Lord Allenby’s final routing of the Turkish forces broken parties of fugitives arrived at the fords of Jordan. There were many Arabs and Syrians conscriptioned in the Turkish Army. The fords were held by our Arab allies, and when Turkish soldiers tried to pass they one and all said they were Syrians. So the Arab guards said, ” Say now, Bozzel” meaning onion, and they said 4′ Bossel” for no Turk could pronounce it right.
History is said to repeat itself, adds Mr. Criek, and, if this is so, no more singular illustration of the fact could well be imagined than is presented by this picture of the Turkish soldiers “striving frantically to frame the word which is going to be the arbiter for them of life and death.” just as did the Ephraimites, three thousand years ago, and probably at the selfsame ford.
The curious instance of the Ephraimites is not the only one related in history. The Builder, 1923 (page 31), records that during the awful days of the Sicilian Vespers a suspect was similarly tried. The name of dried peas among the Sicilians was ciceri: if the man pronounced the c with a chee sound he was allowed to pass as being a Sicilian; but if he gave it an s sound, he was captured as being a Frenchman. During a battle between the Danes and Saxons on Saint Bryee’s Day in 1002, if tradition is to be trusted, the words Chichester Church were employed as a like test.
The shape of the shield worn by the knight in the Middle Ages varied according to the caprice of the wearer, but generally it was large at the top and gradually diminished to a point, being made of wood and covered with leather, and on the outside was seen the escutcheon or representation of the armorial bearings of the owner.
The shield, with all the other parts of the armor worn by the knights except the gauntlets, has been discontinued by the modern Masonic Knights. Doctor Oliver thinks that in some of the military initiations, as in those of the Scandinavian mysteries, the shield was substituted for the apron. An old heraldic writer, quoted by Sloane-Evans (Grammar of British Heraldry, page 153), thus gives the symbolic import of the shield: “Like as the shield served in the battle for a safeguard of the body of soldiers against wounds, even so in time of peace, the same being hanged up, did defend the owner against the malevolent detractions of the envious.”
SHIELD OF DAVID
Two interlaced triangles, more commonly known as the Seal of Solomon, and considered by the ancient Je vs as a talisman of great efficacy (see Seal of Solomon). Because the shield was, in battle a protection, like a talisman, to the person, the Hebrews used the same word, Magen, to signify both a shield and a talisman. Gaffarel says, in his Curiositates Inauditae (London, 1650, page 133), “The Hebrew word Maghen signifies a scutcheon, or any other thing noted with Hebrew characters, the virtue whereof is like to that of a scutcheon.” After shoving that the shield was never an image, because the Mosaic law forbade the making of graven images, he adds: “Maghen, therefore, signifies properly any piece of paper or other like matter marked or noted with certain characters drawn from the Tetragrammaton, or Great Name of four letters, or from any other.”
The most usual form of the Shield of David was to place in the center of the two triangles, and at the intersecting points, the Hebrew word sass, Agla, which was compounded of the initials of the words of the sentence, Atah Gibor Lolam Adonai, meaning Thou art strong in the eternal God. Thus constructed, the Shield of David was supposed to he a preservative against all sorts of dangers (see Magic Squares).
The national worship of the Japanese, and the word signifies the path of the gods. I t is ancient and is analogous to nature worship with ancestor worship.
From Shin, meaning god or gods, and to, the way. The ancient religion of Japan, and founded on the worship of ancestors and nature. It acknowledges a Supreme Creator and numerous subordinate gods called Kami, many of whom are the apotheoses of emperors and great men. It believes in the immortality of the soul, and in its ritual uses symbols, such as the mirror—which is the symbol of an unsoiled life—and lustrations symbolic of moral purification.. Like the early Grecian mythology Shintoism has deified natural objects, such as the sun, the air, earth, fire, water, lightning, thunder, etc It is a system much mixed up with the philosophy of Confucius and with myths and legends.
About the sixth century, 522, Buddhism came by way of Korea from China to Japan and thereafter continued side by side with Shintoism for three hundred years when the two were united in the doctrine of Ryobu-Shinto, the Dual Shinto.
From the ninth century the two grew together intimately until the middle of the seventeenth century when a determined effort was made to return to the pure Shinto of the Kojiki. The Record of Antiquity, the Kojiki and the Record of Japan, the Nihonyis, both completed in the eighth century, are the sacred books of Shinto and contain picturesque accounts of prehistoric events. Such ethics as are taught by them and their adherents may be briefly expressed as the advice to follow the pure impulses of one’s heart. Buddhism for a time suffered temporary eclipse by the later reaction toward primitive Shintoism but was too deeply planted for complete uprooting. Slowly Buddhism regained much of its former prominence.
Doctor Oliver says that the shrine is the place where the secrets of the Royal Arch are deposited. The word is not so used in the United States of America, nor does it seem properly applicable according to the legend of the Degree. The word is frequently applied to the Ancient Arabic Order, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine.
The Shrine, as is for brevity the familiar name applied to the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, has an origin about which the various writers upon the subject have not agreed.The point on which there is general agreement is that the real work of preparing a Ritual and organizing a Temple in the City of New York and four years later organizing what was first known as the “Imperial Grand Council of the Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for the United States of America,” was done by Dr. Walter M. Fleming, ably assisted by Nobles (Charles T. McClenachan and a few others (see history of the Imperial Council, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, W. B. Melish, Preston Belvin, Jarnes McGee, George S. Meredith, Fred D. Schram, Committee on History, Cincinnati,1919, page 14, also see Doctor Mackey’s revised History of Freemasonry, pages 1973 to 1983). Noble Fleming and his associates purposely gave the Ritual an alluring mysticism presented in Oriental style. So much is this in evidence that even those active in the Shrine from the earlier years found difficulty in saying with precision how much or how little confidence should be placed in any claims made for an exclusively foreign origin of the institution.
We submit some of the statements. From these the reader may determine whether the Shrine was from the far East, or of near New York, or Oriental in dress and American by birth. The history is discussed in Mecca, the Parent Temple, 1894, a book “compiled and collated” by Noble Dr. Walter M. Fleming and Noble William S. Paterson. Brother Fleming was the first Grand Imperial Potentate. Grand in the titles was discarded by the Imperial Council in 1887. The name of the Temple at New York was Gotham and was changed when it was decided that all Temples should have an Arabic or Egyptian title, when Mecca was chosen.
Noble Paterson was the first Recorder of Mecca Temple, serving for twenty-five years, and was also Recorder of the Imperial Council, 1876-89. Pages 12 to 14 of the above work state, “‘the Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine was instituted by the Mohammedan Kalif Alee (whose name be praised!), the cousin-german and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed (God favor and preserve him!), in the year of the Hegira 25 (A.D. 644) at Mecca, in Arabia, as an Inquisition or Vigilance Committee, to dispense justice and execute punishment upon criminals who escaped their just deserts through the tardiness of the courts, and also to promote religious toleration among cultured men of all nations.”
Brothers Fleming and Paterson say also: “The Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine in America does not advocate Mohammedanism as a sect, but inculcates the same respect to Deity here as in Arabia and elsewhere, and hence the secret of its profound grasp on the intellect and heart of all cultured people.
The Ritual now in rise is a translation from the original Arabic, found preserved in the Archives of the Order at Aleppo, Syria, whence it was brought, in 1860, to London, England, by Rizk Allah Hassoon Effendee, who was the author of several important works in Arabic, one of which was a metrical version of the Book of Job. His History of Islam offended the Turkish Government because of its humanitarian principles, and he was forced to leave his native country. He was a ripe scholar in Arabic poetry and the general literature of the age, and his improvements in the direction of certain parts of the Ritual of the Shrine are of great beauty and value.” They add that in 1698 a “learned Orientalist, Luigi Marracci,” was initiated into “our Order of Nobles,” and translated the Ritual into Italian, and “in making the present version the translator has had the benefit of the work of Alnasafi, of Marracci, and of Hassoon.
The rendering is literal where the idiom permitted, except where a local reference required the substitution of America for Oriental names of cities. The work was perfected in August, 1870, under the supervision of Dr. Walter M. Fleming, Thirty-third Degree, Sovereign Grand Inspector General, Ancient Accepted Scottish Mite, and Past Commander of Columbian Commandery, No. 1, Knights Templar, New York, who received his instructions and authority from Rizk Allah Hassoon Effendee, who had competent jurisdiction for America.”
The History of 1894 by Brothers Fleming and Paterson deals with William J. Florence, the famous actor. A long letter from Brother Florence written in 1882 tells of a visit by him in August, 1870, at Marseilles, France, to a Hall near the Grand Hotel de l’Univers where there was a meeting of Bokhara Shrine Temple presided over by Yusef Churi Bey, of the Persian Consulate. Brother Florence says:
“I need not describe the work of the Temple any further than to say that the intention is to enact a drama very much like our own, which had for its object the same lesson, and there can be no better or more zealous workers in a good cause than those French brothers who celebrated the Mysteries at Marseilles on that evening. My duties prevented a sufficiently long stay in Marseilles to witness a second performance and I therefore begged Yusef Bey to allow me to have a copy of the Ritual and Laws which I received on the day I sailed for Algiers.
In Algiers the Shrine of the Mogribins was in full operation, meeting each week on Friday evening. zebu Mohammed Baki was the Shayk, and among the members were nearly every one of the many consuls, vice-consuls, and other diplomats of the port, many of the most noted merchants and bankers, and not a few of the learned and gifted Mohammedans, who are passionately fond of perpetuating ancient customs which increase their social pleasures.
The costumes and furniture of the Shrine in Algiers were gorgeous in silk, wool and fine linen, decorated with embroidery in gold, silver and colors, and the sword, spears, and other articles used by the guards and officers in the work were genuine steel, many of which had been in actual service in the field of battle.” A few months before Brother Florence died, (Grand Secretary Parvin of Iowa submitted to him a newspaper clipping that said among other things that he was initiated at Cairo. In reply the famous actor wrote: “The points in the paper are mainly correct. I was the first to introduce the Order in America. Doctor Fleming amplified and perfected the work.”
A letter written by Doctor Fleming is in the History by Noble Paterson and himself. He says: “Mr. Florence was entertained as a Mason at Marseilles, in Bokhara Temple of the Arabic Bektash. He at this time simply witnessed the opening session of the exoteric ceremonials which characterize the politic or religious Order of Bektash of Oriental Europe. A monitorial, history and explanatory manuscript he also received there. It did not embrace the esoteric inner temple exemplification or obligation, nor the Unwritten Law which is never imparted to any one except from mouth to ear. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Florence was similarly favored in Algiers and Aleppo.
Through letters and commendations he finally secured the manuscript monitor, history and descriptive matters, from which sprang the Order in this country. It was in Algiers and Aleppo that he was received into the Inner Temple under the domain of the Crescent, and first became possessor of the esoteric ivory the unwritten law, and the Shayk’s obligation. Subsequently he visited Cairo, Egypt, and was admitted, and collected more of Oriental history and the manuscript of Memorial Ceremonials.
But Mr. Florence was never fully recognized or possessed of authority until long after his return to America. All he possessed was a disconnected series of sheets in Arabic and French, with some marginal memoranda made by himself from verbal elucidation in Aleppo Through Professor Albert L. Rawson, these, with others received afterwards through correspondence abroad, comprised the translations from which the Order started here. Mr. Florence and myself received authority to introduce the Order in America.”
Brother James McGee in his Early History of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrive e in North America tells a different story. Published in 1918 this pamphlet says that with the object of bringing the Order to the notice of the Masonic Fraternity the founder felt the same necessity, as did those who have founded other secret fraternal orders, of giving it the flavor of mysticism and antiquity to secure a standing and success. Brother Fleming wanted the Order to be Arabic by birth but American by adoption, having a broad toleration, “He who holds a belief in a Supreme or Most High is never questioned as to any definition of that belief.” In this connection examine the dialogue between the Angel and the Student on page 208 of Francis S. Salturs’ book Honey and Gall, published by J. E. Lippincott & Company, at Philadelphia, 1875, a copy of which was owned by Doctor Fleming and preserved by his family. This work has some significant marginal notes written by Doctor Fleming showing that his manuscript of the ceremonies was influenced by this poem. The lines in question are:
Believest thou? . .
In powers supreme that fix and shape thy lot
That either wound or kill, sustain, create,
That rule thy doings, and command thy fate?
Spirit! A sacrilege thou mayst suspect.
But hark thee! All religions I respect
As good and worthy,—but believe in none.
The bronze-skinned savage who adores the sun
And bows before the flament eye in fear
Should not be scoffed at, if his voice sincere
In simple wordings swelleth out in prayer
To one that warms and feeds him by its glare.
The Parsees kneeling to their God of Fire
Ascend with cheerful steps a blazing pyre
To perish faithful—girt with strong belief.
Do they not merit for their martyred grief
An envied life of joys in other spheres
As consolation for their worldly fearst
Cannot a noble heart in Greek or Turk
In breast of Jew as well as Christian lurk?
The struts and splendors of the Orient’s rites,
The pageants, jewelled costumes, countless lights,
The wailing dervishes with sandalled feet,
The censors swinging with their perfumes sweet.
The sumptuous mosques, marvels of Eastern art,
The tekke’s domed, chiselled in every part
With crafty hand, till stone resembles lace
A glorious tribute. age cannot efface—
lithe sensuous music, velvet to the ear
Monotonous of rhythm, deep, sad, austere,
Yet soul vibrating, mystic, gravely sung
By throat melodious. and by fervent tongue:
The stately Imans robed in white and blue,
The zains, defenders, eunuchs, retinue,
Steel, gold and glory pomp immense.
Does not this speak to eye, to soul, to sense,
Persuading all as loud the muessin drones,
Allah is great, Mahonlet’s love atones.”
Doctor Fleming has a note substituting the word Arab for Jew in the above text, and two additional lines were added by him in his copy of Saltus’ books These are:
Stir thy lethargy—
Go forth, expiate thy sins.
Brother Fleming had traveled throughout Europe, the Orient, and America. Democratic congenial, a sportsman, ever at home with kindred spirits, a constant student, he had a book in hand up to his last moments Possessing a keen retentive memory, he was the best of entertainers, having a fund of recitations and he attracted a host of friends. Through miscellaneous literary work he developed into form his conception of the Order of the Mystic Shrine as a relaxation from the serious labor necessary in the portrayal by himself and his fellow members of the many characters in the Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
The foundation of the Shrine was laid in that Rite. On Sunday, April 21, 1867, Aurora Grata Lodge of Perfection of Brooklyn held a special meeting at the Metropolitan Hotel, New York Cites for the purpose of communicating the Ineffable Grades of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite upon Brother William J. Florence who was “about to depart for Europe,” as the Minutes say. There were present Illustrious Brother McClenachan and one other member of the Supreme Council for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, two from the Southern, and a number of Brethren of Aurora Grata. The Degrees of the Council, Chapter, and Consistory were also conferred upon Brother Florence before his departure. This was the trip made by him to the Old World preceding the establishment of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine in the United States.
Brother Charles A. Brockaway, Past Potentate of Kismet Temple, and Historian of the Aurora Grata Bodies says: “Brother Florence brought back monitorial, historical and explanatory manuscripts and communicated the secrets of the Order to Dr. Walter M. Fleming of Aurora Grata Consistory, who was empowered to introduce and establish the Order in America. It was determined to confer the Order only on Freemasons and on the 16th of June, 1871 (brother McGee puts the date in September of the following year), four Knights Templar and seven members of Aurora Grata Consistory, Thirty-second Degree, were made acquainted with the secrets of the Order by Doctor Fleming and Brother Florence. It was decided to engage in the establishment of the Order, and on the 26th of September, 1872, the organization was effected and officers elected. Nine of the thirteen founders of the Mystic Shrine in the United States were members of the Aurora Crata Bodies~2 (see One Hundred Years of Aurora Grata, Charles A. Brockaway, Brooklyn, 1908, page 48).
William J. Florence, Walter M. Fleming, Charles T. MeClenachan, Daniel Sickels, John W. Simons, (George W. Millar, William S. Paterson, John A. Moore and James S. Chappelle were the nine members mentioned above. The first thirty Nobles of the Mystic Shrine were officially listed and numbered as follows:
1, Walter Millard Fleming
2, William Jermyn Florence
3, Sherwood C. Campbell
4, James ,S. Chappelle
5, Oswald M. d’Aubigne
6, Edward Eddy
7, Charles T. McClenachan
8, George W. Millar
9, John A. Moore
10, Albert P. Moriarty
11, William S. Paterson
12, Daniel Sickels
13, John W. Simons
14, Benson Sherwood
15, Charles Aikman
16, William V. Alexander
17, John E. Bendix
18, William Blanchard
19, Benjamin F. Brady
20, John F. Collins
21, Edward du Laurans
22, Edward Martin Luther Ehlers
23, Peter Forrester
24, William Fowler
25, William T. Hardenbrook
26, Philip Lenhart
27, Joseph M. Levey
28, James McGee
29, Charles T. Murrat
30, William D. May
Brother Fleming was working early in the seventies upon the Ritual. He joined the Consistory in May, 1871, and in March, 1872, became a member of Columbian Commandery. He conferred with an able ritualist and Masonic student, Charles T. McClenachan, and Brother McGee says they agreed to decorate the Shrine Ritual with the glamour of Eastern mysticism and color. The new organization became an adjunct to the York as well as the Scottish Rite. A candidate must be a Thirty-second Degree Freemason or a Knights Templar.
Doctor Fleming was the physician and friend of Brother Florence. Fleming and McClenachan, according to Noble James McGee, considered how the Order could gain the quickest success. Florence consented to the use of his name. Fleming drew upon his imagination and wrote up Florence in his visits to the imaginary Shrine Temples of foreign lands in “regal splendor,” as he termed it, and his “comminglings” with the Nobility of the Order abroad, bestowing upon his congenial patient and chum many honors (see Early History of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine in North America, James McGee, New York, 1918, page 9).
While less romantic, this the more recent account of the Order has gained ground though the story lacks the picturesque qualities of the days when on paper at least relations with Shrine Temples of the East were presumably maintained and the advertising of a welcome to visiting Nobles was printed regularly in Arabic in the columns of a New York publication.
