-
Articles/Ads
Article THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CRAFT. ← Page 2 of 2 Article JOHANNITE MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 Article JOHANNITE MASONRY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Archaeology Of The Craft.
look beyond the artisans of Tyre for the early traces of that mystic brotherhood who have played so great a part in human civilisation . As we have said , we look to Egypt for these early traces . The highest and grandest truths of modern speculative Masonry were early taught by the
Egyptian priesthood , and now that the secret of the sacred hieroglyphics has been unfolded , we are familiar with the fact that this celebrated hierarchy carefully distinguished between the great Architect of the Universe and the crowd of inferior gods with whom they
surrounded him ; and iu the story of Osiris we have the first germs of that mystic sacrifice , which was consummated ages afterwards on Calvary . The Egyptian mysteries , Avhich were so carefully guarded from the vulgar , were , we have reason to believe , merely scientific
and moral truths , having for their centre and source the Supreme Being , in whom the superior grade of priest steadfastly believed . These truths were not entirely lost with the decline of Egyptian civilisation , and in the celebrated Dionysian mysteries we may doubtless trace an
Egyptian origin . If the Greek mythology , as there is reason to believe , is in part derived from the Egyptian system , the clue to the real origin of the Dionysian mysteries is complete . But we must leave this interesting
subject for the present , with an earnest recommendation to our brethren who may bo interested in the Archaeology of the Craft , to follow the path we have thus roughly and hastily sketched out .
Johannite Masonry.
JOHANNITE MASONRY .
IN our opening number we inserted a series of four questions , proposed to us by a brother of some standing ; the first three of which inquired ( 1 ) why are there two St . Johns recognised in Craft Masonry ? ( 2 ) Why are they placed at the summer and winter solstices respectively ?
( 3 ) Do they represent the two great principles of Light and Darkness , good and evil ? As our readers seem to fight shy of discussing these queries , wo propose to furnish , on the present occasion , a brief , but we hope sufficient summary of a work , entitled A Mirror for the Johannile Masons .
by the Rev . Geo . Oliver , D . D . ( Edition 1848 , London : R . Spencer , 314 High Holborn . ) This , we trust , may throw some light on the propositions of our correspondent , and serve , perhaps , to awaken the interest of those of our brethren to whom the study of Masonry is a labour of love .
After sundry preliminary observations , in order to show the spirit in which he approaches this recondite subject , the author states one or more important facts . From the very beginning of the Christian Era Lodges were always dedicated ToGon AND HOLY ST . JOHN . This formula , he tells us , was introduced into tho first known lectures
compiled by Grand Masters Payne , Desaguliers , Anderson , & c , from ancient documents , from the legitimate Archives of Masonry , and from other and equally authentic sources . In the lectures drawn up for the
general use of the Lodges , after the re-union of 1813 , by Dr . Hemming and others , references to the two St . Johns , as patrons and parallels of Masonry , were discontinued . Dr . Oliver considers this discontinuance was unjustifiable , and proceeds to give his reasons for this opinion . Before doing so , however , he deems it necessary to meet certain
theories which have sought to account for the connection of St . John with Masonry . These theories he dismisses almost , Ave may say , abruptly , as in nowise accountable for our recognition of St . John . Thus , the suggestion that Masonry in Scotland was called St . John ' s Masonry ,
because the iiattle of Bannockburn was fought on St . John ' s day , and Robert Bruce immediately thereafter revived Freemasonry—the Church of Kelso , the first built in Scotland by actual Freemasons being dedicated to that saint—he considers "can scarcely be tenable . " The
name of St . John was attached to Freemasonry in other countries , where " Scottish transactions could not be sufficient authority to influence the fraternity in the adoption of a patron , or a name for the institution . " Then as to the idea that the legend of St . John was
introduced into Masonry by the Templars or other Crusaders , Dr . Oliver considers " it would not be difficult to prove " that the Templars engaged in the Crusades " were perfectl y ignorant of symbolical Masonry , " and thinks every sensible Mason will agree with him "that there is no evi-
Johannite Masonry.
