Is Freemasonry a Total Moral Philosophy?

Part 4 - What is the Meaning of the Third Degree
OR
An interpretation of the Allegory of the Third Degree

By RWorBro JDF Black PDGM (UGLV)

A common interpretation of one lesson in the third degree is that we are to maintain our fidelity to any sacred trust reposed in us even to the point of death. In acting at such a high level of moral integrity, we imitate the example of our GMHA and are inspired to believe that, as foretold in the Retrospect Charge, death hath no terror equal to the stain of falsehood and dishonour. There are also some to believe, undoubtedly encouraged by the ode we commonly sing at the raising, that the raising is symbolic of 'resurrection to eternal life', presumably as a natural corollary of having acted at such a high level of moral integrity. There are, however, at least 3 major features of the raising that are quite inconsistent with this concept.

* First, the physical means by which the raising is effected does not imply Divine intervention;

* second, the subsequent discovery of a body which then needs to be re-interred is inconsistent with a concept of resurrection; and

* Third, it is inconceivable that compliance with just one virtue should be sufficient to warrant resurrection to eternal life.

Having queried the validity of the second message is there an alternative or is there only one lesson for us in this degree? Before we make any final decision, let us examine some of the comments that surround the story of this degree to see whether there are anomalies that might suggest an allegory is involved and then, if so, endeavour to interpret that allegory to the best of our ability.

The statement in the 'Retrospect Charge' referring to the "... noble death of our Grand Master Hiram Abiff, who was slain just before the completion of King Solomon's Temple, at the construction of which he was, as you are doubtless aware, the principal architect", is the foundation of the Hiramic legend of the Third Degree. *Were you "doubtless aware" that Hiram Abiff was the architect of King Solomon's temple? If you were, you were obviously better informed than the authors of either of the accounts of the construction of that Temple ¹, ² given in the VSL.

These accounts agree in general terms and even in much of their detail. For example, each account LISTS the range of items HA produced for the temple. These lists are REMARKABLY SIMILAR and collectively include such things as the pillars and the chapiters that adorned them, the lavers, basons,the decoration for the "oracle" (the Sanctum Sanctorum) and all the Holy vessels for use in the temple. In fact, almost everything except the building. ^{3, 4}. However, in one of those accounts ⁵ it is clearly stated that both the Temple and KS palace had been erected before KS "sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre". The other reference ⁶ is far less specific although it infers he went somewhat earlier than that. Apart from this discrepancy, the qualifications attributed to HA in both accounts are far more appropriate to those of an Artisan and craftsman rather than of an Architect ^{7, 8}). In fact, it would seem that Adoniram, the Superintendent of Works in the Cabinet of KS ⁹ was more likely to have been the Architect of the Temple rather than Hiram.

*Furthermore, there is no evidence that HA lost his life, either naturally or unnaturally, before the Temple was completed. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. In both accounts, immediately after a list of the items HA prepared for the Temple is the statement TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TEMPLE WAS COMPLETED ^{10, 11}. Even supposing such a major catastrophe as the death of the "principal architect" (or artisan) had been overlooked by the writers of these accounts, who was it who observed the action of HA as he moved from the north to the east entrances? If no-one, how do we know of his actions and, if someone, the whole heinous crime could have been prevented.

*Surely one of the most obvious anomalies in the whole of this ceremony is the identity of the ruffians. They were not simply highwaymen; they were brethren who had been specifically selected as being "of that superior class of workmen appointed to preside over the rest". It would appear that they had been in those positions for some time and could therefore have had some legitimate complaint at not having received the "genuine secrets of a MM".

*Since the WM represents King Solomon, the SW represents Hiram, King of Tyre and the JW represents Hiram Abiff, as we are told in the "Address on the Pillars", how is it possible for those three to be responsible for the death of the candidate who, at the time, was masquerading as one of them?

I am convinced that these anomalies are sufficient to suggest we are dealing with an allegory. An allegory may be defined as a situation in which the description of a named object is changed marginally so that it becomes a more precise description of another, unnamed, object. The identity of that unnamed object will be such that the anomalies found for the description of the nominated object cease to be so when the description is applied to the new object.

I believe the key that will unlock the allegory concealed in this Degree lies in the use of the phrase "from the tomb of transgression" in the prayer issued on behalf of the candidate at the commencement of the ceremony. The use of that phrase suggests to me that we are dealing with a symbolic raising from the shackles of transgressions rather than a resurrection from mortality to immortality. If the concept of resurrection to immortality had been intended then the phrase "from the tomb of transgression" is redundant. The prayer would be quite complete without it.

I contend that we are involved here with a situation comparable with the "North-east Charge" in the first degree where our being "deprived of all money and metallic substances of value" is not only designed to remind us of our duty to provide financial support to our indigent brethren, it is also designed to introduce an allegoric connection between the moral temple we are to construct in our lives and that physical temple constructed by King Solomon.

I do not suggest that the lesson the ceremony conveys to us concerning the significance of integrity is in any way diminished, but rather that an allegoric message is superimposed on that lesson.

In this context, I suggest that the lesson on the significance of integrity terminates with the recitation of Ecclesiastes. I submit that this view is strongly supported by the final passage of that Chapter. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring everything into judgement with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil."

