QSA Members Forum
For Masonic Research
A Critical Look
A Critical Look at
(Born in Blood,) The Temple and the Lodge (and The Hiram Key)
By A. W. Wood
(Reproduced here with permission from the Hiram Lighthouse, where it was found)
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The paper that follows is an intriguing piece of work, well researched and stimulating. — This site does not concur with, or oppose, the opinions expressed in it by its author. No change in structure and wording has been made to the document, except for the addition of links leading to webpages where personages, places, occurrences, or theories are more fully described. This to give the reader the opportunity to gain a more comprehensive view of the material contained in Bro. Wood's work.]
I have undertaken this paper because of the number of masons who have asserted to me that at least the first two are the most important book on the Craft that have been written this century.
All three attempts to show that the true beginnings of Freemasonry are to be found in the Knights Templar. This is not a new theory. Over the years various writers have claimed that Freemasonry is derived from the Templars, that it was a Jacobite Order to oust the Hanoverians, a Hanoverian conspiracy to catch Jacobites, a device by Oliver Cromwell to defeat King Charles I, etc. No evidence has ever been put forward to support any of these theories or even to render them remotely credible. I do not think that any of these books has changed that position. Each book takes a different path to arrive at the supposed descent and this has posed difficulties of time and space because to understand the authors' conclusions, it is necessary to have at least some knowledge of the history of the Templars, the Peasant Revolt of 1381, Scotland, Egypt, the Exodus and the building of the Temple at Jerusalem. I cannot compress this into one evening or one paper and I have chosen to deal only with The Temple and the Lodge by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, leaving the others for another occasion should they prove of sufficient interest. I am quoting from the 1995 Corgi edition.
The Author's Methodology: My first difficulty is with the authors' methods and outlook to which they give a clue on p. 127, et seq. They argue that all history is to some extent myth. A chronicle of, say, the Peasant Revolt is written out of the thought patterns of a 14th century man. To some extent this is true but the fact that history may be myth does not mean that myth is history. I am concerned that they quote as authorities (p. 129) several modern novelists who insist 'that history consists not only in the external and provable facts but also in the mental context in which the facts are embedded.' Ivo Andrić is quoted as asserting that the exaggeration, even outright invention and falsification of legendary accounts reflect underlying needs, wants and dreams of the people concerned. The needs, wants and dreams of a people are as much fact as the Battle of Hastings, and may perhaps be deduced from myths but that does not mean that the myths state facts.
This is a very dangerous attitude for a historian. The author of Genesis 6:4 says 'There were giants in the earth in those days'. No doubt he believed it. We can possibly deduce from it the amazement of a desert and nomadic people when they saw the massive stone walls of Canaanite towns. They could not comprehend how they were built and assumed giants had built them. However it does not prove the giants existed. It seems to me that much of the argument in this book is based on the assumption that any myth or legend proves facts. It does not. Using this technique the myth can mean whatever the writer wants it to mean.
The Author's Theories: The book is based on the assumption that the Templars survived as a functioning organization in Scotland after the Order was suppressed in 1312; that a number of Scottish aristocratic families were Templars; that Bannockburn was won by Templar intervention; that the Scots Guards in France was a 'neo Templar group', whatever that may mean; that masonry was always associated with the Stuarts and the Grand Lodge group formed an imitation Order to counter the Jacobite influence in masonry; that the true form of Masonry is in the continental system based on the Temple legends, and that there is a regular succession of Templar Grand Masters. I cannot agree with any of these statements.
The Templars: The order was formed in or about 1118 to protect pilgrims on the road to Jerusalem. During the almost two hundred years of its existence it was, with the Hospitallers, the most effective fighting force in the Holy Land. With the fall of Acre in 1291, Europe's foothold in the country was lost and the Templars' reason for existence went with it. The Hospitallers continued to fight a war at sea against piracy. The Templars stayed in Cyprus and the last Master, Jacques de Molay, dreamed of a new crusade. He was lured to France by Philip IV, grandson of the crusading king, Louis IX, and all members of the Order in France were arrested on Friday, 13th October, 1307.
They were treated with shocking brutality and many confessed to various crimes, including de Molay himself. Those who confessed were reconciled to the church and went into some form of captivity either in prison or in a Hospital Priory or a Cistercian Abbey. Those who didn't usually ended up being burnt alive. De Molay eventually retracted his confession and in revenge Philip had him roasted to death over a slow charcoal fire.
