The twenty-first letter of the English alphabet, is a modification of the Greek letter T. upsilon; it is in the Hebrew or in the Chaldaie and hieroglyphical, the head of an animal with horns, hence its Symbolism. U has a close affinity to V, hence they were formerly interchanged in writing and printing.
Letters placed after the names of Lodges or Chapters which have not yet received a Warrant of Constitution They signify Under Dispensation In the United States when a Lodge is started it is known as being Under Dispensation and after a certain time has elapsed and the members are found worthy they receive a regular Charter. In England no Lodge may assemble for work until it is duly warranted and constituted except in District Grand Lodges, where the Most Worshipful Grand Master has authorized the District Grand Master to grant “Provisional Warrants” in these cases the Master of the new Lodge must apply within one month for a regular Warrant.
UDEN, CONRAD FRIEDERICH
A Masonic writer of some celebrity. He was a Doctor of Medicine, and at one time a . Professor in Ordinary of the University of Dorpat; afterward an Aulic Counselor and Secretary of the Medical College of St. Petersburg or Petrograd. He was from 1783 to 1785 the editor of the Archiv für Freimaurerei unit Rosenkreuzer, published during those years at Berlin This work contains much interesting information concerning Rosicrucianism. He also edited, in 1785 and 1786 at Altona, the Ephemeriden der gesammten Freimaurerei auf das Logenjahr 1785 und 1786, Tables of the Total Freemasons of Lodges in 1785 and 1786.
There are only about one thousand white men in Uganda, Central East Africa, but a Lodge has already been established there
A Freemason who is not a member of any Lodge. As this class of Freemasons contribute nothing to the revenues nor to the strength of the Order, while they are always willing to partake of its benefits, they have been considered as an encumbrance Spoil the Craft, and have received the general condemnation of Grand Lodges. It is evident that, anterior to the present system of Lodge organization, which dates about the end of the eighteenth century, there could have been no unaffiliated Freemasons.
And, accordingly, the first reference that we find to the duty of lodge membership is in the Charges, published in 172.3, in Anderson’s Constitutions, where it is said, after describing a Lodge that “every brother ought to belong to one”; and that ‘in ancient times, no Master or Fellow could be absent from it, especially when warned to appear at it without incurring a severs censure, until it appeared to the Master and Wardens that pure necessity hindered him” (Constitutions, 1723, page 51). In this last clause, Doctor Anderson evidently refers to the regulation in the Old Constitutions, that required attendance on the Annual Assembly. For instance, in the oldest of these, the Halliwell or Regius Manuscript (lines 107 to 112) it is said, and we modernize the language, “that every Master that is a Freemason must be at the General Congregation, if he is told in reasonable time where the Assembly shall be holden; and to that Assembly he must go, unless he have reasonable excuse.”
But the Assembly was rather in the nature of a Grand Lodge and neglect to attend its annual meeting would not place the offender in the position of a modern unaffiliated Freemason. But after the organization of subordinate Lodges, a permanent membership, which had been before unknown, was then established, and as the revenues of the Lodges, and through them of the Grand Lodge, were to be derived from the contributions of the members, it was found expedient to require every Freemason to affiliate with a Lodge, and hence the rule adopted in the Charge already cited. Yet, in Europe, non-affiliation, although deemed to some extent a Masonic offense, has not been visited by any penalty, except that which results from a deprivation of the ordinary advantages of membership in any Association.
The modern Constitution of England, however, prescribes that “no Brother who has ceased to be a Subscribing member of a Lodge shall be permitted to visit any one Lodge more than once until he again becomes a subscribing member of some Lodge” (Rule 152). He is permitted to visit each Lodge once, because it is supposed that this visit is made for the purpose of enabling him to make a selection of the one in which he may prefer working. But afterward he is excluded, in order to discountenance those Brethren who wish to continue members of the Order, and to partake of its benefits, without contributing to its support. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland are silent upon the Subject, nor is any penalty prescribed for un-affiliation by any of the Grand Lodges of the Continent of Europe
In the United States of America a different view has been taken of the Subject, and its Grand Lodges have, With great unanimity, denounced unaffiliated Freemasons in the strongest terms of condemnation, and visited them with penalties, which vary, however, to some extent in the different Jurisdictions. There is, probably no Grand Lodge in the United States that has not concurred in the opinion that the neglect or refusal of a Freemason to affiliate with a Lodge is a Masonic offense, to be visited by some penalty and a deprivation of some rights. The following principles may be laid down as constituting the law in the United States of America on the subject of unaffiliated Freemasons: 1. An unaffiliated Freemason is still bound by all those Masonic duties and obligations which refer to the Order in general but not by those which relate to Lodge organization .
2 He possesses, reciprocally all those rights which are derived from membership in the Order, but none of those which result from membership in a Lodge.
3.He has no right to assistance when in imminent peril, if he asks for that assistance in the conventional way
4.He has no right to pecuniary aid from a Lodge.
5.He has no right to visit Lodges, or to walk in Masonic processions.
6.He has no right to Masonic burial.
7.He still remains subject to the government of the Order, and may be tried and punished for any offense by the Lodge within whose geographical Jurisdiction he resides.
8.And, Lastly, as the non-affiliation is a violation of Masonic law, he may, if he refuses to abandon that condition, be tried and punished for it ,even by expulsion, if deemed necessary and expedient, by any Grand Lodge within whose Jurisdiction he lives.
In the beginning of the eighteenth century , when Freemasonry was reviving from the condition of decay into which it had fallen, and when the experiment was tried of transforming it from a partly Operative to a purely Speculative System, the great object was to maintain a membership which, by the virtuous character of those who composed it, should secure the harmony and prosperity of the infant Institution.
A safeguard was therefore to be sought in the care with which Freemasons should be selected from those who were likely to apply for admission. It was the quality, and not the quantity, that was desired. This safeguard could only be found in the unanimity of the ballot. Hence, in the sixth of the General Regulations, adopted in 1721, it is declared that “no man can be entered a Brother in any particular Lodge, or admitted to be a member thereof, without the unanimous consent of all the members of that Lodge then present when the candidate is proposed, and their consent is formally asked by the Master”(Constitutions,1723, page 59). And to prevent the exercise of any undue influence of a higher power in forcing an unworthy person upon the Order, it is further said in the same article: “Nor is this inherent privilege subject to a dispensation; because the members of a particular Lodge are the best judges of it; and if a fractious members should be imposed on them, it might spoil their harmony, or hinder their freedom; or even break and disperse the Lodge.”
But a few years after, the Order being now on a firm footing, this prudent fear of” spoiling harmony,” or” dispersing the Lodge,” seems to have been lost sight of, and the Brethren began in many Lodges to desire a release from the restrictions laid upon them by the necessity for unanimous consent.
Hence, Doctor Anderson says in his second edition: “But it was found in convenient to insist upon unanimity in several cases. And, therefore, the Grand Masters have allowed the Lodges to admit a member if not above three ballots are against him; though some Lodges desire no such allowance” (Constitutions,1738,page155).This rule still prevails in England; and its modern Constitution still permits the admission of a Freemason where there are not more than three ballots against him, though it is open to a Lodge to demand unanimity.
In the United States, where Freemasonry is more popular than in any other country, it was soon seen that the danger of the institution lay not in the paucity, but in the multitude of its members, and that the only provision for guarding its portals was the most stringent regulation of the ballot. Hence, in almost, if not quite, all Jurisdictions of the United States, unanimous consent is required. And this rule has been found to work with such advantage to the Order, that the phrase, “the black ball is the bulwark of Freemasonry,” has become a proverb.
Should the Committee of Investigation on the character of a petitioner for initiation make an unfavorable report, the frequent usage, although some Grand Lodges have decided otherwise, is to consider the candidate rejected by such report, without proceeding to the formality of a ballot, which is therefore dispensed with. This usage was, in Doctor Mackey’s opinion, established on the principles of commonsense; for, as by the ancient Constitutions one black ball suffices to reject an application, the unfavorable report of a committee must necessarily, and by consequence, include two unfavorable votes at least. It is therefore unnecessary to go into a ballot after Such a report, as it is to be taken for granted that the Brethren who reported unfavorably would, on a resort to the ballot, cast their negative votes. Their report is indeed virtually considered as the casting of such votes, and the applicant is therefore at once rejected without a further and unnecessary ballot.
