Is Freemasonry a Total Moral Philosophy?

Part 5 – Is Freemasonry a Total Moral Philosophy?

By RWorBro JDF Black PDGM (UGLV)

Before we can integrate the lessons in the various degree ceremonies and in the opening of the lodge into a total moral philosophy, we need to be able to demonstrate that they are all derived on a common basis and that their moral teachings are compatible with the philosophy of the Order as a whole.

To do that, there are three significant questions we need to be able to answer. The first is to determine how we should treat the "errors of fact" and all the other anomalies that appear in our ritual. There are so many of them I have no doubt we have all, from time to time contemplated that question; but I am equally certain that we have not yet fully resolved it. In fact, to date we have mostly ignored them; but is that sufficient? In each of the three degrees of craft masonry reference is made to some specific feature relating to the construction of King Solomon's temple. Except for the first degree, those references are bowed down under the weight of the anomalies they carry. So, what is the point in alluding to King Solomon's temple if we then ignore the references on the grounds that they are anomalous?

I contend that those anomalies and discrepancies are not accidental. I believe they are designed to alert us to the presence of allegories and even to assist us in interpreting the message they conceal. Let me remind you that an allegory is defined as "a figurative treatment of one subject in the guise of another"¹ or, in other words, a situation in which the description of a named object is changed, to a greater or lesser degree so that it more precisely describes some other unnamed object. The secret is to identify the unnamed object. To do that we first need to identify anomalies that have been created when the correct description of the nominated object is changed. The identity of the "new" object will be such that those anomalies that appear when the ritual is used to describe the named object will cease to be anomalies when the ritual is used to describe the "new" object. Of course, it is one thing to locate an allegory; but it is another to interpret it. Such interpretations are entirely subjective, limited only by any constraints that may be imposed by the organisation that devised the allegory, and that brings us to the second question we need to resolve.

Has Freemasonry imposed any such constraints on the interpretation of the allegories concealed in its ceremonies?

I believe the answer to this question is an emphatic yes.

Under whatever circumstances Freemasonry was initially developed, current day Freemasonry is established as a system of morality independent of, but not divorced from, theology. Membership of the Order is defined in the first of the "Charges of a Freemason" developed by Dr Anderson, a Presbyterian minister and a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1723². He used those charges to develop the constitutions adopted by the Grand Lodge of England in 1738 and I believe the first of them is well worth quoting. It is headed: - "Concerning GOD and RELIGION" and reads as follows:

"A Mason is obliged, by his tenure, to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understand the art he will never be a stupid atheist nor an irreligious libertine. He, of all men, should best understand that GOD seethe not as man seeth; for man looketh at the outward appearance but God looketh to the heart. A Mason is, therefore, particularly bound never to act against the dictates of his conscience. Let a man's religion or mode of worship be what it may, he is not excluded from the Order, provided he believe in the glorious Architect of heaven and earth, and practice the sacred duties of morality. Masons unite with the virtuous of every persuasion in the firm and pleasing bond of fraternal love, they are taught to view the errors of mankind with compassion, and to strive, by the purity of their own conduct, to demonstrate the superior excellence of the faith they may profess. Thus Masonry is the centre of union between good men and true, and the happy means of conciliating friendship amongst those who must otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance."

Therefore, current day Freemasonry, which commenced with the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717 and completed its development with the formation of The United Grand Lodge of Freemasons of England in 1813, is not a secular organisation, neither is it a religion. It is specifically designed to unite men of high moral integrity on the basis of their belief in the Great Architect of the Universe, while carefully refraining from dividing them according to the nature of that belief. In other words, it is based on the concept that belief in God unites while belief about God divides. To maintain this delicate balance, the interpretation of any moral lessons concealed in our rituals must also be non-sectarian.

So, now we know the constraints under which the allegories are to be interpreted; but there is still one further question we need to resolve. Are the allegories in each degree really part of one picture?

It has been suggested³ that the first degree in Freemasonry is involved in the search for moral truth; the second degree, intellectual truth; and the third degree, spiritual truth. Freemasonry is defined in our ritual as: - "A system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols". Any suggestion that the second and third degrees differ in fundamental philosophy from the first is contrary to this definition.