Mecca Temple was organized in 1872. The following officers were elected, there being thirteen members of the Temple, of whom eleven were present. Florence and Campbell were absent: Walter M. Fleming, Potentate; Charles T. McClenaehan, Chief Rabban; John A. Moore, Assistant Rabban; William S. Paterson, Recorder; Edward Eddy, High Priest; James S. Chappelle, Treasurer; George W. Millar, Oriental Guide; and Oswald M. d’Aubigne, Captain of the Guard. In the Imperial Grand Council of the Ancient Arabic Order of Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for the United States of America was organized on June 6, 1876. The following were officers of the Imperial Grand— Grand as a title was dropped later—Council for three years: Walter M. Fleming, New York, Grand Potentate; George F. Loder, Rochester, New York, Deputy Grand Potentate; Philip F. Lenhart, Brooklyn, Grand Chief Rabban; Edward M. L. Ehlers, New York City, Grand Assistant Chief Rabban; William H. Whiting, Roehester, New York, High Priest and Prophet; Samuel R. Carter, Rochester, New York, Oriental Guide; Aaron L. Northrup, New York City, Grand Treasurer; William S. Paterson, New York City, Grand Recorder; Albert P. Moriarty, New York City, Grand Financial Secretary; John L. Stettinius, Cincinnati, Ohio, Grand First Ceremonial Master; Benson Sherwood, New York City, Grand Second Ceremonial Master; Samuel Harper, Pittsburgh, Grand Marshal; Franl; Bascom, Montpelier, Vermont, Grand Captain of the Guards; and George Scott, Paterson, New Jersey, Grand Outer Guard.
Brother Fleming was born at Portland, Maine, June 13, 1838, and died at Mount Vernon, New York, on September 9, 1913; McClenachan was born at Washington, District of Columbia, on April 13, 1829, and died on December 19, 1896; Florence was born at Albany, New York, on July 26, 1831, and died at Philadelphia on November 19, 1891; Paterson was a Scotehman, born at Haddington on March 6, 1844, coming to the United States at three years of age, and died in New York City on May 21, 1913. Brief Masonic biographies are given in the Early History by Noble McGee of Nobles Fleming, Florence, McClenachan, Paterson, and Sam Briggs, the latter succeeding Noble Fleming as Imperial Potentate at the Cleveland session of 1886. Noble Briggs as the first Potentate of Al Koran Temple of Cleveland, Ohio, is credited highly by Brother McGee for the fine staging of the ceremonies in the early days. DamasCU3 Temple of Rochester is credited by him on page 17 of his History with the first complete rendition of the ceremonial work, but the History of the Imperial Council (page 167), assigns this honor to Al Koran Temple.
Important articles of Shrine interest were published in the Builder, 1916 (pages 157, 242, 286, and 350), the last giving a list of the Masonic connections of Noble Florence whose affiliation with Freemasonry had been mistakenly questioned.
William Winter, the historian of the American stage, has a chapter of eulogy upon Florence in his Wallet of Time. He is bountiful of praise in verse and prose, stating of Florence that he was “in art admirable; in life gentle; he was widely known, and he was known only to be loved.” Again, he claims of Florence that “Heaven were lonely but for souls like this.” We must not too readily exclude from the credit of truly active work for the Shrine this gracious personality, “Billy” Florence. At the suggestion of Brother W. Freeland Kendrick, a resolution was offered at the meeting of the Imperial Council at Indianapolis in 1919 by Brother Philip D. Gordon, proposing the establishment of a home for friendless, orphaned, and crippled children, to be supported by the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine of North America.
The matter was laid over until the meeting of 1920 at Portland, Oregon, when Brother Kendrick personally presented the matter in his annual address as Imperial Potentate. At this time a resolution was adopted authorizing the establishment of a hospital to be supported on an annual per capita basis and to be known as the Shrine Hospital for Crippled Children. An assessment of $2.00 per capita was levied upon the entire membership and a Committee of Seven was to be appointed to select a site and secure plans and specifications. Provision was also made for additional assessments to be levied annually for the support of the institution
After the Portland session Imperial Potentate Ellis L. Garretson appointed the following Committee and called its first meeting at St. Louis on October 30, 1920: Sam P. Cochran, Hella Temple; Philip D Gordon, Karnak Temple, Frederic W. Reator, Afifi Temple; W. Freeland Kendrick, Lu Lu Temple; Oscar M. Lanstrum, Algeria Temple; John D. McGilvray, Islam Temple; John A. Morrison, Kismet Temple. At the St. Louis meeting Noble Cochran was appointed chairman and Noble Morrison elected secretary. A resolution was adopted providing for the incorporation of the hospital work under the title “The Shriners’ Charity Foundation.” The word “charity” was afterward eliminated and the official title became “Shriners’ Hospitals for Crippled Children.”
Up to this time but one large hospital centrally located was contemplated, but at the next session in Des Moines, 1921, the report of the Committee was convincing that no one hospital would meet the needs. the Imperial Council adopted a resolution providing for the election of a Board of Trustees to be incorporated and vested with authority to select and purchase sites in various parts of the Jurisdiction of the Imperial Council.
A unanimous vote was cast for the following Trustees: Nobles Sam P. Cochran, W. Freeland Kendrick, Philip D. Gordon, Frederic W. Keator, Oscar M. Lanstrum, John D. McGilvray and Forrest Adair. Organization was perfected at once by the election of Noble Cochran, chairman; W. Freeland Kendrick, vice chairman; and Forrest Adair, secretary. Two changes in the Board resulted from deaths. Noble Gordon was succeeded by Noble Arthur W. Chapman of Khartum Temple, appointed by Imperial Potentate McCandless in 1923, and Noble Keator was succeeded by Noble James R. Watt, of Cyprus Temple, appointed by Imperial Potentate Dykeman, in 1924. At the 1924 session in Kansas City the Imperial Council added its first four officers as ex-officio members.
They were James E. Chandler, Imperial Potentate; James C. Burger, Deputy Imperial Potentate; David W. Crosland, Imperial Chief Rabban, and Clarence M. Dunbar, Imperial Assistant Rabban. Trustees whose terms had expired were re-elected. The next meeting of the Board of Trustees was held in Atlanta, in September, 1921, all members attending. It was here that the board received the advice and co-operation of three distinguished orthopedic surgeons: Robert B. Osgood, of Boston; A. McKenzie Forbes, of Montreal, and Michael Hoke, of Atlanta. From their willingness to assist in the work and give the board the benefit of their skill and experience there grew the Advisory Board of Orthopedic Surgeons, who devote a great deal of time, without remuneration, to the Shrine institutions.
In the spring of 1925, with the opening late in February of the hospitals at Montreal, Canada, and Springfield, Massachusetts, there were seven regular hospitals in the series, besides four mobile units, the total capacity being five hundred beds, which meant that two thousand bed-patients a year can be given surgical treatment and hospital care. The Philadelphia Hospital was then well under way, the contracts having been let the previous Fall, and the bids for the Chicago Hospital were opened by the Board of Trustees in March.
The first child admitted for surgical treatment by a Shriners’ surgeon was a patient at Shreveport, Louisiana, in September, 1922. The hospital building was not then completed but an old structure on the property was used temporarily The new fifty-bed institution was dedicated in April, 1923. Twin Cities Hospital, in the corporate limits of Minneapolis lout on the St. Paul side of the river, opened in March, 1923, with a capacity of sixty beds. San Francisco Hospital opened in June, 1923, with a capacity of fifty beds. Portland, Oregon, Hospital opened in January, 1924, with a capacity of fifty beds. St. Louis Hospital opened in April, 1924, and dedicated on June 1 with a capacity of one hundred beds.
Springfield and Montreal Hospitals, of fifty beds each, opened in February, 1925. Sites were Selected in 1924 for the hospitals in Philadelphia and Chicago and were donated by Lu Lu and Medinah Temples. The Shriners’ hospitals and mobile units are open to every crippled child, without restriction as to race or religion, subject to the following requirements: The parents or guardians must be financially unable to pay for its treatment. The child must not be over fourteen years of age, of normal mentality, and there must be reasonable hope of materially improving the child’s condition through orthopedic surgery.
A striking of hands and feet, so as to produce a sudden noise. There is a ceremony called the shock, which was in use in the reception of an Apprentice in the beginning of the nineteenth century, and is still used by some Lodges in what is called the Shock of Entrance, and by all in the Shock of Enlightenment. Of the first shock as well as of the second, there are evident traces in some of the earlier rituals of the eighteenth century, and there is no doubt that it was an ancient ceremony, the gradual disuse of which is an innovation (see Shock of Entrance and Shock of Enlightenment) .
SHOCK OF ENLIGHTENMENT
A ceremony used in all the Degrees of Symbolic Freemasonry. By it we seek to symbolize the idea of the birth of material light, by the representation of the circumstances that accompanied it, and their references to the birth of intellectual or Masonic light. The one is the type of the other; and therefore the illumination of the candidate is given with a ceremony that may be supposed to imitate the primal illumination of the universe—most feebly, it is true, and yet not altogether without impressiveness. The Shock of Enlightenment is, then, a symbol of the change which is now taking place in the intellectual condition of the candidate. It is the symbol of the birth of intellectual light and the dispersion of intellectual darkness.
SHOCK OF ENTRANCE
A ceremony formerly used on the admission of an Entered Apprentice, but becoming obsolete. In the old initiations, the same word signified to die and to be initiated, because, in the initiation, the lesson of death and the resurrection to eternal life was the dogma inculcated. In the initiation of an Apprentice in Freemasonry the same lesson begins to be taught, and the initiate, entering upon a new life and new duties, disrupting old ties and forming new ones, passes into a new birth. This is, or ought to be, necessarily accompanied by some ceremony which should symbolically represent this great moral change. Hence the impression of this idea is made bit the symbolism of the shock at the entrance of the candidate.
The shock of entrance is then the symbol of the disruption of the candidate from the ties of the world, and his introduction into the life of Freemasonry. it is the symbol of the agonies of the First death and of the throes of the new birth.
Among the ancient Israelites, the shoe was made use of in several significant ways. To put off the shoes, imported reverence, and was done in the presence of God, or on entering the dwelling of a Superior To unloose one’s shoe and give it to another was the way of confirming a contract.
Thus we read in the Book of Ruth, that Boaz having proposed to the nearest kinsman of Ruth to exercise his legal right by redeeming the land of Naomi, which was offered for sale, and marrying her daughter-in-law, the kinsman, being unable to do so, resigned his right of purchase to Boaz; and the narrative goes on to say (Ruth iv, 7 and S), “Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel. Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.” The reference to the shoe in the First Degree is therefore really as a symbol of a Covenant to be entered into. In the Third Degree the symbolism is altogether different. For an explanation of it, see Discalceation.
A Hebrew compound word, meaning close-guarded captive. Stolkin, mentioned in the Ninth and other Degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
An instrument used to remove rubbish. It is one of the avorking-tools of a Royal Arch Mason, and symbolically teaches him to remove the rubbish of passions and prejudices, that he may be fitted, when he thus escapes from the captivity of sin, for the search and the reception of Eternal Truth and Wisdom
SHRINER OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
See Flag Ceremony
SHRYOCK, THOMAS J.
When Thomas J. Shryock died on February 3, 1918, he was in the midst of his thirty-second year as Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Maryland—almost twice the length of office held by any predecessor in his own or in any other Grand Lodge. Such a record is now impossible among modern American Grand Jurisdictions which elect a new Grand Master each year (New York reelects for one year, Massachusetts for two) but one that could have surprised no Mason in Great Britain where it has long been a tradition among the three Grand Lodges to reselect the same Grand Master for many years on end.
General Shryock, the great-grandson of a Revolutionary Lieutenant-Colonel, was born in Baltimore, February 27, 1851. He held almost every office of high rank in Masonry; was a railway president, a businessman, bank director, was director or treasurer of hospitals, was once police commissioner of Baltimore; and from having been Brigadier General on the staff of Governor Henry Lloyd came into the title of “the General” by which he was everywhere known. Among his countless Honorary Lodge memberships was one in Solomon Lodge, 346t, of England, of which the Worshipful Master was Robert Freke Gould, and which had among its subscribing and Honorary Members Theodore Roosevelt, Sr., William Howard Taft Duke of Connaught, Count Goblet d’Alviella, and the Kings of Denmark and Sweden.
There are certain Masonic Degrees, which, not being placed in the regular routine of the acknowledged Degrees, are not recognized as a part of Ancient Freemasonry, but receive the name of Honorary or Side Degrees. They constitute no part of the regular ritual, and are not taken under the specific control of either Grand Lodges, Grand Chapters, or any other of the legal, Administrative Bodies b of the Institution. Although a few of them are very old, the greater number are of a comparatively modern origin, and are generally supposed to have been indebted for their invention to the ingenuity of either Grand Lecturers, or other distinguished Freemasons.
Their history and ceremonies are often interesting, and so far as we have been made acquainted with them, their tendency, when they are properly conferred, is always moral. They are not given in Lodges or Chapters, but at private meetings of the Brethren or companions possessing them, informally and temporarily called for the sole purpose of conferring them. These temporary assemblies owe no allegiance to any supreme controlling Body, except so far as they are composed of Master or Royal Arch Masons, and when the business of conferring the Degrees is accomplished, they are dissolved at once, not to meet again, except under similar circumstances and for a similar purpose.
Some of them are conferred on Master Masons, some on Royal Arch Masons, and some only on Knights Templar. There is another class which females connected by certain ties of relationship with the Fraternity, are permitted to receive; and this fact, in some measure, assimilates these Degrees to the Freemasonry of Adoption, or Female Freemasonry, which is practiced in France and some other European countries, although there are important points of difference between them . These female Side Degrees have received the name of Androgyrwous Degrees, from two Greek words signifying man and woman, and are thus called to indicate the participation in them by both sexes.
The principal Side Degrees that have been practiced in the United States of America are as follows:
1. Secret Monitor
2. Knight of the Three Kings
3. Knight of Constantinople
4. Mason’s Wife and Daughter
5. Ark and Dove
6. Mediterranean Pass
7. Knight and Heroine of Jericho
8. Good Samaritan
9. Knight of the Mediterranean Pass
The Grand Lodges of England and Scotland each have three Lodges in Sierra Leone, on the west coast of Africa.
SIGHT, MAKING MASONS AT
The prerogative of the Grand Master to make Freemasons at sight is described as the eighth landmark of the Order. It is a technical term, which may be defined to be the power to initiate, pass, and raise candidates, by the Grand Master, in a Lodge of Emergency, or, as it is called in the Book of Constitutions, an Occasional Lodge, specially convened by him, and consisting of such Master Masons as he may call together for that purpose only; the Lodge ceasing to exist as soon as the initiation, passing, or raising has been accomplished, and the Brethren have been dismissed by the Grand Master.
The following item appeared in the Leeds Mercury, April 7 to 14, 1730, and bore the heading, London.
A few days since, their Graces the Dukes of Richmond and Montague, accompanied by several Gentlemen, who were all Free and Accepted Masons, according to Ancient Custom, formed a Lodge upon the Top of a Hill near the Duke of Richmond’s Seat, at Goodwood in Sussex, and made the Right Hon. the Lord Baltimore a Free and Accepted Mason. It is but right to say that this doctrine is not universally received as established law by the Craft. Brother Mackey did not think, however, that it was ever disputed until within a comparatively recent period.
It is true that Brother Cole (Freemasons Library, book 51), as far back as 1817, remarked in reference to the custom in the United States that it was “a great stretch of power, not recognized, or at least, he believed, not practiced in this country.” But the qualifying phrases in this sentence, clearly show that he was by no means certain that he was correct in denying the recognition of the right. Brother Cole, however, would hardly be considered as competent authority on a question of Masonic law, as he was evidently unacquainted with the Book of Constitutions, and does not quote or refer to it throughout his voluminous work.
In that Rook of Constitutions, however, several instance are furnished of the exercise of this right by various Grand Masters.
In 1731, Lord Lovell being Grand Master, he “formed an Occasional Lodge at Houghton Hall, Sir Robert Walpole’s House in Norfoll,” and there made the Duke of Lorraine, afterward Emperor of Germany, and the Duke of Newcastle, Master Masons. We do not quote the case of the initiation, passing and raising of Frederick, Prince of Wales, in 1737, which was done in “an Occasional Lodge,” over which Doctor Desaguliers presided, because, as Desaguliers was not the Grand Master, nor even, as has been incorrectly stated by the New York Committee of Correspondence, Deputy Grand Master, but only a Past Grand Master, it cannot be called a making at sight. He most probably acted under the Dispensation of the Grand Master, who at that time was the Earl of Darnley.
But in 1766, Lord Blaney, who was then Grand Master, convened “an Occasional Lodge,” and initiated, passed, and raised the Duke of Gloucester.
Again in 1767, John Salter, the Deputy, then acting as Grand Master, convened “an Occasional Lodge,” and conferred the three Degrees on the Duke of Cumberland. In 1787, the Prince of Wales was made a Freemason “at an Occasional Lodge convened,” says Brother Preston, “for the purpose at the Star and Garter, Pall Mall, over which the Duke of Cumberland— Grand Master—presided in person.”
It has been said, however, by those who deny the existence of this prerogative, that these Occasional Lodges were only Special Communications of the Grand Lodge, and the “makings” are thus supposed to have taken place under the authority of that body, and not of the Grand Master. The facts, however, do not sustain this position. Throughout the Book of Constitutions, other meetings, whether regular or special, are distinctly recorded as meetings of the Grand Lodge; while these Occasional Lodges appear only to have been convened by the Grand Master for the purpose of making Freemasons.
Besides, in many instances the Lodge was held at a different place from that of the Grand Lodge, and the officers were not, with the exception of the Grand Master, the officers of the Grand Lodge. Thus the Occasional Lodge which initiated the Duke of Lorraine was held at the residence of Sir Robert Walpole, in Norfolk, while the Grand Lodge always met in London. In 1766, the Grand Lodge held its communications at the Crown and Anchor, but the Occasional Lodge, which in the same year conferred the Degrees on the Duke of Gloucester, was convened at the Horn Tavern. In the following year, the Lodge which initiated the Duke of Cumberland was convened at the Thatched House Tavern, the Grand Lodge continuing to meet at the Crown and Anchor.
But Doctor Mackey also held that a conclusive argument d fortiori, a stronger reason, may be drawn from the dispensing power of the Grand Master which has never been denied. No one ever has doubted, or can doubt, the inherent right of the Grand Master to constitute Lodges by Dispensation, and in these Lodges, so constituted, Freemasons may he legally entered, passed, and raised. This is done every day. Seven Master Masons applying to the Grand Master, he grants them a Dispensation, under authority of which they proceed to open and hold a Lodge and to make Freemasons. This Lodge is, however admitted to be the mere creature of the Grand Master, for it is in his power at any time to revoke the Dispensation he had granted, and thus to dissolve the Lodge.
But if the Grand Master has the power thus to enable others to confer the Degrees and make Freemasons, by his individual authority out of his presence, are we not permitted to argue à fortiori, all the more, that he has also the right of congregating seven brethren and causing a Freemason to be made in his sight?