Only in places where the pope's authority was absolute were they handed over to the Inquisition. In many places they were acquitted. In England they arrived at a face-saving compromise, asserting that they were so defamed they could no longer operate and going into what one might call voluntary liquidation. In 1312 the pope dissolved the Order and handed its land and goods, apart from those in the Iberian Peninsula which he kept for himself, to the Hospitallers. In England they got what the king didn't want. In Scotland their fate is not documented. Perhaps a brief look at Scottish history may indicate why.
Scotland: The early races in Scotland include the neolithic men who covered most of Europe, the megalithic group who erected the standing stones such as Stonehenge and the Beaker People, known for their distinctive pottery. The Goidelic Celts arrived in the 10th century BCE and settled in the West. They were joined in about the 4th century BCE by Brythonic Celts. The early Celtic settlers appear to have had a sufficient political system to exact obedience over large parts of the country.
Norse attacks began in about the 8th century of the current era. By then there were separate groups consisting of Picts, Scots, Britons, and Angles, and they were unable to offer a concerted defence. The Norse successfully colonized the Orkneys and the Shetlands and had some settlements on the mainland. From 1069 onwards, Norman influence increased but Gaelic was still the language of the people, French that of their rulers. A form of English began to be spoken and during the first half of the 12th century a feudal system like the English was introduced. However Scotland suffered from the usual defect of the system, powerful lords owing only nominal loyalty to the crown.
The 1200s were the golden age of medieval Scotland. Prosperity increased, the kingdom enjoyed reasonable relations with England and on the whole, peace and security so far as that was possible in the Middle Ages, prevailed. All this ended with the death of Alexander III in 1286. When his daughter died aged three, he had no direct heir. Edward I was asked to arbitrate between two candidates and did so on the understanding that Scotland became a fief of England. This led to the long wars between England and Scotland, culminating in Bannockburn. From then on Scotland virtually descended into anarchy with short periods of reasonably effective rule.1
Scottish Survival of the Templars: The authors' claim of Templar survival appears to be based on the supposed discovery of 'ranked graves in Kilmartin' bearing Templar and Masonic emblems. According to the note in AQC 105, p. 247, this is a gross exaggeration. There are about half a dozen stones which may be so interpreted. The armour depicted on one is more probably 13th or even 12th century rather than 14th or 15th which it would need to be to support the authors' conclusions. The supposed Masonic emblems are doubtful to say the least
It is perfectly true that suppressing the Templars was not particularly an issue in the kingdom of Robert the Bruce who had much more pressing things on his mind. In any event, his kingdom was already under papal interdict and he had no reason to be concerned about causing the pope further irritation. This is a far cry from asserting that the Templars did in fact remain a functioning organization and anything so unlikely needs better evidence than a few enigmatic graves.
Origins of Freemasonry: On p. 29, the authors' suggest that here may lie the solution to 'one of the most perplexing questions of European history — the origin and development of Freemasonry itself.' I do not think there is in fact much doubt about the origins. Few scholars today would claim that we are directly descended from operative masonry; that is that versions of our ceremonies are taken form operative practice. We know from Elias Ashmole's diary and Dr. Robert Plot's Natural History of Staffordshire that lodges of non-operatives existed in England at least as early as 1646, and from Dr. Plot that they had some form of traditional history, means of recognition and rules. They considered that they needed a copy of the old manuscript charges as a prerequisite to holding a lodge and therefore presumably were working something like the operative ceremony. By the early 1700s Solomon's Temple begins to be important and during the next hundred years they developed the system we now know. In that development the learning of the Enlightenment was important and many associated with the Enlightenment were members of the Order.2 We know that there were at least four lodges of this early kind in London in 1717 and that many from the rest of England joined in the next few years.
I am a great believer in the KISS principle. Where there are two explanations, prefer the simplest, it is more likely to be right. I do not see any need to postulate lost Templars, invisible lodges, mystical Rosicrucians to explain Freemasonry.
