Francis Bacon and his secret society - Grand Lodge of Colorado

AND HIS SECRET SOCIETY. 97
Egyptian, and other ancient philosophers and religious writers,
who gained such an influence over his imagination, and from
whom he seems to have derived many hints for the symbolism
employed in the teaching of his secret society.
However this may be, it is certain that Francis Bacon was, in
very early childhood, possessed with an extraordinary clear-headedness,
and with a maturity of judgment which caused him to
form, when he was hut a mere hoy, those " fixed and unalterable
and universal opinions" upon which the whole of his after life-work
and philosophy were based—opinions as characteristic as they
were in advance of his age ; theories and ideas which we shall
presently find claimed for others, but which, wherever they make
themselves heard, echo to our ears the voice of the " Great
Master.
During his three years' stay at the university, Francis fell, says
Dr. Rawley, " into the dislike of the philosophy of Aristotle, not
for the unworthiness of the author, to whom he would ascribe all
high attributes, but for the unfruitfulness of the way, being a
philosophy (his lordship used to say) only strong for disputations
and contentions, but barren of the production of works for the
benefit of the life of man, in which mind he continued to his
dying day.
It seems not a little strange that this " dislike " of Bacon,
which has been even made the subject of reproach to him, and
which is decidedly treated as an unreasonable prejudice peculiar
to himself, should not have been equally observed in the
writings of nearly every contemporary author who makes mention
of Aristotle. Let this point be noted. To cite passages would
fill too much space, but readers are invited to observe for themselves,
and to say if it is not true that every distinguished " author
" of Bacon's day, and for some years afterwards, even whilst
ascribing to Aristotle " all high attributes," decries his system
of philosophy, and for the same reasons which Bacon gives,
namely, that it was" fruitless" — that it consisted more of words
than of matter, and that it did not enable followers of Aristotle
to rise above the level of Aristotle. Yet this had not hitherto
been the general opinion.
7