Freemasonry and the occult

Anti-Masons make reference to Deuteronomy 18:9-12 when trying to prove that Freemasonry is occultic. Not once have I seen them apply it to Freemasonry. Let me quote Deuteronomy 18:9-12 and apply it to Freemasonry.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12, "When thou are come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not b found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee."

1. Maketh his son or daughter to pass through the fire.
This refers to consecrating of children to Moloch, an idol that represented the sun, by making them to pass through the fire, and sometimes consuming them as sacrifice in the fire.

Adam Clark, "To pass through the fire: probably in the way of consecration to Moloch, or some other deity."

Freemasonry does not pass children through the fire. Freemasonry does not consecrate children to Moloch or any other deity.

2. useth divination
Using the arts of divination to get the unnecessary knowledge of things to come.

Adam Clark, divination, "one who endeavours to find out futurity by auguries, using lots, etc."

Freemasonry does not use divination, nor does it teach divination. The use of auguries and lots are not used in Masonic rituals.

3. an observer of times
Adam Clark, "Observer of times: one who pretends to foretell future events by present occurrences, and who predicts great political or physical changes from the aspects of the planets, eclipses, motion of the clouds, etc."

Nowhere in the rituals and practices of Freemasonry is there any hint of astrology, or belief in divination. Freemasonry does not teach a Mason how to be an astrologer. Pike refers to it as a "pretended science." (Morals and Dogma, page 463)

4. an enchanter.
Adam Clark, "to view attentively; one who inspected the entrails of beasts, observed the flight of birds, etc., etc., etc., and drew auguries thence. Some think divination by serpents is meant, which was common among among the heathen."

Nowhere in Masonic ritual are the entrails of animals inspected, or the flight of birds observed, nor divination by serpents.

5. a witch.
Adam Clark, "A witch: probably those who by means of drugs, herbs, perfumes etc., pretended to bring certain celestial influences to their aid."

Masonic ritual does not make use of drugs, herbs or perfumes to bring celestial influences to their aid. Nor does Masonic ritual teach anyone how the use drugs, herbs or perfumes to bring celestial influences to their aid.

6. a charmer.
This is probably referring to the custom of binding or banning by magical knots.

Adam Clark, "A charmer: one who uses spells; a peculiar conjunction, as the term implies, of words, or things, tying knots, etc., for the purposes of divination."

Masonic ritual does make of binding or banning by magical knots. Nor are spells used in Masonic ritual.

7. a consulter.
Adam Clark, "A consulter with familiar spirits: a Pythoness, one who inquires by the means of one spirit to get oracular answers from another of a superior order."

During Masonic ritual no familiar spirits are consulted.

8. a wizard.
Adam Clark, "A wizard: a wise one, a knowing one. Wizard was formerly considered as the masculine of witch, both practising divination by similar means."

Freemasonry does not use divination during ritual. Nor are Freemasons taught how to use divination.

9. a necromancer.
Adam Clark, "A necromancer: one who seeks from or inquires of the dead. Such as the witch of Endor, who professed to evoke the dead, in order to get them to disclose the secrets of the spiritual world."

Freemasonry does not make use of necromancy during its ritual.

The application of Deuteronomy 18:9-12 to Freemasonry proves that Freemasonry is not occultic.


What is the Occult
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition defines "occult" as: "1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena. 2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable."

Does this definition define Freemasonry? Nowhere in Freemasonry or in Masonic ritual do we deal "with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena."

Is the philosophy and moral teachings of Freemasonry "beyond the realm of human comprehension"? Of course not.

Are the rituals of Freemasonry "beyond the realm of human comprehension"? Of course not.

At no time does Freemasonry delve into those things that are "beyond the realm of human comprehension".


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition defines "occultism" as: "1. The study of the supernatural. 2. A belief in occult powers and the possibility of bringing them under human control."

An examination of Masonic ritual will show that Freemasonry does not engage in "the study of the supernatural." Furthermore, the rituals do not express Freemasonry's belief "in occult powers."

Masonic rituals are not performed for bringing occult powers "under human control."

Is Freemasonry occultic? No.


As a sidebar the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, makes the following observation about "occultism." "All the so-called natural sciences were in a sense occult in their beginnings; most early scientists were considered magicians or sorcerers because of the mystery attending their investigations."


