Ornaments Of A Masonic Lodge.

in restoring the Temple and adding to its embellishments ; but there is no proof that the ground floor of the Temple thus decorated was of Mosaic . That Pilate's marble palace had some of ifcs halls inlaid with a beautiful tessellated

pavement seems altogether probable . The hall of judgment , called in the Hebrew Gabbatha , undoubtedly had a Mosaic floor . The Hebrew term designating the place , and its Greek and Latin equivalents , indicate a pavement such as

the words Mosaic and tessellated might well describe . It should be kept in mind , however , that this hall of judgment , designated by so suggestive a word , was outside the prsatorium , being a sort of elevated platform or terrace

which was decorated in an elaborate and peculiar manner . Some writers have sought to trace an etymological connection between Gabbatha and Gagith , the last named being the designation of the hall in the Temple where the

Sanhedrim held their sessions ; but the more general opinion is that tho apartment so named was paved with smooth and square flagstones both before and after the time of Herod .

We make no question that in some parts of the Temple as it stood at the beginning of the Christian era there were rich specimens of Mosaic ornamention . Jerusolem was then in Roman hands , and skilled decorators from

Italy were doubtless employed to inlay some of fche floors and walls of that great structure on which Herod expended a vast sum in the way of restoration and embellishment . There are specimens of ancient work in Mosaic at Rome

which have an age of nearly two thousand years . The pavement of the old Church of St . Lawrence , dating back to the time of Adrian the First , and also that of the Church of St . Martin , belonging to the reign of Constantine , are fine remains of the ancient decorative art in which the

Italians so much excelled . We may well believe that skilled workmen went to Jerusalem in Herod ' s reign to treat certain parts of the Temple to this form of ornamentation . But in Solomon ' s day work in Mosaic was hardly

known or practised , certainly not at all in Jerusalem and the adjacent regions , and it seems therefore a mere assumption to say thafc the ground floor of King Solomon ' s

Temple had a Mosaic ornamentation such as the common description gives to it . Historic accuracy does not justify the conclusion .

As already hinted the traditional reference may stand without doing harm ; it is the moral import of the emblems which is of the chief consequence . Thus may the Mosaic pavement signify the varied experiences of man in this

mortal state , where joy and sorrow alternate like the differently coloured bits of glass and stone that were set together in the ancient decorations . And so the border

and the star may bring their added lessons , suggestive of human faith and dependence , and of a trust in the Infinite One who is guiding all things to the wisest and best ends . — Freemasons' Repository .

The History Of Freemasonry.

THE HISTORY OF FREEMASONRY .

MUCH has been done in later years to unfold in due order and precision the curious annals of the Craft , and to rescue them from that chaotic state of confusion and unrealism combined , into which , through apathy and

ignorance , and m the lapse of time , they had drifted . We owe a great deal to-day , for their praiseworthy exertions in the good cause of Masonic study and literary progress , to Kloss and Fiudel , to Macoy and Mackay , to MacCalla and Fort , to Speth and Rylands , to Daruty and Thcvenotto

, D . M . Lyon and Hughan , and though last not least , to R . F . Gould . We should not , moreover , forget altogether the earlier labours of Anderson , Hutchinson , Preston , and Oliver , Thory and Krause , Heideloff and Schauberg , Ragon ,

Besucbet , Clavel , and other friendly students ; cor should We overlook the criticisms of Jacob Norton , nor the seasonable contributions of non-Masonic writers like George Godwin , and J . 0 . Halliwell Phillips . '

If to-day the normal history of Freemasonry , long encumbered with the accretions of years in the shape of exaggerated evidences , misused documents , uncollated

assertions , and tranquil sheep-walking , appears to us to a great extent free from those drawbacks and deficiencies , we owe it almost entirely to the writers just named , with

¦ ome few other zealous students . Yes , we are indebted to the labours of the " authentic school" of Masonic thinkers and essayi . * - ! : * . for the fact that to-day Masonic history is no

The History Of Freemasonry.

longer practically useless to the Craft , because rejected by experts , and wo hear no more of the Fables of the Freemasons , or even of the mendacity attributed to the panygerists and calumniators of Freemasonry , by Mr . Hallam , in equal measure . This small , but

indefatigable band of students here at home , and in America , has sought to give dignity to the averments , fidelity to the traditions , reality to the chronology , and certainty to the records of Freemasonry .

And they have to a great extent succeeded . They have explored highways and byways , they have searched out long-forgotten documents , they have imposed a new version on hastily-accredited statements , they have

endeavoured to touch with the magic wand of truth legend , ancl myth , and tradition alike , and have forced them to yield the kernel of reality , hidden beneath their husks of outer roughness and displacement , and ciroumadjacent debris .

Masonic history is now assuming the happier and more satisfactory appearance of continuous existence and consistent identity . Of course , there are difficulties yet to be encountered , cruxes yet to be matured , dubious sources

still to be probed , and devious tangled pathways yet to be opened out , before that the arduous labours of our modern Masonic pioneers can overcome prevailing obstacles , or be crowned with legitimate success .

We cannot help to-day sighing at times over the " incuria , " the "laches" in this respect of our good Masonic forefathers . Old letters have been destroyed ,

records have vanished , books have been parted with , minutes have been lost , whioh to us now , for many reasons , would be of priceless value .

There is much , we fear , which has been made away with , which can now never be recovered , of the greatest importance to the student of Masonic History . There is , however , we equally feel sure , a good deal stowed away , which we hope one day may see the light , though at present beyond our reach and ken .

And it is this fact , for face it is , which lends such a peculiar interest to Masonic investigation and discovery at this hour , and which also imparts such an air necessarily of incompleteness and uncertainty to our most valued

contributions , to our most valuable researches . For no sooner do we establish one point than we have to surrender another , and our labours , like those of Ixion , are ceaseless and unchanging .

We , as yet , have not all the facts of the case before us , and hence one great danger arises for students at this peculiar epoch , in our studies and compilations , namely , lest we should be tempted to dogmatise , either from

unwillingness to wait for more light , or from our overvaluing the evidences we do possess , on partial authorities , on limited data .

Let us take two illustrations of what we are wishful to point out to our readers . Thus far we have little to link on the Freemasonry of

1717 witb the Freemasonry described , for instance , by Dr . Plot , a non-Masonic writer , as existing in England in 1686 . We have evidence of Lodges composed mainly of

speculative Masons , working in 1646 , 1670 , 1682 , 1686 , 1690 , but how they are connected with fche Lodges

admittedly existing in 1717 , we as yefc cannot tell precisely . There are , indeed , traces , evidences , which we can point

to of catechisms , legends , regulations , and the like , which all seem to tend in one and the same direction , namely , that substantially of the Masonic Revival of 1717 , but more than that none of us at present can say .

So , too , the history of the meeting and movement in 1717 itself has yet to be found out and written . Thus far we have no actual contemporary evidence , whether of the events which preceded it , or the

circumstances which attended it , or even of the dramatis personas in their entirety who then played their parts on the stage . Anderson , our earliest historian , was probably not an eye witness of the events he first related in 1738 , and our

Grand Lodge Minutes , such as they are , only began iu 1723 . Anderson therefore must have relied in all probability on the accounts of others for the transactions of

1717 , which he first gives us in 1738 . Why ho did not tell his story in 1723 , we have yet to learn . There must be some reason for bis silence then . It is clear , from "Multa Faucis , " that there were two accounts of those events , probably eyen more , and until they