Can he delegate a power to others which he does not himself possess? And is his calling together an Occasional Hodges and making, with the assistance of the Brethren thus assembled, a Freemason “at sight,” that is to say, in his presence, any thing more or less than the exercise of his dispensing power for the establishment of a Lodge under Dispensation for a temporary period and for a special purpose. The purpose having been effected, and the Freemason having been made, he revokes his Dispensation, and the Lodge is dismissed. If we assumed any other ground than this, we should be compelled to say that though the Grand Master might authorize others to make Freemasons when he was absent, he could not do it himself when present.
The form of the expression “making Masons at sight” is borrowed from Laurence Dermott, the Grand Secretary of the Atholl Grand Lodge; “making Masons in an Occasional Lodge” is the phrase used by Anderson and his subsequent editors. Brother Dermott (Ahimen Rezon), commenting on the thirteenth of the old regulations, which prescribes that Fellow Crafts and Master Masons cannot be made in a private Lodge except by the Dispensation of the Grand Master, says: “This is a very ancient regulation, but seldom put in practice, new Masons being generally made at private Lodges; however, the Right Worshipful Grand Master has full power and authority to make, or cause to be made, in his worship’s presence Free and Accepted Masons at sight, and such making is good. But they cannot be made out of his worship’s presence without a written Dispensation for that purpose. Nor can his worship oblige any warranted Lodge to receive the person so made, if the members should declare against him or them; but it such case the Right Worshipful Grand Master may grant them a Warrant and form them into a new Lodge.”
But the fact that Brother Dermott uses the phrase does not militate against the existence of the prerogative, nor weaken the argument in its favor. For, in the first place, he is not quoted as authority; and secondly, it is very possible that he did not invent the expression, but found it already existing as a technical phrase generally used by the Craft, although not to be found in the Book of Constitutions. The form there used is “making Masons in an Occasional Lodge,” which, as we have already said, is of the same signification.
The mode of exercising the prerogative is this: The Grand Master summons to his assistance not less than six other Freemasons, convenes a Lodge, and without any previous probation, but on sight of the candidates confers the Degrees upon him, after which he dissolves the Lodge and dismisses the Brethren.
This custom of making Freemasons at sight has been practiced by many Grand Lodges in the United States of America, but is becoming less usual, and some Grand Lodges have prohibited it by a constitutional enactment. A few noted eases may be mentioned: John Wanamaker, at Philadelphia; former Vice-President Charles W. Fairbanks, at Indianapolis, Indiana; Rear-Admiral Winfield Scott Schley, at Washington, District of Columbia; and when William Howard Taft was President-Elect, he was made a Freemason “at-sight” on February, 1909, at Cincinnati, by the Grand Master of Ohio.
A valuable historical account of Making Masons at Sight was contributed to the New Age, March, 1925, by Brother William L. Boyden, Librarian at Washington of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
Signs constitute that universal language of which the commentator on the Leland Manuscript was that “it is a thing rather to be wished than hoped for.” It is evident, however, that such a substitute for a universal language has always existed among mankind. There are certain expressions of ideas which, by an implied common consent, are familiar even to the most barbarous tribes. An extension forward of the open hands will be understood at once by an Australian savage or an American Indian as a gesture betokening peace, while the idea of war or dislike would be as readily conveyed to either of them by a repulsive gesture of the same hands. These are not however, what constitute the signs of Freemasonry. It is evident that every secret society must have some conventional mode of distinguishing strangers from those who are its members, and Freemasonry, in this respects must have followed the universal custom of adopting such modes of recognition.
The Abbé Grandidier (Essais Historiques et Topographiques, page 422) says that when Josse Dotzinger, as architect of the Cathedral of Strassburg, formed, in 1452, all the Master Masons in Germany into one body, “he gave them a word and a particular sign by which they might recognize those who were of their Confraternity.” Martene, who wrote a treatise on the ancient rites of the monks (De Antiquis Monachorum ritibus), says that, at the Monastery of Hirsehau, where many Masons were incorporated as Lay Brethren, one of the officers of the monastery was called the Master of the Works; and the Masons under him had a sign which he describes as pugnam super pugnam pone uicissim quasi simules constructores marum; that is, they placed alternately fist upon fist, as ef imitating the builders of ways. He also says, and other writers confirm the statement, that in the Middle Ages the monks had a system of signs by which they were enabled to recognize the members of their different Orders.
Krause ( Kunsturkunden iv, page 420) thinks that the Freemasons derived their custom of having signs of recognition from this rule of the old monks. But we can trace the existence of signs to remote antiquity. In the Ancient Mysteries, the initiates were always instructed in a sign. Thus, when a wreath was presented to an initiate of the Mysteries of Mithras by another, instead of receiving it, he east it upon the ground, and this gesture of casting down was accepted as a sign of recognition.
So, too, Apuleius (Metamorphoses) describes the action of one of the devotees of the Mysteries of Isis, and says: “He walked gently, with a hesitating step, the ankle of the left foot being slightly bent, in order, no doubt, that he might afford me some sign by which I might recognize him. ” And in another work (Apologia) he says:
“If any one happens to be present who has been initiated into the same rites as myself, if he will give me the sign, he shall then be at liberty to hear what it is that I keep with so much care.”
Plautus, too, alludes to this custom in one of his plays (Miles Gloriosuos iv, 2) when he says: Cedo Signum si horune Bacohorum est.
Give me the swn, if you are one of these Bacchantes.
Signs, in fact, belong to all secret associations, and are no more peculiar to Freemasonry than is a system of initiation. The forms differ, but the principle has always existed.
SIGNS, UNIVERSALITY OF
Churchward, Yarker, Ward, Cockburn, and a number of other Masonic writers of their way of thinking, have made much of the fact, or at least have tried to, that “Masonic Signs” have been encountered among Congo tribes, Eskimos, Melanesians, the Hairy Ainus, etc., and that on many occasions such tribesmen have responded to Masonic signs.
The difficulty with their “fact” is that there is too much of it. Some 175 separate, distinct, identifiable, nameable motions can be made by the hands, arms, legs, torso, head, eyes, the whole body, etc.; each and every one of those motions has been employed as a “sign” by at least one people, and usually bysmany, not once but thousands of times.
It would be a strange anomaly if explorers, traders, soldiers, missionaries, and other travelers among the so-called “primitive” people did not encounter “Masonic signs”; as for that, the “Masonic signs” were not originated or invented by Masons, who were never able to alter anatomy, but were chosen by them from among the 175 possible motions, gestures, etc., suitable for use as “signs.” For at least nine centuries our own Navajo people have had an outdoor ceremony strikingly like our Third Degree; but if one of them who has been made a Mason is asked if they are the same he will smile and say, “They have nothing in common.”
So with a Pueblo ceremony similar to HA.-. (the writer has not only seen and studied these ceremonies on the spot, but has taken part in a few portions of them). Two young traders of New Mexico (both Masons) rode horseback to San Diego and return without once using a highway, and visited some twenty Indian peoples en route with whom they conversed easily by the still-living, still used old Indian sign language. A sign in use somewhere, even if identical with one of our own, proves nothing about Freemasonry—Freemasonry never had the slightest connection with “the ancient gods” (which, incidentally, almost never were “gods”; American Indians have never had any “gods”). Consult Sign Talk, by Ernest Thompson Seton; Doubleday, Page & Co.; Garden City, L. I.; 1918;1725 signs are explained. Frazer’s Golden Bough is an encyclopedia of the subject.
Every Freemason who receives a Certificate or Diploma from a Grand Lodge is required to affix his signature in the margin, for a reason which is given under the words We Varietur, which see.
A ring on which there is an impression of a device is called a signet. They were far more common among the ancients than they are among the moderns, although they are still used by many persons. Formerly, as is the custom at this day in the East, letters were never signed by the persons who sent them; and their authenticity depended solely on the impression of the signets which were attached to them.
So common was their use among the ancients, that Clement of Alexandria, while forbidding the Christians of the second century to deck their fingers with rings, which would have been a mark of vanity, makes an exception in favor of signet rings. “We must wear,” he says, “but one ring, for the use of a signet; all other rings we must east aside.” Signets were originally engraved altogether upon stone; and Pliny says that metal ones did not come into use until the time of Claudius Caesar.
Signets are constantly alluded to in Scripture. The Hebrews called them nosed Sabaoth, and they appear to have been used among them from an early period, for we find that when Judah asks Tamar (Genesis xxxviii, 18) what pledge he shall give her she replies, “Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand.”
They were worn on the finger, generally the index finger, and always on the right hand, as being the most honorable; thus (Jeremiah xxu, 24) we read: “As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniall, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence.”
The signets of the ancients were generally sculptured with religious symbols or the heads of their deities. The sphinx and the sacred beetle were favorite signets among the Egyptians. The former was adopted from that people by the Roman Emperor Augustus. The Babylonians followed the same eustom, and many of their signets, remaining to this day, exhibit beautifully sculptured images of BaalBerith and other Chaldean deities.
The impression from the signet-ring of a King gave the authority of a Royal Decree to any document to which it was affixed; and hence the delivery or transfer of the signet to anyone made him, for the time the representative of the King, and gave him the power of using the royal name.
SIGNET OF TRUTH
The signet of Zerubbabel, used in the instructions of the Royal Arch Degree, is also there called the Signet of Truth, to indicate that the neophyte who brings it to the Grand Council is in search of Divine Truth, and to give to him the promise that he will by its power speedily obtain his reward in the possession of that for which he is seeking. The Signet of Truth is presented to the aspirant to assure him that he is advancing in his progress to the attainment of truth, and that he is thus invested with the power to pursue the search.
SIGNET OF ZERUBBABEL
This is used in the American instructions of the Royal Arch Degree. It refers to a passage of Haggai (ii, 23) where God has promised that he will make Zerubbabel His signet. It has the same symbolic meaning as is given to its synonym the Signet of Truth, because Zerubbabel, as the head of the second Temple, was the symbol of the searcher after truth. But something may be said of the incorrect form in which it is found in many Chapters.
At least from the time when Cross presented an engraving of this signet in his Hieroglyphic Chart, and perhaps from a much earlier period, for he may possibly have only perpetuated the blunder, it has been represented in some Chapters by a triangular plate of metal. Now, an unattached plate of metal, in any shape whatsoever, is about as correct a representation of a signet as a walking-cane is of a piece of money.
The signet is and always has been a finger-ring, and so it should be represented in the ceremonies of the Chapter. What the peculiar device of this signet was—for every signet must have a device—we are unable to show, but we may suppose that it was the Tetragrammaton, perhaps in its well-known abbreviated form of a god within a triangle. Whether this was so or not, such a device would be most appropriate to the symbolism of the Royal Arch teaching.
Significant is malting a sign, from two Latin words meaning respectively make and sign. A significant word is a sign-making word, or a word that is equivalent to a sign; so the secret words used in the different Degrees of Freemasonry, and the knowledge of which becomes a sign of the possession of the Degree, are called significant words. Such a word Lenning calls ein bedeutendes Wort, which has the same meaning.
SIGN OF ASSENT
Brother Henry F. Berry M. A., of the Public Record Office in Ireland, discovered among the papers of Archbishop Ussher preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin a complete Code of manual signs used by the Vietorine Canons at Saint Thomas’s Abbey, Dublin. The Latin code contains the following item:
Pro signo annuendi, leva manum moderate et move non inversam sed ut exterior superfieies sit sursum.
For the sign of assent, lift the hand moderately, and move it, not inverted but so that the outer surface may be upwards.
The above code is published in the Journal of the Royal Society of At uaries of Ireland, part il. volume ii, 1892.
SIGN OF DISTRESS
This is probably one of the original modes of recognition adopted at the revival period, if not before. It is to be found in the earliest ceremonies extant of the eighteenth century, and its connection with the legend of the Third Degree makes it evident that it probably belongs to that Degree. The Craft in the Eighteenth Century called it sometimes the Master’s Clap, and sometimes the Grand Sign, which latter name has been adopted by the Freemasons of the Nineteenth Century, who call it the Grand Hailing Sign, to indicate its use in hailing or calling a Brother whose assistance may be needed.
The true form of the sign has unfortunately been changed by carelessness or ignorance from the ancient one, which is still preserved in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe. It is impossible to be explicit; but it may be remarked, that looking to its traditional origin, the sign is a defensive one, first made in an hour of attack, to give protection to the person. This is perfectly represented by the European and English form, but utterly misrepresented by the American. The German Rite of Schroeder attempted some years ago to induce the Craft to transfer this sign from the Third to the First Degree. As this would have been an evident innovation, and would have contradicted the ritualistic history of its origin and meaning, the attempt was not successful.
The Recording Angel of Islam
See Secrecy and Silence
Dwellers in the Priories of Cluny and Hirsan in the eleventh century were placed under rigid discipline as to speech. Those of Cluny were the first to adopt the system of signs for daily intercommunication, which system, by consent or per missal, granted after application through three special messengers from the Priory of Hirsan, was adopted by that Priory in all its elaborateness, and indeed enlarged and perfected by the well-known Abbot William. The doctrine of a perfect silence in such extensive communities became noteworthy in history. These earnest and devoted men, under strong discipline, as Conversi or barbati fratres, Returned or Bearded Brethren, were encouraged in the Abbeys of the Middle Ages. Their labors were conducted in companies of ten each, under Deans of the Monastery, who were in turn instructed by Wardens and Superiors.
An inscription accidentally discovered in 1880 by a native pupil of Schick, a German architect, who had long settled in Jerusalem. is chiseled in the rock that forms the southern wall at the channel which opens out upon the ancient Pool of Siloam, and is partly concealed by the water. The modern Pool includes the older reservoir, supplied with water by an excavated tunnel, 1708 yards long, communicating with the Spring of the Virgin, which is cut through the ridge that forms the southern part of the Temple Hill. The Pool is on the opposite side of the ridge, at the mouth of the Tyropoeon Cheesemakers valley, which was filled with rubbish, and largely built over. The inscription is on an artificial tablet in the rock, about nineteen feet from the opening upon the Pool.
The first intelligible copy was made by Prof. A. H.Sayce, whose admirable little work, called Fresh Light on the Ancient Monuments, gives full details.
Doctor Guthe, in March, 1881, made a complete facsimile copy of the six lines, which read thus:
(Behold) the excavation! now this is the history of the excavation. While the excavators were still lifting up the pick, each towards his neighbor and while there were yet three cubits to (excavate there was heard) the voice of me than calling to his neighbor, for there was an excess in the rock on the right hand (and on the left). And after that on the day of excavating, the excavators had struck pick against pick, one against the other, the waters flowed from the spring to the pool for a distance of 1200 cubits. And (part) of a cubit mas the height of the rock over the head of the excavators.
The engineering skill must have been considerable, as the work was tortuous, and yet the excavators met at the middle. There is no date, but the form of the ztters show the age to be nearly that of the Moabite stone. Scholars place the date during the reign of Hezekiah and in that event appraise it as the oldest Hebrew inscription known. “He made the pool and the aqueduct and brought the water into the city” (Second Kings xx, 20). The discovery was an important one. Processor Sayce deduces the following
The modern city of Jerusalem occupies very little of the same ground as the ancient one, the latter stood entirely on the rising ground to the east of the Tyropoeon valley, the northern portion of which is at present occupied by the Mosque of Omar, while the southern portion is uninhabited. The Tyropoeon valley itself must be the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, where the idolaters of Jerusalem burnt their children in the fire to Moloeh. It must be in the southern cliff of this valley that the tombs of the kings are situated,” they being buried under the rubbish with which the valley is filled; and ” among this rubbish must be remains of the city and temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Here, as well as in the now obliterated Valley of the Cheesemakers, probably lie the relies of the dynasty ox David.
Hebrew inscriptions of an early date have hitherto long been sought for in vain. Seals and fragmentary inscriptions have heretofore been discovered. Several of these seals have been found in Babylonia and Mesopotamia, and are regarded as memorials of the Jewish exiles; but the Schick discovery gives us a writing certainly as old as the time of Isaiah.
SILVER AND GOLD
When Saint Peter healed the lame man whom he met at the gate Beautiful of the Temple, he said to him “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee” (Acts iii, 6); and he bestowed on him the gift of health. When the pious pilgrim begged his way, through all the perils of a distant journey, to kneel at the Holy Sepulcher, In his passage through poor and inhospitable regions, a crust of bread and a draft of water were often the only alms that he received. This has been symbolized in the ceremony of reception of a Knight Templar, and in it the words of Saint Peter have been preserved, to be applied to the allegorical pilgrimage there represented.
In the beautiful and affecting description of the body of man suffering under the infirmities of old age given in the twelfth chapter of Ecclesiastes, we find the expression “or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern: then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” Doctor Clarke thus explains these beautiful metaphors. The silver Cord is the spinal marrow; its loosening is the cessation of all nervous sensibility; the golden bowl is the brain, which is rendered unfit to perform its functions by the approach of death; the pitcher means the great vein which carries the blood to the right ventricle of the heart, here called the fountain; by the wheel is meant the great artery which receives the blood from the left ventricle of the heart, here designated as the cistern. This collection of metaphors is a part of the Scripture reading in the Third Degree, and forms an appropriate introduction to those sublime ceremonies whose object is to teach symbolically the resurrection and life eternal.
SIMONIS, JOHN W.
A tactful and native factor in the Saint Johns Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons in the State of New York independently formed about 1837, and headed by Harry C. Atwood, Master of York Lodge No. 367 of New York City. This was united with the old Grand Lodge of New York on December 27, 1850, by a public procession on Saint John’s Day and suitable ceremonies at Tripler Hall. Brother Simons was noted for his knowledge of Masonic Jurisprudence and was also Grand Master of his State in 1861 (see History of Freemasonry in the State of New York, Ossian Lang, 1922, pages 134, 146).
A monstrous griffin, guardian of the Persian mysteries.
A mountain of Arabia between the horns of the Red Sea. It is the place where Moses received the Law from Jehovah, and where he was directed to construct the Tabernacle. Hence, says Lenning, the Scottish Freemasons make Mount Sinai a symbol of truth. Of the advanced Degrees, the Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, or the Chief and Prince of the Tabernacle, refer in their instructions to this mountain and the Tabernacle there constructed.
SINGAPORE, THE FOUNDER OF
With the same suddenness in which it began, the war with Japan in 1941 filled American papers, movies, and magazines with a continuing food of discussions and descriptions of islands, nations, cities, and men who, before Pearl Harbor, had been scarcely better known to the American public than Marco Polo or Prester John, and in doing so made us see of what importance to us had been the City of Singapore which, though a British port, cost us Americans by its fall five billion dollars and tens of thousands of men and the attack on Pearl Harbor. Coincidentally, we American Masons discovered, to our very great surprise, that Freemasonry had been at work “out there” almost as long as it had been at work here, and that it had in quietness and by peaceable means a part in Asiatic settlement beyond anything anybody could have believed possible.