1 The Story of Scotland, Janet R. Glover, Faber and Faber, London.
2 Background to Masonic Enlightenment, Bro. S.L. Speedy, Transactions Volume 32, 3, (July, 1998).
Robert the Bruce, the Celtic Kingdom and Bannockburn: At p. 41, the authors assert that Bruce wanted to re-establish the old Celtic kingdom with Celtic customs and possibly human sacrifice! They quote Duncan saying that Scotland was the 'only Celtic realm with well-formed and independent political institutions at the beginning of the 'high middle ages.' I am not sure what period this is supposed to be but it is certainly incorrect by the time of Robert the Bruce. By then most of the Lowlands of Scotland were inhabited by a mixed Celtic, Norse, Angle and Norman population with many Germans and Flemings permanently resident. Bruce was a Norman with Norman ideas and the only political institutions in the area were Norman. The Celtic principalities were virtually restricted to the north where the highland tribes still maintained a rude independence. None of the Highland tribes ever owned more than nominal allegiance to the Scottish crown.1
Templar History: The account of the Templars and their end in Chapter 3 is not supported by any references. In the main it is factual but probable puts too much faith in the supposed escapes of French Templars where the main strength of the Order lay. Phillip IV of France was a ruthless and efficient ruler and is unlikely to have missed many in his swoop on 13th October, 1307. The figure usually given for the number arrested is 5000. There are unlikely to have been many more than that in France at the time. The authors themselves say that there were no more than 265 men in the Order in England and the number in Scotland, though unknown, is unlikely to have been greater. The maximum number of fighting men in the English Templars is about 106 and again the number in Scotland would not be more and was probably less.2 Neither England nor Scotland were important Templar areas and many of the knights would have been semi-retired. It is unlikely that they included many Palestinian veterans.
Bannockburn: The story of the Templar intervention at Bannockburn is a pure myth. The victory was determined largely by superior generalship coupled with some lack of skill on the part of the English commanders. The English army had a huge superiority in armoured men, the tank corps of the time, and also in fire power. The longbow and the English and Welsh archers were far in advance of anything possessed by the Scots. The English army consisted of about 20,000 men of whom probably about 2,500 were knights, i.e. heavy cavalry. Many of those making up the army were seasoned troops from Edward I's campaigns on the Continent and in Scotland, with a large company of highly skilled archers from Wales and the Welsh Marches. Bruce had about six to ten thousand men including about 500 mounted men lightly armed and armoured.
Bruce had a long experience of conflict with the English and chose his ground with considerable skill. He was above the English army and he had mined the slopes with pits and spikes expressly designed to maim horses. On the eve of the main engagement Bruce and the English knight de Bohun, both on a reconnaissance, met, and the Englishman was killed in single combat. In the evening an English force attempting to approach and probably reinforce Stirling Castle was engaged and defeated by the Earl of Moray; events which did nothing for English morale. An attempt at a frontal assault failed.
1) Glover, op cit. chapters 5 and 6.
2) The information about the Templars is drawn from The Knights Templar, Stephen Howarth, Collins, London. At p. 234, he confirms that the fate and numbers of the Templars in Scotland is not known but asserts that the legend of survival is just that and dates form a much later era.
The main battle began the following morning with the Scottish infantry deployed in schiltroms, that is densely packed groups of men with 18 foot pikes. It was very difficult for cavalry to penetrate a schiltrom and the usual tactic was to attack it with archery. This required the archers to be deployed so as to enfilade the enemy.
Apparently Bruce's choice of ground prevented the proper deployment and the archers who tried were scattered by Bruce's light cavalry. By the end of the day the English army was in serious trouble and when Scottish camp followers and guerrillas began to stream down the hill to the west, they broke. The authors' suggestion that they were terrified by the advent of a small group of Templars is quite senseless. The Templars were undoubtedly notable fighters but so were Edward's knights. On the authors' own showing there could not be more than about 100 to 150 Templar knights in Scotland at the time. If Bruce had possessed a considerable force of heavily armed knights it would have been foolhardy in the extreme to have kept them out of action until the very end of the day.1 The authors' assertion on p. 45, that the church in Scotland was in decay, on p. 48, that Edward I was attempting to eliminate a Celtic kingdom and heresy and that the Templars assisted Edward only because it was a form of crusade against heretics are all without any foundation. Margaret, the wife of Malcolm III in the late 11th century had Romanised the Scottish church; David I in the 12th century had established a number of religious foundations with Roman orders, and during the 13th century up to the death of Alexander II in 1286 the church had flourished. There was no Celtic kingdom. Bruce was a Norman of Normans and all he wanted to establish was in independent kingdom for himself. All Edward wanted was to stop him. The Templars needed no crusading instinct to tempt them to support Edward. They had always acted primarily in their own interests and would have supported or opposed Edward as seemed good to them at the time.