Freemasonry and the Occult
Henry Coil, "Freemasonry received no secret from the ancients, and it now includes no mystery in the ordinary acceptation of that term as something extremely difficult or impossible to fathom or comprehend. It is no more occult than the Golden Rule; no more mysterious than morality." (Conversations on Freemasonry, page 199)

Anti-Masons John Ankerberg and John Weldon, "Coil speaks for most Masons when he says, 'Freemasonry is no more occult than the Golden Rule; no more mysterious than morality.' Of course, many people say the same about astrology or the Ouija board, yet these are occult nevertheless." (The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, page 215)

What does astrology and the Ouija board have to do with Freemasonry? Nothing. Ankerberg and Weldon fail to provide any relevant similarities between Freemasonry and astrology or the Ouija board. This is merely an attempt to "poison the well" on their part.

Secondly, Ankerberg and Weldon reject Coil's view even though he is the number one authority on their list. Why? Simply because, he does not agree with their views and their opinion would be shown to be invalid and their book a fraud.


Anti-Masons John Ankerberg and John Weldon, "One spiritist, commenting on the significance of the Scottish Rite, says, 'From the Nineteenth to the Twenty-eighth [Degree] the work is most deeply occult'." (The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, page 216) The reference cited for this quote is Corinne Heline, Mystic Masonry and the Bible.

Was/Is Corrine Heline a recommended Masonic authority? No, she was not. No Grand Lodge recognizes Corrine Heline as a Masonic authority. Ankerberg and Weldon, "What we present in this book, therefore, is an analysis of Masonry itself, as stated by Masonic authorities recommended by at least half of the Grand Lodges in the United States." (The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, page 14) It appears that Ankerberg and Weldon have deceived their readers.

Since, Ankerberg and Weldon appeal to Corrine Heline as an expert on criticizing Freemasonry from a "Christian perspective." They must agree with Corrine Heline when she writes, "The Bible will accompany man to the very gates of the New Age, where he will discover that its pages reveal an entirely new concept of the mysteries of spiritual life; for this marvelous book is the true Book of Life upon which will be based the soul sciences of the New Aquarian Age." (The Bible: Wonder Book of the Ages)

Therefore, Ankerberg and Weldon's expert on the occult, tells us that the Bible will lead us to "the very gates of the New Age." If, we believe Ankerberg and Weldon's expert on the occult, the Bible is an introduction to the occult.


Anti-Masons John Ankerberg and John Weldon, "Most Masons who participate in the rituals do not understand their occult significance. If they pursue Masonry no further than unthinking participation in the rituals, it may be true for them that Masonry is not occultic. Such Masons are unaware of the occult meaning of many of the Masonic symbols and ritual and have chosen not to pursue the issue." (The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, page 215)

Firstly, Ankerberg and Weldon has offered no proof for this slanderous statement about "most Masons" not understanding Masonic rituals. Nor have they offered proof that "most Masons" pursue Masonry no further than unthinking participation in the rituals.

Secondly, Ankerberg and Weldon have not proven that Masonic ritual and symbolism is occultic. They offer three non-Masonic authors, E. M. Storms, Corinne Heline, and Stephen Knight, to prove their point. These authors, like Ankerberg and Weldon, do not present the authoritative views of Freemasonry.

Thirdly, are Ankerberg and Weldon implying that Henry Coil and Joseph Newton, their top two Masonic authorities, do not understand Masonic symbols and ritual?

Fourthly, the majority of the Masonic ritual which explains Masonry, its philosophy, symbolism, and teachings, deals with the initiation of the Masonic candidate. It should also be kept in mind that the ritual is authoritative not the writings of any author, which includes the self-proclaimed Masonic authorities Ankerberg and Weldon.

The question is, "Is the Masonic initiation of a candidate, occultic?"