An old English word meaning to uncover, or reveal. Spenser, in the Faerie Queen, says, “Then suddenly both would themselves unhele”(see Heler, also Hail or Hale).
UNIFORMITY OF WORK
An identity of forms in opening and closing, and in conferring the Degrees, constitutes what is technically called Uniformity of Work. The expression has no reference, in its restricted sense, to the working of the same Degrees indifferent Rites and different countries, but only to a similarity in the ceremonies practiced by Lodges in the same Rite, and more especially in the same Jurisdiction. This is greatly to be desired, because nothing is more unpleasant to a Freemason, accustomed to certain forms and ceremonies in his own Lodge, than on a visit to another to find those forms and ceremonies so varied as to be sometimes scarcely recognizable as parts of the same Institution. So anxious are the dogmatic authorities in Freemasonry to preserve this uniformity, that in the Charge to a Brother he is instructed never to “suffer an infringement of our Rites, or a deviation from established usages and customs.”
In the Act of Union in 1813, of the two Grand Lodges of England, in whose systems of working there were many differences, it was provided that a Committee should be appointed to visit the several Lodges, and promulgate and enjoin one system, “that perfect reconciliation, unity of obligation, law, working:, language, and dress, might be happily restored to the English Craft”(Article XV).
A writer in C. W. Moore’s Magazine, once proposed the appointment of delegates to visit the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland, that a system of work and lectures might be adopted, which should thereafter be rigidly enforced in both hemispheres. The proposition was not popular, and no delegation was ever appointed. It is well that it was so, for no such attempt could have met with a successful result.
It is a fact, that uniformity of working Freemasonry, however much it may be desired, can never be attained. This must be the case in all institutions where the ceremonies, the legends, and the instructions are oral. The treachery of memory, the weakness of judgment, and the fertility of imagination, will lead men to forget, to diminish, or to augment, the parts of any system which are not prescribed with incertain limits by a written rule. The Rabbis discovered this when the Oral Law was becoming perverted, and losing its authority, as well as its identity, by the interpretations that were given to it in the schools of the Scribes and Prophets. Hence, to restore it to its integrity, it was found necessary to divest it of its oral character and give to it a written form. To this are we to attribute the origin of the two Talmuds which now contain the essence of Jewish theology. So, while in Freemasonry we find the esoteric rituals continually subjected to errors arising mainly from the ignorance or the fancy of Masonic teachers, the monitorial instructions — few in Preston, but greatly enlarged by Webb and Cross—have suffered no change.
It would seem from this that the evil of non-conformity could be removed only by making all the ceremonies monitorial; and so much has this been deemed expedient, that a few years since the Subject of a written ritual was seriously discussed in England. But the remedy Would be worse than the disease. It is to the oral character of its ritual that Freemasonry is indebted for its permanence and success as an organization. A written, which would soon become a printed, ritual Would divest Symbolic Freemasonry of its attractions as a Secret Association, and would cease to offer a reward to the laborious student who sought to master its mystical science. Its philosophy and its symbolism would be the same, but the books containing them would be Consigned to the shelves of a Masonic library, their pages to be discussed by the profane as the common property of the antiquary, while the Lodges, having no mystery within their portals, would find but few visitors, and certainly no Workers.
It is, therefore, a matter of congratulation that uniformity of work, however desirable and however unattainable, is not so important and essential as many have deemed it. Doctor Oliver, for instance, seems to confound in some of his writings the ceremonies of a Degree with the landmarks of the Order. But they are very different. The landmarks, because they affect the identity of the Institution, have long since been embodied in its Written laws, and unless by a wilful perversion, as was the case in France, where the Grand Mastership was abolished, can never be changed. But variations in the phraseology of the lectures, or in the forms and ceremonies of initiation, so long as they do not trench upon the foundations of symbolism on which the Science and philosophy of freemasonry are built, can produce no other effect than a temporary inconvenience. The errors of a ignorant Master will be corrected by his better instructed successor.
The variation in the ritual can never be such as to destroy the true identity of the Institution. Its profound dogmas of the unity of God, and the eternal life and of the universal brotherhood of man, taught in its symbolic method, will forever shine out preeminent above all temporary changes of phraseology. Uniformity of work may not be attained, but uniformity of design and uniformity of character will forever preserve Freemasonry from disintegration.
UNION DES FRANCS-MASONS ALLEMANDS
SeeVerein Deutscher Freimaurer
UNION, GRAND MASTERS
Efforts were made at various times in Germany to organize an association of the Grand Masters of the Grand Lodges of Germany. At length, through the efforts of Brother Warnatz, the Grand Master of Saxony, the scheme was fully accomplished, and on May 31, 1868, the Grand Masters Union Qrossrmeistertag, literally, the diet of Grand Masters— assembled at the City of Berlin, tile Grand Masters of seven German Grand Lodges being present. The meetings of this Body which became annual, were entirely unofficial; it claimed no legislative povers, and met only for consultation and advisement on matters connected with the ritual, the history, and the philosophy of Freemasonry.
UNION MASTER’S DEGREE
An honorary Degree, said to have been invented by the Lodge of Reconciliation in England, in 1813, at the Union of the two Grand Lodges, and adopted by the Grand Lodge of New York in 1819, which authorized its Lodges to confer it. It was designed to detect clandestine and irregular Freemasons, and consisted only of the investiture of the recipient with certain new modes of recognition.
UNION OF 1813, THE
Canadian Masons, and by right of cousinship American Masons also, have a just and lively pride in the fact that the Union of the Modern and Ancient Grand Lodges in 1813 was first begun and carried into effect in Canada; and that whereas it took their English Brothers some fifteen years or so and at a cost of agonized pride and characteristic long delays to effect a reconciliation, it was carried out in Canada with amicableness and promptness; this owing to the fact that Canadian Masons had never seen any excuse for a division which had begun and had always remained rooted in aristocratic prejudices which had possessed only a shadow existence among the democratic men of the Dominion. Since the Canadian first step in Union remained unnoted by English historians of the Fraternity from Gould and Hughan until Bro. Sir Alfred Robbins published his work on the Grand Lodge of England (wherein a new and fresher and less insular and more statesmanlike spirit entered English Masonic historical studies), the long neglected facts have a freshness and novelty, and ought to be set out in full detail in a book-length study. Until that is done students can only content themselves with the one short chapter on the subject in the virile, modern-spirited Early Catalan Masonry; 1759-1869, by Pemberton Smith (Montreal; 1939), a veteran antiquarian, and former president of the Canadian Historical Association.
Canada had possessed since 1759 a Modern Provincial Grand Lodge. The last Prov. Grand Master of it was none other than the American, Sir John Johnson, son of Sir William Johnson, the latter our country’s outstanding man in the generation preceding Franklin’s; and one of the fathers of Scottish Rite Masonry. Bro. Smith makes one of his few mistakes and is less than just to the spirit of fair play in American Masons both during and immediately following the Revolutionary War when, on page 37, he writes: ” Sir John Johnson had been a Mason in New York State [a Colony at that time], but remained loyal to the British Crown [not only to the Tory Party of America] during the American Revolution, and is famous in history for his military exploits on the British side.[One is reminded of the Cherry Valley Massacre which he planned!] In consequence, United States Masonic historians have little good to say for him; but, removing to Montreal after the war was over, he was welcomed and beloved by Canadian Masons. ” Bro. Smith would find it difficult to name those historians. The two historians of New York, St. Clenachan and Lang, are factual, and are fair to Sir John, as were Masons on the Patriot side at the time; almost their only resentment is that when Johnson fled to Canada he took the Provincial Grand Lodge books and papers along with him, which were not his personal property —and did not return them even after the War. Johnson was appointed Provincial Grand Master of New York by Grand Master Lord Blayney in 1767, was installed after a long postponement in 1771, and served until he ran away with the Provincial Grand Lodgers books.