Other errors appear in the text. On p. 61, they refer to the wager over the relief of Stirling. They say the terms of the wager were that the castle would be surrendered if no English army had appeared within three miles of the castle within twelve months. In fact the wager related to the relief of the castle; there was no reference to distance. By the custom of the time, a castle was deemed relieved if an army appeared within three leagues, that is nine miles, not three.2 On p. 90, they speak of the Inquisition in England. The Inquisition never had any authority in England, or, so far as I am aware, in Scotland. A few Dominican monks came to England in eager anticipation of torturing Templars and retired aggrieved because they could not apply 'proper torture', nor even find anyone in England who knew how to apply it. On p. 92, they say the Templars were infected with the Cathar heresy. They were not. They played a leading part in the suppression of this heresy in 1209 and joined with a will in killing and burning the heretics.
1) For an account of the Battle of Bannockburn see The Oxford History of England, the Fourteenth Century, 1307 to 1399, Clarendon Press, Oxford at p. 35, et seq. and Battles in Britain 1066-1746, William Seymour, Book Club Associates, London p. 92, et seq.
2) Battles in Britain
It is more than possible that Philip's main agent in the suppression of the Templars, de Nogaret, was anti pope and Templar because his parents had been burned at the stake in this so-called crusade.1
1) Howard op cit. p. 257.
Succession of Templar Masters: The authors quote Baron von Hund (the midwife though not the founder of the Strict Observance) as a reliable source. He claimed to have visited England and Scotland in either 1743 or 1754 and to have been received in a lodge by lord Kilmarnock and Lord Clifford, two Jacobites. He also claimed to have met a mysterious Knight of the Red Feather who gave him a mission to restore the Order of the Temple, nominating him as a successor to von Marschall who was then supposedly the Provincial of the Seventh District. However there is no evidence that he visited England either in 1743, as he later claimed, or in 1754. He does not appear to have left France during 1743 and he could not have met either Kilmarnock or Clifford in 1754 because both were executed for high treason in 1746. The date, 1742, given by the authors relates to his supposed initiation in Frankfurt in Germany. It is not certain which Frankfurt is referred to.
He asserted that the Knight of the Red Feather was the Young Pretender, Charles Edward, who led him to believe he was the Grand Master of the Templars. The Prince, however, later denied that he was a Mason.
The Rite was founded over a period of years at von Hund's estate in Kittlitz. It is a fabrication from beginning to end. Von Hund was, at best, a dreamer who believed in his own fairy tales; at worst a charlatan. The whole history is far too long to enter on here but anyone wishing to pursue the matter can read all about it in AQC 109, p. 19. Von Hund's list of Templar Grand Masters in succession to de Molay is also a fabrication.
The Scots Guards: At p. 135 authors claim that the Scots Guards were a neo Templar organization. The Guards were an important part of the French King's personal bodyguard. They arose for the same reason as the Swiss Guard of a later era — they came from a land that could not support its population and had to export many younger family members. It is not clear on what basis the authors claim that this was a neo Templar group. Their reputation and conduct hardly qualify them as successors to an order dedicated to chastity, poverty and obedience. The authors devote some time to an account of the Guard but offer no justification for claiming it was neo Templar, nor do they define what they mean by that rather enigmatic term. At p. 152, they quote 'a personal communication' indicating that in the Montgomery family a private order called the Order of the Temple exists. Unfortunately private communications without some external proof are not evidence. What sort of order? How did it come to be so called? How long has it existed? All of these need to be addressed before the statement can be regarded as evidence of Templary in that or any other family.
The Hospital and the Templar Properties: The authors devote some time to a discussion of the Templar properties in Scotland and the difficulties the Hospital encountered in obtaining them. At p. 140, they say that the Master of the Hospitallers presided over the regular legal session of the former preceptory of Balantrococh which had by then passed into the hands of the Hospitallers. The author suggests that this was an indication that they considered they held the property on behalf of the Templars. It is nothing of the sort. Judicial rights were always attached to manors and passed to the holder of the manor whoever he might be. In fact the distinguishing characteristic of a manor was the right to hold manor courts. The exact jurisdiction differed from manor to manor according to 'the custom of the manor'. The Templars had always had rather extensive rights in respect of their courts and anyone who had succeeded to a Templar manor would have taken great care to retain as much as possible of the Templar jurisdiction. The other supposed evidence of survival is in rolls in Hospital Priories which support to contain details of 'Templar Lands.' However this proves nothing. Almost all landlords maintained some sort of record of the produce of each of their various manors. The ecclesiastical rolls were better kept than most others and offer the best evidence we have of the agriculture and commerce of the period. If you hold more than one manor, as most religious foundations did, you need to distinguish between the various properties. What else would you call one you obtained from the Templars?
