Vol.

11

THE

ILLINOIS

LODGE

OF RESEARCH

Page 20

The Entanglement of Fraternal Roots

By

Dr. Stephen R. Greenberg

(La Moille #270, A.F.&A.M., Homewood, IL)
Our newly raised Brethren, as well as those experienced in the Fraternity, have received varying accounts of the first appearance of Freemasonry. One of the major concerns of modem Freemasonry should be a proper exploration of the source from which this great brotherhood of Freemasonry originated. Two citations frequently referenced are the era of King Solomon, and the year of 1717. The latter is properly assigned to the rise of modem Freemasonry because that is when the Mother Grand Lodge of the World was created. Some fraternal scholars call the Solomonic era as the initial origin of the Craft into question in modem times. When the Masonic leaders of the 17th century desired to make impressive events that are emphasized in the Symbolic Degrees, they instituted a suitably dramatic "backdrop" upon the Masonic stage, allegorically similar to impressive backdrops employed in theatrical productions. Masonic scholars are now reconciled to the realization that there is no discernibly precise time or single human source from whence came our Fraternity. There existed in Europe, in Asia or in Egypt, a number of occult groups sometimes designated as "Ancient Mystics." Most were small in number and of local origin but some scholars believe that at least a few of these occult groups were quite sizable. Several of those groups survived but briefly while others were so secretive that precise records of their existence are not discoverable. Among those identified are the Eleusinians, Mithraisms; the orders of Samothrace, Isis, Seraphis, and Orpheus. The latter three were recorded from 700 to 600 Be. Stories and myths that in later times appeared in poetry and dramas have been subsequently ascribed to an era of the Greek and Roman classics. Indeed, some of these literary classics may first have arisen from ancient mystic cults. During the 19th century, efforts were made to link Freemasonry with several of those early societies. These early societies held some similarity to our modem fraternal structure as secret societies that admitted members by ceremonial rites and symbolic ritual. Several of these societies elected officers and also employed principals of fellowship and relief for unfortunates among their numbers. Despite those association attempts, however, no

creditable evidence of a true historical connection between the cults of ancient times and even the earliest Masonic lodges has been established. Many scholars have accepted the fact that despite superficial resemblance to the Masonic craft, the landmarks and principals of the Craft are quite separate from any promulgated by the ancient mystics. Regardless, a closer examination of some of these ancient societies is warranted. During ancient times, each craft or profession created an organization for its members. Among the Romans these bodies were called "Collegia", a word that evolved into "College." Each Collegia had its local place of assembly with its own unique rules and regulations. Such groups evolved during medieval times into guilds of craftsmen and, more recently, into trade unions. In these associations were combined fraternalism, sociability and charity. Some historians envisioned a link, though unproven, between these organizations and the first Freemason's lodges. Among the Greeks, astrologers were considered to be skilled in the interpretation of the movements of planets and stars in the heavens. It was believed that these celestial bodies possessed independent life and were imbued supernaturally, maintaining profound influences over the fate of men. It was such a concept that motivated the astrologers who devised horoscopes, charms, incantations and the zodiac. It was at this juncture, some scholars believe, the earliest evolution of Freemasonry was initiated. Among the writings of these primitive astrologers appeared crude charts containing "Masonic" signs and symbols such as a "point within a circle" employed to represent the Sun, suggesting a possible future Masonic association. However, after researching such symbols no empirical record exists to prove that Freemasonry was truly influenced by primitive sciences. The expression "Kabbalism" arose during the Middle Ages (13th Century) among Spanish Jews. It is derived from the Hebrew word, "Kabbala", alluding to a collection of writings that appeared in the form of a collected works. Significantly, these volumes contained many symbols and emblems closely aligned to the Hebrew Religion. Scant attention had been afforded this compilation except by a small sect of Spanish Jews. All that information might have been lost to posterity except for intervention of a few Protestant Reformation leaders. Afterwards, Kabbalism became a subject of interest to many of its new adherents. These signs and symbols now appeared in their mystic writings over the succeeding four centuries. Various later