Ankerberg and Weldon's number 5 Masonic authority, H. L. Haywood wrote, ". . . many who have approached the subject of initiation from a merely abstact and theoretical position are very apt to give us impossible theories of the matter, land us in difficulties, and make us believe that Masonic initiation is something very esoteric or occult: as a matter of actual fact it is nothing of the kind." (The Great Teachings of Masonry, page 29)


Anti-Mason Robert Morey, "Freemasonry was never intended to brainwash people into occultic or cultic teachings." (The Truth About Masons, page 84)


Anti-Masons claim that Freemasonry is linked with many esoteric and mystical traditions flowing from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

Joseph Newton wrote, "Once more we come to the much debated question, about which not a little has been written, and most of it wide of the mark -- the question of the origin of the Third Degree. Here again students have gone hither and yon hunting in every cranny for the motif of this degree, and it would seem that their failure to find it would by this time have turned them back to the one place where they may ever hope to discover it -- in Masonry itself. but no; they are bound to bring mystics, occultists, alchemists, Culdees or Cabalists -- even the Vehmerichte of Germany -- into the making of Masonry somewhere, if only for the sake of glamor, and this is the last opportunity to do it. Willing to give due credit to Cabalists and Rosicrucian, the present writer rejects all such theoies on the ground that there is no reason for thinking they helped to make Masonry, much less any fact to prove it." (The Builders, pages 176-177)


Rosicrucianism
Anti-Masons John Ankerberg and John Weldon, "There is no doubt as to the connection between Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry." (The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, page 220)

Is there any doubt? If, there is, then their statement is false, and they are not the Masonic authorities they pretend to be.

Anti-Mason Robert Morey, ". . . Rosicrucian societies were in London as well as Europe when Freemasonry began. They were seperate and distinct from early Masonic meetings." (The Truth About Masons, page 94)

What do Ankerberg and Weldon's top three Masonic authorities have to say?

Their number one Masonic authority, Henry Coil wrote, "Rosicrucianism. This philosophical group, like several others, is mentioned here, because writers have sought to connect it with Freemasonry, on one pretext or another, making extravagant claims with scarcely a significant fact in substantiation." (Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, page 573)

Henry Coil also wrote, "What has been said about the relation of the ancient mysteries to Freemasonry applies as well to Rosicrucianism, Druidism, Culdeeism, and other sects which fertile imaginations have employed to explain the origin or character of Freemasonry. The important fact is that no Grand Lodge has ever adopted any such theory, and the whole idea is non-Masonic so far as official doctrine goes." (A Comprehensive View of Freemasonry. page 184)

So, Ankenberg and Weldon's number one Masonic authority has doubts "as to the connection between Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry."

What about their number two authority, Joseph Newton?

Joseph Newton wrote, ". . . the theory being that a few adepts, seeing Masonry about to crumble and decay, seized it, introduced their symbols into it, making it the mouthpiece of their high, albeit hidden, teaching. How fascinating! And yet how baseless in fact!" (The Builders, page 153)

Joseph Newton wrote, "Occultism, to be sure, is elusive, coming we know not whence, and hovering like a mist over the hills. Still, we ought to be able to find in Masonry some traces of Rosicrucian influence, some hint of the lofty wisdom it is said to have added to the order; but no one has yet done so." (The Builders, page 153)

Joseph Newton wrote, "Perhaps the present writer is unkind, or at least impatient; if so he humbly begs forgiveness; but after reading tomes of conjecture about the alleged Rosicrucian origin of Masonry, he is weary of the wide-eyed wonder of mystery-mongers about things that never were and which would be of no value if they had been." (The Builders, page 153)

So, Ankenberg and Weldon's number two authority has doubts "as to the connection between Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry."

What about their number three Masonic authority, Albert Mackey?

Albert Mackey, "But there is no legitimate derivation of one from the other. There is no similarity between the two systems -- their origin is different; their symbols, though sometimes identical, have always a different interpretation; and it would be an impossible task to deduce the one historically from the other." (The History of Freemasonry, page 34)

Albert Mackey, "The name, undoubtedly, been the cause of much of this confusion in relation to its history, and the masonic degree of 'Rose Croix' has, perhaps, often been confounded with the cabalistic and alchemical sect of 'rosicrucians,' or 'Brothers of the Rosy Cross, 'among whose adepts the names of such men as Roger Bacon, Paracelsus, and Elias Ashmole, the celebrated antiquary, are to be found. Notwithstanding the invidious attempts of Baruell, and other foes of masonry, to confound the two orders, there is a great distinction between them. Even this names, although somewhat similar in sound, are totally different in signification." (Lexicon of Freemasonry, page 370)

So, Ankenberg and Weldon's number three authority has doubts as to the connection between Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry.

