Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
0!He Ang
and that , after ¦ " walking with God " for three hundred and sixty ^ five years , * ' took him , " or , as St . Pa ^
should not see death ; and was not found , because God had translated him ( Heb . xi . 5 ) - —we are surely scarcely justified in coming to th conclusion of Bar Hebrseus , that Enoch I . was an adept in scientific discoveries , or that he built cities , the reputation of which would seem to belong ( if to either ) rather to Enoch II ., or that ( knowing as we do that astronomical knowledge could scarcely have been said to have had a commencement at that period , inasmuch as in the time of Herodotus , who was born B . c . 484 , or 2898 years later than the last of the above-mentioned periods , the bare fact of the rotundity of the earth was not known ) the zodiac and the course of the planets were known to Enoch II . j—or , above all , that he was ah idolator . ' .. 'The only places in the Bible in which either of the Enochs or Enos are
mentioned , are in Gen . iv . 17 and 26 ; v . i , 9-11 , 18 and 19 , 21-24 ; Luke , iii . 37 ; Heb . xi . 5 ; and Jude , v . 14 . In no one of these passages can we see any ground for drawing any one of the abovementioned : inferences ; and we must also join issue with our reverend brbiiher on one point besides , viz . that Enoch was " a very eminent Freemason . Enoch , it is true , is mentioned by name in the M ritual , but only , if we recollect rightly , as a good man , whose
example in " walking with God is to be followed by those who have the privilege of reading of it ; but , surely , the mere mention of a man ' s name in a ritual , much of which ( whatever may be the antiquity of the order of Freemasons ) is comparatively modern , does not per se warrant the conclusion that that man was a member of the order to which that ritual belongs . Besides this , in the ritual itself
now in use the origin ofthe order is dated from the building of Solomon ' s temple ; and even in an allusion to the ancient Egyptians , whose nation was founded at a period posterior to Enoch , it is not said that the origin of the order is ascribed to them , but merely that there is an affinity between their customs and those of Freemasons .
We propose , however , in a future paper , to offer some remarks on the origin and antiquities of Freemasonry . On the same grounds , then , on which we decline to identify Enoch as a Freemason , or with Enos , we beg , in all courtesy , to differ with our worthy brother Oliver as to Enoch ' s being a founder or propagator of the rites of
initiation . On another point , we are happy in being able to agree with the view of Dr . Oliver . The mysteries , he says , in ali their forms , were funereal . They celebrated the mystical death and revivification of some individual ( our readers will recollect tlie account we gave in April last , of the death and restoration of Osiris , although his death , as there described was rather literal , than mystical , in the sense of
figurative . Doubtless however , the word " mystical" is here tobe taken in reference to the word " mysteries ) , " and we fear we must also agree with Dr . Oliver in his next passage—by the use of emblems at once impious and disgusting . We may also give as a matter of some interest
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
0!He Ang
and that , after ¦ " walking with God " for three hundred and sixty ^ five years , * ' took him , " or , as St . Pa ^
should not see death ; and was not found , because God had translated him ( Heb . xi . 5 ) - —we are surely scarcely justified in coming to th conclusion of Bar Hebrseus , that Enoch I . was an adept in scientific discoveries , or that he built cities , the reputation of which would seem to belong ( if to either ) rather to Enoch II ., or that ( knowing as we do that astronomical knowledge could scarcely have been said to have had a commencement at that period , inasmuch as in the time of Herodotus , who was born B . c . 484 , or 2898 years later than the last of the above-mentioned periods , the bare fact of the rotundity of the earth was not known ) the zodiac and the course of the planets were known to Enoch II . j—or , above all , that he was ah idolator . ' .. 'The only places in the Bible in which either of the Enochs or Enos are
mentioned , are in Gen . iv . 17 and 26 ; v . i , 9-11 , 18 and 19 , 21-24 ; Luke , iii . 37 ; Heb . xi . 5 ; and Jude , v . 14 . In no one of these passages can we see any ground for drawing any one of the abovementioned : inferences ; and we must also join issue with our reverend brbiiher on one point besides , viz . that Enoch was " a very eminent Freemason . Enoch , it is true , is mentioned by name in the M ritual , but only , if we recollect rightly , as a good man , whose
example in " walking with God is to be followed by those who have the privilege of reading of it ; but , surely , the mere mention of a man ' s name in a ritual , much of which ( whatever may be the antiquity of the order of Freemasons ) is comparatively modern , does not per se warrant the conclusion that that man was a member of the order to which that ritual belongs . Besides this , in the ritual itself
now in use the origin ofthe order is dated from the building of Solomon ' s temple ; and even in an allusion to the ancient Egyptians , whose nation was founded at a period posterior to Enoch , it is not said that the origin of the order is ascribed to them , but merely that there is an affinity between their customs and those of Freemasons .
We propose , however , in a future paper , to offer some remarks on the origin and antiquities of Freemasonry . On the same grounds , then , on which we decline to identify Enoch as a Freemason , or with Enos , we beg , in all courtesy , to differ with our worthy brother Oliver as to Enoch ' s being a founder or propagator of the rites of
initiation . On another point , we are happy in being able to agree with the view of Dr . Oliver . The mysteries , he says , in ali their forms , were funereal . They celebrated the mystical death and revivification of some individual ( our readers will recollect tlie account we gave in April last , of the death and restoration of Osiris , although his death , as there described was rather literal , than mystical , in the sense of
figurative . Doubtless however , the word " mystical" is here tobe taken in reference to the word " mysteries ) , " and we fear we must also agree with Dr . Oliver in his next passage—by the use of emblems at once impious and disgusting . We may also give as a matter of some interest