The ubiquitous and irrepressible Masons of the Ancient Grand Lodge of England were in Canada not many years after that Grand Lodge had sprung to life in London in 1751and came there, most of them, in Military Lodges, the best of Masonic pioneers in that period, which, mothering so much of American Masonry, have not yet received from Craft historians the attention and the renown they are entitled to By 1732 there were three Ancient Lodges in the City of Quebec alone, one of them the famous Merchants Lodge. ‘the Moderns in Stir John Johnson’s Provincial Grand Lodge, who had been officially ordered from London not to fraternize with the Ancient, had only one interest in the latter—the sort of interest the tiger felt in the young lady from Niger. When word came that the Duke of Kent, one of the sons of King George III, was coming to Canada, and would doubtless become Provincial Grand Master, the Moderns were elated; they did not believe that the Ancient, even the Irish Ancient, could resist the allurement of serving under a Royal Head, so they expected to absorb the Ancient. But the Duke himself sprang a prodigious surprise on Sir John Johnson.
The Duke of Kent was one of six sons of George III made Masons one after the other, one of whom was Clarence, Prince of Wales, another of whom was the Duke of Sussex, destined to be the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge for a generation. The Dulse of Kent was initiated in Geneva, in 1790.
He was an extraordinary man; a thorough-going traveler; broadly as well as highly educated; a governor, a military leader, an administrator; but was possessed above every other interest of a passion for architecture which, with a complete lack of Hanoverian sluggishness, he satisfied from almost the moment of his landing in Canada, leaving, as the latest Canadian historian expresses it, a series of imposing and remarkable buildings by which his progress over Canada can be tracked. While governor of Nova Scotia he built almost single-handed the present city of Halifax, at least transformed it out of recognition; and the great Citadel which from its hill looked out Upon the Canadian-American sea and air armadas in World War II had been his doing, as had fortresses, sea-walls, and piers without number. One of his latest biographers says that letters from home told him that the King was afraid he would have no direct heir to succeed him; the Duke thereupon returned, married and his daughter Victoria afterwards became Queen. he preceding her with a Regency; she was the only Queen, at least for which there are any records, who ever became officially the Protectress of the Fraternity. The Duke continued to hold the office of Provincial Grand Master of Canada until the Union of 1813
In a speech to the Grand Lodge of England ma(le after the Union the Duke of Sussex said that his brother Kent and himself had vowed to unite the two Grand Lodges from the time of their becoming Masons; that they discussed ways and means often; that when Kent went to Canada it was agreed that he should there take the actual first step of Union, and thus prove that Union was possible. How this was carried out is told by Pro. Smith succinctly: “To the astonishment of every Mason in Canada, when II. R.- H. Prince Edward (Duke of Kent) arrived in Quebec, he got in touch with the three lodges working under the Ancient regime, had himself ‘made Ancient, and appointed as the first ‘Provincial Grand Master of Canada’ of the Grand Lodge of Ancients.
Graham, an earlier Quebec historian, exclaimed upon recording this unexpected turn of affairs: “A new era. A remarkable impulse was given to Ancient Masonry. ” He says it had a “wonderful effect, ” and that great consequences were “very observable. ” They were indeed, for, to-continue to quote Smith: “As early as December, 1792, at his command, committees were meeting the officers of the Modern lodges, ‘if possible to form a coalition of parties.”‘ The modus operandi agreed on previously by the two brothers in England began to work with a rapidity in this case more Ancient than Modern: “On St. John’s Day the same month (December, 1792), the new Ancient Grand Lodge met at four o’clock to install the Grand Officers elect; and at five o’clock, by the Royal and Right Worshipful Grand Master’s invitation, the present and past Grand Officers, [Ancient] together with the Grand Officers under the H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, [Moderns] met the new Prov. Grand Master of Ancients at dinner at Lane’s Coffee House in Quebec.”
This move, the first of many, and Kent’s vigorous development of Ancient Masonry, resulted not in a formal union but in an absorption, for one after another of the Modern Lodges “went over” to the Ancients and by 1797 not one was left. From this came a new Provincial Grand Lodge. This Second Provincial Grand Lodge of Canada (1792-1813) was therefore to prove to England that differences had become illusory, and that Ancient and Moderns could fraternize with each other in the light as well as in the dark
(American Freemasons were as much gratified at the time by this union as their Canadian Brethren and ever since have shared their pride in the fact that while discussions had already begun in England, the first actual deed of union was done on American soil.
That deed interests them also, less importantly and yet with a vividness, as. one more illustration among the many illustrations in the English system of how Royal and Noble Grand Masters and Provincial brand Masters were able to decide Craft affairs “by command and out of personal and private decisions”; for in the merger of Ancient and Moderns in Canada it was the Duke of Kent who took the lead and made the decisions, on his own personal authority, and without action first being taken by the Grand Lodge’s consent. The custom of calling the Grand East “the throne” was more than a metaphor. It was at this point, one may believe, that the true cause of the division between Moderns and Ancient had its beginning. It was at least the root of the trouble between the two Bodies in Colonies of America before the Revolution.)
UNION OF 1813, THE
At one time two conflicting Grand Lodge Bodies were in existence in England. One, known as the Grand Lodge of England, originally with four old Lodges assembling at London on June 24, 1717. This Lodge we will designate as the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, that being the name by which they were known during the famous controversy, in spite of the fact that they were in existence long before the other competitor. There as on for the designation Modern in this instance is that parts of their ritual and ceremony had been modified or changed, as time went on, from the ancient workings of the Freemasons. The other Lodge, while of more recent establishment, became known as the Grand Lodge of the Ancient because they claimed that their ceremonies had come down from the ancient or Operative Lodges without change.
This Grand Lodge of the Ancient was also known as of Atholl Matsons, it having been headed by Lord Atholl. They elected their first Grand Master on December 5, 1753, their membership at that time consisting largely of Irish Freemasons then resident in London. This Ancient Grand Lodge became strong as time went on. The Grand Lodge of the Moderns was weakened by dissension within its own ranks between the Operative and Speculative Lodges, some of whom joined the opposing Grand Lodge of the Ancient. The famous Laurence Dermott was for many years the head of the Ancient. Dermott was selected Grand Secretary of the Ancient February 5, 1752. After much conflict between the Ancient and Moderns a Union was consummated, the Articles of Union being signed November 25, 1813, by the Dukes of Sussex and Kent, the Grand Masters of the two Lodges. Later, December 27, 1813, the Act of Union confirmed this agreement at a joint meeting of the two Lodges and the present United Grand Lodge of England came into existence.
UNION OF GERMAN FREEMASONS
The German title is Verein deutscher Freimaurer. An association of Freemasons of Germany organized at Potsdam, May 19, 1861. The Society has met annually at different places and cultivates the Masonic science, the advancement of the prosperity and usefulness of the Order, and the closer union of the members in the bonds of brotherly love and affection (see Verein Deutscher Freimaurer).
UNION OF SCIENTIFIC FREEMASONS
The German name is Bund scientifischer Freimaurer. An Association founded, November 28, 1802, by Fessler, Fischer, Mossdorf and other learned Freemasons of Germany. According to their Act of Union, all the members pledged themselves to investigate the history of Freemasonry from its origin down to the present time, in all its different parts, with all its systems and retrogressions, in the most complete manner, and then to communicate what they knew to trustworthy Brethren.
In the assemblies of the members, there were no rituals, nor ceremonies, nor any Special vestments requisite, nor, indeed, any outward distinctions what ever. A common interest and the love of truth, a general aversion of all deception, treachery, and secrecy were the sentiments which bound them together, and made them feel the duties incumbent on them, without binding themselves by any special oath Consequently, the members of the Scientific Union had all equal rights and obligations; they did not acknowledge a superior, or subordination to any Masonic authority what ever.
Any upright scientifically cultivated Master Mason, a Sincere seeker after truth, might join this Union, no matter to what Rite or Grand Lodge he belonged, if the whole of the votes were given in his favor, and he pledged himself faithfully to carry out the intention of the founders of the Order. Each circle of Scientific Freemasons was provided with a number of copies of the Deed of Union, and every new candidate, when he signed it, became a partaker of the privileges shared in by the whole ; the Chief Archives and the center of the Confederation were at first to be in Berlin.