On the other hand, I believe the passage of the ceremony concerned with the allegory commences with the tests that are applied to the candidate at the south, north and east entrances, the difference being that the three who are portrayed as ruffians in the "integrity " lesson are no longer ruffians but are, what we were told they were at the beginning of that 'charge', "... of that superior class of workmen appointed to preside over the rest". The question we should all ask ourselves is why those three and the other 12 who had originally joined with them and who were equally well qualified , had been denied the right to share in the privileges associated with the genuine secrets of a MM. Were they deprived by the selfishness of the 'big three'

To some of you that might seem to be going too far; but I contend we are dealing with allegories, not historical facts.? I propose that just as in the north east charge in the first degree, financial charity was cited as an example of one of the virtues we are expected to use as building blocks in constructing the moral temple of our lives, selfishness is used in the ceremony in this degree as an example of those transgressions of selfishness - "avarice, injustice, malice, revenge, the envy and contempt of mankind and every selfish propensity which might injure others". Sound familiar? These are the transgressions from which we are to free ourselves.

In this sense, the tests applied at the three entrances represent an appeal to HA, who while he may or may not have been the architect of King Solomon's temple, is undoubtedly intended to represent the architect of the temple of our lives, in other words, our conscience. The first test, at the S entrance, does little to shake our conscience in its selfish design. It merely caused us to sink slightly on our left knee. The test at the N entrance, disturbed us more, and although it brought us to the ground on our right knee, it was still not sufficiently disturbing to change our attitude. It is only when we are faced with the third test, at the E entrance, that our conscience is finally alerted and the selfishness within us dies. This experience demonstrates to us that personal faults are such that "the eye of human reason cannot penetrate (them) unless assisted by that light which is from above", that is, through our adherence to the doctrines of our religious beliefs. In other words, without Divine help, we remain blind to our personal faults. Acknowledgement of our faults enables us to, as it were, sever the shackles of selfishness and take on the mantle of unselfishness as we are raised, not by Solomon, King of Israel, Hiram, King of Tyre and Hiram Abiff,but by their allegoric counterparts, the head, the heart and the hands of each of us acting in concert on the f.p.o.f. I submit that this view is consistent with the common theme of unselfishness that is the basis of each of those f.p.o.f. (run through them to emphasise the unselfishness of each of them)It is now that we comes to realise, through the glimmering ray of recognition of our personal weakness that we must maintain continual vigilance to ensure that we do not prematurely return to "the tomb of transgression" into which each one of us has "figuratively descended and which, when this transitory life shall have passed away will again receive us into its cold bosom."

The emblems of mortality allude to our mortal frailty and emphasise the need for us to seek the assistance of the Most High, to remain free of the many transgressions that can mar our relationship with the Most High and with each other. Or, in the words of the ritual, "that the Lord of Light will enable us to trample the king of terror beneath our feet and lift our eyes to that bright morning star whose rising brings peace and tranquillity to the faithful and obedient of the human race"., I contend that the "rising of that bright morning star" alludes to the brilliance of the light we reflect of our faithfulness and obedience to the laws of the Most High by whatever name we, as individuals, know Him. This is the light that will bring us to that peace and tranquillity to which we all aspire, nothing less.

It is here that the two messages become quite distinct. The death of the three ruffians completes the lesson on integrity by pointing out that justice will eventually overtake the wrong doer. On the other hand, the reinterment of HA completes the reference to the allegory.

While the dimensions of the grave are spelt out very precisely in the ritual, its location is not defined except to indicate that it must not be within the "Sanctum Sanctorum". So where is the grave located? If we assume that we are not interring mortal remains, but the burial of our selfish self or, in more general terms, our transgressions. Where better for those transgressions to be buried than within our conscience, and surely our conscience is buried where HA's remains are buried. That is, in a "grave, (stand erect, facing N or S, with arms raised E and W) from the centre 3 feet east, 3 feet west, 3 feet between north and south and 5 feet or more perpendicular. In other words, within ourselves. That explains why the one place in which that interment is not to occur is within the ÒSanctum Sanctorum", since that is the one place from which human access is denied Òexcept for the High Priest, and he, only once in every year".

I firmly believe that there are far fewer anomalies when the items in the ritual are used to describe this interpretation than when those same items are used to describe the interpretation I cited at the beginning of this address.

Whether or not you agree with this interpretation 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 find non-sectarian interpretations for those allegories to our own satisfaction.

References

¹ Holy Bible, Authorised King James Version, 1 Kings 6-8

² Ibid, 2 Chronicles 2-5

³ Ibid, 1 Kings 7: 41-50

⁴ Ibid, 2Chronicles 4:12-22

⁵ Ibid, 1Kings 7:13

⁶ Ibid, 2 Chronicles 2: 13

⁷ Ibid, 1 Kings 7:14

⁸ Ibid, 2 Chronicles 2:14

⁹ The Living Bible,1Kings 4:6

¹⁰ Holy Bible, Authorised King James Version,1 Kings 7:51

¹¹ Ibid, 2 Chronicles 5: 1

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