The discoverer and founder—a British writer says “almost the inventor”—of Singapore was Sir Stamford Rafiles. (The name has no connection with the verb “to raffle” but is the French form of the botanic name for the plant from which raffia comes.) He was born at sea July 5, 1781, the son of a merchant captain plying between England and the West Indies—the year in which Britain surrendered at Yorktown. After a small bit of schooling at Hammersmith he went to work for almost nothing in the offices of the East India Company—offices in which Charles Lamb and John Stuart Mill also were to work in after times. During the years of an iron apprenticeship in that ruthless corporation he worked as hard nights and Sundays on studying at home as he did in his office by day.
In 1805 he was sent out to be assistant-secretary in the Malay city of Penang, where he learned the native speech, came to love the people, and exhibited a religious tolerance (in that Mohammedan country) which was astonishing.
“Mahomet’s mission does not invalidate our Savior’s”; he wrote; “one has secured happiness to the Eastern and one to the Western world, and both deserve our veneration.” (While there he studied Hebrew and Greek, the Hebrew in order the better to understand Arabic.)
In 1806 Napoleon placed his Brother Louis on the throne of Holland and sent out a French Army to occupy Java, the first step of a Napoleonic scheme to conquer the whole of Asia. (The Nazis and Japanese studied Napoleon’s Asiatic plans and strategy down to the last detail.) Raffles laid before the Governor General of India, Lord Minto, a military plan to crush the French in Java, prepared the way, and with Minto in 1811 drove them out. Raffles was appointed Lieutenant-Governor.
Lord Minto was an active Mason. On a coffee estate near Batavia was a small Lodge called Virtuitis et Artis Amici (Friends of Virtue and Arts), the Worshipful Master of which was Nicolas Englehardt, a former Dutch Governor of Java. With Minto present, Raffles received the first two Degrees. On July 5, 1813, he took the Third in Lodge De Vriendschap, at Sourabaya. In the years that followed, Sir Stamford went through black hours: Java went back to the Dutch; Minto died; Raffles’ wife died, and after her their children. In 1816 he received the Rose Croix Degree in Batavia.
On his jot y back to England he stopped off to visit Napoleon on St. Helena. In a few months (after a second marriage) he went back to be Governor of Sumatra, and on the way visited Lord Hastings in India—also an ardent Mason. It was there and then that Raffles proposed the building of a city and great naval base at Singapore. Space does not permit a description of his labor thereafter, among them being his founding of the London Zoology Society. He died in April, 1826.
If a Freemason writes about the power Freemasonry has to shape men, to inspire them toward tolerance and enlightenment, and to cultivate in them lindliness and friendliness, non-Masons may be tempted to discount it by half on the grounds of enthusiasm or a favorable prejudice; but if any non-Mason, and concerned only with unvarnished facts, will begin with Sir Stamford Raffles (or Minto, or Hastings) and search out the Mystic Tie in Asia as it stretched from one man to another, even across languages and in the midst of wars, and across the barriers of race (Hindus, Malays, Filipinos, Chinese became Brothers), and see how Masonry led to schools; hospitals, orphanages and tolerance, he will be forced in the end to admit that the part taken by the Craft in the bringing of civilization and culture into the Far East was astounding—and all the more so, in that it had behind it no armies, no powers of public office, no wealth, and never employed intrigue or force.
this is the distinctive title given to the possessors of the Degrees of Masonic Knighthood, and is borrowed from the heraldic usage. The word knight is sometimes interposed between the title and the personal name, as, for example, Sir Knight John Smith. English knights are in the habit of using the word Crater, or brother, a usage which to some extent is being adopted in the United States of America. English Knights Templar have been led to the abandonment of the title Sir because legal enactments made the use of titles not granted by the Crown unlawful. But there is no such law in America. The addition of Sir to the names of all Knights is accounted, says Ashmole, “parcel of their style.” The use of it is as old, certainly, as the time of Edward I, and it is supposed to be a contraction of the old French Sire, meaning Seigneur, or Lord.
SIRAT, AS or AL
The Hebrew word n . A Significant word, formerly used in the Order of High Priesthood in the United States of America. It signifies a shoelatchet, and refers to the declaration of Abraham to Melchizedek, that of the goods which had been captured he would “not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet” (Genesis xiv, 23), that is, nothing even of the slightest value. The introduction of this word into some of the lower Capitular Degrees was an error of the ritualists.
Lodges are so called which are in the same Masonic Jurisdiction, and owe obedience to the same Grand Lodge.
SISTERS BY ADOPTION
In the Lodges of the French Adoptive Rite this is the title by which the female members are designated. The female members of all androgynous, both sexes, Degrees are Sisters, as the male members are Brethren.
SISTERS OF THE GILD
The attempt of some writers to maintain that women were admitted into the Medieval Confraternities of Freemasons fails to be substantiated for want of sufficient proof. The entire spirit of the Old Constitutions indicates that none but men, under the titles of Brethren and fellows, were admitted into these Masonic Gilds; and the first Code of Charges adopted at the Revival in 1717, declares that “the persons admitted members of a Lodge must be good and true men . . . no women, etc.”
The opinion that women were originally admitted into the Masonic Gild, as it is asserted that they were into some of the others, is based upon the fact that, in what is called the York Manuscript, No. 4, whose date as affixed to the Roll is 1693, we find the following words: “The one of the elders taking the Booke, and that hee or shee that is to be made mason shall lay their hands thereon, and the charge shall be given. ”
But in the Alnwick Manuscript, which is inserted as a Preface to the Records of the Lodge at Alnwick, beginning September 29, 1701, and which manuscript was therefore probably at least contemporary with that of York, we find the corresponding passage in the following words, “Then shall one of the most ancient of them all hold a book that he or they may lay his or their hands upon the said Book,” etc.
Again in the Grand Lodge Manuscript, No. 1, whose date is 1583, we meet with the same regulation in Latin thus: Tunc unus er senioribus teneat librum et ille vet illi apposuerunt manus sub librum et tune praecepta deberent legi. This was no doubt the original form of which the writer of the York Manuscript gives a translation, and either through ignorance or clerical carelessness, the ille vet illi, instead of We or they, has been translated he or she. Besides, the whole tenor of the Charges in the York Manuscript clearly shows that they were intended for men only. A woman could scarcely have been required to swear that she “would not take her fellow’s wife in villainy,” nor make anyone a Free mason unless “he has his right limbs as a man ought to have.”
It cannot be admitted on the authority of a mistranslation of a single letter, by which an a was taken for an e, thus changing ille into illa, or he into she, that the Masonic Gild admitted women into a Craft whose labors were to hew heavy stones and to ascend tall scaffolds.. Such never could have been the ease in Operative Masonry.
There is, however, abundant evidence that in the other Gilds, or Livery Companies of England, women or sisters were admitted to the freedom of the company. Herbert (History of the Livery Companies xi, page 83) thinks that the custom was borrowed, on the constitution of the Companies, by Edward III from the Ecclesiastical or Religious Gilds, which were often composed of both sexes. But there does not seem to be any evidence that the usage was extended to the Building Corporations or Freemasons Gilds. A woman might be a female grocer or haberdasher, but she could hardly perform the duties of a female builder.
SIT LUX ET LUX FUIT
A motto frequently used in Freemasonry, although sometimes written, Luz ftat et Luz flit, signifying Let there be light, and there was light (Genesis i, 3); the strict translation from the Hebrew continues, “And the Lord took care of the light, that it was useful, and He divided the light from the darkness.”
SITUATION OF THE LODGES
A Lodge is, or ought to be, always situated due East and West, for reasons which are detailed in the articles on East and Orientation, which see.
The Hebrew word ll’D. The ninth month of the Hebrew civil year, corresponding with the months May and June, beginning with the new moon of the former.
The six lights of Symbolic Freemasonry are divided into the Greater and Lesser Lights, which see. In the American system of the Royal Arch there is no symbol of the kind, but in the English system there are six lights—three lesser and three greater—placed in the form of two interlaced triangles. The three lesser represent the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian Dispensations; the three greater the Creative, Preservative, and Obstructive Power of God. The four lesser triangles, formed by the intersection of the two great triangles, are emblematic of the four Degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry.
The Grand Architects’ Six Period’s constituted a part of the old Prestonian lecture in the Fellow Craft’s Degree. It referred to the six days of creation, the six periods being the six days. It no longer forms a part of the lecture as modified by Doctor Hemming in England, although Brother Oliver devotes a chapter in his Historical Landmarks to this subject. It was probably at one time taught ill the United States of America before Brother Webb modified and abridged the Prestonian lectures, for Hardie gives the Six Periods in full in his Mozlitor, which was published in 1818. The Webb lecture, practiced in the United States, comprehends the whole subject of the Six Periods, which make a closely printed page in Browne’s Master Kely, in these few words: “In six days God created the heavens and the earth, and rested upon the seventh day; the seventh, therefore, our ancient Brethren consecrated as a day of rest from their labors; thereby enjoying frequent opportunities to contemplate the glorious works of creation, and to adore their great Creator. ”
A symbol of death. The ancient Egyptians often introduced a skeleton in their feasts to remind the revelers of the transitory nature of their enjoyments, and to teach them that in the midst of life we are in death. As such an admonitor a symbol it has been used in some of the advanced Degrees (see Skull).
In the English system the Skirret is one of the working-tools of a Master Mason. It is an implement which acts on a center-pin, whence a line is drawn, chalked, and struck to mark out the ground for the foundation of the intended Structure. Symbolically, it points to us that straight and undeviating line of conduct laid down for our pursuits in the volume of the Sacred Law. The Skirret is not used in the American system.
The skull as a symbol is not used in Freemasonry except in Masonic Templarism, where it is a symbol of mortality. Among the Articles of Accusation sent by the Pope to the Bishops and Papal Commissaries upon Which to examine the Knights Templar, those from the forty-seeond to the fifty seventh refer to the human skull, Cranium humanus, which the Templars were accused of using in their reception, and worshiping as an idol. It is possible that the Old Templars made use of the skull in their ceremony of reception; but Modern Templars will readily acquit their predecessors of the crime of idiolatry, and find in their use of a skull a symbolic design (see Baphomet).
Of this symbol of mortality, the skull, much has been written and when found of suitable service quoted with effect at Masonic meetings. About 1860 Brother J. S. Parvin of Iowa received a copy of a poem entitled Lines to a Skeleton as printed in a newspaper published at Glasgow, Scotland. He was struck with its beauty and used it in his Knight Templar work, he at that time being Eminent Commander of the local Commandery. A similar experience befell Brother Eugene S. Elliott of Wisconsin but brother Parvin is believed to have been first to use the poem as above described and it soon became vers popular and is still generally used. The popularity of the poem has caused it to be paraphrased by several Brethren, Denman S. Wagstaff, New Age Magazine, April 1917 (page 178); Newton Newkirk, .Missouri Freemason, October 29, 1904; and copies of others published by H. D. Loveland, California, Nortnan T. Cassette, and so on are in our possession but lack particulars of first place of publication.
However, the original also has its uncertainties. The Square and Compass, Denver, July, 1923, page 44, says “The poem was written by Robert Philip of Gormyre Cottage, Scotland. He wrote the verses unite Watching for ‘body snatchers’ in the parish churchyard of Torphichen where during the repairing of the church the unearthing of a skeleton suggested the subject.” Clothes C. GX Hunt, (grand Secretary of Iowa’s) has kindly investigated the matter for us, sprites “In 1816 the manuscript of the poem was found in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons at London near a perfect human skeleton.
The attendant who found it handed it to the curator of the museum and he in turn sent it to the London Morning Chronicle for publication.
The first authentic record that we have of the poem is its appearance in the London Chronicle in 1816. It excited so much attention that a reward of fifty guineas was offered for information that would lead to the discovery of its author. This was without avail, however, as the author preserved his incognito and to this day no one knows who he was. Thus you will note the similarity in the fact that the author of the poem as well as the former occupant of the skeleton about whom it was written remain unknown.”
Hoyt’s New Cyclopedia of Practical Quotations, 1922 (page 687), credits the ode to Anna Jane Vardill (Mrs. James Niven) and it did appear in the European Magazine, November, 1816, signed with the initial “V 2 But Brother Hunt points out that the poetess denied the authorship and the coincidence of the initial is the only thing to connect her with the poem. The Subject came up frequently in Notes and Queries, London, and usually was credited to Miss Vardill but has been claimed for J. D. Gordman and Robert Philip, the latter in 1826. The lines are listed as anonymous in Edith Granger’s Index to Poetry and Recitations, Chicago, 1904, McClurg.
Behold this ruin, ‘Twas a skull
Once of ethereal spirit full.
This narrow cell was Life’s retreat,
This space was Thought’s mysterious seat.
What beauteous visions filled this spot
What dreams of pleasure long forgot?
Nor hope, nor joy, nor love, nor fear
Have left one trace on record here.
Beneath this mouldering canopy
Once shone the bright and busy eye:
But start not at the dismal vold—
If Social love that eye employed.
If with no lawless fire it gleamed
But through the dews of kindness beamed;
That eye shall be forever bright
When stars and sun are sunk in night.
Within this hollow cavern hung
The ready, swift, and tuneful tongue
If Falsehood’s honey it disdained,
And when it could not praise was chained.
If bold in Virtue’s cause it spoke
Yet gentle concord never broke—
This silent tongue shall plead for thee
When Time unveils Eternity.
Say, did these fingers delve the mine
Or with the envied rubies shine?
To hew the rock or wear a gem
Can little now avail to them.
But if the page of truth they sought
Or comfort to the mourner brought
These hands a richer meed shall claim
Than all that wait on Wealth and Fame.
Avails it whether lottre or shod
These feet the paths of duty trod?
If from the bowers of Ease they fled. To seek Afflietion’s humble shed.
If Grandeur’s guilty bribe they spurned,
And home to Virtue’s cot returned—
These feet with angel wings shall vie,
And tread the palace of the sky.
There is an earlier poem of 1808 by Lord Byron on the skull. He tells of it in his conversations with Medwin; “The gardener in digging discovered a skull that had probably belonged to some jolly friar or monk of the abbey (Newstead Abbey) about the time it was demonstrated. Observing it to be of giant size and in a perfect state of preservation, a strange fancy seized me of having it set and mounted as a drinking cup. I accordingly sent it to town, and it returned with a very high polish, and of a mottled color like tortoise shell.” Start not—nor deem my spirit fled:
In me behold the only skull
From which, unlike a living head,
Whatever flows is never dull.
I lived, I loved, I quaffed like thee:
I died: let earth my bones resign:
Fill up—thou canst not injure me
The worm hath fouler lips than thine.
Better to hold the sparkling grape,
Than nurse the earth-worm’s slimy brood
And eirele in the goblet’s shape
The drink of Gods, than reptile’s food.
Where Once my wit, perchance hath shone,
In aid of others let me shine
And when, alas! our brains are gone,
What nobler substitute than wine?
Quaff while thou eanst, another race
When thou and thine like me are sped,
May rescue thee from earth’s embrace
And rhyme and revel with the dead.
Why not? since through life’s little day
Our heads such sad effects produce
Redeem’d from worms and wasting elay,
This chance is theirs, to be of use.
SKULL AND CROSS-BONES
They are a symbol of mortality and death, and are so used by heralds in funeral achievements. As the means of inciting the mind to the contemplation of the most solemn subjects, the skull and cross-bones are used in the Chamber of Reflection in the French and Scottish Rites, and in all those Degrees where that Chamber constitutes a part of the preliminary ceremonies of initiation .
On the title page of a 32-page pamphlet, The Free Mason Examined, published at London, England, 1754, the author is given as “Alexander Slade, Late Master of Three Regular Constituted Lodges, In the City of Norwich.” Careful search among the archives failed to find a Brother who by the year 1751 had occupied the chair of three Norwich (England) Lodges. The pamphlet was reproduced in facsimile by the Lodge of Research, No. 2429, Leicester, 1926-7, with comments by Brother John T. Thorp, who also read a paper “Freemasonry Parodied in 1754 by Slade’s Free Mason Ezamin’d” (see Transactions, Quatuor Coronati Lodge, 1907, volume xx, pages 95-111).
Slade has not been identified with Norwich nor with Freemasonry and the purpose of this unknown writer is mysterious, Brother Thorp suggesting several possibilities: first, that this curious production is what it claims to be—an account of some Lodge ceremonies of that time; second, perhaps published to ridicule the claims made to a remote antiquity by the Grand Lodge of the Ancient; third, a misleading parody upon certain Masonic work of that period, and fourth, an outright invention prompted by pure greed, there being a lively demand for such information, Prichard’s pamphlet of 1730 having four editions in a month and nearly twenty by 1754. Six editions of Slade’s work were published four in 1754, the others bear no date, and Copies of all are rare.
Inwood, in his sermon on Union Amongst Masons, says: “To defame our Brother, of suffer him to be defamed, without interesting ourselves for the preservation of his name and character there is scarcely the shadow of an excuse to be formed. Defamation is always wicked. Slander and evil speaking are the pests of civil society, are the disgrace of every degree of religious profession, are the poisonous bane of all brotherly love.”
See Free Born
SLAVES, SERVANTS, ETC.
The first Lodge constituted in South Africa w as De Goede Hoop (Lodge of Good Hope), under a Dutch w arrant, in the Transvaal, 1772. The Minutes of this Lodge which was set up in a frontier country to bring a ray of light into a Dark Continent contain the most surprising set of entries ever written before or since by a Lodge Secretary; perhaps they are unique. In 1774 the Lodge rented a slave. By 1775 they had come to own a slave, named Slammat, then sold him for 170 rix dollars. In the following year the Secretary records show that the Lodge had purchased another, named September.
They sold September, and then bought two others, without names. The last slave sale was dated 1777. George, Prince of Wales, afterwards George IV, in 1787 initiated (“with his own hands”!) twenty footmen, etc., in order to have personal servants to wait on him while he sat in the East of his Prince of Wales Lodge, No. 259. Bro. George Washington inherited a slave from his mother. But no such items as these, nor any other among Masonic curzosa, can ever rob Goede Hoop of its melancholy and surprising distinction of dealing in slaves. (See The Early Histor1y of the Lodge De Goede Hoop, by O. H. Bate; Cape Town, South Africa.)
G. G. Coulton (in Art and Reformation; page 74) records one case of the selling of a Freemason into slavery. A Normandy lady was so inordinately proud of a castle a Master Freemason built for her that she had him beheaded to guarantee against his making another like it. John Coustos was sent to the galleys by the Portuguese Inquisition for being a Freemason. Kings sometimes “bonded” a favorite physician, musician, Mason, etc., for life, a status which was serfdom in effect. In Tudor times more than one king sent out sheriffs to round up Freemasons to compel them by force to work on royal buildings.