One other writer I would like to quote at this time. Ankerbeg and Weldon calls the writer a "Masonic authority". The writer is A. E. Waite. A. E. Waite wrote, ". . . there is no traceable connection between Masonry and Rosicrucianism. The former is defined by its initiates to be 'a science of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols,' and again as 'a symbol of doctrines taught, in a manner peculiar to itself, by allegories and symbols . . . Its ceremonies are eternal additions, which affect not its substances. The two doctrines of the unity of God and the immortality of the soul constitute 'the philosophy of Freemasonry.' It has never been at any period of its history an association of scientific researches and the experimental investigation of Nature, which was a primary object with the Rosicrucian Brotherhood. It has not only never laid claim to the possession of any transcendental secrets of alchemy and magic, or to any skill in medicine, but has never manifested any interest in these or kindred subjects. Originally an association for the diffusion of natural morality, it is now simply a benefit society." (The Real History of the Rosicrucians, page 403)

A. E. Waite, "It follows that there is a very intimate and significant analogy between the higher symbolism of Masonry, as developed outside the Craft, and Ritual - procedure -- so far as this can be traced -- in Rosicrucian circles does not prove that one was derived from another, but only that they had a similar concern in symbolism." (A New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, vol. 2, page 875)

Four of Ankerberg and Weldon's "Masonic authorities" all say there is no connection between Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry.

One of the two writers used by Ankerberg and Weldon to prove their point is not on their list of "Masonic authorities." In fact, the source is a 1975 magazine article. The edition of "Secret Teachings" that I have was published in 1990. That is 15 years after the article was written. I cannot imagine the number of Masonic magazines or articles published in those 15 years. Yet, all they offer is a book review as proof. Secondly, they fail to prove that the author of this article is a Masonic authority.

In comparison with Ankerberg and Weldon's top three Masonic authorities, this magazine article is hardly proof of a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.

The second author they quote to prove their point is Manly Hall. Let's take a look at the quote from Hall they use to prove a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism. Hall's quote used by Ankerberg and Weldon is: "The observations of Hall [An Encyclopedic Outline, page 139] will suffice in proving the connections between the Masons and the Rosicrucians: 'Many of those connected with the development of Freemasonry were suspected of being Rosicrucians . . . Frank C. Higgins, a modern Masonic symbolist, writes 'Dr. Ashmole, a member of this fraternity [Rosicrucianism], is revered by Masons as one of the founders of the first Grand Lodge in London.' . . . Elias Ashmole is but one of many intellectual links connecting Rosicrucianism with the genesis of Freemasonry. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that Elias Ashmole was initiated into the Freemasonic order in 1646. . . . Speculators have gone so far as to state that, in their opinion, modern Freemasonry has completely absorbed Rosicrucianism and succeeded it as the world's greatest secret society. Other minds of equal learning declare that the Rosicrucian brotherhood still exists, preserving its individuality as a result of having withdrawn from the Masonic Order. . . . One thing is certain: with the rise of Freemasonry, the Rosicrucian Order in Europe practically disappeared, and notwithstanding existing statements to the contrary, it is certain that the Eighteenth degree (commonly known as the Rose-Croix) perpetuates many of the symbols of the Rosicrucian Fire Alchemist'." (The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, pages 220-221)

The reference Ankerberg and Weldon cite as proving a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, Hall's An Encyclopedic Outline, is not on their list of individual books recommended by the Grand Lodges as being an authoritative interpretation of Freemasonry. This reference is not authoritative. I wonder why Ankerberg and Weldon fail to tell their readers this? Could it be, they wanted to deceive their readers?

Does this quote from Hall prove there is a connection between Freemasonry and the Rosicrucians? A closer look at Hall's quote used by Ankerberg and Weldon to show the connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism is based on "suspection," "speculation," and "opinions."