dence whatever to substantiate a contrary belief . " A third view is a solution of the mystery in the God Janus , of which John is supposed to be a corruption . " As Janus looked two ways at once , i . e ., to the old and new year , or to the sun above and below the Equinoctial , so the festivals of the two St . Johns are celebrated at the summer
and winter solstices . " This the author dismisses altogether as quite inapplicable . The last idea attributes the honour to St . John the Almsgiver , Patriarch of Alexandria , in the sixth century , but who resided at Jerusalem , " and
instituted a fraternity to attend upon the sick , and to afford pecuniary aid to the needy . " He was afterwards canonised "under the name of St . John the Almsgiver of Jerusalem , and is acknowledged as the patron of all societies which are instituted for the relief of the sick
and destitute . ' But , this view is clearly an error , writes Dr . Oliver , " from our particular days of festival , which are June 24 th and December 27 th , " those of St . John the Almsgiver being January 23 rd and November 11 th . Having in this manner disposed of these several theories ,
Dr . Oliver proceeds to show why , in his opinion , the St , Johns should be regarded as the legitimate patrons of Christian Masonry . He first examines the ritual propounded by the revived Grand Lodge in 1717 , and quotes from tho earliest lectures , issued under its sanction passages in which a
Lodge is described as " The Holy Lodge of St . John" ( p . 46 ) , He then justifies his position by a l-eference to the formula , as improved by Desaguliers and Anderson a few years later , wherein Lodges are said to have been called St . John ' s Lodges , " because ' he was the baptizer and forerunner of
our Saviour , and announced him as the Lamb of God , which taketh away the sins of the world . ' " In support of this he further quotes the French ritual of 1730 . Then in the " Old York Lecture , " the two St . Johns occupy a prominent position . We give a part of his quotation from
this catechism : — " Q . But , brother , as Solomon was a Jew , and died long before the promulgation of Christianity , to whom wore they ( the Lodges ) dedicated under the Christian dispensation ? A . From Solomon the patronage of Masonry passed to St . John the Baptist Q . Why
were the Lodges dedicated to St . John the Baptist ? A . Because he was the forerunner of our Saviour ; and by preaching repentance and humiliation , drew the first parallel of the Gospel . Q . Had St . John the Baptist any equal ? A . He had ; St . John the Evangelist . Q . Why is he said
to be equal to the Baptist ? A . Because he finished by his learning what the other began by his zeal , and thus drew a second line parallel to the former ; ever since which time Freemasons' Lodges in all Christian countries have been dedicated to the one or the other , or both of these worthy
and worshipful men . " In a ritual practised a little later , by the Lodges in the north of England , we find the following iu opposition to the theory that Lodges were dedicated to St . John because the Masons engaged in the conquest of the Holy Land adopted him as their patron . " St . John
obtains our dedication as being the proclaimer of that salvation .... and we , as a set of reli gious men , assembling in the true faith , commemorate the proclamation of the Baptist . In the name of St . John the Evangelist , we acknowledge the testimonies he gives " Thus
the name of St . John appears to have been " a generic term for all Freemasons' " Lodges , " a fact , we are told , confirmed by the " Golden Remains of the Holy Masonic Writers , " which uniformly speak of the two St . Johns as being " universally received as the undoubted patrons of the Craft . "
A very proper distinction is drawn between the two propositions that the St . Johns were " the original patrons , " which is not asserted , and that they are " the legitimate patrons and parallels " of the Order , which is ; and the old lecturers are again quoted in evidence . Carrying the
argument through further stages , Dr . Oliver then expresses his belief that " changing the grand patrons of Masonry along with tho systems of religion by which it is practised , is perfectly consistent with ordinary usage in other important matters . " Thus , in the patriarchal aere , the errand parallels
of Freemasonry wore Noah and Abraham ; under the Jews , Moses and Solomon ; under Christians , the two St . Johns . Again , Masons , during these several epochs had distinct appellations , " but in all ages they were equally styled ' the brethren . '" Dr . Oliver is in no wav dismayed at this
system of appropriating Masonic patronage to different parallels at different epochs , but thinks it a perfectly rational one . As to the time when this parallelism , in connection with Christian Masonry , was introduced into the Order , Dr . Oliver
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Archaeology Of The Craft.