But the Association, thus in angulated with the most lofty pretensions and the most Sanguin expectations, did not well succeed.”Brethren,”Sags Findel (History, English translation, page 501),”whose cooperation had been reckoned Up ,did not join the active working of others was crippled by all sorts of scruples and hindrances, and Fessler’s purchase of Kleinwall drew of this attention wholly from the subject. Differences of opinion, perhaps also too great egotism, caused dissensions between many members of the Association and the brethren of the Lodge at Altenburg. Distrust was excited in everyman’s breast, and, instead of the enthusiasm formerly exhibited, there was only lukewarmness and disgust. “Other schemes, especially that of the establishment of a Saxon Grand Lodge, impaired the efforts of the Scientific Freemasons. The Union gradually sank out of sight, and finally ceased to exist.
UNION OF THE TWENTY-TWO
See German Union of Two and Twenty
UNIONS, LODGE OF
This Lodge, No.256, was constituted in England in 1785 and under its sanction the famous Emulation Lodge of improvement meets (see Emulation Lodge)
A pllilosophic and social organization established in 1785 at Norwich, England, meeting at the College of Saint Luke, and devoted, to quote from their own original records, To the cultivation of a liberal and rational system of good fellowship. Whatever evils may have arisen from monastic institutions, or however incompatible with refined policy the sequestered habits of former times may be considered, it is allowed, on all authorities, that with in the gloomy mansions of the ancient religious fraternities the fine arts were nurtured, philosophy and science flourished; all the profundity of erudition was deposited; and to add lustre to the scene, the eleemosynary virtues took their stand before their gates, and dispensed the blessings of charity far and wide throughout the world!
Disclaiming everything which appertains to religious functions of the monks and friars this Society professes only to imitate what has been justly deemed praiseworthy in that description of men; to emulate their scientific acquisitions their love of learning, their benevolence and philanthropy; and, adopting decent mirth in lieu of their austere rules, to exhibit the picture of a convent free from the dark and offensive shadows of bigotry, enthusiasm, and superstition…. To give external consistency to this plan, and to strengthen the idea of fraternal combination, the United Friars have thought proper to assume the habiliments of all the known Monastic Orders; but in every instance where they have adopted the formalities of the Romish Church special care has been taken to divest them of all reference to religion or sacred objects and, in lieu thereof to annex to them meanings Significant to those moral and social duties which apply essentially to the interest and happiness of mankind.
The officers were Abbot, Prior, Procurator, Confessor, Bursar, Hospitaller, and Librarian. Each year when the Abbot was elected he assumed the name of Paul I, Paul II, and so on. The Order did much charitable work and during 1796-1820 the Almoner’s Book shows that 5100 pounds, about $ 24,786, were expended among the poor. A Library was one of their first achievements. An impressive initiation ceremony was held and each initiate was given some Special charge by the presiding officer.. A small group of men at London associated themselves with the organization and from 1818 to 1824 held meetings twice monthly at the College of Saint Mark in Great Saint Helens. They elected no Abbot, out of deference to the parent Body, their highest and presiding officer being the Prior. At these meetings the members read papers, usually historical, and each one of the Fraternity was required, soon after initiation, to render an account of that Order whose garb he assumed on his profession. The London Branch was finally disbanded about 1825 (see brother Mackenzie’s Royal masonic Cyclopedia)
UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND
The Grand Lodge of England assumed that title in the year 1813, because it was the n formed by the Union of the Grand Lodge of the Ancient, the “Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England according to the Old Institutions, “and the Grand Lodge of Moderns, the “Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons under the Constitution of England. “The Body thus formed, by which an end was put to the dissensions of the Craft which had existed in England for more than half a century, adopted the title, by which it has ever Since been known, of the United Grand Lodge of ancient Freemasons of England (see Union of 1813).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The history of the introduction of freemasonry in to the United States of America is discussed in this work under the titles of the several States into which the Union is divided, and to which therefore the reader is referred.
It may, however, be necessary to say, in a general view of the subject, that the first notice we have of Freemasonry in the United States is in 1729, in which year, during the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Norfolk, Mr. Daniel Coxe was appointed Provincial Grand Master for New Jersey. We have not, however, been able to obtain any evidence that he exercised his prerogative by the establishment of Lodges in that Province, although it is probable that he did. In the year 1733, the “Saint John’s Grand Lodge “was opened in Boston, inconsequence of a Charter granted, on the application of several Brethren residing in that city, by Lord Viscount Montague, the Grand Master of England. From that time Freemasonry was rapidly disseminated through the country by the establishment of Provincial Grand Lodges, all of which after the Revolutionary War, which separated the colonies from the mother country, assumed the rank and prerogatives of independent Grand Lodges. The history of these Bodies being treated under their respective titles, the remainder of this article may more properly be devoted to the character of the Masonic organization in the United States.
The Rite practiced in this country is correctly called the American Rite. This title, however, has been adopted within only a comparatively recent period. It is still very usual with Masonic writers to call the Rite practiced in this country the York Rite. The expression, however, Doctor Mackey held to be incorrect. The Freemasonry of the United States, though founded, like that practiced in every other country, upon the three Symbolic Degrees which alone constitute the true York Rite, has, by its modifications and its adoption of advanced Degrees, so changed the Rite as to give it an entirely different form from that which properly constitutes the pure York Rite (see American Rite).
In each State of the Union there is a Grand Lodge which exercises jurisdiction over the Symbolic Degrees. The jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge, however, is exercised to acertain extent over what are called the higher Bodies, namely, the Chapters, Councils, and Commanderies. Forby the American construction o f Masonic law, a Freemas onexpelled by the Grand Lodge forfeits his membership in all of these Bodies to which he may be attached. Hence a Knight Templar, or a Royal Arch Mason, becomes ipsofacto, because of that fact, suspended or expelled by his suspension or expulsion by a Symbolic Lodge, the appeal from which action lies only to the Grand Lodge. Thus the Masonic standing and existence of even the Grand Commander of a Grand Commandery is actually in the hands of the Grand Lodge, by whose decree of expulsion his relation with the Body over which he presides may be dissevered.
Royal Arch Masonry is controlled in each State by a Grand Chapter. Besides these Grand Chapters, there is a General Grand Chapter of the United States, which, however, exercises only a moral influence over the State Grand Chapters, since it possesses “no power of discipline, admonition, censure, or instruction over the Grand Chapters. “In Territories where there are no Grand Chapters, the General Grand Chaptere constitutes subordinate Chapters, and over these it exercises plenary jurisdiction.
The next branch of the Order is Cryptic Freemasonry, which, although rapidly growing, is not yet as extensive as Royal Arch Masonry. It consists of two Degrees, Royal and Select Master, to which is sometimes added the Super-Excellent, which, however, is generally considered only as an honorary or supplementary Degree. These Degrees are conferred in Councils which owe their obedience to Grand Councils. Only one Grand Council can exist in a State or Territory, as is the case with a Grand Lodge, a Grand Chapter, or a Grand Commandery. Grand Councils exist in many of the States, and elsewhere the Councils have been established by Charters emanating from the General Grand Council.
Templarism is governed by a Supreme Body, whose style is the Grand Encampment of the United States, and this Body, which meets triennially, possesses sovereign power over the whole Templar system in the United States. Its presiding officer is called Grand Master, and this is the highest office known to American Templarism. Throughout the States the reare Grand Commanderies, which exercise immediate jurisdiction over the Commanderies in the State, subject, however, to the super intending control of the Grand Encampment. Where there are no Grand Commanderies, Charters are issued directly to subordinate Commanderies by the Grand Encampment.
The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite is very popular in the United States. There are two Supreme Councils—one for the Southern Jurisdiction, which is the Mother Council of the world. Its nominal Grand East is at Charleston, South Carolina; but its Secretariat has been removed to Washington City since the year 1870. The other Council is for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction. Its Grand East and Secretariat is at Boston, Massachusetts. The Northern Supreme Council has jurisdiction over the States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. The Southern supreme Council exercises jurisdiction over all the other States and Territories of the United States.
UNITY OF GOD
In the popular mythology of the ancients there were many gods. It was to correct this false opinion, and to teach a purer theology, that the initiations were invented. And so, as Warburton says, “the famous secret of the Mysteries was the unity of the Godhead.” This, too, is the doctrine of Masonic initiation, which is equally distant from the blindness of atheism and the folly of polytheism
UNIVERSAL CRAFTSMEN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS
Brothers O.N. Pomeroy and Benjamin Dettlebaek, stationary steam engineers of Cleveland, Ohio, in the course of a friendly meeting, October 20, 1898, conversed about an organization being formed of engineers who were Master Masons.
