THE BUILDER APRIL 1926

The Form of the Lodge

BY BROS. A.L. KRESS AND R.J. MEEKREN

In a part of the formal teaching of Masonry that is now unfortunately very
generally ignored, so that few, even among our Past Masters, know so much as
th bare letter, we are given some curious information about the "Lodge"--its
situation, its orientation, dimensions, supports, furniture, ornaments and
jewels. We are further told how it is formed, and here it is obvious on
reflection that the word is being used in a somewhat different sense. The
difference in the meaning in this respect can be very conveniently made clear
by the analogous use of the word "church." We can speak of a church being
founded in such a place, at such a time, meaning the organization of a
congregation. We can speak also of a church being erected, that is the
building in which the congregation assembles for worship. Thus the lodge may
be formed and organized under certain conditions and restrictions, and with
certain formalities. But the connection between the lodge thus formed and the
lodge in the concrete sense is very close, as it can only be formed in a
certain kind of place, and certain "furniture" must be provided. The formal
description of these requirements is partly practical, or perhaps rather
legal, and partly traditional. The lodge is formed by a certain number of
Masons, seven or more, in a secure place furnished with the Bible, square and
compasses. But in addition to this a charter or warrant of constitution is
necessary. In some places it is said, in quite modern regulatory phrase, that
without this last the lodge would be clandestine. In others it is said that a
lodge must be just, perfect, and regular, and that the Bible makes it just,
the presence of seven Masons, perfect, while the charter makes it regular.
Excepting the number seven there is here nothing that can well be called
symbolical, but on the other hand we have presented very interesting traces of
the historical development of Masonry, like the tide marks of an old river bed
high above the present level of the water.

The requirement that a certain number of Masons must be present recalls the
phraseology of the old Operative Catechisms' and though the Bible is not
mentioned in any of them, it, or the Book of the Gospels, is required by the
old MS. Constitutions for the purpose of administering the oath. We also find
the descriptive phrase "just and perfect," but it is to be doubted whether the
"justness" was ascribed to the sacred book of the law and the "perfection" to
the number present with such definition and particularity as appears in the
explanation quoted above, although of course it is possible that this idea was
present. There is always a constant tendency to ascribe new explanations to
old traditional requirements, a tendency that is still actively at work on the
esoteric side of Masonry, where it is not held in check by knowledge. Here
there were found three requirements and three descriptive epithets. The last
requirement, apparently a complete innovation two hundred years ago, was the
test of regularity--what was more natural than that to each of the other two
requirements should be also ascribed an effect, the one of making the lodge
just and the other making it perfect. However if we may judge at all from the
evidence of the old catechisms it would seem that the double qualification was
merely emphatic and rhetorical, both from the way in which it is used in the
places where it is found, and from its equivalents elsewhere. "Just and
perfect" certainly seems to be the standard description, but we have also the
"true lodge of St. John," a "full and perfect lodge," a "true and perfect
lodge," as well as the "holy lodge of St. John" and the "worshipful" and
"right worshipful" lodge. But these last phrases are used in a different
connection and do not relate to its constitution. The Sloane MS. gives two
phrases as alternative, "the just and perfect or just and lawful lodge."

REGULARITY, OR LAWFUL CONSTITUTION

The term "regular" which in American rituals is expressed by the phrase
"lawfully constituted" undoubtedly came into use after the formation of the
first Grand Lodge in 1717 to distinguish lodges and individual Masons who
joined the new organization. The picture drawn by the older historians of the
Craft of the early days of this "innovation in Masonry" was that Freemasonry
had died out almost entirely in England, only four feeble lodges being left,
and these in a moribund condition. That these four united in an attempt to
reorganize and revive the "Royal Art" as a Speculative Institution, and that
from this new organization all Masons since that time derived their Masonry
either directly or indirectly. This account is altogether too clear-cut and
definite to be the whole truth. Little by little odds and ends of information
have been collected, until a quite different aspect is given to the facts
related by Anderson, our chief and almost only informant as to the formation
of the Grand Lodge. It would seem that so far from the four lodges and
unattached brethren who were present, being the sole representatives left of a
decadent fraternity, that they only represented themselves, that not to speak
of Scotland and Ireland there were lodges existing elsewhere in England, and
probably others in London itself, over and above the four spoken of by
Anderson, or the six given by the author of Multa Paucis; or if not actually
organized lodges, at least individual Masons, who so far as we can judge had
the immemorial right of forming lodges for themselves. Also, a few stray
indications as well as inherent probability, would lead us to suspect that the
Craft was not so decadent or near to extinction as has been so generally
believed in the past. It is quite probable that the formation of the 1717
Grand or "General" Lodge was only one of several stages of reformation and
reorganization that marked the period of transition from a Craft organization
with honorary members to the entirely Speculative Fraternity we know today.