Rosslyn: On p. 163, the authors refer to the St. Clairs (Sinclair) being hereditary protectors and patrons of Scottish masons. This is in fact a fabrication. The hereditary Grand Master legend is an invention in Lawrie's History of Masonry of 1804. The so called St. Clair charters dated from the early 1600s and are written from only a few of the lodges in Scotland, appointing him their patron. Other lodges appointed other patrons.1 According to A.C.F. Jackson (AQC 94 p. 219) the St. Clairs purchased the patronage of some operative lodge sin Scotland from the king. There is no trace of a Grand Master in early Scottish records. The masons were controlled by the Master of the Work and when the so-called charters of 1600 were issued, William Schaw held that appointment from James VI. The subsequent election of St. Clair as first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland promotes the fiction but it remains fiction and nothing else.
Hiram Abif: On p. 182, the authors state that by the Middle Ages, the architect of the Temple had already become significant to the 'guilds' of operative masons. By guilds one must assume they mean 'lodges'. However the architect is not particularly significant in operative masonry. He is merely mentioned in passing in the Gothic Constitutions because Solomon's Temple was not the focus of attention. Solomon and David are part of a long explanation taking masonry back to the children of Lamech in Genesis. The main part of the traditional history in the operative charges relates to the foundation of masonry in England, King Athelstan, his fictitious son Edwin, the great assembly at York and probably most important of all, the high wages he ordained for them.2 The purpose of the legend is to prove the antiquity of the craft. It has nothing to do with mystical (and mythical) 'ancient sciences' transmitted through Templars, masons or anything else.
1) Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, Henry Wilson Coil, Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Company Inc., New York under article Saint Clair.
2) The History of Freemasonry, Robert F. Gould, Grange Publishing Works, Edinburgh Volume I at p. 60.
The Hiram Legend does not appear in Masonry until some time between 1720 and 1730. It was certainly not present in the time the Rosslyn Chapel was built, though the Murdered Apprentice may just possibly be a faint precursor, nor does there appear to be any sign of such a legend in any of the 'Mistery Plays' of the Middle Ages. The description of the third degree on p., 177 et seq. is based mainly on continental sources and follows the format of the Ancient and accepted Rite rather than the usual Craft format.
Rosicrucians: At p. 201, the authors allude to Rosicrucianism and the construction of 'invisible lodges.' On p. 202, they claim that John Valentine Andrea created Christian union to facilitate the escape of protestant refugees from persecution in Germany. This also is fiction. Andrea was a student with an insatiable desire for learning and he wished to start a movement of Christian goodwill and good works. He put his ideas into a romance about one Christian Rosencreutz. He certainly did not issue any 'manifestos'. The work was at once misunderstood by some as describing an actual order of considerable numbers. On the contrary, Andrea's work contemplated only eight adepts and made no provision for admission of any more. The idea was seized on by groups throughout Germany, France and England calling themselves Rosicrucians and delving into all kinds of mystical philosophy including the elixir of life and the philosophers' stone to transmute base metal into gold. It is virtually indistinguishable from Hermetic philosophy. There is no evidence of any kind that it had any effect on Freemasonry and the supposed contacts between known Rosicrucians and known masons are very few.1
1) Coil, op. cit. article Rosicrucians.
The suggestions on p. 202, that by the time of James I of England there was any esoteric content in Scottish masonry is also pure fiction. While there may have been non operatives in Scottish lodges as early as that, there is no real evidence for it and Scottish Masonry certainly had no esoteric content until about the same time as it appears in England, the early 1700s, nor did it filter down to England from Scotland. The suggestion on p. 200, that the arrival of James and the attendant Scots brought the esoteric doctrines is ludicrous. If there was one thing the English particularly resented about James, it was the flow of impecunious Scots into England and the idea that English aristocrats would have embraced some wild Scottish fancy is a flight of the imagination.