The outcome of this discussion was that on December 10, 1859, a notice was published in a local newspaper calling a meeting at the Forest City House, when twenty-seven were present on December 22, 1899. Similar organizations have been planted in other parts of the country and these have been grouped into the Universal Craftsmen Council of Engineers. This latter organization came into being through a conference held at Brother Pomeroy’s residence at Cleveland, September 14, 1903, with the following, delegates: Oscar Mabie and John L.O’Brien of Chicago, John H. Leathers of Rochester, New York, James Gillespie of Philadelphia, Charles E. Davey of Detroit and Benjamin Dettleback of Cleveland. The organization has established a publication entitled the Universal Engineer. In similar crafts, associations have been formed, as at Cleveland, Ohio, including workers in electricity, plumbing, steam-fitting, printing sheet- metal, building, wood, etc. These are joined in the Body known as the Cleveland Federation of Craftsmen.
UNIVERSALS, THE EUROPEAN
The prime characteristic of feudalism, the form of society left behind by the Barbarian Invasions of the Dark Ages, was its localism, or atomism. There was a castle here, a fortress there, an abbey, a manor, an independent town, a port, each like a small island, and often in a quarrel with some other small unit near it, with only a few tenuous filaments of language and geography to hold them together in the absence of a national government, highways, schools, or commerce.
The story of how these ” islands of feudalism ” were melted down first into nations, and then into a comity of nations, is the grand theme of European history. The method of that history is to begin with one or two of what the historians call “the universals, ” which even in feudalism began to come into being; then to show how one after another followed; and finally how the set of universals triumphed over the old separatisms and dreadful feudal isolationism Freemasons can take a lively and even proud interest in this growing list of “universals” because the discoverers of their art and the founders of their fraternity are listed among them; and listed not by Masonic historians only, but by general historians who wrote not with Masons in mind, but for the general public.
Among those universals were: the Carlovingian Empire and its successors; the Medieval Church, with its customs everywhere the same; the use of Latin; universities; architecture, builder gilds, and especially the Free masons who carried the Gothic from Ireland to the Danube, and from Denmark to North Africa; the Orders of Chivalry; the Monastic Orders; the Renaissance; and, at the last, the printing press.
UNIVERSITIES, AND FREEMASONS
The universities had their rise in Salerno, Prague, Warsaw, Paris, Cologne, Dublin, Oxford, Cambridge, etc., at about the same time as the earliest development of Gothic architecture. Their history has a certain interest for Freemasons because up to a point their history ran parallel with the history of Masons; also because the Medieval Masons had a sincere and long-acting interest in them. The oldest versions of the Old Charges (or Old Constitutions or Old MSS.) strike a modern reader as quaint; but their writers had no intention of being quaint, nor were they quaint men; the only language they had to use, middle or late English, was as yet a half-formed language, and it is the language which tempts us to believe that the writers were simple-minded, or quaint, or only half literate.
If when these Old Charges are transliterated into modern English the full content of meaning possessed by them at the time of their writing is elaborated, it will show that the Freemasons were much concerned with the universities, because the universities were synonymous in their eyes with the Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the Masons claimed to be above all lovers and practicers of them. The legend about the two pillars, about liernaes, Whaymus Grecus, Euclid, and Pythagoras have that point. Moreover, the buildings of the Universities, some of which were famous structures, were erected by Freemasons, and a number of Freemasons lived and worked for many years in or near Oxford and Cambridge.
There was also, at some points, and as said above, a parallel in development. Each university was incorporated; had its charter; its offices and courts; had installation ceremonies. They began as gilds. In Northern Europe the Masters were in a gild, and they admitted scholars, who often were called apprentices. In southern Europe the scholars formed gilds, and these gilds chose and employed the Masters. One or two of the Medieval ceremonies still employed by Oxford at times of conferring Degrees, etc., are of an especial interest to students of the Masonic Ritual.
A university Lodge is any regular Lodge “on the campus” of a college or university, and designed to serve the needs of faculty and students. In America such a Lodge has no special membership provisions in its charter, but it may carry them in its by-laws. The Lodge lists published in Grand Lodge Proceedings are so completely non-descriptive that from them it is impossible to learn how many university Lodges there are in the United States, but there the number is not small.
In England where the Craft has always maintained a closer liaison with colleges and with scholarship the number is large relative to the number of schools A University Lodge was constituted in London, in 1730. No. 293 was constituted at Cambridge University ak 1763. The Lodge of Alfred, No. 455, was formed Oxford University, in 1769; it was succeeded by the Apollo University Lodge, No. 357, in 1818. Isaac Newton University Lodge was formed at Cambridge 1861; the Alma Mater, No. 1492, at Cambridge, in 1874; University Lodge at Sheffield, in 1919 Achilles, No. 4078, at Newcastle, in 1920; University Lodge at Liverpool, in 1921; Imperial College Lodge, London, in 1923; Universities Lodge Cardiff, Wales, in 1934; at Birmingham, in 1936- the University of Manchester Lodge, in 1937. The Earl of Harwood, Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, is an honoraria Member or the last named. (The above list is from United Grand Lodge Sheffield, No. 5911;1919-1944; by Douglas D Enoop; printed by the Lodge; a brochure of 15 pages.)
UNIVERSAL AURORA, SOCIETY OF THE
Founded at Paris, in 1783, for the practice of mesmerism; Cagliostro, “the Divine Charlatan, “taking an active part in its establishment. Very little at this day is known of it.
UNIVERSAL HARMONY, ORDER OF
See Mesmeric Freemasonry
See Language, Universal, and Universal a Framasona Ligo
UNIVERSALA FRAMASONA LIGO
The Esperanto—auxiliary language— name for Universal Masonic League, an organization founded on August 30, 1913, at Berne, in Switzerland, the object being to further the intimacy of relations between members of all regular Lodges, Grand Lodges, and Grand Orients of all Rites and countries of the world. This was to be on a basis of absolute neutrality in all respects, the members to be independent outside the above scope of the League. As an official organ the Bulletin was used of the International Bureau of Masonic Affairs, intercourse being maintained through the medium of the auxiliary languages, Esperanto. Officers were: President, Senator Dr. Magalhaes Lima of Lisbon, Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Portugal; Secretary, Doctor Uhlmann of Zihlschlacht, Switzerland, and Treasurer, Doctor Hederich, Kassel, Germany. More recently the Secretary has been Carl Barthel, Frankfort a/M, Germany. Meetings are usually held annually during the sessions of the International Congresses of the Esperantists (see Lange, Universal).
UNIVERSALISTS, ORDER OF
A Society of a Masonic bearing, founded by Retif de la Bretonne, in Paris, about 1841, and having but one Degree.
UNIVERSALITY OF FREEMASONRY
The boast of the Emperor Charles V, that the sun never set on his vast Empire, may be applied with equal truth to the Order of Freemasonry. From East to West, and from North to South, over the whole habitable globe, are our Lodges disseminated. Wherever the wandering steps of civilized man have left their footprints, there have our Temples been established. The lessons of Masonic love have penetrated into the wilderness of the West, and the Red Man of our soil has shared with his more enlightened Brother the mysteries of our science; while the arid sands of the African desert have more than once been the scene of a Masonic greeting. Freemasonry is not a fountain, giving health and beauty to some single hamlet, and slaking the thirst of those only who dwell upon its humble banks; but it is a mighty stream, penetrating through every hill and mountain, and gliding through every field and valley of the earth, bearing in its beneficent bosom the abundant waters of love and charity for the poor, the widow, and the orphan of every land.
UNIVERSI TERRARUM, ETC.
The document semanating from any of the Bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite commence with the following epigraph: Universi Terrarum Orbis Architectonisper Cloriam Ingentis, meaning By the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe. This is the correct form as first published, in 1802, by the Mother Council at Charleston in its Circular of that year, and used in all its Charters and Patents.
One of the mystical and theosophic works written by Saint Martin, the founder of the Rite of Martinism, was entitled Le Philosophe Inconnu, or The Unknown Philosopher, whence the appellation was of ten given by his disciples to the author. A Degree of his Rite also received the same name.