That the new movement succeeded was doubtless due to the advantages of a
centralized government, plus in all probability favoring accidental
circumstances. Doubtless also there was no intention of innovating-- those
responsible probably based their action on the General Assemblies mentioned in
the old Constitutions; the Grand Lodge at first was exactly such an Assembly
at which every Mason, even Apprentices, had a right to be present. But the new
body, revived or reformed or formed entirely anew as the case may have been,
soon began to legislate, and its legislation naturally reflected ideas drawn
from the constitution and political machinery of the country. Not only for
example did it naturally and inevitably become transformed into a body
representing constituent lodges instead of being composed itself of all
members of the Craft, but its presiding officer, the Grand Master, was very
soon regarded as himself the fons et origo of Masonic authority in analogy
with the traditional view of the King as the source of all law and government
in the country. It was most likely that these developments with the tendency
of all governing bodies to extend their claims of jurisdiction, had more to do
with the protests and disputes that culminated in the Greal Schism than the
ritual differences which undoubtedly must always have existed. We however are
concerned here only with the effect the new form of government and the theory
of Masonic "regularity" to which it gave rise, had on the requirements
regarded as essential for the proper constitution of a lodge. It is obvious
from the records that irregularity did not (a first) invalidate the
proceedings. The regular lodges were those adhering to the new form of
government regular Masons were those belonging to such lodges Regularity at
first meant little more than being on the roll of the Grand Lodge, though
naturally it soon tended to be regarded as being as essential as the
traditional qualifications of "just" or "right" or "perfect," and the
"lawfulness" that once consisted only in conforming to the "Charges" and other
traditional rules came to be regarded as being obedience to the new authority
and its new regulations.

In England the lodge is still described as being "just, perfect and regular,"
its regularity consisting in possessing a warrant which gives those who hold
it the authority to constitute themselves into a lodge. This intermediate
stage, which half recognizes the inherent right of Masons to congregate in
lodges, naturally soon developed further and the warrant became to all intents
and purposes a charter; that is, an instrument which itself constitutes the
lodge. From this point of view subordinate or "particular" lodges, as the old
phrase went, are merely creatures of the Grand Lodge, permanent committees as
it were charged with certain special functions. Nevertheless tradition and
ritual preserved by the characteristic conservatism of Masons still makes it
ritually necessary that a lodge be constituted (and so far as the ritual goes,
self-constituted) every time it is opened, and this "constituting" is closely
bound up with ancient symbolical requirements.

NUMERICAL REQUIREMENTS

First with regard to the number of those required to be present. The
impression derived from the Operative evidence is that the normal requirement
was seven. Still stronger are the indications that it should be an odd number.
The MS. Constitutions tell us as much as this, and other evidence points to
the fact that all ranks in the Craft ought to be represented. Naturally the
rules of the Constitutions and the minutes of old lodges do not give much
detail about the matter, but in discussing the Operative Catechisms in the
Study Club of February, this point was incidentally touched upon. (2) One form
of these tells us outright that "odds make a lodge" because all odd numbers
are "to men's advantage," by which presumably we are to understand that they
are "lucky," a very old and widespread idea. This has been worked out in a
number of possible variations. Seven fellows and five apprentices is one;
three masters, three fellows and three apprentices is another; the
arrangement, three masters, two fellows and two apprentices, making seven in
all, seems however to have been the most generally accepted, sometimes more
minutely divided into a "master, two wardens, two fellows and two
apprentices." As all but the last two were Fellows of the Craft this
classification agrees in all essentials with the former.

The symbolism of numbers is too large a subject to be fully discussed here,
but it may be pointed out that the number seven has an intimate connection
with the phases of the moon, on which the seven-day period of our week is
undoubtedly based. As certain primitive astronomical concepts have almost
certainly been conserved in Masonry (though perhaps only incidentally) this
may be not without significance. The three visible quarters of the moon may
also have had some influence in the Masonic number system, but consideration
of this must be deferred for later consideration. To return to the number
forming or making the lodge, we find that echoes at least of the Operative
symbolical requirement (perhaps mystical or magical would better describe it
than symbolical) have been retained in Speculative Masonry. In the lecture
system whose arrangement is generally ascribed to Webb, we learn in the third
section of the Third Degree that three are necessary for a lodge of Masters,
five for one of Fellow Crafts, and seven for an Entered Apprentices' Lodge, by
a continuous addition of two of the successive lower grades, an arrangement
closely paralleling certain of the Catechisms though not agreeing exactly with
any one. In the fourth section of the English instructions for the Fellowcraft
it is said that "three rule a lodge, five hold a lodge and seven make it
perfect." The same underlying idea has here been worked out in still fuller
detail.