------.J

-----/

Vol. 11

THE

ILLINOIS

LODGE

OF RESEARCH

Page 21

authors, beginning to adopt what appeared to be a First degree in Freemasonry, incorporated these Kabalistic symbols into the ceremonies, which prompted some historians to postulate a Masonic origin. The passage of the centuries has cast doubt on this theory because the true symbolism seemed quite limited, even far fetched in the evolution of Freemasonry . The Alchemist is also cited for his early fraternal influence because of a fancied unity of symbolism. There is, however, nothing found in the Old Charges of the Book of Constitutions to suggest that Masons ever held any real interest in Alchemy. John Valentine Andrea, a German, published in 1625 a manuscript elaborating a story concerning Christian Rosenkreuz. It appeared to be an allegory in which Rosenkreuz was established, as a mystic possessed with supernatural powers. According to legend, Rosenkreuz never actually died, instead remaining always in the center of a circle of his apostles. This sect was initially known as a "Brotherhood", later becoming recognized as the "Brotherhood of Rosicrucians" or "The Brothers of the Rosy Cross". There is no evidence that this society had any association with Freemasonry until the latter part of 19th Century when it was attached to the Order in England, however, without sanction by the Grand Lodge of that country. Nevertheless, the Society of Rosicrucians maintained popularity both in England and in early America. In the early 19th Century in England, Godfrey Higgins sought to establish a theoretical ma-ster plan that provided comprehension to the history of the universe. Higgins was a man of culture and learning far ahead of his time, and is reported to have remembered most of what he had read in countless volumes. In 1836, he published a manuscript entitled, "Anacalypsis." In this work, Higgins recorded stories and peoples largely ignored by Darwin in "The Origin of Species" along with long forgotten religions and philosophies. Higgins followed what he believed to be a master trail through a forest of ideas leading to a full explanation of events and meaning in world history. He postulated that from the creation of the world existed a single religion, which has remained unrecognized or been masked behind short lived religious experiences devoid of real truth, This knowledge was generally shrouded because only the most skilled individuals could comprehend the true implications of the past. Higgins believed that it was perceptive individuals who adapted their ideas to the times in which they lived; and who were the founders of the lasting religions of Judaism,

Christianity and Mohammedanism. He further argued that similarly adept individuals were the organizers of Freemasonry, and that the Fraternity had existed in its primordial form among even the ancient Druids of Britain. More recently, studies have indicated that Higgin's theory is not unique. Scholars have expressed the idea that Masonic ritual stemmed from primitive initiation ceremonies among the Druses, an occult religion resident in the mountains of Lebanon. Other historians stated that the hidden mysteries of Masonry had deep roots that originated with the Maya Indians 20,000 years ago. Hypothetically, then, the Brahman priests ofIndia inculcated those mysteries into their country. It was then established as a circle of Great Masters who, it was postulated, first lived in Tibet. From there, the returning Crusaders transported the concepts across Asia to Europe. In many societies, in Africa and in the islands of the Pacific Ocean, tribes often formed "men's house" comprised of tribal elders who became mystics, and were said to know and understand all workings of this world derived from secrets and mysteries known only among themselves. These societies, based on a common attribute of social investiture, have sometimes been equated with the precursors of Freemasonry . Added to that multiplicity of theories regarding the origin of Freemasonry are those who propose the Fraternity was founded by a single individual living in various ages from ancient to modern times; Adam, Noah, Pythagoras, King Athelstan, Francis Bacon, even Oliver Cromwell. There are others who argue that Freemasonry began as a secret science in Egypt when the great pyramids were being constructed. An evaluation of the theories, sequences of events, and personalities in reference to the wellspring of Freemasonry have clouded a sky that should be of purest blue. Though the differences are often bridged across a wide gulf of misunderstanding, Freemasonry has remained a viably strong human institution with deeply penetrating roots firmly planted into the rich soil of idealism. So many of our predecessors have shared a common point as H.L. Haywood stated so well, "They ask a Freemason to believe that Freemasonry was never of itself, but was always something else in disguise." In truth, it is because they make such impossible demands upon credulity that none of the many theories of Fraternal origin can be fully accepted. The whole story may well be revealed in a single sentence. "Freemasonry was founded by Freemasons." In its first existence, Freemasonry was composed of operative masons. Those brethren who erected the Abbey Church