When the Baron Von Hund established his system or Rite of Strict Observance, he declared that the Order was directed by certain Freemasons of superior rank, whose names as well as their designs were to be kept secret from all the Brethren of the lower Degrees; although there was an insinuation that they were to be found or to be heard of in Scotland. To these secret dignitaries he gave the title of Superiores Incogniti , or Unknown Superiors. Many Masonic writers, suspecting that Jesuitism was at the bottom of all the Freemasonry of that day, asserted that S. I., the initials of Superiores Incogniti, meant really Societas Jesu, that is, the Society of Jesus or the Jesuits. It is scarcely necessary now to say that the whole story of the Unknown Superiors was probably a myth.
However, the reader will find much interest in an old book or two of 1788, as Les Jesuites chassés de la Maçonnerie et leur Poignard brisé par les Masons, or The Jesuits driven from Masonry and their dagger broken by the Masons. Another one, presumably a continuation of the above essay, is the Memeté des Quatre Voeux de la Compagnie de S. Ignace et des Quatres Grades de la Maçonnerie de S.Jean, that is the Identity of the four Vows of the Company of Saint Ignace (Ignatius Loyola, 1491-1556, soldier-priest, a Spaniard who founded the Order of the Jesuits or Society of Jesus) and the Masonry of Saint John. Both are of the same date and the title page might indicate by Orient de Londres, East of London, that they were published in that city but they were printed at Paris and probably by Nicholas de Bonneville. Brother Bernard Beyer, Bibliographie der Freimaurerischen Literature, 1926, lists over a dozen works dealing with the Jesuits, from this standpoint, amongst the many discussing matters pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church.
As to this question generally Brother Dudley Wrigt has discussed it help fully in Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry, London, 1922, and there is a lecture in pamphlet form by Brother R.J.Lemert, Catholicism and Freemasonry, Helena, Montana, examining the causes of the hostility displayed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy against the Masonic Institution, and a treatise, The Principles of Freemasonry, 374 pages, 1918, by Brother Melville R. Grant, S.G.I.G. is an informing and convincing contribution to the subject from the Truth Publishing Company, Meridian, Mississippi.
UNPUBLISHED RECORDS OF THE CRAFT
A work thus entitled and edited by the late brother Hughan, was published in 1871, forming part of the book called Masonic Sketches and Reprints and containing many manuscripts of value, theretofore unknown to the general Masonic public. Many others have since been traced, and the work of Masonic progress has a large field in the near future which will be productive of great historic good.
In the lecture used in the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century, and in some parts of the Country almost as recently as the middle of the century, the Apprentices at the Temple were said to wear their Aprons in the peculiar manner characteristic of that class that they might preserve their garments from being defiled by untempered mortar. This is mortar which has not been properly mixed for use, and it thus became a symbol of passions and appetites not duly restrained. Hence the Speculative Apprentice was made to wear his Apron in that peculiar manner to teach him that he should not allow his soul to be defiled by the “untempered mortar of unruly passions.”
The Tetragrammaton, or Divine Name, which is more commonly called the ineffable Name The two words are precisely synonymous.
That there are men in our Order whose lives and characters reflect no credit on the Institution, whose ears turn coldly from its beautiful lessons of morality, whose hearts are untouched by its soothing influences of brotherly kindness, whose hands are not opened to aid in its deeds of charity is a fact which we cannot deny, although we may be permitted to express our grief while we acknowledge its truth. But these men, though in the Temple, are not of the Temple; they are among us , but are not with us; they belong to our household, but they are not of our faith; they are of Israel, but they are not Israel. We have sought to teach them, but they would not be instructed; seeing, they have not perceived; and hearing they have not understood the symbolic language in which our lessons of wisdom are communicated. The fault is not with us, that we have not given, but with them, that they have not received.
And, indeed, hard and unjust would it be to censure the Masonic Institution, because, partaking of the infirmity and weakness of human wisdom and human means, it has been unable to give strength and perfection to all who come within its pale. The denial of a Peter, the doubting of a Thomas, or even the betrayal of a. Judas, could cast no reproach on that holy band of Apostles of which each formed a constituent part.
“Is Freemasonry answerable,” says Doctor Oliver (Landmarks ,page148),”for the misdeeds of an individual Brother Barnomeans. He has had the advantage of Masonic instruction, and has failed to profit by it. He has enjoyed Masonic privileges, but has not possessed Masonic virtue.”
Such a man it is our duty to reform, or to dismiss; but the world should not condemn us, if we fail in our attempt at reformation. God alone can change the heart. Freemasonry furnishes precepts and obligations of duty which, if obeyed, must make its members wiser, better, happier men; but it claims no power of regeneration. Condemn when our instruction is evil, but not when our pupils are dull, and deaf to our lessons; for, in so doing, you condemn the holy religion which you profess. Freemasonry prescribes no principles that are opposed to the sacred teachings of the Divine Lawgiver, and sanctions no acts that are not consistent with the sternest morality and the most faithful obedience to government and the laws; and while this continues to be its character it cannot, without the most atrocious injustice, be made responsible for the acts of its unworthy members.
Of all human societies, Freemasonry is undoubtedly under all circumstances, the fittest to form the truly goodman. But however well conceived may be its laws, they cannot completely change the natural disposition of those who ought to observe them. In truth, they serve as lights and guides; but as they can only direct men byre straining the impetuosity of their passions these last too often become dominant and the Institution is forgotten.
Minor Sanskrit works regarded as appendices to the four Canonical Vedas, and comprising the Ayureveda on medicine, the Dhanurueda, on archery, the Gândharvaveda, on music, and the Silpasâstra, or Arthasastras, on mechanics and other practical subjects. These were looked upon as inspired works and so classed by Hindu scholars among the treasures of the ancient literary language of India (see Puranas).
A Sanskrit word meaning Mystic. A name given to certain Sanskrit works, of which about one hundred and fifty are known, and founded upon the Brahmana portion of the Vedas, containing the “mysterious doctrine” of the process of creation, nature of a Supreme Being, and its due relation to the human soul. The older Upanishads are placed among the Sruti, or writings supposed to be inspired (see Sruti).
The practice of holding Masonic Lodges in the upper rooms of houses is so universal that, in all his experience, Doctor Mackey had no knowledge of a single instance in which a Lodge has been held in a room on the first floor of a building. Brother Clegg has been present at a country Lodge held in a one-story building which of course was carefully tiled.
The most apparent reason for the use of an upper floor room is, that security from being overseen or overheard may be thus obtained, and hence Doctor Oliver says, in his Book of the Lodge (page44), that “a Masonic hall should be isolated, and, if possible, surrounded with lofty walls. As, however, such a situation in large towns, where Freemasonry is usually practiced, can seldom be obtained with convenience to the Brethren, the Lodge should be formed in an upper story. “This, as a practical reason, will be perhaps sufficient to Freemasons in general. But to those who are more curious, it may be well to say, that for this custom there is also a mystical reason of great antiquity.
Gregory, in his book, Notes and Observations on some Passages of Scripture (1671, page 17), states:”The upper rooms in Scripture were places in that part of the house which was highest from the ground, set apart by the Jews for their private orisons and devotions, to be addressed towards Salomon’s Temple. “This room received, in the Hebrew language, the appellation of Alijah, which has been translated by the Greek huperoon, and improperly by the Latin ceneculum. The Hebrew and the Greek both have the signification of an upperroom, while the Latin appellative would give the idea of adining-room or place fore aeting, thus taking a way the sacred character of the apartment. The Alijah was really a secret chamber or recess in the upper part of the house, devoted to religious uses. Hence the wise men or Rabbis of Israel are called by the Talmudists beni Alijah, or “the sons of the upperor secret room.”
And so (in Psalm civ,2 and 3), the Psalmist speaks of God as stretching out the heavens like a curtain, and laying the beams of his chambers in the waters, where, in the original, the word here translated “chambers” is the plural of Alijah, and should more properly be rendered “his secret chambers”: an allusion, as Doctor Clarke thinks, to the Holy of Holies of theTaberrtacle. Again, in Second Chronicles (ix,3 and 4), it is said that when the Queen of Sheba had seen the wisdom of Solomon and the house that he had built — his provisions, servants, and cupbearers, “and his ascent by which he went up in to the house of the Lord— there was no more spirit in her. “The word which our translators have rendered “his ascent, “is again this word Alijah, and the passage should be rendered “his secret chamber,” or” upperroom”; the one by which, through a private way, he was enabled to pass in to the Temple.
