The Universal Language of Freemasonry - ArchiMeD - Johannes ...

Chapter 10 - Conclusion 823
removing or altering the landmarks was universally observed in all
ages of the Craft. 1999
Cornelius Moore, the editor of the monthly Masonic Review, states rightly in
an article in N° 33 of his Review, dating back to the year 1868, that the world
moves, and that there is no stagnation in mind which is ever inventive and doing
away with old things, in order to advance, whether it is in government, in
philosophy, in science or ethics. He sees Masonry as being included in this
whole development:
Masonry is not an exception to the general rule, and, borne on the
advancing tide, it goes forward with the general progress; its light ever
increasing, its symbols and allegories more perfectly understood, its
holy principles more fully impressed upon the mind, and more perfectly
illustrated in practical life. We would not have it stand still: it must go
forward or perish - keep up with the progress of thought and the
achievements of mind, or be left a neglected and useless wreck upon the
shores of the passing years.
He who attempts to preserve Masonry just as it came from the
seventeenth century, with its antiquated robes and halting steps -
mumbling its ceremonies in language half barbaric, and feeling its way
in society without settled laws, and halting at every step for a hand to
guide it, - will find himself left behind in the march of the ages, and
engaged in a work as useless as it is difficult. 2000
An interesting - and from the modern biological point of view, rather funny -
statement was made by Lawrence in his lecture on The Universality of
Freemasonry, published in 1874. This statement attacks the evolutionary theory
as contrary to the Masonic concept of universality. This concept of universality
derives mainly from the belief in one God, by whom man was created:
The dogma of one God and Father is the first principle on which the
Universality of Freemasonry rests. [...] It matters not whence derived
[...], no people ever existed that did not possess and own it. [...] What
greater universality can be conceived! [...] And here, let me pause for a
moment, in passing, to observe how completely this fact of the
universality of this belief - this inherent conception of all peoples in all
times - demolishes the revolting theory of the protoplast. If man, as he
would have it, is nothing more than the outgrowth of a tadpole, or
some such insignificant form of animal matter, masked under the name
of protoplasm, how comes it that such strange coincidence and
uniformity of spiritual conception and belief should characterize
1999 Duncan, p. 267. Bold print added.
2000 Moore, Masonic Review, N° 33, 1868, p. 119/120.