Stuart Masonry: On p.s 237 and 238 they say that Freemasonry from its very inception had been inextricably linked with the Stuarts. This is simply not true. It is, was and always has been outside politics. The assertion that it had been part of the Stuart administrative apparatus and machinery is an unforgivable untruth. They quote the Duke of Wharton as a Jacobite. He was in fact many different things at different times. He was also probably mad. There is no doubt that there were some Jacobite masons. There were also many who accepted the Hanoverian kings. There is no justification at all for saying that masonry was a gigantic Jacobite conspiracy.
The only worthwhile records of French Freemasonry indicate that it was established in 1725, probably by Jacobites, though other lodges appear to have had an association with the new Grand Lodge in England. Most of the high degrees originated in France in or around 1738-40 and were based on extravagant ideas of the antiquity and knightly character of the Order. No Masonic scholar of any note would accept that they represent a true history of Freemasonry. It has been asserted buy one French author that Masonry came to France with James II but Coil considers this an anachronism. Certainly the authors offer no evidence in support.1
1) Coil, op. cit. article French Freemasonry.
Freemasonry was certainly known in Ireland in 1688, forty years after we first hear of it in England in Ashmole's diary. There is nothing to indicate that it was in any way different from English Freemasonry. The authors quote a 1688 statement to someone 'being Freemasonized the new way' which they say implies there was an old way. In 1648, Ashmole was initiated almost certainly using the form set out in the Old Charges and manuscripts, a copy of which lodges considered a prerequisite to holding a lodge. By the end of the 1600s there is evidence in the Edinburgh Register House group of documents that Solomon's Temple was taking the place of the old operative history. It is much more likely that such a change was referred to rather than that it refers to a change from some obscure Templar ceremony of which there is no trace until it was introduced by the French in the 1730s.
The authors' assertion that the Duke of Wharton was the first Grand Master of France in 1728 appears rather unlikely. In that year, he was in Madrid and founded an irregular lodge there which was warranted in the next year by the Grand Lodge of England. If he was also being Grand Master in France he must have been a busy little boy. He died in poverty in 1733. Nor was Kilmarnock ever Grand Master of Jacobite Freemasonry in France. The origins of French Freemasonry are rather obscure and according to Gould (III, 137) the tradition is that the first lodge was opened by the earl of Derwentwater in 1725 and he came to be regarded as the Grand Master of French Freemasonry, but this is all speculation and Gould considers it uncertain that he was in fact a mason.
Chevalier Ramsey: On p. 255, the authors say that the Chevalier Ramsey was by 1720 'affiliated with the Jacobite cause'. This statement is probably incorrect. The only evidence for his being a Jacobite is that he was born in Scotland, was converted to Roman Catholicism and was for about fifteen months tutor to the two sons of the Old Pretender. However he left that service, he was in England for some time, he took a degree at Oxford and was a member of the Royal Society. He was also offered the position of tutor to the Duke of Cumberland, son of George II. He declined it, not on political grounds but because the Duke was a Protestant and he felt it undesirable that a Catholic should hold the post.
On p. 256, reference is made to the famous speech they say was given by him in 1737. The authors state that it was to become one of the major landmarks in the history of Freemasonry. It is in fact not certain that he wrote the speech and almost certain that he never delivered it. Before it was delivered, he showed it to his friend, Cardinal Fleury, who apparently disapproved of it. In view of that disapproval, it is unlikely he delivered it and he probably discontinued his association with Masonry at the same time as nothing is heard of him in that connection for the remaining six years of his life.
He was a gentleman and a scholar but his connection with Freemasonry was very slight and his oration, if it was his, displays little knowledge of the Order. A comprehensive refutation of his connection with the Jacobite cause, his so called constitution of the high degrees, and of supposed Stuart Masonry will be found in Coil in the articles on Ramsey himself and on Stuart masonry.
Conclusion: In a paper of any reasonable length it is impossible to cover all the statements made in the book, many of which are constructed on no real basis at all over a whole chapter. I have simply endeavoured to disprove some of the more blatant. There are plenty of others for those who will look for them.
Author: A. W. Wood
Publisher: United Masters Lodge No. 167,
Lodge of Masonic Research
Auckland, New Zealand, 5998
(with permission)