On the advent of Christianity, this Jewish custom of worshiping privately in an upperroom was adopted by the apostles and disciples, and the New Testament contains man vinstances of the practice, the word Alijah being, as we have already remarked, translated by the Greek huperoon, which hasa similar meaning. Thus in Acts (i,13), we find the apostle spraying in an upperroom; and again, in the twentieth chapter, the disciples are represented as having met at Ephesus in an upperroom, where Peter preached to them. But it is unnecessary to multiply instances of this usage. The evidence is complete that the Jews, and after them the primitive Christians, performed their devotions in upperrooms. And the care with which Alijah, huperoon, or upperchamber, is always used to designate the place of devotion, abundantly indicates that any other place would have been considered improper.
Hence we may trace the practise of holding Lodges in upperrooms to this ancient custom; and that, again, has perhaps some connection with the sacred character always given by the ancients to “highplaces,” so that it is said, in the Masonic lectures, that our aneient Brethren met on high hills and low valets. There ason there assigned by implication is that the meeting may be secret; that is, the lectures place the Lodge on a high hill, a vale, or other secret place. And this reason is more definitely stated in the modern lectures, which say that they somet “to observe the approach of cowans and eayesdroppers, and to guard against surprise. “Probably the ancient symbolism of the sanctity of a high place was referred to as well as that more practical idea of secrecy and safety.
UPRIGHT MAN AND MASON
And given it strictly in charge ever to walk and act as such before God and Man Admonition in the Apprentice Degree. The definition of Man is interwoven with the Triangle or Pyramid, hence true and upright. In S. P. Andrew’s Radical Etymology, or the origin of language and languages, we find the following: “Throughout the Indo-European family of languages, the syllable ma—changeable to me, mi, mo, mu— means great, and no —changeable to ne, ni, no, nu —means small, as their primal sense. Hence mana, penal menu, etc., mean great- small and thence ratio or proportion, allied with tapering, the cone, pyramid, or triangle. The Latin men-sa is a surveyor’s triangular measuring board me(n)ta,’ anything conical’; mon-s,’ a mountain’; men-s, ‘the mind,’ that is,’ ratio’; Sanskrit, ma; Latin, mensum; English, measure; hence, Sanskrit, mana, manu meaning to think”(see Man).
The upright posture of the Apprentice in the Northeast Corner, as a symbol of upright conduct, was emphasized in the ritual by Preston, who taught in his lectures that the candidate then represented “a just and upright man and Mason.” The same symbol is mis referred to by Hutchinson, who says that “as the builder raises his column by the plane and perpendicular, so should the Mason carry himself toward the world. “Indeed, the application of the Corner-stone, or the Square Stone, as a symbol of uprightness of conduct, which is precisely the Masonic symbolism of the candidate in the Northeast, was familiar to the ancients; for Plato says that he who valiantly sustains the shocks of adverse fortune demeaning himself uprightly, is truly good and of a square posture.
Hebrew, meaning Are. Masonically alludes to fire, lights or spirit
Hebrew, meaning the fire of God. An Archangel, mentioned only in Second Esdras. Michael Glyeas, the Byzantine historian, says that his post is in the sun, and that he came down to Seth and Enoch, and instructed them in the length of the years and the variations of the seasons. The Book of Enoch describes him as the angel of thunder and lightning. In some of the Hermetic Degrees of Freemasonry, the name, as representing the angel of fire, becomes as significant word.
URIM AND THUMMIM
The Hebrew words Aurzm, and Thummim, have been variously translated by commentators. The Septuagint translates them, “manifestation and truth”; the Vulgate, “doctrine and truth:” A quila, “lights and perfections” Kalisch, “perfect brilliancy” but the most generally received interpretation is, “light and truth. “What the Urim and Thummim were has also been a subject of as much doubt and difference of opinion. Suddenly introduced to notice by Moses in the command in Exodus (xxviii,30) “and thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim”—as if they were already familiar to the people— we know only of them from the Scriptural account, that they were sacred lots to be worn concealed in or behind the breastplate, and to be consulted by the High Priest alone, for the purpose of obtaining a revelation of the will of God in matters of great moment.
Some writers have supposed that the augury consisted in a more splendid appearance of certain letters of the names of the Tribes inscribed upon the stones of the Breastplate; others, that it was received by voice from two small images which were placed beyond the folds of the Breastplate. A variety of other conjectures have been hazarded, but as Godwyn (Moses and Aaron iv, 8) observes, “he spoke best, who ingeniously confessed that he knew not what Urimand Thummim was.”
Whatever may have been the precise forms of these mysterious objects, and there is yet much uncertainty aboutt hem in the minds of scholars, there seems no doubt that they were essential elements of the sacred oracle by which the Hebrews of old endeavored to find out the will of God. Urim has been suggested as meaning guilt, and Thummin, innocence, and these widely contrasting ideas may have had none other than acomprehensive Significance of the scope represented by the two, the Urim and Thummin; all that was light and dark, clean and unclean, stood before the Lord in this appeal for the Divine Guidance.
Perhaps there was associated with the vestment, the ephod, connected with the Urimand Thummim, something of the nature of casting lots, of divination, of an appeal for ajudgment from the God head, seeking a sign, to be exhibited by perhaps committing the question at issue to a sort of inspired ballot. But let the reader examine what is said in the Bible itself where evidently the Urim and Thummim were placed with in the Breastplate of the High Priest. Here they were used to reveal the will of God. The reference in First Samuel (xxvui,6) to dreams and to the Urim and Thurnmim indicate quite clearly the class in which these methods and means are capable of being placed. The verse says,
And when Saul enquired of the L ord,
the Lord answered him not, neither
by dreams, not by Urim, nor by prophets.
The opinion now almost universally accepted is that the Jewish lawgiver borrowed this, as he did the Ark, the Brazen Serpent, and many other of the symbols of his theocracy, from the usages so familiar to him of the Egyptian Priests, with which both he and Aaron were familiar, eliminating, of course, from them their previous heathen allusion and giving to them a purer signification.
In reference to the Urim and Thummim, we know not only from the authority of ancient writers, but also from the confirmatory testimony of more recent monumental explorations, that the judges of Egypt wore golden chains around their necks, to which was suspended a small figure of Theme, the Egyptian goddess of Justice and Truth. “Some of these breastplates,” says Gliddon, Ancient Egypt (page 32),”are extant in European museums; others are to be seen on the monuments as containing the figures of two deities—Ra, the sun, and theme. These represent Ra, or the sun, in a double capacity, physical and intellectual light; and theme in a double capacity justice and truth.”
Neither in the ancient Craft nor in Royal Arch Masonry have the Urim and Thummim been introduced; although Oliver discusses them, in his Landmarks, as a type of Christ, to be Masonically applied in his peculiar system of a Christian interpretation of all the Masonic symbols. But the fact is that after the construction of the Temple of Solomon we hear no more of the consultation by the priests of the Urim and Thummim. They seem to have given way to the audible interpretation of the divine will by the prophets. That would necessarily disconnect them from Freemasonry as symbols and these symbols are there fore not to be accepted even by those who place the foundation of the Order at the Solomonic era.
However, they have been introduced as a symbol in to some of the continental high Degrees. Thus, in the last Degree of the Order of brothers of Asia, the presiding officer wears the Urim and Thummim suspended from a golden chain as the jewel of his office.
Reghellini, Esprit du dogme or Genius of Dogma (page 60), thus gives the continental interpretation of the symbols:” The folly of Solomon is commemorated in the instructions and ceremonies of a high Degree, where the Acolyte is reminded that Solomon, becoming arrogant, was for a time abandoned by the Divinity, and as he was, although the greatest of kings, only a mortal, he was weak enough to sacrifice to idols, and thereby lost the communication which he had previously had through the Urim and Thummim. These two words are found in a Degree of the Maître écossais, or Scottish Master. The Venerables or Worshipful Masters of the Lodges and the Sublime Masters explain the legend to their recipients of an elevated rank, as intended to teach them that they should always be guided by reason, virtue, and honor, and never abandon themselves to an effeminate life or silly superstition.”