WHAT WAS THE LODGE?

The lodge is thus formed or made by the just or perfect number of Masons
present, but they do not seem originally to have been themselves the lodge,
nor even today perhaps, except in a secondary sense. Here the process has been
just the reverse of that in the illustration given above. The word "church" is
derived from the Greek word ecclesia meaning a gathering or assembly, its use
as a term for a building or place of meeting is the derived one; while the use
of the term "lodge" for the group of Masons forming it is a secondary meaning
of a word primarily designating the place of meeting; and the necessary
characteristics of this place are most interesting.

Some of our monitorial writers inform us of the obvious present day usage,
that "lodges are usually held in an upper chamber, for the security and
convenience which such a place affords," but all agree that "our ancient
brethren met on the highest hills and in the lowest valleys," giving the
trite, and not at all self-evident reason, that they might thus "better
observe the approach of cowans and eavesdroppers." The English formularies
give much the same explanation in different phraseology, while we have already
seen that the Old Catechisms preserved the same traditional requirement. The
1670 statues of the ancient lodge of Aberdeen bear it out as an actual
practice. In the third of these it is said that

We ordaine Iykwayes that no lodge be holden within a dwelling house where
there is people living in it, but in the open fields except it be ill weather,
and then let a house be chosen that no person shall heir or sie us.

And in the fifth the still more definite statement

We ordaine lykwayes that all entering prentieses be entered in our antient
outfield Lodge, in the mearnes in the Parish of Negg, at the stonnies at the
poynt of the Ness.

The phrase "at the stones" has a peculiar significance in a Scottish document.
So much has the tradition of standing stones marking a sacred place been
retained in popular speech, if not in conscious memory, that in the Highlands
"going to the stones" is simply an equivalent to "going to church."

There are a few other traces of the actual custom of outdoor lodges, but it
seems to have fallen into general disuse long before 1717, only the memory of
the custom remaining in the formal definitions of the catechisms. Some Masonic
writers have seen in the tradition an echo of the religious persecutions of
the Reformation period, and especially of the outdoor assemblies of the
Covenanters in Scotland. This however seems to be a strange limitation of
possible sources when there is such an overwhelming mass of evidence for
outdoor meetings of all kinds in the British Isles. Not that they are at all
unique in possessing such customs, they were as common in Europe generally as
in other parts of the world, but whatever organizations parallel to
Freemasonry may have existed elsewhere, ultimately derived possibly from an
original common source, it is quite certain that our Freemasonry spread from
the British Isles, and consequently the customs and folk traditions of that
part of the world are those that are of chief value for comparative purposes.

OPEN-AIR ASSEMBLIES

Briefly surveying the evidence, archeological investigation has established in
numberless cases that the temples of Greece and Rome were built on sites that
had been sacred from pre-historic times, and the same is true of a great many
ancient churches. The classical temples in general were merely shelters for
the sacred statues, the rites and ceremonies took place outside. The general
assemblies of the Teutonic and Scandinavian peoples were held out of doors to
a very late period; the Vehmgericht, for example, met either at a cross roads
or under a tree traditionally sacred. In England the custom of holding
shire-moots and folkmoots and manor courts out of doors was not only common
everywhere all through the Middle Ages, but has in some instances survived
even to the present day.

These local meetings were more often than not held at some local "standing
stone" set up in pre-historic times, or under an ancient tree, generally
either' oak or an ash. The organization of the witches, so singularly
resembling in structure that of pre-Grand Lodge Freemasonry, held its ritual
meetings at like traditional spots. In this latter cult we have without doubt
a late survival of a most primitive form of European religion. Besides all
this the local village festivals, once universal, were held out of doors;
those of Mayday and St. John's in midsummer especially. The latter almost
invariably on high ground, if not on a hill top, for a chief part of the
ceremonies was the lighting of fires and carrying torches and burning wheels.
In view of all this evidence that the custom of meeting out of doors at
traditional spots was universal for every kind of purpose, legislative,
administrative, religious and social, it would not be at all strange that
Freemasonry should have had the same custom even if it had been entirely of
Mediaeval origin; for what a small group does is inevitably and unconsciously
influenced by general social customs and habits from which it is practically
impossible for individuals to hreak away.