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "suspect" as: "1 to believe to be guilty on little or no evidence. 2 to believe to be bad, wrong, etc., distrust. 3 to guess; surmise." Therefore, the connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism is based on little or no evidence and guesses. This is not proof of a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "speculate" as: "1 to ponder, esp., the conjecture." Webster's New World Dictionary defines "conjecture" as: "1 an inferring, theorizing, predicting from incomplete evidence; guesswork, 2 a guess." Therefore, this reference used by Ankerberg and Weldon to prove a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism is based on "incomplete evidence and guesswork." This is not proof of a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "opinion" as: "1 a belief based not on certainty but on what seems true or probable." Therefore, this reference used by Ankerberg and Weldon to prove a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism is not based on certainty, it is based on a guess. This is no proof of a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.

This quote by Hall, used by Ankerberg and Weldon does not prove a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.

Anti-Masons John Ankerberg and John Weldon wrote, "In his treatment of Rosicrucianism, Mackey admits, 'There are sufficient coincidences of character between the two to render the history of Rosicrucianism highly interesting to the Masonic student'." (The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, page 250)

In the same article quoted by Ankerberg and Weldon, Albert Mackey wrote, "Higgins, Sloane, Vaughan, as well as several other writers have asserted that Freemasonry sprang out of Rosicrucianism. But this is a great error. Between the two there is no similarity of origin, of design, or of organization. The symbolism of Rosicrucianism is derived from a Hermetic Philosophy; that of Freemasonry from an Operative Art. The latter has its cradle in the Stone-masons of Strasburg and the Masters of Como long before the former had its birth in the inventive brain of John Valentine Andrea."

Anti-Mason Robert Morey, ". . . as Mackey pointed out, early Masonry did not contain any Rosicrucian symbols, degrees, or teachings. They did not have any higher degrees. There is no evidence that they knew anything about Hermetic philosophy, the Kabbalah, or Gnosticism. In short, early Masonry did not come out of Rosicrucianism." (The Truth About Masons, page 94)

Bernard Jones, "The Rosicrucians rely chiefly on the personality of Elias Ashmole in their claim that their system influenced freemasonry. . . . A few masonic writers have professed to believe whole-heartily that Rosicrucian doctrines came into freemasonry through him and his friends. The question arises whether Ashmole was capable, either as freemason or Rosicrucian, of devising a masonic ritual or system, apart altogether from the fact that the negative evidence of his career and especially of his diary is all against the conjecture. For nearly thirty-six years, from 1646, when he was 'made,' until 1682, when he attended the Masons Hall Lodge, there is not a word in his diary about freemasonry. Is it conceivable that he could have given the necessary thought and time, either alone or in collaboration with others, to the revision or, indeed, the actual invention of a masonic ritual without some hint of such an absorbing task finding its way into his daily record?" (Freemason's Guide and Compendium, page 119)

Bernard Jones, "Very strongly against the suggestion that Ashmole imported Rosicrucianism into freemasonry is the fact that when he joined the Lodge at Warrington he was not yet a mystic, and that it was only on leaving Cheshire and returning to London that he took up with the astrologers . . ." (Freemason's Guide and Compendium, page 120)

Henry Coil, "Ashmole's reception has been used to support the contention that a connection existed between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, because, as alleged, Ashmole was an adept of the latter philosophy and was intrumental in weaving much of its doctrine into the Masonic rituals. But there is no proof that he was a Rosicrucian . . . There is no evidence that he took much interest in the Fraternity, for evidently he did not again attend lodge for thirty-five years. (A Comprehensive View of Freemasonry, page 59)

Henry Coil, "One of the favorite reasons given to support a connection between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, is the assertion that Elias Ashmole was a prominent member of both and wove his Rosicrucian philosophy into the Masonic rituals. Some intimate that he joined the Freemasons in 1646 to learn more about Rosicrucianism, which, presumably, Freemasonry could teach. There are, however, three very plain facts which render any such theory impossible. First: We do not know that Ashmole was a Rosicrucian or even interested in it, except to the extent that any antiquary would wish to explore all sorts of ideas and movements which might manifest themselves among a people. Second: Ashmole was neither a prominent nor an attentive Freemason, having attended lodge but twice in his lifetime and the two occasions being thirty-five years apart. Third: Ashmole died twenty-five years before the Grand Lodge of England was formed in 1717 and could have had no part in the formulation of the rituals." (Conversations on Freemasonry, page 202)