look beyond the artisans of Tyre for the early traces of that mystic brotherhood who have played so great a part in human civilisation . As we have said , we look to Egypt for these early traces . The highest and grandest truths of modern speculative Masonry were early taught by the
Egyptian priesthood , and now that the secret of the sacred hieroglyphics has been unfolded , we are familiar with the fact that this celebrated hierarchy carefully distinguished between the great Architect of the Universe and the crowd of inferior gods with whom they
surrounded him ; and iu the story of Osiris we have the first germs of that mystic sacrifice , which was consummated ages afterwards on Calvary . The Egyptian mysteries , Avhich were so carefully guarded from the vulgar , were , we have reason to believe , merely scientific
and moral truths , having for their centre and source the Supreme Being , in whom the superior grade of priest steadfastly believed . These truths were not entirely lost with the decline of Egyptian civilisation , and in the celebrated Dionysian mysteries we may doubtless trace an
Egyptian origin . If the Greek mythology , as there is reason to believe , is in part derived from the Egyptian system , the clue to the real origin of the Dionysian mysteries is complete . But we must leave this interesting
subject for the present , with an earnest recommendation to our brethren who may bo interested in the Archaeology of the Craft , to follow the path we have thus roughly and hastily sketched out .
Johannite Masonry.
JOHANNITE MASONRY .
IN our opening number we inserted a series of four questions , proposed to us by a brother of some standing ; the first three of which inquired ( 1 ) why are there two St . Johns recognised in Craft Masonry ? ( 2 ) Why are they placed at the summer and winter solstices respectively ?
( 3 ) Do they represent the two great principles of Light and Darkness , good and evil ? As our readers seem to fight shy of discussing these queries , wo propose to furnish , on the present occasion , a brief , but we hope sufficient summary of a work , entitled A Mirror for the Johannile Masons .
by the Rev . Geo . Oliver , D . D . ( Edition 1848 , London : R . Spencer , 314 High Holborn . ) This , we trust , may throw some light on the propositions of our correspondent , and serve , perhaps , to awaken the interest of those of our brethren to whom the study of Masonry is a labour of love .
After sundry preliminary observations , in order to show the spirit in which he approaches this recondite subject , the author states one or more important facts . From the very beginning of the Christian Era Lodges were always dedicated ToGon AND HOLY ST . JOHN . This formula , he tells us , was introduced into tho first known lectures
compiled by Grand Masters Payne , Desaguliers , Anderson , & c , from ancient documents , from the legitimate Archives of Masonry , and from other and equally authentic sources . In the lectures drawn up for the
general use of the Lodges , after the re-union of 1813 , by Dr . Hemming and others , references to the two St . Johns , as patrons and parallels of Masonry , were discontinued . Dr . Oliver considers this discontinuance was unjustifiable , and proceeds to give his reasons for this opinion . Before doing so , however , he deems it necessary to meet certain
theories which have sought to account for the connection of St . John with Masonry . These theories he dismisses almost , Ave may say , abruptly , as in nowise accountable for our recognition of St . John . Thus , the suggestion that Masonry in Scotland was called St . John ' s Masonry ,
because the iiattle of Bannockburn was fought on St . John ' s day , and Robert Bruce immediately thereafter revived Freemasonry—the Church of Kelso , the first built in Scotland by actual Freemasons being dedicated to that saint—he considers "can scarcely be tenable . " The
name of St . John was attached to Freemasonry in other countries , where " Scottish transactions could not be sufficient authority to influence the fraternity in the adoption of a patron , or a name for the institution . " Then as to the idea that the legend of St . John was
introduced into Masonry by the Templars or other Crusaders , Dr . Oliver considers " it would not be difficult to prove " that the Templars engaged in the Crusades " were perfectl y ignorant of symbolical Masonry , " and thinks every sensible Mason will agree with him "that there is no evi-
Johannite Masonry.