Doctor Mackey concluded that it was undeniable that Urim and Thummim have no legitimate existence as Masonic symbols, and that they can only be considered such by a forced and modern interpretation.
The author of a work entitled Leveritable Portrait d’un Franc-Magon or the True Portrait of a Freemason which was published by a Lodge at Frankfort, in 1742. It may be looked upon, says Kloss, as the earliest public exposition of the true principles of Freemasonry which appeared in Germany. Many editions of it were published. M Uriot also published at Stongard, in 1769, a work entitled Lettres sur la Franche Maçonnerie or Letters on Freemasonry; which was, however, only an enlargement of the Portrait.
Among the ancients, cinerary urns were in common use to hold the ashes of the deceased after the body had been subjected to incremation, which was the usual mode of disposing of it. He who would desire to be learned upon this subject should read Sir Thomas Browne’s celebrated work entitled Hydriotaphioc, or Urn Burial, where everything necessary to be known on this topic may be found .
In Freemasonry, the cinerary urn has been introduced as a modern symbol, but always as having reference to the burial of the Temple Builder. In the comparatively recent symbol of the Monument, arranged probably by Cross for the Degree of Master in the American Rite, the urn is introduced as if to remind the beholder that the ashes of the great artist were there deposited. Cross borrowed, it may be supposed, his idea from an older symbol in the advanced Degrees, where, in the description of the tomb of Hiram Abif, it is said that the heart was enclosed in a golden urn, to the side of which a triangular stone was affixed, inscribed with the letters J.M.B. with in a wreath of acacia, and placed on the top of an obelisk (see Monument, and Time, also Broken Column).
A republic of South America. The Grand Orient of France is said to have chartered a Lodge in Uruguay in 1827, but there is no definite evidence to support this statement. Lodge No.217, Asilio de la Virtud, Home of Virlue, was chartered by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania on February 6, 1832, at Montevideo. On August 20, 1841, the Grand Orient of France issued authority for a Lodge which developed into a Chapter, Areopagus and Consistory. Warrants were also issued from Brazil.
By authority of one of the Grand Orients at Rio de Janeiro, a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite and a Grand Orient of Uruguay were formed in 1856 at Montevideo. Relations between the two Bodies were so friendly that the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council and the Grand Master of the Grand Orient were often one and the same person. In 1923 the Grand Orient of Uruguay exercised control over eighteen Lodges.
The Grand Orient of France has a Lodge, Amis de la Patrie, meaning Friends of the Native Land, at Montevideo, where the Grand Lodge of England has Acacia Lodge and Silver River Lodge.
The peculiarity of constant intercourse between the Kings of Israel and Tyre pending the construction of the Holy House, has been frequently commented upon. That this was so is evident from the old sacred Scriptures, as well as from cumulative history by Joseph us and others. This ancient custom of intercommunication would not be so marked, had these two kings ever met, yet during the years of construction, gifts and messages seem to have led to the more intimate custom of propounding problems and difficult questions. Hence the inducement to speculate upon whether there was any secret tie between these two Kings or merely friendship and business.
The customs, habits, and usages of the ancients are visible in every form and ceremony of Masonic work, as well as in the instruction, except where modern innovators have injured, while endeavoring to improve, the time worn yet mellowed services of the Brotherhood. One of the most beautiful expressions occurring in the Catechism of Freemasonry is the answer to an interrogatory as to the position of the hand in assuming the vow of the First Degree; to wit, “In accordance with ancient usages the right hand has always been deemed the seat of Fidelity. “A somewhat similar expression occurs in relation to the casting off of the shoe; answer, “This was in accordance with the usages of the ancient Israelites; a man plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor; this was testimony in Israel. “The shoe was the symbol of subjection when sent by rulers to princes (see Ruth iv, 7). It was the symbol of humiliation and surrender with Germans and Israelites. The formal divestiture was surrender of title (see Hand).
USE AND ABUSE OF FREEMASONRY
Book, was published in 1783 at London, by Captain George Smith, Inspector of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, England, and the Provincial Grand Master of Kent, 1777-81. While Master of a Lodge at Woolwich, Brother Smith was disciplined for opening a Lodge and initiating candidates in the Kings Bench Prison.
Grand Secretary Sam H. Goodwin in his investigations of early Freemasonry in Utah has brought to light many note worthy facts. He finds the first Lodge organized in Utah was among soldiers of the United States Army sent there by President Buchanan. A Dispensation for Rocky Mountain Lodge dated March 6, 1859, was granted by Grand Master Samuel Saunders of Missouri, to (Lieutenant) John T. Robinson and other officers at Camp Floyd. About forty were associated in the movement. This Lodge received a Charter in 1860, No. 205 of Missouri.
In 1862 Grand Master Wm. R. Peniek reported that the Lodge had prospered but ceased working because the membership “consisted principally of Masons belonging to the U.S. Army who were forced to surrender their Charter on account of the Army being recalled to Washington City. “Grand Secretary Gourley also wrote “the Charter, jewels, records ,etc., were all returned to this office more correctly completed than those ever received from any surrendered Lodge under the Jurisdiction of this Grand Body since its organization.
The jewels were of the very best quality, in fact everything received by this office from that Lodge bore evidence of more than ordinary refinement and culture. “This complimentary allusion adds interest to Brother Goodwin’s mention of two relies, a square and compasses, framed and under glass in the ante-room of Damascus Lodge No. 10, at Mt. Pleasant, of which it is recorded that they were made from a camp kettle by the blacksmith of General Albert Sidney Johnston’s army at Camp Floyd, Utah, 1858, and that they were the first to be used there in a Masonic Lodge.
The Grand Master of Nevada, Joseph De Bell, issued a Dispensation February 4, 1866. for the organization of Mount Moriah Lodge at Salt Lake City. The question then rose as to the attitude to be adopted towards the Mormons. The Grand Master of Nevada vetoed the admission to the Craft of any of Mormon faith and the Lodge submitted for the time being. Application at the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge for an unrestricted Charter was refused, but the Dispensation of the Lodge was renewed. A year later it was surrendered and a certificate of standing in the Craft issued to each member. After a refusal from the Grand Lodge of Montana the Grand Lodge of Kansas issued a Dispensation on November 25, 1867, and a Charter on October 21, 1868. At a Convention held at Salt Lake City, January 16, 1872, representatives of Wasatch, Mount Moriah and Argenta Lodges decided to organize a Grand Lodge. Officers were chosen and installed and the Grand Lodge was duly constituted. It adopted the attitude of the Grand Lodge of Nevada and expelled one brother from the Crafts who had become a Mormon.
Utah Chapter, No 1, Salt Lake City, was granted a Dispensation on December 13, 1872 A Charter was issued by authority of the General Grand Chapter on November 25, 1874 Utah No.1; Ogden, No 2; Ontario, No 3, and Provo, No 4, were the four Chapters in existence in Utah when the Grand Chapter of the State was formed The first Convocation was held at Salt Lake City, September 5, 1911, and Companion C F. Jennings was chosen the first Grand High Priest. The general Grand Council issued a Dispensation for Utah Council, No 1, at Salt Lake City on February 13, 1892 It gave authority to Companions A Scott Chapman, Henry Budgeford and Edwin Copperfield to communicate the Degrees, and a Council, chartered on August 21, was constituted October 30, 1894.
The Grand Encampment of the United States warranted three Commanderies in Utah, the first of which , Utah, No 1, at Salt Lake City, was granted a Dispensation December 20, 1873, and chartered December 3, 1874 Utah, No. l; El Monte, No 2 and Malta, No 3, organized the Grand Commandery of Utah at Ogden on April 9, 1910, under a Warrant issued by Sir Henry Warren Rugg, Grand Master.
Four Charters were granted to bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, on October 21, 1903, at Salt Lake City namely, Utah Consistory, No.1; Salt Lake Council of Kadosh ,No1; James Lowe Chapter of Rose Croix, No. 1, and Jordon Lodge of Perfection, No. 2.