THE ANTIQUITIES OF FREEMASONRY.
lo
It will be seen from the foregoing abstract, in
possibly interest tlie
Masonic
which
I
have included every detail that can
rests upon a very
one inconclusive chain of
indeed,
by Nicholai
reader, that the theory advanced
A
better argument, if,
slender, not to say forced, analogy.
reasoning can be termed better or worse than another whose links are alike defective, might
be fashioned on the same lines, in favour of a Templar origin of Freemasonry.
about to present seems to have escaped the research of Dr Mackey, whose
admirable Encyclopaedia, so far as I can form an opinion, contains the substance of nearly
The view
I
am
For this reason, and also
everything of a ^Masonic character that has yet hem printed.
because it has been favourably regarded by Dr Armstrong, who otherwise has a very poor
of Masonic antiquity, the hypothesis
opinion of all possible claims that can be urged in support
will
the
in very well with the observations that liave preceded it, and with it I shall terminate
"
I will now give
short studies on the origin of our society, into wliich I have digressed.
fit
"
own
the theory in the Bishop's
words, which are always interesting,
if at
times a
little
uncomplimentary.
"
Dr Armstrong
The order
says,
of the
Temple was
called
'
the knighthood of the Temple
but to their hospital or
of Solomon,' not in allusion to the first temple built by Solomon,
at Jerusalem, which was so called to distinguish it from the temple erected on the
residence
site of that destroyed by Titus.
Now, when we find a body said to be derived from the
Templars, leaving amongst the plumage with which the modern society has clumsily adorned
a ground for believing
itself, so much mention of the Temple of Solomon, there seems some sort of
in the supposed connection
The Hospitallers
!
of St John, once
the
rivals,
became the
successors of the Templars, and absorbed a large portion of their revenues at the time of
This would account for the connection between the Freemasons and the
their suppression.
order of St John."
^
Passing from the fanciful speculations which at different times have exercised the minds
of individual theorists, or have long since been given up as untenable, I shall proceed to
examine those derivations which have been accepted by our more trustworthy Masonic
By
teachers, and by their long-sustained vitality, claim at least our respectful consideration.
however, I do not wish to imply that those beliefs which have retained the greatest
In historical inquiry
of adherents are necessarily the most worthy of acceptance.
can have no place, and there is no greater error than to conclude "that of former
finality
this,
number
opinions, after variety and
rest."
"
As
if
prevailed and suppressed the
or the wisest for the multitude's sake, were
examination, the best hath
the mixltitude," says Lord Bacon,
not ready to give passage rather to that which
"
is
still
popular and superficial than to that which
for the truth is, that time seemeth to be of the nature of a
substantial and profound
river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light and blown up, and sinketh
is
;
and drowneth that which
'
is
weighty and
solid."
The Christian Eememhrancer, No. Ivii. (July 1S47),
are William of Tyre, and James of Titry (Bishop
Armstrong
Teniplum aliud immensce quantitatis
Templum Salomonis nuncupatur,
(cited in Addison's History of the
'
'^
Advancement
of Learning.
Chemicura Britannioum,"
16,')2
.
pp.
The authorities mainly relied upon by Dr
"Est prteterea," says the latter, " Hierosolymis
15-17.
of Acre)
:
a quo fratrcs militm Templi, Tcmplarii nominantur, quod
ad distinctionem alterius quod specialiter Templum Domini appellatur"
et amplitudinis,
forsitan
Knights Templars, 1842, p. 10).
This idea seems to have been happily paraphrased by Elias Ashmole in his "Theatrnm
(Proleg.).