Our knowledge of Freemasonry before the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717 is very scant and there is no precise evidence of the content of the two degrees that were apparently worked in lodges before that time. However, it seems that part of the original second degree ceremony is now incorporated in the third degree⁴. That would suggest that those who were responsible for developing the third degree ceremony, around 1726, did not simply added it to the other, existing two but that they had materially modified those degrees to blend in with the "new" third degree. This view would seem to be supported by the similarity of the structure of the three degrees. In each case the ceremonial is divided into three parts. One of these is concerned with conveying the moral principles embodied in the symbolism of the working tools, a second is concerned with conveying a moral lesson by emphasising a particular virtue while the third part is concerned with conveying a moral lesson through use of an allegory.

We are all well aware of the moral principles embodied in the symbolism of the working tools in each degree and that `charity' is the virtue emphasized in the first degree; but are we conscious that the virtue emphasised in the second degree is "diligence", (to extend our researches into the hidden mysteries of nature and science), and in the third degree, "integrity" (To maintain our fidelity to any sacred trust reposed in us, even to the point of death.); but what about the allegories?

Essentially, I am proposing that the allegories in each case were devised first and then a suitable nominated object was sought whose description could be varied so as to conceal those allegories and yet provide sufficient anomalies and discrepancies to enable an astute student to identify them. Who would have been better qualified to have developed such complex concepts than Fellows of the Royal Society, men who had been specifically selected as being the very cream of academic intelligentsia.

Since the allegory in each degree is directed towards the construction of a specific feature of the moral temple of our lives, it would seem most appropriate for the Fellows of the Royal Society to have selected, as the nominated object, parallel elements of the construction of King Solomon's temple, the only physical temple whose description is defined in the VSL. In this context, the apparent errors and anomalies in our rituals should not be attributed to the ignorance or ineptitude of the authors but should be used to alert us to the allegories they conceal.

I therefore contend that the three degrees of Craft Masonry were developed in their current form around the same time and that they were all directed towards different aspects of a moral philosophy independent of, but not divorced from, Theology.

In that context, let me summarise the interpretation I have proposed on the allegories that are concealed in the three degrees of Craft Masonry. I contend that:‑

*    the allegory in the first degree is designed to encourage each of us to use the virtues of life as building blocks to construct a moral temple in our lives in the presence of brethren of different religious beliefs;

*    the allegory in the second degree reminds us of our moral obligation to exercise tolerance and protect the fundamental rights of all mankind as we receive further guidance in the construction of the moral temple of our lives, independent of, but not divorced from, religion;

* the allegory in the third degree alerts us to the need to exercise our conscience and to seek the assistance of the Most High to free ourselves from those moral transgressions that separate us from the Most High and from our fellow man as we continue the construction of our moral temple, yet again in association with brethren of different religious beliefs; and

*    The allegory in the ceremony associated with the Opening of the Lodge reminds us that to achieve the goals of the other allegories, we need always to exercise self control.

When these interpretations are added to the moral principles embodied in the symbolism of the working tools in each degree and the moral lessons conveyed through reference to the specific emphasis on Charity, in the first degree, diligence, in the second degree and integrity in the third degree, I contend that I have satisfied the criteria at the commencement of this address and that Freemasonry is therefore, a total system of morality, independent of, but not divorced from, religion.

Whether or not you agree with the interpretation I have proposed for the allegories in each degree and in the opening of the lodge, is immaterial, what is important is that we should all examine our ritual to see whether there are anomalies that might suggest the presence of allegories and then endeavour to develop non-sectarian interpretations for those allegories to our own satisfaction.

References

¹ Concise Macquarie Dictionary: ISBN 0 86824 056 7

² Anderson, Dr J., cited in The Book of Constitutions of the UGL of AF and AM of Victoria

³ Allan, J. Mason, Towards the Sources of Freemasonry cited in www.linshaw.com (2005) VI: 4

⁴ Jones, B. E. (1957) Freemasons' Guide and Compendium: 305-6

Is Freemasonry a Total Moral Philosophy?

By RWBro. JDF Black, PDGM

Paper in five parts

< Introduction | < Part One | < Part Two | < Part Three | < Part Four | ^ Part Five