In 1907 Bro. Harry W. Gowen, of Halifax, N. C., wrote an exuberant booklet to prove that Georgia had in it the first and only Provincial Grand Master of Masons for America (1771-1776) and the only Provincial Grand Lodge for America; it was entitled The Stony of the Right Worshipful Joseph Montfort. On page 26 is a paragraph about a slave:
“During the early years of the records a Brother died in the West Indies, and by his will, left a slave, a negro woman, to Royal White Hart Lodge. Halifax” The Lodge loaned the slave to Mrs. Taylor, a Mason’s widow, and after 3 few years appointed a committee to recover the slave and her increase; but whenever the committee Vent after the woman, Mrs. Taylor would hide her. The chase was ineffectually kept up for a few years, finally abandoned and was most amusing. ”
NOTE. On page 676 of this Encyclopedia Bro. Clegg writes: ‘Royal White Hart Lodge, No. 2, Halifax, North Carolina, has met in an old frame building erected in 1769 and since mused exclusively and continuously for Lodge purposes. ‘ In two details Bro. Clegg was misled by his sources of information. The lower door was made and equipped for a school room and was so used for many years. The “old frame building” suggests a poor or decrepit building whereas it was a very fine structure. “We have a description of the temple written in 1820, when it was in a perfect state of preservation: the roof was of slate color; the building white with green blinds, red brick chimney and foundation, and mahogany doors; the ceiling of the lodge room (which is arched) was blue; the woodwork white, excepting the doors, which were mahogany.” Gowen; page 26.
It is a fact of large significance that in the Minute Books of Lodges and the Proceedings of Great Lodges of the United States from 1850 neither slavery nor the Civil War is almost ever mentioned, and still less is ever discussed It was assumed tacitly, as it necessarily had to be, that the Tenets of Freemasonry are incompatible with buying, selling, or owning men and women. But the slavery issue from 1850 to 1865 was brought into the Fraternity, or made to confront it, in an indirect way, and, as it were, through the back door; because when the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the second period of the Anti-Masonic Crusade joined the Anti-Masons in their attempt to obliterate the Fraternity, one of its modes of attack was to accuse Freemasons of being abolitionists.
The hierarchy of the Roman Church, though not always with the support of the lower clergy, and from 800 A.D. to World War II, has always been on the side of special privilege, ruling classes, slave and serf owners, etc., as against democracy, freedom, representative government, public schools, etc. Even in the North the hierarchy was outspokenly pro-slavery; in the South its hatred of Lincoln, emancipation, and abolitionism was malignant. Thus in a letter to Secretary of War Cameron in 1861, Archbishop Hughes wrote that “it should be understood that, with or without knowing it, if they [Catholics] are to fight for the abolition of slavery, then indeed they will turn away in disgust from the discharge of what would otherwise be a patriotic duty.”
In a book published in 1941 the Roman Catholic historian Theodore Maynard described the Emancipation Proclamation as a “blot on Lincoln’s record.” (The records and documents in the case may be found in American Catholic Opinion in the Slavery Controversy, by Madeline Hooke Riee; Columbia University Press; New York; 1944. The Church did not disavow its pro-slavery after the war, but permitted the subject to die away. This book by Maynard, it is interesting to note, is one of a long series of propaganda volumes being published by Roman Catholic agencies in order to re-write American history in their own favor.)
Note. Detailed week-by-week records of Roman Catholic attacks on Freemasonry may be found in diocesan newspapers between 1848/1865, North and South.
This technical expression in American Freemasonry, but commonly confined to the Western States, and not generally used, is of comparatively recent origin; and both the action and the word probably sprang up, with a few other innovations, intended as especial methods of precaution, about the time of the anti-Masonic excitement.
There are three copies of the Old Constitutions which bear this name. All of them were found in the British Museum among the heterogeneous collection of papers which were once the property of Sir Hans Sloane.
The first Sloane Manuscript, which is known in the Museum as No. 3848, is one of the most complete of the copies extant of the Old Constitutions. At the end of it, the date is certified by the following subscription: finis p. me Eduardu Sankey decimo sexto die Octobris Anno Domini 1646. It was published for the first time, from an exact transcript of the original, by Brother Hughan in his Old Charges of the British Freemasons.
The second Sloane Manuscript is known in the British Museum as No. 3323. It is in a large folio volume of three hundred and twenty-eight leaves, on the fly-leaf of which Sir Hans Sloane has written “Loose papers of mine Concerning Curiosities.” There are many manuscripts by different hands. The Masonic one is subscribed thus with the date and name of the writer, Haec scripta fuerunt p. me Thomam Martin, 1659, and this fixes the date. It consists of three leaves of paper six inches by seven and a half, is written in a small, neat hand, and endorsed Free Masonry. It was first published, in 1871, by Brother Hughan in his Masonic Sketches and Reprints.
The Rev. Brother A. F. A. Woodford thinks this an “indifferent copy of the former one.” But this seems unlikely. The entire omission of the Legend of the Craft from the time of Lamech to the building of the Temple, including the important Legend of Euclid, all of which is given in full in the other manuscript, No. 3848, together with a great many verbal discrepancies, and a total difference in the eighteenth charge, would lead one to suppose that the former manuscript never was seen; or at least copied, by the writer of the latter. On the whole, it is, from this very omission, one of the least valuable of the copies of the Old Constitutions.
The third Sloane Manuscript is really one of the most interesting and valuable of those that have beers heretofore discovered. A portion of it, a small portion, was inserted by Findel in his History of Freemasonry; but the whole has been since published in the Voice of Masonry, a periodical printed at Chicago in 1872. The number of the manuscript in the British Museum is 3329, and Brother Hughan places its date at from 1640-1700; but he says that Messrs. Bond and Sims, of the British Museum, agree in stating that it is “probably of the beginning of the eighteenth century.”
But the Rev. Brother Woodford mentions great authority, Wallbran, on manuscripts who declares it to be “previous to the middle of the seventeenth century.” Findel thinks it originated at the end of the seventeenth century, and “that it was found among the papers which Doctor Plot left behind him on his death, and was one of the Sources whence his communications on Freemasonry were derived.” It is not a copy of the Old Constitutions, in which respect it differs from all the other manuscripts, but is a description of the ritual of the Society of Free Operative Masons at the period when it was written.
This it is that makes it so valuable a contribution to the history of Freemasonry, and renders t so important that its precise date should be fixed.
SMARAGDINE, TABLET OF HERMES
The foundation of Hermetic knowledge, by an unknown author. Translated in the Oedipus Aegyptiacus.
Captain George Smith was a Freemason of some distinction during the latter part of the eighteenth century. Although born in England, he at an early age entered the military service of Prussia, being connected with noble families of that kingdom. During his residence on the continent it appears that he was initiated in one of the German Lodges.
On his return to England he was appointed Inspector of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and published, in 1779, a Universal Military Dictionary, and, in 1783, a Bibliotheca Miliaris. Brother Smith devoted much attention to Masonic studies, and is said to have been a good workman in the Royal Military Lodge at Woolwich, of which he was for four years the Master. During his Mastership the Lodge had on one occasion, been opened in the King’s Bench prison, and some persons who were confined there were initiated. For this the Master and Brethren were censured, and the Grand Lodge declared that “it is inconsistent with the principles of Masonry for any Freemason’s Lodge to be held, for the purpose of making, passing, or raising Masons, in any prison or place of confinement” (see Constitutions, 1784, page 349).
Brother Smith was appointed by the Duke of Manchester, in 1778, Provincial Grand Master of Kent, and on that occasion de livered his Inaugural Charge before the Lodge of Friendship at Dover. He also drew up a Code of Laws for the government of the Province, which was published in 1781.
In 1780 he was appointed Junior Grand Warden of the Grand Lodge; but objections having been made by Heseltine, the Grand Secretary, between whom and himself there was no very kind feeling, on the ground that no one could hold two offices in the Grand Lodge, Smith resigned at the next Quarterly Communication. As at the time of this appointment there was really no law forbidding the holding of two offices, its impropriety was so manifest, that the Grand Lodge adopted a regulation (Constitutions, 1784, page 336) that “it is incompatible with the laws of this society for any Brother to hold more than one office in the Grand Lodge at the same time. ”
Captain Smith, in 1783, published a work entitled The Use and Abuse of Freemasonry: a work of the greatest utility to the Brethren of the Society, to Mankind in general, and to the Ladies in particular. The interest to the ladies consists in some twenty pages, in which he gives the “Ancient and Modern reasons why the ladies have never been accepted into the Society of Freemasons,” a section the omission of which would scarcely have diminished the value of the work or the reputation of the author.
The work of Brother Smith would not at the present day, in the advanced progress of Masonic knowledge, enhance the reputation of its writer. But at the time when it appeared, there was a great dearth of Masonic literature—Anderson, Calcott, Hutchinson, and Preston being the only authors of any repute that had as yet written on the subject of Freemasonry. There was much historical information contained within its pages, and some few suggestive thoughts on the symbolism and philosophy of the Order. To the Craft of that day the book was therefore necessary and useful. Nothing, indeed, proves the necessity of such a work more than the fact that the Grand Lodge refused its sanction to the publication on the general ground of opposition to Masonic literature.
Noorthouck (Constitutions, 1784, page 347), in commenting on the refusal of a sanction, says:
No particular objection being stated against the abovementioned work, the natural conclusion is, that a sanction was refused on the general principle that, considering the flourishing state of our Lodges, where regular instruction and suitable exercises are ever ready for all Brethren who zealously aspire to improve in masonical knowledge new publications are unnecessary on a subject which books cannot teach. Indeed, the temptations to authorship have effected a strange revolution of sentiments since the year 1720, when even ancient manuscripts were destroyed, to prevent their appearance in a printed Book of Constitutions! for the principal materials in this very work, then so much dreaded, have since been retailed in a variety of forms, to give consequence to fanciful productions that might have been safely withheld, without sensible injury, either to the Fraternity or to the literary reputation of the writers.
To dispel such darkness almost any sort of book should have been acceptable. The work was published without the sanction, and the Craft being wiser than their representatives in the Grand Lodge, the edition was speedily exhausted. In 1785 Captain Smith was expelled from the Society for “uttering an instrument purporting to be a certificate of the Grand Lodge recommending two distressed Brethren.”
Doctor Oliver (Revelations of a Square, page 215) describes Captain Smith as a man “plain in speech and manners, but honorable and upright in his dealings, and an active and zealous Mason.” It is probable that he died about the end of the eighteenth or the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Brother Smith published The Freemasons Pocket Companion, 1736, at London, England.
SMITH, WM.; HIS CONSTITUTIONS
When the Modern (first) Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania dedicated its Lodge house (Americans first Masonic building), and called “The Freemasons’ Lodge,” the dedication sermon was preached by William Smith, D. D., a member of Lodge No. 2, famous for his learning throughout the Colony. In 1781, the year that Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Grand Lodge decided to reissue its Shiman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions, and appointed Bro. Smith to revise and to abridge it. He was to become Grand Secretary in 1783.
In 1782 he was Provost of the College of Philadelphia—now the University of Pennsylvania. He had the revision ready in 1781, and on November 22 of that year it was approved by Grand Lodge. But the printing was delayed. In 1782 Smith wrote a dedication to George Washington; in 1783 the Book was published. Though its editor could not know of it at the time, it was a book destined to be carried far, because it was to become the sanction and guide for Lodges in Tennessee, Kentucky, the West Indies Louisiana, Mexico, etc., and to be a model for later editors in other and future Grand Lodges.
Since the volume is now listed as a rare book, collectors may find useful its full title page: “Ahiman Rezon Abridged and Digested; as a Help to all that are. or would be Free and Accepted Masons, to which is added a Sermon, Preached at Christ-Church, Philadelphia, at a General Communication, Celebrated, Agreeable to the Constitutions, Monday, December 28, 1778, at the Anniversary of St. John the Evangelist, Published by Order of The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, by William Smith, D. D., Philadelphia; Printed by Hall and Sellers, M,Dcc, LXXXIII.”
The 1778 London Edition of the Ahiman Rezon which presumably Bro. Smith had before him, has as its title: “Ahiman Rezon: or a Help to all that are, or could be Free and Accepted Masons.” It mas the Third Edition.
The first paragraph of Bro. Smith’s Chapter I appears to have been of his om n composition, and may be guessed to have been a device for condensing into one sentence a series of exhortations which in the original version Laurence Dermott had spread over a number of pages. In this paragraph and in the chapter sub-head Bro. Smith uses a phrase which is peculiar, so peculiar that it is difficult to know why it has thus far escaped attention.
In the sub-head he says: “for the use of Operative Masons, in the American Lodges . . .”; in the first line of the paragraph he says: “Before we enter upon the duties of the operative Mason,” ete. (Italics ours.) Why did he say “Operative” instead of Speculative? (Two or three other Books of Constitutions afterwards repeated these phrases, Massachusetts being one of them.) one can only surmise that he took “operative” to mean Masons who operate a Lodge, the officers, tiler, janitor, etc.; this surmise has a support in his describing the duties of the “Operative Mason,” “in the various offices and stations to which he may be called in the Lodge….” In any event this misreading of the meaning of “Operative” supports a statement made elsewhere in this Supplement to the effect that the first American Masons were often themselves uninstructed on Craft practices, and in the dark about its customs and Landmarks.
Note. The Book of Constitutions prepared by Thaddeus Mason Harris for the new United Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. and which he printed in 1798, was a revision of an earlier Book; Harris also uses the phrase “for Operative Masons. ‘
The old lectures used to say “The veil of the Temple is rent, the builder is smitten, and we are raised from the tomb of transgression.” Brother Hutchinson, and after him Doctor Oliver, apply the expression, The smitten builder, to the crucified Savior, and define it as a symbol of His divine mediation; but the general interpretation of the symbol is, that it refers to death as the necessary precursor of immortality. In this sense, the smitten builder presents, like every other part of the Third Degree, the symbolic instruction of eternal life.
A distinguished lecturer on Freemasonry, who was principally instrumental in introducing the system of Webb, of whom he was a pupil, into the Lodges of the Western States. He was also a Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and was the founder and first Grand Commander of the first Grand Encampment of Knights Templar in the same State. He was born in Providence, Rhode Island, February 25, 1780; was initiated into Freemasonry in Mount Vernon Lodge, of Providence, in 1809, and died May 16,1852, at Worthington, Ohio.
SOANE, GEO., HIS ROSICRUCIAN THEORY
In his Curiosities of Literature; and Book of the Months (London; 1849), Vol. II., page 35, George Soane, a non-Mason, published one of the earliest essays in the attempt to prove that Freemasonry originated in Rosicrucianism.
It is written by an intelligent, well read antiquarian who has neither a fool nor a fanatic; it is therefore the more useful as a specimen of the kind of theories which even the well-informed entertained before much was known about Masonic history. Some takes it for granted that Freemasonry was invented in 1717 by a few gentlemen inspired by antiquarian curiosity; the symbols and ceremonies and their attribution by the Masons to the old builders he dismisses as “trash.” (There were some Masons in 1849 who held a similar theory.) Those ceremonies and symbols had a queer and occult look to him (it did not occur to him that as a non-Mason he could have no knows ledge of them), therefore he cast about among the “queer fish” of occult and pseudo-occult “societies” current in 1717 to see if he could find one “similar” to the Craft, and at the same time “older.” Rosicrucian~ ism appeared to him to fill the bill.
His history of Rosicrucianism is not made of the facts as now known. He traced it to a pamphlet written by John Valentine Andrea, and more especially to a second edition of 1617 entitled Fama Frater witatis (published by Cassel). He took it that in consequence of this putative “revelation” an organized fraternity ensued; and that this fraternity emerged in 1717 under the disguise of Freemasonry. These notions have gone the way of all flesh. Rosicrucianism was never anything more than a book, a name, a rumor, a nickname for anything queer, archaic, occult until in the Nineteenth Century a small group of English Masons organized a side order under that label. Andrea could not have fathered Masonry in l717 because there had been Speculative Lodges before that date, and there had been Operative Lodges many centuries before.
The discovery of the Regius and Cooke MSS. destroyed the last vestige of any feasibility Soane’s theory may ever have had. That theory would be no longer of any importance were it not that a Masonic writer or lecturer now and then repeats Soane’s argument, a thing possible only to those w ho have never read an authentic historic of the Fraternity.
SOCIAL CHARACTER OF FREEMASONRY
Freemasonry attracts our attention as a great social Institution. Laying aside for the time those artificial distinctions of rank and wealth, which, however, are necessary in the world to the regular progression of society, its members meet in their Lodges on one common level of brotherhood and equality. There virtue and talent alone claim and receive pre-eminence, and the great object of all is to see who can best work and best agree. There friendship and fraternal affection are strenuously inculcated and assiduously cultivated, and that great mystic tie is established which peculiarly distinguishes the society. Hence is it that Washington has declared that the benevolent purpose of the Masonic Institution is to enlarge the sphere of social happiness, and its grand object to promote the happiness of the human race.
SOCIAL STATUS OF MASONS
The damage done by the barbarians when they devastated France and Italy in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries was in the long run not as great as was the consequence of the caste system which they rooted so deeply in Europe that it has not yet been eradicated. At the top were the kings, nobles, and the prelates; next afterwards came patricians and knights and later, squires; at the bottom were slaves (slavery was still in practice in Britain in the Eighteenth Century); next above the slaves were the cotters, next above them were the villains, and next above the villains were working men, consisting of craftsmen and farmers. According to the dogma of the original barbarism God Himself had created these castes or classes, and it was not only illegal but impious for a man to presume to climb up and out “of the station in which God has seen fit to place him.” Where did the Medieval Masons stand in this hierarchy of castes? The majority of the pages in the histories of the Fraternity now extant ask the question, What were the Masons? The question raised here is, Who were the Masons? The who is of equal importance to the what for the solution of the problems of Masonic history.
The data as we now possess them, only half discovered and seldom thoroughly examined, give a confusing answer. On the whole, they give the impression that here, as on other counts, we shall find that Operative Freemasonry as regards social classes was in a peculiar sense an exception; that impression is of a piece with bodies of data of other kinds which show that in the first period the Fraternity was as “peculiar,” as “unique” in many other ways also.
During the century prior to the discovery of Gothic architecture in and around Paris, there had been developed to a high degree of perfection the art of the miniature painter, the master who ornamented vellum manuscript books with tiny miracles of almost perfect paintings. and who made most of the discoveries of form, composition, and perspective which made possible the “great painting” in Italy during the Renaissance—Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” is a masterly reproduction in the large of a miniature subject that had been perfected two centuries before his time.