Vol. 11

THE

ILLINOIS

LODGE

OF RESEARCH

Page 22

of St Denis in Paris, or the Cologne Cathedral in Germany, or the York Minster in Britain recognized themselves to be Freemasons. They knew that they were not Crusaders or Assyrians or Maya Indians in disguise. Our brethren who sat in the first sanctioned Masonic lodges knew that they had assumed the Masonic obligation and not a Brahman or Druidic charge. When the Craft passed into the hands of non-operative Masons (the speculative Masons), the fraternity was preserved with little alteration. There is nothing to suggest that this glorious Fraternity of good men dedicated to one Supreme Authority has ever been anything else. Though Freemasonry's roots give it vibrant strength, because of a marked lack of documents and records its origin appears sometimes to be hopelessly entangled in the confusion of its genesis. The roots of Freemasonry remain forever straight, strong and deep! Thus has the great Masonic institution entered into a modem era.

References
Castells, F. Origin of the Masonic Degrees Darrah, Dalmar D. The Evolution of Freemasomy Haywood, H.L. More About Masomy McLeod, Wallace. The Grand Design Wells, Roy A. Rise and Development of Organized Freemasomy

One must of course agree initially that the creationist interpretation of the biblical accounts of the creation is both bad science, and bad theology. First and foremost, the biblical accounts of creation are not intended to be scientific (Genesis 1: 1-2:4a and 2:4b-25 ), but rather describe the human condition on earth, in two differing accounts. They describe the why rather than the how. On the other hand, the science and theory of evolution, which is not anthropocentric (man as the center of the universe), describes the universe, and man, as developing through a logical sequence of steps, resulting in the present systems and status, which itself is in a state of flux. The creationist view is exclusionary; it considers the biblical account as doctrinal and the only acceptable revealed method of creation. In spite of the fact that Christianity and Judaism are only two of the many extant religions and religious beliefs vary dramatically from culture to culture, each affirming its exclusive authenticity, the Old Testament description of the act of creation is the only one propounded as being correct. Science on the other hand is universally true. Let us exam some of the pros and cons and anomalies of these divergent views. First of all, let us define the "scientific method". It is composed of the collection of verifiable and data which postulate a conclusion and existentially a theory. (Karl Popper, Der Logik der Forshung, asserts that empirical falsifiability is the essence of the scientific method). The essential element of the "scientific method" is the ability of several separate operators, faced with identical facts and data, to obtain identical results, or reach the same conclusion. Based on this fundamental premise, the science of Cosmology, (the study of the origins of the universe), has a fundamental belief that the universe is founded on rational principles, which lend themselves to understanding. This is direct opposition to creationism which asserts that the act of creation and the resultant universe is beyond rationalization and must be accepted as an act of faith. The Copernican idea that the earth was not the center of the universe, but a minor planet in a minor galaxy, and hence was a minor player in the grand order of things, was a revolutionary idea at that time. It did not consider the topic of the beginning of the universe, but assumed that it had been static, that is, it always was as then observed. Newton expanded on this viewpoint; defined a sophisticated mathematically elegant universe controlled by immutable laws. Einstein changed this concept when he advanced his theory of General Relativity, in which the space-time metric is expanding, necessitating he thought at that time the need for a "cosmological constant", which

Evolution and Creationism

By

Will H. Ross, Ph.D.

(Glenview #1058, A.F.&A.M., Glenview, IL)

What should be the Masonic viewpoint of this continued dichotomy? These two ideas, not necessarily connected, have engendered a controversy over the origins of the universe, one a scientific deduction, the other a religious belief. Based on accumulated physical evidence and data, the theory of evolution postulates a verifiable development of' nature (animals and galaxies!), from simple systems to complex ones. Creationism, on the other hand, opines an instantaneous and complete production of all nature by an affirmative act of God, the Supreme Architect. Are these two concepts mutually exclusionary, or are they even related? Are the religious notions to be viewed as antiquated nonsense, or obversely, is evolution considered unalterably atheistic?