Henry Coil, ". . . one of Ashmole's inquiring turn of mind would investigate both Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, but, so far as we know, he was not deeply interested in either of them. If the affair Ashmole proves anything, it shows that Freemasons and Rosicrucians were moving in different circles. Robert Fludd and William Lilly were prominent London Rosicrucians, but, so far as known, neither was Freemason." (Conversations on Freemasonry, page 203)

A. E. Waite, "The suggestion that he [Elias Ashmole] as an instrument of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, or as a member thereof, in the transfiguration of Operative into Speculative Freemasonry is a matter of faith for those who have held or hold it. Of direct or indirect evidence there is not one particle." ("Emblematic Freemasonry, Building Guilds and Hermetic Schools", The Builder, vol. VII, no. 6, June 1921)

A. E. Waite, ". . . Ashmole hypothesis is but a part of the wider claim of direct Rosicrucian influence on the foundation of Emblematic Freemasonry. . . . There is no evidence whatever to support this view. The Rosicrucian zeal of the occult philosopher and intellectual mystic, Robert Fludd, left no trace behind it, until the time came for it to influence in a rather indefinite manner the impassionable enthusiasm of Thomas Vaughan, and this also led to nothing. The first incorporated Rosicrucian Society in England of which we hear belongs to the early nineteenth century. In particular, Fludd's activities had no bearing on any Masonry of the early seventeenth century . . ." ("Emblematic Freemasonry, Building Guilds and Hermetic Schools", The Builder, vol. VII, no. 6, June 1921)

Henry Coil, "The jargon of the Rosicrucians was so different from anything found in Freemasonry that there is no room to suppose any connection between them. The old pre-Grand Lodge rituals of the latter did contain some jumble discourse consisting of apparently meaningless words and phrases, but those crudities were quite distinguishable from the studied and well polished cabalism of the Alchemists, the Rosicrucians, and the Hermetics. The one was a simple doggerel; the other was an erudite mysticism." (Conversations on Freemasonry, page 203)

Henry Coil, "What has been said about the relation of the ancient mysteries to Freemasonry applies as well to Rosicrucianism, Druidism, Culdeeism, and other sects which fertile immaginations have employed to explain the origin or character of Freemasonry. The important fact is that no Grand Lodge has ever adopted any such theory, and the whole idea is non-Masonic so far as official doctrine goes." (A Comprehensive View of Freemasonry, page 184)

Henry Coil, "There has been a tendency to confuse the Rose Cross of Rosicrucianism with the Rose Croix of the Hauts Grades, but the two are entirely distinct, the similarity of name being a coincidence." (Conversations on Freemasonry, page 202)

Robert Macoy, "The Masonic degree of 'Sovereign Prince of Rose Croix' has no connection with the Rosicrucians." (A Dictionary of Freemasonry, page 331)

Christopher Haffner, "The earliest known speculative initiate in England was the antiquarian and alleged Rosicrucian, Elias Ashmole. The ceremony took place in 1646 in Warrington. We can have no certain knowledge of his motivation for membership, but there have been plenty of masons and outsiders who have speculated that he did so because masonry already contained a Rosicrucian element, or that if not, he intended to provide it with one. The fact remains that our earliest relics of ritual, which date from 1696 onwards, contain no hint of this. The early exposures, such as Samuel Pritchards' Masonry Dissected of 1730, are equally bare of any Rosicrucian influence. . . . it is not possible for any reasoned history to suggest that Freemasonry became the secret method by which Rosicrucianism was transmitted. . . . Cosby Jackson, the acknowledged English authority on the Rose Croix degree, has proved in a paper to the Quatuor Coronati Lodge that Rosicrucianism has had no influence on Craft masonry whatsoever." (Workman Unashamed, page 74)

Anti-Mason Robert Morey, "In short, early Masonry did not come out of Rosicrucianism." (The Truth About Masons, page 94)

Anti-Mason Robert Morey, "It is interesting to note that The Rosicrucian Society with headquarters in the Rosicrucian Park, San Jose, California, denies that there is any connection between itself and Freemasonry. (Who and What Are the Rosicrucians? Fact at Your Finger Tips. Supreme God Lodge, 1938 & 1966, p. 7)" (The Truth About Masons, page 96)

Is there a connection between Rosicrucianism and Christianity? According to The Rules and Ordinances of the Rosicrucian Society of England, a member "must be a believer in the fundamental principles of the Christian doctrine, a true philantropist, and a loyal subject." (Rule No. VII. Quoted in The Rosicrucian, No. 1, July 1868, page 7)