Coincidentally with the discovery of the Gothic, miniature painting escaped from the monasteries, which were always tending to lapse into decay from sloth and ignorance (sloth itself was defined as “the idleness of the illiterate”), into the hands of lay artists, and almost immediately it was carried on and up into its own dazzling, great age in the reign of Philip Augustus, in which appeared those supreme artists, Honor, Jean Pucelle, Forrequet, Paul, Hermann Male-well, etc.
These miniaturists were not, as the cant of barbarian usage had it, laborers; they did not work in soil, stone, clay, bricks, wood, or the malodorous leather; they were pure artists in the most absolute sense of the word “pure”; and they were great artists —more than one of their masterpieces has actually been used to “ransom a kingdom.” It is a revelation, therefore, to see where and how these artists stood in the social scheme.
First, they were personally so ignored that they were not suffered to sign their work (occasionally one of them slipped his first name, very small, into an end device), and their works were called not by the name of the artist but by the names of their owners. Second, they formed a gild, had a master and wardens, apprenticeships, fixed hours and wages, and thereby became established solidly in the same social bracket as brick-layers, paviors, cloth weavers, and leather workers, well down among the lower orders, so that if one of them was invited to dine in a patrician’s home he ate at table with the servants. Though a craft of pure artists, the miniaturists were thus nevertheless a gild, and their station was that assigned to every other gild of craftsmen in the caste system of the times. The Freemasons’ gild was like their gild, and yet m as unlike it.
The Masons went through a long hard apprenticeship; they had much schooling beside; they became in adult manhood the superior of any of their contemporaries in knowledge, intelligence, independence, skill, and they also were pure artists; and vet, because they were workmen, they were frozen into the “lower classes.” Also, like the miniaturists, they were compelled to work, at least in theory, anonymously; Masters of Masons like William of Sens and Arnolfo, alongside their fellows, not only erected but also conceived, designed, and ornamented the cathedrals, yet the chroniclers of the time, monks most of them, and snobs to their marrow, give no credit to any Master of Masons for any cathedral, but tell us that Bishop Walter Montague “built” the cathedral at Laon, Bishop Maurice de Sully “built” Notre Dame, and so on, though no one of those bishops could have read a plan or calculated the scale of an arch if his life had depended upon it.
Yet on the other hand these Master Masons received oftentimes a princely wage, and consorted with gentlemen and high lords; Martin de Lonay, only one elf hundreds of others, when he was building the Abbey at St. Gilles, ate at the Abbots’ table, stabled his horse in the Abbots’ stalls, and received gifts of robes of state, collars, and had an honored place in solemn pageants, etc. At one end of it the Craft was solidly imbedded in the lowly craft gild and belonged to the lower orders; at the other end of it, it was embedded with equal solidity in the highest class of all; and as in France, so in England, where apprentices, usually of country stock, were taught the etiquette of the hall and the courtly manners of milord.
This meeting and mixture of social extremes inside the Crafts’ own circle explains what, as against the known facts of the Middle Ages, would otherwise be inexplicable: the consorting of men of title with working men, the commingling of stone-masonry and pure art, the possession by hand workers of a better education than bishops had, the admittance of non-Operatives into some such status as Honorary membership, the freedom of Masons to work some years in one town and then move to another; their occupancy of a position at the very center of church life and yet their independence from church rule; their having their roots in the very soil of Medievalism and yet their finding out of truths so modern that even yet modern men have not caught up with them.
SOCIETAS ROSICRUCIANA IN ANGLIA
SOCIETAS ROSICRUCIANA IN SCOTIA
SOCIETY OF THE CHAIN
See Chain, Society of the
The Sixth Degree of the Order of Strict Observance
SOCIOLOGY AND FREEMASONRY
In the eyes of sociology a people consists of institutions, cultural agencies, established groups, organized societies, living traditions, mores, etc. These the sociologists study, classify, and describe as a botanist describes and classifies plants, impersonally, impartially, and without moral judgments. In sociology Freemasonry is classified as belonging to the group of cultural agencies, within the sub-classification of fraternities; the sociologist then attempts to discover the “sociologic laws” of fraternities; that is, principles, forms of organizations, and purposes common to them.
Except indirectly, or in passing, sociologists have never made a special study of Freemasonry according to their own categories and canons, but there have been signs lately to indicate that they are about to do so. Secret Societies; a Study of Fraternalism in the United States, by Noel P. Gist, Ph.D., Columbia University; New York; 1940; and “Sociology of Secret Societies” in the American Journal of Sociology; Vol. XI; 1906; p. 441, are together a fairly complete portrait of the Craft as it appears to the eyes of sociologists. Studies of a similar kind, though not technically sociologic, are:
Secret Societies Old and New, by Herbert Vivian; London; 1927 (the author does not possess sufficient knowledge for his task, and on some pages writes in a style that is either crude or sarcastic, it is impossible to say which). Hutton Webster’s famous Secret Societies is sociologic but is not concerned with modern fraternities. Three of G. G. Coulton’s works are histories, but they contain chapters which are in effect sociologic studies of Medieval Freemasonry: Medieval Panorama. Social Life in Britain; From the Conquest to the Reformation (Cambridge; 1919). Life in the Middle Ages; Macmillan; New York; 1930.
It is probable that only sociology itself will gain much from these researches, because its data long have been familiar to Masonic scholars to whom it is a commonplace that Freemasonry is a fraternity, and nas secrets, and has only fraternal purposes, is a free association, etc. It is however possible that from sociology Masons will gain a somewhat clearer knowledge of the Fraternity’s place among other cultural agencies in modern society.
Not long after the beginning of this century sociology came suddenly into a general popularity. Ward, Giddings, Veblen, Ross, etc., were suddenly catapulted into a place among best-sellers alongside popular novelists; even practical politicians began to study these volumes in the hopes of finding a magic key to their own problems; a few adventurers made fortunes out of exploiting the half-conscious fears of the populace, and a cheap and trashy book, called The Rising Tide of Color, foretold a global war between the White race and the Yellow, or even the Black, and this was viewed with huge alarms because it was assumed that the White race was “so vastly superior” to either of the other two that if it “fell” it would take civilization with it! These apocalyptic vaticination had a reincarnation in the “ideologies” of Fascism and Naziism under the label of “racism,” though confusion became confounded when the Teutonic champion of the White race discovered to their delighted military surprise that the Japanese are “White Aryans.”
This episode of lunacy was a debacle for sociology, from which it has not recovered, and will not until it ceases to consider itself a “science” and becomes in name as well as in fact, what Boas affirmed it to be: a series of non-scientific studies of, and of thought about, the subject of race, and of such subjects as are auxiliary to it. Like psychology, sociology had become maddened by too many theories, has fallen from popular interest, and been dropped out of a large number of colleges; even sociologists themselves, some of them, have lost confidence in their own subject.
In spite of its thus having been temporarily derailed, sociology has established one truth, and there is no possibility of its being questioned again: it has discovered that men are not born as individuals, separate and mutually-repellent atoms, which can be brought into groups only by preaching idealism, or by force, or by “moral suasion,” as the orthodox sociologic theory of the Nineteenth Century had said they were. Men are in groups before they are born, because to be so is in their anatomy, their physiology, is the way they are made. A baby already is a member of a family, belongs to a society of blood relatives, is in a community, is a member of a people, is predestined to attend school, and to be a citizen, and to enter free associations—he cannot evade or avoid these “sociologic” engagements any more than he can avoid eating or sleeping.
Society itself, as sociology employs the term, consists not of separate, atomistic individuals (still less of “rugged” individuals), but to begin with consists of institutions, groups, and associations; they are the units by which it is comprised. It is at this point, and in these terms, that Freemasonry is in the field of sociology, and may be sociologically studied. Its regalia, its charity, its Ritual and symbols, these are of no concern of sociology; on the other hand free associations do belong to sociology, and a Lodge therefore, as a Lodge, belongs to it because it is one of many forms of free associations.
From the Latin word meaning Companion. Societies or companies of friends or companions assembled together for a special purpose. Such confraternities, under the name of Sodalitia, were established in Rome, by Cato the Censor, for the mutual protection of the members. As their proceedings were secret, they gave offense to the government, and were suppressed, 80 B.C., by a Decree of the Senate, but were afterward restored by a law of Clodius. The name is applied in the Roman Catholic Church to associations of persons for charitable or devotional purposes.
The Sofis were a mystical sect which greatly prevailed in Eastern countries, and especially in Persia, whose religious faith was supposed by most writers to embody the secret doctrine of Mohammedanism. Sir John Malcolm ( History of Persia, chapter xx) says that they have among them great numbers of the wisest and ablest men of the East, and since his time the sect has largely increased.
The name is most probably derived from the Greek wisdom; and Malcolm states that they also bore the name of philosaufs, in which we may readily detect the word philosophers. He says also: “The Mohammedan Sofis have endeavored to connect their mystic faith with the doctrine of their prophet, who, they assert, was himself an accomplished Sofi.”
The principal Sofi writers are familiar with the opinions of Aristotle and Plato, and their most important works abound with quotations from the latter. Sir John Malcolm compares the school of Sofism with that of Pythagoras. It is evident that there is a great similarity between Sofism and Gnosticism, and all the features of the biofic initiation remind us very forcibly of those of the Masonic ‘the object of the system is the attainment of Truth; and the novice is invited “to embark on the sea of doubt,” that is, to commence his investigations, which are to end in its discovery.
There are four stages or degrees of initiation: the first is merely preliminary, and the initiate is required to observe the ordinary rites and ceremonies of religion for the sake of the vulgar, who do not understand their esoteric meaning. In the Second Degree he is said to enter the pale of Sofism, and exchanges these external rites for a spiritual worship.
The Third Degree is that of Wisdom, and he who reaches it is supposed to have attained supernatural knowledge, and to be equal to the angels. The Fourth and last degree is called Truth, for he has now reached it, and has become completely united with Deity. They have, says Malcolm, secrets and mysteries in every stage or degree which are never revealed to the profane, and to reveal which would be a crime of the deepest turpitude.
The tenets of the sect, so far as they are made known to the world, are, according to Sir William Jones (Asiatic Researches ii, page 62), “that nothing exists absolutely but God; that the human soul is an emanation of His essence, and, though divided for a time from its heavenly source, will be finally reunited with it; that the highest possible happiness will arise from its reunion; and that the chief good of mankind in this transitory world consists in as perfect a union with the Eternal Spirit as the incumbrance of a mortal frame will allow.” It is evident that an investigation of the true system of these Eastern mysteries must be an interesting subject of inquiry to the student of Freemasonry; for Godfrey Higgins is hardly too enthusiastic in supposing them to be the ancient Freemasons of Mohammedanism.
His views are thus expressed in the second volume of his Anacalypsis (page 301): a wonderful work—wonderful for the vast and varied learning that it exhibits; but still more so for the bold and strange theories which, however untenable, are defended with all the powers of a more than ordinary intellect. “The circumstances,” he says, “of the gradation of ranks, the initiation, and the head of the Order in Persia being called Grand Master, raise a presumption that the Sofia were, in reality, the Order of Masons.”
Without subscribing at once to the theory of Godfrey Higgins, we may well be surprised at the coincidences existing between the customs and the dogmas of the Sofis and those of the Freemasons, and we would naturally be curious to investigate the uses of the close communication which existed at various times during the Crusades between this Mohammedan sect of philosophers and the Christian Order of Templars. C. W. King, in his learned treatise on the Gnostics, seems to entertain a similar idea of this connection between the Templars and the Sofis.
He says that, Inasmuch as these Sofis were composed exclusively of the learned amongst the Persians and Syrians, and learning at that time meant little more than a proficiency in medicine and astrology, the two points that brought the Eastern sages into amicable contact with their barbarous invaders from the West, it is easy to see how the latter may have imbibed the secret doctrines simultaneously with the science of those who were their instructors in all matters pertaining to science and art.
The Sofi doctrine involved the grand idea of one universal creed, which could be secretly held under any profession of an outward faith: and in fact took virtually the same view of religious systems as that in which the ancient philosophers had regarded such matters.
Students in the universities of Islam
SO HELP ME GOD
The usual observation or imprecation affixed in modern times to oaths, and meaning, May God so help me as I keep this vow.
See Principal Sojourner
SOJOURNERS’ CLUB, THE NATIONAL
According to data in its own publications the National Sojourners’ Club, like the Masonic Fraternity itself, is unable to put its finger on the exact place and date of its origin. More or less tentative experiments, made at widely- separated places and in different years, both proved the need of and prepared the way for it. As Sojourners’ Club was founded by army officers (from other services, also) in Manila, P. I., in 1900, it: finally became Manila Lodge, No 342, on October 10, 1901. Another club of Sojourners appeared in the same city, in 1907, Manila being then, as it is non fruitful in Masonic origins, and, it may well be destined to be a Mother City of Freemasonry in the Far East where it maw have nobody can tell how large a future.
The present organization in America began when fifteen officers met at the Hamilton Club in Chicago (which is among clubs what Manila is among cities, for it is a mother of clubs), in 1917. A formal organization was completed February 28, 1918 Membership was made eligible to commissioned officers in the uniformed services who are Masons; patriotism was proclaimed its chief tenet. At the first meeting twenty-four were present; Captain F. C. Russell was elected President.
The roster of its local and national officers contains names made famous the World over by two World Wars; and also contained at least one President of the United States. Masons in the services on land and sea will always find each other out and form circles regardless of difficulties, for the Mystic Tie means much to them. For two centuries the Craft has tried out Army Lodges, Navy Lodges, Lodges on board ship, Mariners’ Lodges, Ambulatory Lodges but they have not everywhere been satisfactory. The Sojourners is not a Lodge but a club, and it may in the future be proved to have found the most satisfactory formula for Masonic fellowship among Masons in the armed services.
See National Sojourners
SOLDIERS OF CHRIST
Milites Christi is the title by which Saint Bernard addressed his exhortations to the Knights Templar. They are also called by a more complete Latin title in some of the old documents, Militia Templi Salomonis, meaning The Chivalry of the Temple of Solomon; but their ancient Statutes were entitled Regina pauperum commilitonum Templi Salomonis, meaning The Rule of the poor fellow-soldiers of the Temple of Solomon; and this is the title by which they are now most generally designated.
SOLI SANCTISSIMO SACRUM
Latin, meaning Sacred to the most holy Sun. Mentioned in the Twenty-eighth Degree, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.
In writing the life of King Solomon from a Masonic point of view, it is impossible to omit a reference to the legends which have been preserved in the Masonic system.
But the writer, who, with this preliminary notice, embodies them in his sketch of the career of the wise King of Israel, is by no means to be held responsible for a belief in their authenticity. It is the business of the Masonic biographer to relate all that has been handed down by tradition in connection with the life of Solomon; it will be the duty of the severer critic to seek to separate out of all these materials that which is historical from that which is merely mythical, and to assign to the former all that is valuable as fact, and to the latter all that is equally valuable as symbolism.
But it must constantly be kept in mind that the chronology of early Jewish history is obscure. Periods given in the books of Moses are in round numbers and seem based only on tradition. Only when the biblical dates can be checked by external means, as for example by the records of Assyria, may definite dates be accepted with any certainty. Such is the conclusion of the Dictionary of Dates (Nelson’s Encyclopedic Library).
Solomon, the King of Israel, the son of David and Bathsheba, ascended the throne of his kingdom 2989 years after the creation of the world, and 1015 years before the Christian era. He was then only twenty years of age, but the youthful monarch is said to have commenced his reign with the decision of a legal question of some difficulty, in which he exhibited the first promise of that wise judgment for which he was ever afterward distinguished.
One of the great objects of Solomon’s life, and the one which most intimately connects him with the history of the Masonic institution, was the erection of a temple to Jehovah. This, too, had been a favorite design of his father David. For this purpose, that monarch, long before his death, had numbered the workmen whom he found in his kingdom; had appointed the overseers of the work, the hewers of stones, and the bearers of burdens; had prepared a great quantity of brass, iron, and cedar; and had amassed an immense treasure with which to support the enterprise.
But on consulting with the Prophet Nathan, he learned from that holy man, that although the pious intention was pleasing to God, yet that he would not be permitted to carry it into execution, and the divine prohibition was proclaimed in these emphatic words: “Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build a house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.” The task was, therefore, reserved for the more peaceful Solomon.
Hence, when David was about to die, he charged Solomon to build the Temple of God as soon as he should have received the kingdom. He also gave him directions in relation to the construction of the edifice, and put into his possession the money, amounting to ten thousand talents of gold and ten times that amount of silver, which he had collected and laid aside for defraying the expense. Solomon had scarcely ascended the throne of Israel, when he prepared to carry into execution the pious designs of his predecessor. For this purpose, however, he found it necessary to seek the assistance of Hiram, King of Tyre, the ancient friend and ally of his father.
The Tyrians and Sidonians, the subjects of Hiram, had long been distinguished for their great architectural skill; and, in fact, many of them, as the members of a mystic operative society, the Fraternity of Dionysian Artificers, had long monopolized the profession of building in Asia Minor. The Jews, on the contrary, were rather more eminent for their military valor than for their knowledge of the arts of peace, and hence King Solomon at once conceived the necessity of invoking the aid of these foreign architects, if he expected to complete the edifice he was about to erect, either in a reasonable time or with the splendor and magnificence appropriate to the sacred object for which it was intended. For this purpose he addressed the following letter to King Hiram:
Know thou that my father would have built a temple to God, but was hindered by wars and continual expeditions, for he did not leave off to overthrow his enemies till he made them all subject to tribute. But I give thanks to God for the peace I, at present, enjoy, and on that account I am at leisure, and design to build a house to God. for God foretold to my father, that such a house should be built by me wherefore I desire thee to send some of thy subjects with mine to Mount Lebanon, to cut down timber for the Sidonians are more skillful than our people in cutting of wood. as for wages to the hewers of wood, I will pay whatever price thou shalt determine. Hiram, mindful of the former amity end alliance that had existed between himself and David, was disposed to extend the friendship he had felt for the father to the son, and replied, therefore, to the letter of Solomon in the following epistle:
It is fit to bless God that he hath committed thy father’s government to thee, who art a wise man endowed with all virtues.
As for myself, I rejoice at the condition thou art in and will be subservient to thee in all that thou sendest to me about; for when, by my subjects I have cut down many and large trees of cedar and cypress wood, I will send them to sea and will order my subjects to make floats of them. and to sail to what places soever of thy country thou shalt desire and leave them there, after which thy subjects may carry them to Jerusalem. But do thou take care to procure us corn for this timber which we stand in need of, because we inhabit in an island.