dence whatever to substantiate a contrary belief . " A third view is a solution of the mystery in the God Janus , of which John is supposed to be a corruption . " As Janus looked two ways at once , i . e ., to the old and new year , or to the sun above and below the Equinoctial , so the festivals of the two St . Johns are celebrated at the summer
and winter solstices . " This the author dismisses altogether as quite inapplicable . The last idea attributes the honour to St . John the Almsgiver , Patriarch of Alexandria , in the sixth century , but who resided at Jerusalem , " and
instituted a fraternity to attend upon the sick , and to afford pecuniary aid to the needy . " He was afterwards canonised "under the name of St . John the Almsgiver of Jerusalem , and is acknowledged as the patron of all societies which are instituted for the relief of the sick
and destitute . ' But , this view is clearly an error , writes Dr . Oliver , " from our particular days of festival , which are June 24 th and December 27 th , " those of St . John the Almsgiver being January 23 rd and November 11 th . Having in this manner disposed of these several theories ,
Dr . Oliver proceeds to show why , in his opinion , the St , Johns should be regarded as the legitimate patrons of Christian Masonry . He first examines the ritual propounded by the revived Grand Lodge in 1717 , and quotes from tho earliest lectures , issued under its sanction passages in which a
Lodge is described as " The Holy Lodge of St . John" ( p . 46 ) , He then justifies his position by a l-eference to the formula , as improved by Desaguliers and Anderson a few years later , wherein Lodges are said to have been called St . John ' s Lodges , " because ' he was the baptizer and forerunner of
our Saviour , and announced him as the Lamb of God , which taketh away the sins of the world . ' " In support of this he further quotes the French ritual of 1730 . Then in the " Old York Lecture , " the two St . Johns occupy a prominent position . We give a part of his quotation from
this catechism : — " Q . But , brother , as Solomon was a Jew , and died long before the promulgation of Christianity , to whom wore they ( the Lodges ) dedicated under the Christian dispensation ? A . From Solomon the patronage of Masonry passed to St . John the Baptist Q . Why
were the Lodges dedicated to St . John the Baptist ? A . Because he was the forerunner of our Saviour ; and by preaching repentance and humiliation , drew the first parallel of the Gospel . Q . Had St . John the Baptist any equal ? A . He had ; St . John the Evangelist . Q . Why is he said
to be equal to the Baptist ? A . Because he finished by his learning what the other began by his zeal , and thus drew a second line parallel to the former ; ever since which time Freemasons' Lodges in all Christian countries have been dedicated to the one or the other , or both of these worthy
and worshipful men . " In a ritual practised a little later , by the Lodges in the north of England , we find the following iu opposition to the theory that Lodges were dedicated to St . John because the Masons engaged in the conquest of the Holy Land adopted him as their patron . " St . John
obtains our dedication as being the proclaimer of that salvation .... and we , as a set of reli gious men , assembling in the true faith , commemorate the proclamation of the Baptist . In the name of St . John the Evangelist , we acknowledge the testimonies he gives " Thus
the name of St . John appears to have been " a generic term for all Freemasons' " Lodges , " a fact , we are told , confirmed by the " Golden Remains of the Holy Masonic Writers , " which uniformly speak of the two St . Johns as being " universally received as the undoubted patrons of the Craft . "
A very proper distinction is drawn between the two propositions that the St . Johns were " the original patrons , " which is not asserted , and that they are " the legitimate patrons and parallels " of the Order , which is ; and the old lecturers are again quoted in evidence . Carrying the
argument through further stages , Dr . Oliver then expresses his belief that " changing the grand patrons of Masonry along with tho systems of religion by which it is practised , is perfectly consistent with ordinary usage in other important matters . " Thus , in the patriarchal aere , the errand parallels
of Freemasonry wore Noah and Abraham ; under the Jews , Moses and Solomon ; under Christians , the two St . Johns . Again , Masons , during these several epochs had distinct appellations , " but in all ages they were equally styled ' the brethren . '" Dr . Oliver is in no wav dismayed at this
system of appropriating Masonic patronage to different parallels at different epochs , but thinks it a perfectly rational one . As to the time when this parallelism , in connection with Christian Masonry , was introduced into the Order , Dr . Oliver