Kabbalah
Anti-Mason E. M. Storms wrote, "It is true that the mystical traditions of Masonry were developed and handed down orally among Jewish Rabbis, but there were finally written down. These writings, known as the Kabalah are the source of Masonic teachings and are held in higher esteem that the Bible." (Should A Christian Be A Mason, page 19)

Joseph Newton wrote, "Often these writers imply, if they do not actully assert, that our order begged, borrowed, or cribbed its emblems from Kabbalists or Rosicrucians, whereas the truth is exactly the other way round . . . While Kabbalists were contriving their curious cosmogonies, the Masons went about their work, leaving record of their symbols in deeds, not in creeds . . ." (The Builders, page 147)

Westcott was admitted as the 8th joining member of Quartuor Coronati Lodge on December 2, 1886. He read his first paper, The Religion of Freemasonry illuminated by the Kabbalah, to the lodge on Sept. 8, 1887. In this paper Wescott stressed the Deism of the Craft and attempted to demonstrate the Kabalistic nature of the symbolism of the Three Degrees. His audience was largely unsympathetic. R. F. Gould "took exception to the main argument." Woodford "could not agree, he felt honestly bound to say, either with Bro. Westcott's premises or conclusions." (AQC, 1, 1888, pages 55-59)

By 1931 the majority of Masonic historians had come to look upon Westcott, and the esoteric school of research as lying beyond the pale of accepted and acceptable scholarship.


Hermetic
Joseph Newton wrote, ". . . to trace the evolution of Masonry, even so able a man as Albert Pike will have it that to a few men of intelligence who belonged to one of the four old lodges in 1717 'is to be ascribed the authorship of the Third Degree, and the introduction of Hermetic and other symbols into Masonry; that they framed the three degrees for the purpose of communicationg their doctrines, veiled by their symbols, to those fitted to receive them, and gave to others trite moral explanations they could comprehend.' How gracious of them to vouchsafe even trite explanations, but why frame a set of degrees to conceal what they wished to hide? This is the same idea of something alien imposed upon Masonry from without, with the added suggestion, novel indeed, that Masonry was organized to hide the truth, rather than to teach it. . . . Certainly the men of the Grand Lodge were adepts, but they were Masonic adepts seeking to bring the buried temple of Masonry to light and reveal it in a setting befitting its beauty, not cultists making use of it to exploit a private scheme of the universe." (The Builders, pages 180-181)

H. L. Haywood, "Since alchemy was forbidden by both church and civil laws, it was carried on under-ground, and alchemistic writings took the form of emblems, symbols, codes, and other disguises. Here again a few of these devices and symbols were similar to Masonic symbols, and it was once a somewhat popular theory to assert that Freemasonry itself was a form of alchemy. There is nothing in the buildings left behind by the Freemasons, or in the Old Charges, or in the Book of Constitutions, or in the Ritual to show that the Masons in any period were alchemists, or were ever even interested in it." (More About Masonry, page 6)


Astrology
It is claimed by anti-Masons that Freemasonry teaches astrology. Nowhere in the rituals or practices of Freemasonry is there a hint of astrology, or belief in divination. In fact, Masonry disapproves of it. Freemasonry does not teach a Mason how to be an astrologer. Pike refers to it as a "pretended science." (Morals and Dogma, page 463)

In a letter from Albert Pike to Benton Babcock, January 25, 1887, Pike wrote, "I think that no speculations are more barren than those in regard to the astronomical character of the symbols of Masonry, except those about the Numbers and their combinations of the Kabalah. All that is said about Numbers in that lecture, if not mere jugglery, amounts to nothing. . . . The astronomical explanations of them, however plausible, would only show that they taught no truths, moral or religious. As to tricks played with Numbers, they only show what freaks of absurdity, if not insanity, the human intellect can indulge." (in Albert Mackey, An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, ed. rev. and enl. by Robert Clegg with suppl. vol. by H. L. Haywood, 3 vols. pages 775-776)


Robert Gould, "It is, I think, abundantly clear that the Masonic body had its first origin in the trades-unions of mediaeval operatives." (History of Freemasonry, II, page 184)


September 29, 2007