Hiram lost no time in fulfilling the promise of assistance which he had thus given; and accordingly we are informed that Solomon received thirty-three thousand six hundred workmen from Tyre, besides a sufficient quantity of timber and stone to construct the edifice which he was about to erect.
Hiram sent him, also, a far more important gift than either men or materials, in the person of an able architect, “a curious and cunning workman,” whose skill and experience were to be exercised in superintending the labors of the craft, and in adorning and beautifying the building. Of this personage, whose name was also Hiram, and who plays so important a part in the history of Freemasonry, an account will be found in the article Hiram Abif, to which the reader is referred.
King Solomon commenced the erection of the Temple on Monday, the second day of the Hebrew month Zif, which answers to the twenty-first of April, in the year of the world 2992, and 1012 years before the Christian era. Advised in all the details, as Masonic tradition informs us, by the wise and prudent counsels of Hiram, King of Tyre, and Hiram Abif, who, with himself, constituted at that time the three Grand Masters of the Craft, Solomon made every arrangement in the disposition and government of the workmen, in the payment of their wages, and in the maintenance of concord and harmony which should insure despatch in the execution and success in the result. To Hiram Abif was entrusted the general superintendence of the building, while subordinate stations were assigned to other eminent artists, whose names and offices have been handed down in the traditions of the Order.
In short, the utmost perfection of human wisdom was displayed by this enlightened monarch in the disposition of everything that related to the construction of the stupendous edifice. Men of the most comprehensive minds, imbued with the greatest share of zeal and fervency, and inspired with the strongest fidelity to his interests, were employed as masters to instruct and superintend the workmen; while those who labored in inferior stations were excited to enthusiasm by the promise of promotion and reward. The Temple was at length finished in the month Bul, answering to our November, in the year of the world 3000, being a little more than seven years from its commencement.
As soon as the magnificent edifice was completed, and fit for the sacred purposes for which it was intended, King Solomon determined to celebrate the consummation of his labors in the most solemn manner.
For this purpose he directed the Ark to be brought from the king’s house, where it had been placed by King David, and to be deposited with impressive ceremonies m the holy of holier beneath the expanded wings of the cherubim This important event is commemorated in the beautiful ritual of the Most Excellent Master’s Degree. Our traditions inform us, that when the Temple was completed, Solomon assembled all the heads of the Tribes, the Elders and Chiefs of Israel to bring the Ark up out of Zion, where King David had deposited it in a tabernacle until a more fitting place should have been built for its reception. This duty, therefore, the Levites now performed, and delivered the Ark of the Covenant into the hands of the Priests, who fixed it in its place in the center of the Holy of Holies.
Here the immediate and personal connection of King Solomon with the Craft begins to draw to a conclusion. It is true, that he subsequently employed those worthy Freemasons, whom the traditions say, at the completion and dedication of the Temple, he had received and acknowledged as Most Excellent Masters, in the erection of a magnificent palace and other edifices, but in process of time he fell into the most grievous errors; abandoned the path of truth; encouraged the idolatrous rites of Spurious Freemasonry; and, induced by the persuasions of those foreign wives and concubines whom he had espoused in his later days, he erected a fane for the celebration of these heathen mysteries, on one of the hills that overlooked the very spot where, in his youth, he had consecrated a temple to the one true God.
It is, however, believed that before his death he deeply repented of this temporary aberration from virtue, and in the emphatic expression, “Vanity of vanities! all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes I, 2), he is supposed to have acknowledged that in his own experience he had discovered that falsehood and sensuality, however they may give pleasure for a season, will, in the end, produce the bitter fruits of remorse and sorrow.
That King Solomon was the wisest monarch that swayed the scepter of Israel, has been the unanimous opinion of posterity.
So much was he beyond the age in which he flourished, in the attainments of science, that the Jewish and Arabic writers have attributed to him a thorough knowledge of the secrets of magic, by whose incantations they suppose him to have been capable of calling spirits and demons to his assistance; and the Talmudists and Mohammedan doctors record many fanciful legends of his exploits in controlling these ministers of darkness. As a naturalist, he is said to have written a work on animals of no ordinary character, which has, however, perished; while his qualifications as a poet were demonstrated by more than a thousand poems which he composed, of which his epithalamium on his marriage with an Egyptian princess and the Book of Ecclesiastes alone remain.
He has given us in his Proverbs an Opportunity of forming a favorable opinion of his pretensions to the character of a deep and right-thinking philosopher; while the long peace and prosperous condition of his empire for the greater portion of his reign, the increase of his kingdom in wealth and refinement, and the encouragement which he gave to architectures the mechanic arts, and commerce, testify his profound abilities as a sovereign and statesman- After a reign of forty years he died, and with him expired the glory and the power of the ancient Hebrew Empires
SOLOMON’S TEMPLE, BUILDERS OF
In the Cooke MS, written between 1410-1450, is imbedded the oldest Masonic tradition about Solomon’s Temple, w hereby is meant the oldest adopted by Masons, because the unknown author of the document drew much of his materials from non-Masonic books. Beginning at line 539 and extending to line 572 the MS. states that when the Israelites came from Egypt to Jerusalem they brought Masonry (architecture) with them.
David began the Temple; “he loved well Masons….” But the Temple was made in Solomon’s time. He had 80,000 Masons employed. (At the American equivalent of $3.00 per day, that would total $240,000 per day, a yearly payroll of 300 working days of $72,000,000!) The MS. states that “the King’s son of Tyre” was Solomon’s Master Mason; this would normally be taken to mean the son of the King of Tyre. David had given Masons their charges; Solomon confirmed them, though this is admittedly taken from “other chronicles” and is written “in old books of Masonry” (architecture). Solomon taught them manners, “but little different from the manners that now be used.”
It is evident that the author is not here writing down Masons’ traditions, or he would have said so, since he was careful to give his sources; and he did not have the Boosts of Kings or Chronicles before him but drew from old chronicles, polychrontcons (universal histories), etc. Nor was he offering a history, or connected narrative; the fact is evident from the table of contents which can be made for the MS. and which in this connection are: Abraham teaches Euclid the science of geometry; Euclid creates the craft of Masonry; the Israelites learn Masonry in Egypt; from Solomon’s Temple the author then leaps to Charles II (not known to whom this refers); to St. Alban of England; to Athelstan; then back to Egypt and to Euclid.
The first, or 1723, Edition of the Book of Constitutions (see ante page 11) has another account. It says that there were 3600 princes [or harodim, or provosts ] or Master-Masons . . . with 80,000 Fellow Craftsmen who were “hewers of stone in the mountains” (in reality the quarry was in the hill under the Temple), and 70,000 laborers; in addition there was a special levy of 30,000, making in all 183,600. They were at work for seven and one-half years. At the rate of only $1.00 per day the cost for 183,600 for 2250 days would come to the large total of $413,100,000! (In a pseudo-learned foot-note it is curious to note that a Hebrew word bonai, pronounced bow-nay, is given as meaning a builder in stone; it is a reminder of another and more famous word. In another paragraph of notes on the next page an attempt is made to explain the name Hiram Abif.)
The Book of Kings (I, 5: 15, 16) has a census of the Temple workers: 70,000 workmen; 80,000 “hewers”; and 3600 overseers, or foremen. In the corresponding chapter in II Chronicles, these same numbers are given in two places, Ch. II, 5, and 18; perhaps its editor had two manuscripts before him and deemed it wisest to quote from both. His figures add to 153,600, or 30,000 less than the number given in the Book of Constitutions.
In a widely-used version of the Monitorial (or Exoteric) Work: “There were employed in its construction three Grand Masters, three thousand and three hundred Masters or Overseers of the work, eighty thousand Fellow Crafts, and seventy thousand Entered Apprentices or bearers of burdens.”It is clear that the author of this enumeration (Preston originally?) was following the Old Testament and not the Old Constitutions —and the fact proves that Masons have never had an orthodox, infallible, unchanging text rigidly binding on them by law. So little was this the case that when the young Mother Grand Lodge prepared a second edition of the Constitutions of 1738 it altered the first part of it radically and at many points. Versions of the Old Charges differ among themselves. It is a reasonable theory that after the Edition of the Book of Constitutions of 1723 was read, a number of Time Intermorial Lodges discovered its accounts of the “history” to differ from theirs and made a clamor to have their own included.
(It is a paradox of the history of Solomon’s Temple that though Solomon and his people were Jews, it was built not by Jews but by Tyrians, and working under Tyrian overseers; and these latter must have built it in the Tyrian style because in that period of history Masons were not taught architecture in terms of principles and pure geometry and engineering, but were rained to do only a given style of work—a Tyrian Mason would have said, “I can do Tyrian work but not Egyptian or Assyrian.”
It is also a curious fact that just after the author of the Constitutions had said that the Jews were trained in architecture he then goes on to say that Solomon had to send to Tyre for architects !)The publishing of a cheap form of illustrated Bible about 1700 set everybody in England to reading it. one of the results was a wide spread amateur study of Hebrew; another was the discovery and popularity of Josephus’ History of the Jews. The consequence to Masonry of the former was to introduce a few Hebrew words into its nomenclature, such as gibtim, harodim, bonay, etc.; the consequence of the latter was to introduce into the history of Solomon’s period a set of traditions not in Kings and Chronicles, and a number of old Oriental tales about Solomon.
There was yet another source of Temple lore: the enthusiastic public interest in the two “great” models of the building exhibited for years in England, one by Schott, the other by Leon, each with a handbook, and of which at least one contained lore from the Talmud. Thus, the Solomon’s Temple of the Ritual was constructed, as it were, and in a poetic sense, by at least seven different sets of architects, and not working together: the Old Charges, Book of Constitutions, Book of Kings, Book of Chronicles, Josephus, Schott’s model, Leon’s model.
But this commixing was not yet at an end; indeed, it was only at a beginning. For with Inigo Jones (during 1600-1652) the architectural style perfected by Palladio was brought from Italy into England, and almost at once began to replace the mixture of Tudor styles and the last vestiges of Gothic. Palladio was a modern style, but in essence was an adaptation of Greek; that is, more strictly, it made use of certain features of the classical Greek.
It was called Italian, Palladian, Classical, Neo-Classical, Grecian, etc. By the time of the 1723 Constitutions this had become the style, and had been for so long that everybody had forgotten Gothic; and the compilers of the Constitutions not only forgot (or did not know) that Freemasonry was a child of the Gothic, but they sneered at it as a piece of barbarism, and no doubt assumed that each and every fine building in the past, including Solomon’s Temple, had been designed in the Italian style. There was thus introduced into the Craft traditions, and on top of Solomon’s Temple, “another temple,” a Neo-Classical one.
But even this was not the end. Once architects and amateurs became engrossed in Palladio, they were inevitably led back to Vitruvius, and through him discovered the genuine, classical Greek temple, which, unlike the Palladian adaptation, was composed of pillars and columns, with few or no walls, and 8 flattened down, simple roof without spires, or domes. or towers. The wonderful Greek columns were adopted into Masonic symbolism, where they became the Five Orders of Architecture.
What few data we have about the Esoteric Work indicate that until the middle of the Eighteenth Century, in both Britain and America, and by comparison with its rigidity afterwards, the Ritual was between 1700 and 1750 in a fluid condition. It is improbable that Preston, or any other one man, was responsible for the fixation; but it is probable that the general acceptance of Preston’s system of Monitorial Lectures signalized the fact that the Ritual had become stable.
When it did so the Temple in it was not Solomon’s Temple, or any other in particular. It was wholly a symbolical Temple, called Solomon’s for symbolic purposes, and it was “built” out of whatever the Ritualists needed from many styles and traditions.
They were not engaged as contractors to erect a London church; they were not historians or architects; they were Ritualists, great Ritualists, and they obeyed the laws of ritualism; and according to those laws historical or technological facts are of small importance; indeed, the fewer of them the better!
Their symbolic temple had something of Solomon’s in it; yet it also came to a focus in a drama not about his building or Solomon’s people or even (this is remarkable!) about himself, but about a Tyrs architect—a workman; the fact that Greek columns of 500 B.C. had no place in a Tyrian Temple on Jewish soil of 1000 B.C. did not disturb them. They introduced priests bowing toward the Inner Sanctum alongside London college professors lecturing on ethics and the curriculum of Medieval Schools. They had Greek columns alongside ancient, legendary pillars.
They put Euclid and Pythagoras cheek by jowl with Moses on the one hand and the English St. Albans (Thomas a Becket?) on the other. Historically and architecturally they had a museum of ruins, of anachronisms, solecisms, fallacies; ritualistically they had a masterpiece—and if Phidias had been a Ritualist he could not have built a better ritualistic temple. The once-burning question as to whether Solomon was the founder of Masonry or not (the Tyrians had been Masons long before Solomon!) answers itself as soon as the Masonic student sees the recorded, indisputable facts before him, and studies the Second and Third Degrees for himself.
Note. In 1723 the Constitutions give HA.•. as the Master of Masons, in 1738, as Deputy Grand Master. In a very revealing aside Anderson, or whoever wrote the paragraph gives as his authority “the traditions of the old Masons who talk much of these things.”
What he meant probably was that they talked much to the Grand Lodge leaders whose iconoclasm was disturbing them. The Old Charges do not attribute the founding of Masonry to Solomon, but to Adam—itself another answer to the above referred-to “burning question”; if they give any one man the credit it was Euclid—a Greek, and a Greek whom the Medieval Church had both hated and feared. It also is significant that the oldest existing MS., the Regius, does not include Solomon’s Temple—early Operative Lodges enjoyed a wide latitude in matters ritualistic and symbolic.
Medieval builders themselves either knew nothing about Solomon’s Temple or else took no interest m it; among its few appearances among the cathedrals was Wursburg where the pillars J and B were set up in the porch.
The French Compagnonnage had a symbolic rite or symbolism about HA.•. but there is no known connection between that fraternity and early English Lodges- for some 200 years Englishmen and Frenchmen were almost completely out of touch with each other, what with wars and a conflict in religion; the majority of English tourists preferred to go to Italy, which became almost a tourist colony. It remained for Voltaire to rediscover the English and to bring them and their Loeke’s philosophy and Newton’s science to French attention. The fact helps to explain why Speculative Freemasonry is so purely English in origin.
SOLOMON, HOUSE OF
Lord Bacon composed, in his New Atlantis, an apologue, in which he describes the Island of Bensalem—that is, Island of the Sons of Peace—and on it an edifice called the House of Solomon where there was to be a confraternity of philosophers devoted to the acquisition of knowledge. Nicolai thought that out of this subsequently arose the society of Freemasons, which was, he supposes, established by Elias Ashmole and his friends (see Micolai)
SOLOMON, TEMPLE OF
See Temple of Solomon
The days on which the sun reaches is greatest northern and southern declination, which are June 21 and December 22. Near these days are those in which the Christian church commemorates Saint John the Baptist and Saint John the Evangelist, who have been selected as the patron saints of Freemasonry for reasons which are explained in the article on the Dedication of a Lodge, which see.
Sometimes called the Eastern Horn of Africa, south of the Gulf of Aden in the Indian Ocean. Of the three districts, British, Italian, and French Somaliland, the last possesses a Lodge. It was erected at Jibuti under the Grand Lodge of France
SONGS OF FREEMASONRY
The song formed in early times a very striking feature in what may be called the domestic manners of the Masonic institution. Nor has the custom of festive entertainments been yet abandoned. In the beginning of the eighteenth century songs were deemed of so much importance that they were added to the Books of Constitutions in Great Britain and on the Continent, a custom which was followed in America, where all the early Monitors contain an abundant supply of lyrical poetry. In the Constitutions published in 1723, we find the well-known Entered Apprentice’s song, written by Matthew Birkhead, which still retains its popularity among Freemasons, and has attained an elevation to which its intrinsic merits as a lyrical composition would hardly entitle it.
Songs appear to have been incorporated into the ceremonies of the Order at the revival of Freemasonry in 1717. At that time, to use the language of the venerable Doctor Oliver, “Labor and refreshment relieved each other like two loving Brothers, and the gravity of the former was rendered more engaging by the characteristic cheerfulness and jocund gayety of he latter.”
In those days the word refreshment had a practical meaning, and the Lodge was often called from labor that the Brethren might indulge in innocent gaiety, of which the song formed an essential part. This was called harmony, and the Brethren who were blessed with talents for vocal music were often invited “to contribute to the harmony of the Lodge.” Thus, in the Minute-Book of a Lodge at Lincoln, in England, in the year 1732, which is quoted by Doctor Oliver, the records show that the Master usually “gave an elegant Charge, also went through an Examination, and the Lodge was closed with song and decent merriment.” In this custom of singing there was an established system. Each officer was furnished with a song appropriate to his office, and each Degree had a song for itself.
Thus, in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions, we have the Master’s Song, which, says Doctor Anderson, the author, is “to be sung with a chorus— when the Master shall give leave—either one part only or all together, as he pleases”; the Warden’s Song, which was “to be sung and played at the Quarterly Communication”; the Fellow Craft’s Song, which was to be sung and played at the grand feast; and, lastly, the Entered ‘Prentiss’ Song, which was “to be sung when all grave business is over, and with the Master’s leave.”
In the second edition the number was greatly increased, and songs were appropriated to the Deputy Grand Master, the Secretary, the Treasurer, and other officers.. For all this provision was made in the Old Charges so that there should be no confusion between the hours of labor and refreshment; for while the Brethren were forbidden to behave “‘ludicrously or jestingly while the Lodge is engaged in what is serious or solemn,” they were permitted, when work was over, “to enjoy themselves with innocent mirth. ”
The custom of singing songs peculiarly appropriate to the Craft at the Lodge meetings, when the grave business was over, was speedily introduced into France and Germany, in which countries a large number of Masonic songs were written and adopted, to be sung by the German and French Freemasons at their Table Lodges, which corresponded to the refreshment of their English Brethren. The lyrical literature of Freemasonry has, in consequence of this custom, assumed no inconsiderable magnitude; as an evidence of which it may be stated that Kloss, in his Bibliography of Freemasonry, gives a catalogue—by no means a perfect one—of two hundred and thirteen Masonic song-books published between the years 1734 and 1837, in the English, German, French, Danish, and Polish languages.
The Freemasons of the present day have not abandoned the usage of singing at their festive meetings after the Lodge is closed; but the old songs of Freemasonry are passing into oblivion, and we seldom hear any of them, except sometimes the never-to-be forgotten Apprentice’s Song of Matthew Birkhead. Modern taste and culture reject the rude but hearty stanzas of the old song-makers, and the more artistic and pathetic productions of Mackay, and Cooke, and Morris, and Dibdin, and Wesley, and other writers of that class, have taken their place.