But though we may thus account for the custom of lodges being held out of
doors we have yet to discover what the lodge was. There are certain obscure
references in our rituals which seem to be of ancient origin and which must
now be considered. In a widely used English ritual the candidate at a certain
stage of his initiation is "placed" in a particular way in order that he may
be "enabled to discover . . . the form of the lodge" and it is then said that
this form is "a regular parallelepipedon." This pedanticism (one had almost
said barbarism) is of course modern, though it has unfortunately been adopted
by some American jurisdictions from a mistaken idea that the older traditional
phrase, an "oblong square" or a "long square," is somehow incorrect. Of
course, though we now in everyday speech frequently use the word "square" for
that particular form of rectangle which is also equal-sided, the term is
generally referable to the angles only, and the older form is perfectly proper
if not quite so convenient. Such marks of antiquity should be explained not
eliminated, by translation into modern colloquialisms.

THE FORM OF THE LODGE

In the lectures ascribed to Webb we have an even more puzzling statement. As
part of the explanation for certain points of the ceremonial preparation we
are told that these are done so that if the candidate fails to fill the
necessary requirements he may be "conducted out of the lodge without being
able to discover the form thereof." Putting these two traditional relics
together we begin to suspect that this "form" was something that was regarded
as in itself very significant. It need not follow of course that there was any
very clear and logical ideas about it in the mind of those assembled, probably
there was not. It had been received by them and was regarded in the same way
as other traditional sanctities have been all over the world. As the
threshold, for example, upon which in many places no one might step; or the
sacred groves where shadowy wood-spirits dwelt, or the place struck by a
"thunderbolt." The "lodge" would differ from such as these only in being the
private concern of a closely knit group in the community, like the ground
prepared for the Borah ceremonies in Australia which no woman could approach,
or the cross roads at which Pausanias blundered into a woman's sacrifice while
on his travels, when the matron officiating as priestess angrily bade him to
"begone from the sanctities."

It is difficult for us to appreciate this point of view, though we are in a
better position to do so than were our Speculative predecessors of the
eighteenth century. We can easily see why a "password" must be a secret, it
has no value otherwise, any more than the combination of a safe if it becomes
known. In the same way trade secrets lose their monopolistic value when
learned by competitors. But the secrecy to be observed about a fetich object
which it would be unlucky for outsiders to see, naturally appears to us
unreal, and is very likely to break down in a civilized state of society. Such
secrecy would appear to be in a sense secondary. The mystery object or rite is
hidden from the outsider because it would be "unlucky" for anyone not properly
prepared to be present; it is not talked about because that, to, is unlucky,
except at the proper times. The sacred furniture of the Temple and the Ark of
the Covenant was fully described in the sacred writings of the Hebrews, but
none but the priests actually saw it. In a somewhat similar manner the "lodge"
has been more or less fully described by Masonic writers, though only Masons
have "discovered" it. As a matter of fact it has almost disappeared from
American Masonry with the advent of stereopticon views, one jurisdiction alone
retaining any real survival of it in its original form. A very interesting
trace of the process of the breaking down of secrecy on this point is to be
seen in the prohibition by the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1759 of "painted
floorcloths," as the following from Lyon's History shows:

It having been represented to Grand Lodge that a Painted Cloth containing the
Flooring of a Master's Lodge was hanging publicly expressed in a painter's
shop, and they, considering that the same might be of pernicious consequences
to Masonry, ordered the same to be sent for; and, in regard that the use of
such painted Floorings was expressly forbid, instruct the Lodge of St.
Andrew's (to whom it belonged) not in future to use any such Floors.


Here we seem to have the protest of conservatism pure and simple against the
rise of permanent representations of the thing here called a "floor," which
later developed into the "tracing boards," "Charts" and "Master's carpets" of
the later period, and which in English Masonry of the same period was still
spoken of as the "lodge." The "pernicious consequences" that the Scottish
Grand Lodge feared must have been sentimental and traditional rather than real
or practical, for the prohibition had little or no effect on this tendency,
which, prompted by convenience, has today been carried to such an extent that
the "form of the lodge" is now only mysterious because it has in a sense--in
its original sense -- come to be almost entirely forgotten among Masons.

(To be continued)

NOTES

(1) THE BUILDER, February, 1926, p. 27.
(2) Ibid, p. 57.
There is very little to be found in Masonic works on this subject beyond the
formal accounts that should be familiar to all readers of THE BUILDER.
Mackey's Encyclopaedia and any standard monitor may be consulted. This first
part of our article is properly a "clearing away of the rubbish" before the
subject of the symbolism of the lodge can be approached with any hope of
obtaining fresh light.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. What is implied in the term "regularity"? Has it always meant the same
thing? If not, how came it to have changed in meaning?
2. What is implied in constituting a lodge? What part of the opening
ceremonies reflect ancient requirements on this point?
3. What is the real source of Masonic authority? In Grand Masters, Grand
Lodges, subordinate lodges, or the Craft at large?
4. Did Masons originally hold their lodges out of doors, or in their work
sheds or the crypts of unfinished churches and cathedrals ?