Some of these songs cannot be strictly called Masonic, yet the covert allusions here and there of their authors, whether intentional or accidental, have caused them to be adopted by the Craft and placed among their minstrelsy. Thus the well-known ballad of Tubal Cain, by Charles Mackay, always has an inspiring effect when sung at a Lodge banquet, because of the reference to this old worker in metals, whom the Freemasons fondly consider as one or the mythical founders of their Order; although the song itself has in its words or its ideas no connection whatever with Freemasonry. The first two verses are as follows:
Old Tubal Cain was a man of might,
In the days when the earth whas young;
By the fierce red light of his furnace bright
The strokes of his hammer rung;
And he lifted high his brawny hand
On the iron glowing clear.
Till the sparks rushed out in scarlet showers,
As he fashioned the sword and spear
And he sang, ” Hurrah for my handiwork
Hurrah for the spear and sword!
Hurrah for the hand that shall wield them well,
For he shall be king and lord !
To Tubal Cain came many a one,
As he wrought by his roaring fire,
And each one prayed for a strong steel blade,
As the crown of his desire;
And he made them weapons sharp and strong,
Till they shouted loud for glee
And gave him gifts of pearl and gold,
And spoils of the forest free;
And they sang, ‘ Hurrah for Tuhal Cain,
Who hath given us strength anew!
Hurrah for the smith! Hurrah for the fire!
And hurrah for the metal true!”
Brother Burns’s Auld Lang Syne is another production not verbally Masonic, which has met with the universal favor of the Craft, because the warm fraternal spirit that it breathes is in every way Masonic, and hence it has almost become a rule of obligation that every festive party of Freemasons should Close with the great Scotchman’s invocation to part in love and kindness. But Robert Burns has also supplied the Craft with several purely Masonic songs, and his farewell to the Brethren of Tarbolton Lodge, beginning,
Adieu! a hear1,warm, fond adieu,
Dear Brothers of the mystic tie,
is often sung with fine effect at the Table Lodges of the Order.
As already observed, we have many productions of our Masonic poets which are talking the place of the older and coarser songs of our predecessors. It would be tedious to name all who have successfully invoked the Masonic muse. Masonic songs—that is to say, songs whose themes are Masonic incidents, whose language refers to the technical language of Freemasonry, and whose spirit breathes its spirit and its teachings—are now a well-settled part of the literary curriculum of the Institution. At first they were all festive in character and often coarse in style, with little or no pretension to poetic excellence. Now they are festive, but refined; or sacred, and used on occasions of public solemnity; or mythical, and constituting a part of the ceremonies of the different Degrees. But they all have a character of poetic art which is far above the mediocrity so emphatically condemned by Horace (see Poetry of Freemasonry).
SON OF A FREEMASON
The son of a Freemason is called a Louveteau, and is entitled to certain privileges, for which see Louveteau and Lewis.
SON OF HIRAM
A mixed tradition states that Aynon was a son of Hiram Abif, and was appointed master of the workmen who hewed the cedars and shaped the timber for the temple, and was recognized for his geometrical knowledge and skill as an engraver (see Aynon).
SONS OF LIGHT
The science of Freemasonry often has received the title of Lux, or Light, to inculcate that mental and moral illumination is the object of the Institution. Hence Freemasons are often called Sons of light.
SONS OF THE PROPHETS
we repeatedly meet in the Old Testament with references to the Beni Hanebiian, or Sons of the Prophets. These were the disciples of the prophets, or wise men of Israel who underwent a course of esoteric instruction in the secret institutions of the Nabiim, or prophets, just as the disciples of the Magi did in Persia, or of Pythagoras in Greece. “These sons of the prophets,;’ says Stehelin (Rabbinical Literature i, page 16), “were their disciples, brought up under their tuition and care, and therefore their masters or instructors were called their fathers.”
SONS OF THE WIDOW
This is a title often given to Freemasons in allusion to Hiram the Builder, who was “a widow’s son, of the tribe of Naphtali ‘” By the advocates of the theory that Freemasonry originated with the exiled House of Stuart, and was Organized as a secret institution for the purpose of reestablishing that house on the throne of Great Britain, the phrase has been applied as if referring to the adherents of Queen Henrietta, the widow of Charles 1. The name is also applied to a society of the third century (see Widow, Sons of the, also Widow’s Son).
SOPHISIENS, SACRED ORDER OF
Founded at Paris, early nineteenth century, by Cavalier de Trie, Master of the Lodge Freres Artistes and had three Degrees and a short life.
A college of theological professors in Paris, who exercised a great influence over religious opinion in France during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and greater part of the eighteenth centuries. The bigotry and intolerance for which they were remarkable made them the untiring persecutors of Freemasonry. In the year 1748 they published a Letter and Consultation on the Society of Freemasons, in which they declared that it was an illegal association, and that the meetings of its members should be prohibited. This was republished in 1764, at Paris, by the Freemasons, with a reply, in the form of an appendix, by De la Tierce, and again in 1766, at Berlin, with another reply by a writer under the assumed name of Jarhetti.
It is the custom among Freemasons on the Continent of Europe to hold special Lodges at stated periods, for the purpose of commemorating the virtues and deploring the less of their departed members, and other distinguished worthies of the Fraternity who have died. These are called Funeral or Sorrow Lodges. In Germany they are held annually; in France at longer intervals. In the United States of America the custom has been introduced by the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, whose Sorrow Lodge Ritual is peculiarly beautiful and impressive, and the usage has been adopted by many Lodges of the American Rite. On these occasions the Lodge is clothed in the habiliments of mourning and decorated with the emblems of death, solemn music is played, funeral dirges are chanted, and eulogies on the life, character, and Masonic virtues of the dead are delivered.
A Greek appellation implying Savior
SOUL OF NATURE
A platonic expression, more properly the Anima Mundi, that has been adopted into the English Royal Arch system to designate the hundred Delta, or Triangle, which Dunckerley, in his lecture, considered as the symbol of the Trinity. “So highly,” says the modern lecture, “indeed did the ancients esteem the figure, that it, became among them an object of worship as the great principle of mated existence, to which they gave the name of God because it represented the animal, mineral, and vegetable creation They also distinguished it by an appellation which, in the Egyptian language, signifies the Soul of Nature.” Doctor Oliver (Jurisprudence, page 446) warmly protests against the introduction of this expression as an unwarrantable innovations borrowed most probably from the Rite of the Philalethes. It has not been introduced into the American system
When the sun is at his meridian height, his invigorating rays are darted from the south. When the sun rises in the East, we are called to labor; when he sets in the West, our daily toil is over; but when he reaches the South, the hour is high twelve, and we are summoned to refreshment. In Freemasonry, the South is represented by the Junior Warden and by the Corinthian column, because it is said to be the place of beauty.
A state in the Commonwealth of Australia. Friendship Lodge at Adelaide introduced Freemasonry to South Australia in 1834. The ceremony, at which the President of the Legislative Council and the Chief Justice of the Colony were initiated, was held in London. In 1844 the first Scotch Lodge was opened and eleven years later an Irish Body was chartered. Provincial Grand Lodges were formed by Scotland in 1846, England 1848, and Ireland 1860.
\In 1883 it was feared that a few of the Lodges were about to annex authority over the rest. Brother H. M. Addison thereupon called a Convention which met April 16, 1884. Twenty-eight Lodges sent delegates and the Grand Lodge of South Australia was opened in due form, with Chief Justice the Hon. S. J. Way as Grand Master. Almost all the Brethren supported the new Grand Lodge, indeed only one Lodge, the Duke of Leicester No. 363 remained wholeheartedly faithful to its early authority (see Grand Lodge).
Solomon’s Lodge was warranted in 1735 by the Grand Master of England and organized at Charleston on October 28, the following year. John Hammerton was appointed Provincial Grand Master by the Earl of Loudoun in 1736, but no further facts about the establishment of a Grand Lodge are available until there appeared a notice in the South Carolina Gazette of January 1, 1754, of the formation of a Provincial Grand Lodge on December 27, 1753. On March 30, 1754, a Deputation was signed in London and given to Chief Justice Leigh by the Marquis of Carnarvon which resulted in the reorganization of the Provincial Grand Lodge. According to Doctor Mackey this Grand Lodge became independent in 1777 and Barnard Elliott was the first Grand Master of the “Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons.” The Athol or Ancient Freemasons appeared in the State as early as 1783, and in 1787 there were five Lodges of the Ancient in existence. On March 24 of that year they held a meeting and organized the “Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons 29 In 1808 a temporary union between the two Grand Lodges took place but not until 1817 were they united under the name “Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons.”
On February 1, 1803, the Grand Chapter of Ncw York granted a Warrant to Carolina Chapter at Charleston. The Grand Chapter for South Carolina was instituted May 29, 1812, and was represented at the Convocations of the General Grand Chapter held in 1826, 1829, 1844, and 1859. The Grand Chapter has always paid allegiance to the General Grand Chapter and has firmly resisted any suggestion that it should be independent. Nine Councils of Royal and Select Masons were established by Charters from the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, during the years 1858-9. In 1860 the Supreme Council relinquished its authority and a Grand Council was constituted on February 15. In 1880 the Degrees reverted to the Supreme Council but in 1881 the Grand Council was reorganized and duly became a constituent of the General Grand Council.
A Certificate of Membership still in existence, dated March 3, 1782, proves that South Carolina Commandery, No. 1, of Charleston was constituted at an early date. The first Warrant was destroyed by fire in 1843 and the Encampment petitioned for renewed authority. A Dispensation was therefore issued by the Grand Encampment on May 17, 1843. South Carolina, No. 1; Columbia, No. 2, and Lafayette, No. 3, formed a Grand Encampment in 1826 which was represented the same year in the General Grand Encampment. In 1830 Templarism had died down to such an extent that for over eleven years no work was done. It revived in 1841, but owing to the Civil War relapsed again until December, 1865, when Sir Albert G Mackey became eminent Commander Encampments at Columbia, Georetown and Baufort had disappeared for the time being, but after a time enthusiasm awakened and on March 25 , l 907 representatives of South Carolina, No. l; Columbia, No. 2; Spartanbury, No. 3, and Greenville, No. 4, met and instituted the Grand Commandery of South Carolina according to a Warrant issued on March 15, 1907.
In the City of Charleston Delta Lodge of Perfection, No. 1, was granted a Charter by the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, March 23, 1868; Buist Chapter of Rose Croix on May 10, 1871; Bethlehem Council of Kadosh on February 20, 1907, and Dalcho Consistory, No. l, on June 9, l911.
When the Territory was divided in 1890 the Grand Lodge of Dakota became known as the Grand Lodge of South Dakota, and among its Lodges was the one which had been the first to be formed in Dakotan namely, Saint John’s Lodge, chartered on June 3, 1863. In the same way it was decided to organize two Grand Chapters, one for North and one for South Dakota. All the Chapters treated in the latter State met on January 6, 1890, at Yankton to discuss the question, and the Grand Chapter of South Dakota was constituted in Ample Form. Representatives from Yankton, No. 1; Aberdeen, No. 14; Mitchell, No. 16; Brookings, No. 18; Orient, No. 19, and Rabboni, No. 23, were present at this meeting. On April 11, 1891, the Officers of the General Grand Council granted a Dispensation to Alpha, No. 1, at Sioux Falls, and a Charter was issued on July 21, 1891. A meeting of representatives of the chartered Councils in South Dakota was hel(l OI1 June 9, 1916, at which Companion Andrew P. Savanstrom, Past General Grand Master, presided. Officers were installed and the new Grand Council constituted.
Dakota, No. 1, was the first Commandery to be established in Dakota. It may also be considered the first Commandery in South Dakota, since it was located in that District. With Cyrene, No. 2; De Molay, No. 3, and Fargo, No. 5. Dakota, No. 1, organized on May 14, 1884, the Grand Commandery of Dakota, which later changed its name to that of Grand Commandery of South Dakota.
A Consistory of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, was established at Yankton by Charter dated December 22, 1888. Robert de Bruce, No. 1, a Council of Kadosh, was chartered on March 10, 1887; Mackey, No. 1, a Chapter of Rose Croix, on February 27, 1882, and Alpha, No. 1, a Lodge of Perfection, on February 8, 1882.
An epithet applied to certain Degrees which were invested with supreme power over inferior ones; as, Sovereign Prince of Rose Croix, which is the highest Degree of the French Rite and of some other Rites, and Sovereign Inspector General, which is the controlling Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Some Degrees, originally Sovereign in the Rites in which they were first established, in being transferred to other Rites, have lost their sovereign character, but still improperly retain the name.
Thus the Rose Croix Degree of the Scottish Rite, which is there only the Eighteenth, and subordinate to the Thirty-third of Supreme Council, still retains everywhere, except in the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, the title of Sovereign Prince of Rose Croix. The expression Sovereign of Sovereigns was a title once used for the presiding officer of a Consistory (see Doctor Mackey’s revised History of Freemasonry, page 1891) and a similar title was also applied to members of Supreme Councils, Sovereigns of Masonry, in the circular letter sent out by the Supreme Council at Charleston, December 4, 1802 (reprinted fully in above History, pages 1871-5).
SOVEREIGN COMMANDER OF THE TEMPLE
The French expression is Souverain Commandeur du Temple. Styled in the more recent instructions of the Southern Supreme Council Knight Commander of the Temple. This is the Twenty-seventh Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite The presiding officer is styled Most Illustrious and Most Valiant, the Wardens are called Most Sovereign Commanders, and the Knights Sovereign Commanders The place of meeting is called a Court. The apron is flesh-colored, lined and edged with black, with a Teutonic cross encircled by a wreath of laurel and a key beneath, all inseriloell in black upon the Hap The scarf is red bordered with black, hanging from the right shoulder to the left hip, and suspending a Teutonic cross in enameled gold. The jewel is a triangle of gold, on which is engraved the Ineffable Name in Hebrew. It is suspended from a white collar bound with red and embroidered with four Teutonic crosses.
Vassal, Ragon, and Clavel are mistaken in connecting this Degree with the Knights Templar, with which Order its own ritual declares that it is not to be confounded. It is without a lecture. Vassal expresses the following opinion of this Degree: “The twenty-seventh degree does not deserve to be classed in the Scottish Rite as a degree, since it contains neither symbols nor allegories that connect it with initiation. It deserves still less to be ranked among the philosophic degrees. I imagine that it has been intercalated only to supply an hiatus, and as a memorial of an Order once justly celebrated.” It is also the Forty-fourth Degree of the Rite of Mizraim.
SOVEREIGN GRAND INSPECTOR- GENERAL
The Thirty-third and Last Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. The Latin Constitutions of 1786 call it Tertius et trigesimus et sublimissimus gradus, that is, the Thirty-third and Most Sublime Degree; and it is staled the Protector and Conservator of the Order. The same Constitutions, in Articles I and II, say:
The Thirty-third degree confers on those Freemasons who are legitimately invested with it, the quality, title, privilege, and authority of Sovereign, Supremorum, Grand Inspectors-General of the Order. The peculiar duty of their mission is to teach and enlighten the Brethren; to preserve charity, union, and fraternal love among them; to maintain regularity in the works of each Degree and to take care that it is preserved by others, to cause the dogmas, doctrines, institutes, constitutions statutes and regulations of the Order to be reverently regarded, and to preserve and defend them on every occasion; and, finally, everywhere to occupy themselves in works of peace and mercy.
The Body in which the members of this Degree assemble is called a Supreme Council. The symbolic color of the Degree is white, denoting purity. The distinctive insignia are a sash, collar, jewel, Teutonic cross, decoration, and ring.
The sash is a broad, white watered ribbon, bordered with gold, bearing on the front a triangle of gold glittering with rays of gold, which has in the center the numerals 33, with a Sword of silver, directed from above, on each side of the triangles pointing to its center. The sash, worn from the right shoulder to the left hip, ends in a point, and is fringed with gold, having at the junction a circular band of scarlet and green containing the jewel of the Order.
The collar is of white watered ribbon fringed with gold, having the rayed triangle at its point and the swords at the sides. By a regulation of the Southern Supreme Council of the United States, the collar has been worn by the active, and the sash by the honorary, members of the Council. The emblem is a black double-headed eagle, with golden beaks and talons, holding in the latter a sword of gold, and crowned with the golden crown of Prussia.
The red Teutonic cross is affixed to the left side of the breast.
The decoration rests upon a Teutonic cross. It is a nine-pointed star, namely, one formed by three triangles of gold one upon the other, and interlaced from the lower part of the left side to the upper part of the right a sword extends, and in the opposite direction is a hand of, as it is called, Justice. In the center is the shield of the Order, azure (blue), charged with an eagle like that on the banner, having on the dexter (right) side a Balance or (gold), and on the sinister (left) side a Compass of the second, united with a Square of the second. Around the whole shield runs a band of the first, with the Latin inscription, of the second, Ordo ab Chao, meaning Order out of Disorder, which band is enclosed by two circles, formed by two Serpents of the second, each biting his own tail. Of the smaller triangles that are formed by the intersection of the greater ones, those nine that are nearest the band are of crimson color, and each of them has one of the letters that compose the Word S. A. P. I. E. N. T. I. A., or Wisdom.
The ring is a triple one, like three small rings, each one-eighth of an inch wide, side by side, and having on the inside a delta surrounding the figures 33, and inscribed with the wearer’s name, the letters S..G.. I..G.., and the motto of the Order, Deus meumque Jus, meaning God and my right. It has been worn on the fourth finger of the right hand but in 1923 provision was made that the Thirty-third Degree ring should be worn on the little finger of the left hand in ache Southern Jurisdiction. The ring is worn on the third finger of the left hand in the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States of America (see Ring).
Until the year 1801, the Thirty-third Degree was unknown. Until then the highest Degree of the Rite, introduced into America by Stephen Morin, was the Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret, or the Twenty-fifth of the Rite established by the Emperors of the East and West. The administrative heads of the Order were styled Grand Inspectors-General and Deputy Inspectors-General; but these were titles of official rank and not of Degree. Even as late as May 24, 1801, John Mitchell signs himself as Kadosh, Prince of the Royal Secret and Deputy Inspector General
The document thus signed is a Patent which certifies that Frederick Dalcho is a Kadosh, and Prince of the Royal Secret, and which creates him a Deputy Inspector-General. But on May 31, 1801, the Supreme Council was created at Charleston, and from that time we hear of a Rite of thirty-three Degrees, eight having been added to the twenty-five introduced by Morin, and the last being called Sovereign Grand Inspector General.
The Degree being thus legitimately established by a Body which, in creating a Rite, possessed the prerogative of establishing its classes, its Degrees and its nomenclature revere accepted unhesitatingly by all subsequently created Supreme Councils; and it continues to be the administrative head of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.