THE legend forming part of the Royal Arch traditional history is concerned with the accidental discovery of an underground chamber ‑ a crypt on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem ‑ and with the bringing to the light of the sun and of human knowledge certain things found within it. In the English ritual the account in the Biblical books of Ezra and Haggai and in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37‑100) of the rebuilding of the Temple is interwoven with the legend, and the scene of the discoveries is a crypt, which, for the more convenient and dramatic course of the story, has now become an arched vault. The Sojourners (a word made familiar chiefly by Biblical usage and only occasionally found to‑day outside freemasonry) may have been introduced by the early eighteenth‑century arrangers for the excellent purpose of allowing the story to be unfolded by the Candidate (or some one speaking for him), he being an eyewitness of and partaker in the discoveries upon which the ceremonial depends.
In the Irish ritual the Biblical contribution is the still older story of the repair of the Temple and Hilkiah’s discovery of the Volume of the Sacred Law, but the drama is centred on the crypt and developed in a similar way, and the symbolic interpretation is essentially the same as in the English system.
The Fourth‑century Legend of the Royal Arch
It is a very old legend that provides the background of the traditional story. How old we cannot say, but in written form and in Greek it goes back to at least the fourth century. It is known in slightly different versions, apparently all derived from that of Philostorgius (who was born about A.D. 364), and can be found in a comparatively modern translation included in a famous series, the Ecclesiastical Library, published by Henry George Bohn in London in 1855. The full title of the book is: “The Ecclesiastical History of Sozoman, comprising a History of the Church from A.D. 304 to A.D. 440. Translated from the Greek: with a memoir of the Author. Also the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, as epitomised by Photeus, Patriarch of Constantinople. Translated by Edward Walford, M.A., late Senior Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford.” Sozoman was an ecclesiastical historian. Photeus or Photius, a Greek scholar and theological writer of the Byzantine period, was Patriarch of Constantinople in 853 and died in 891. He compiled a Bibliotheca comprising a series of epitomies or digests of which the Philostorgius history was one.
All versions of the legend have necessarily a strong family likeness. A well‑known and much‑quoted version is that contained in Samuel Lee’s Orbis Miraculum, published in 1659. Even a casual study of this now rare and famous book can scarcely fail to give the impression that the framers of the early Royal Arch ceremonial had access to it, and drew inspiration not only from its text but from its frontispiece (see Plate III), in which the figures strikingly suggest the appearance of Royal Arch Principal Officers in early days. (In an alchemical book of about the same period is an illustration even more strongly suggesting such a likeness.) Samuel Lee’s frontispiece depicts Solomon, an obvious King, and Zadok, a priest in the Old Testament days who helped to carry “the ark of God.” They hold between them a banner carrying the title of the book and texts in Greek and English ‑ a quotation from Acts dealing with the coming out of Abraham from the land of the Chaldwans and a quotation from Hebrews dealing with certain sacrifices.
Samuel Lee was a classical scholar, born in London in 1629, Fellow of Wadham College in 1648, and at one time minister of St Botolph’s, near Bishopsgate, London. In 1686 he went with his family to New England. Returning in the reign of William in 1691, he was captured by a French privateer and carried to St Malo, where he died. An edition of his book, re Printed (with some omissions) by Christopher Kelly, Dublin, in 1803, under the title Solomon’s Temple Spiritualized, was claimed to have had the sanction and patronage of the Grand Lodge of Ireland.
Somewhere, about 1700 or perhaps earlier, the date being uncertain, was published An Historical Catechism, which reproduces a version of a story told in Godfrey Higgins’s Anacalypsis, volume i, said to have been taken from a Greek manuscript, Ecclesiastical History, by Nicephorus Callistus, who is presumed to be a Byzantine writer of the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century; the work by Callistus had been translated into Latin and printed in 1552, and a double version giving both the Greek and the Latin text appeared in Paris in 1630. From Nicephorus Callistus is derived much or all of the Book of God: The Apocalypse of Adam‑Oannes (Reeves and Turner, London, about 1880).
The reason for introducing all these names of authors and editors (more could have been mentioned) concerned in the publication and republication of the old legend is the desirability of preparing the reader for “discoveries” announced from time to time of extremely ancient Royal Arch legends, because such discoveries prove on investigation to be identical with, or a variant of one or other of, the versions given in the works above mentioned.
The Philostorgius Version of the Legend
Here is the legend as told in Walford’s translation of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius:
Chap. 14. When Julian bade the city of Jerusalem to be rebuilt in order to refute openly the predictions of our Lord concerning it, he brought about exactly the opposite of what he intended. For his work was checked by many other prodigies from heaven; and especially, during the preparation of the foundations, one of the stones which was placed at the lowest part of the base, suddenly started from its place and opened the door of a certain cave hollowed out in the rock. Owing to its depth, it was difficult to see what was within this cave: so persons were appointed to investigate the matter, who, being anxious to find out the truth, let down one of their workmen by means of a rope. On being lowered down he found stagnant water reaching up to his knees; and, having gone round the place and felt the walls on every side, he found the cave to be a perfect square. Then, in his return, as he stood near about the middle, he struck his foot against a column which stood rising slightly above the water. As soon as he touched this pillar, he found lying upon it a book wrapped up in a very fine and thin linen cloth; and as soon as he had lifted it up just as he had found it, he gave a signal to his companions to draw him up again. As soon as he regained the light, he showed them the book, which struck them all with astonishment, especially because it appeared so new and fresh, considering the place where it had been found. This book, which appeared such a mighty prodigy in the eyes of both heathens and Jews, as soon as it was opened shows the following words in large letters: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In fact, the volume contained that entire Gospel which had been declared by the divine tongue of the (beloved) disciple and the Virgin. Moreover, this miracle, together with other signs which were then shown from heaven, most clearly showed that “the word of the Lord would never go forth void,” which had foretold that the devastation of the Temple should be perpetual. For that Book declared Him who had uttered those words long before, to be God and the Creator of the Universe; and it was a very clear proof that “their labour was but lost that built,” seeing that the immutable decree of the Lord had condemned the Temple to eternal desolation.
The Julian referred to in the first line of the legend is the Roman Emperor Julian (331‑363), surnamed the Apostate, who succeeded his uncle Constantine the Great in 361 and, in his tolerance of religion, gave the Jews permission to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, his motive being to annoy the Christians, with whom, now that he had been converted back from Christianity, he had lost sympathy. From this it might appear that the actual subterranean chambers of King Solomon’s Temple were disturbed not by Zerubbabel, but by Julian the Apostate, who undertook to rebuild the Temple of Herod (destroyed by Titus) in order to falsify the prophecy (Matthew xxiv, 2) that there should not remain one stone upon another: “Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another.” But the effect of his reopening the subterranean chambers which had been closed for centuries was that, according to one version of the fable, explosions of accumulated gas killed his workmen and still further disturbed the masonry, so that, so far from falsifying the prophecy, he, in fact, helped to fulfil it.
In Samuel Lee’s Orbis Miraculum Ammianus Marcellinus is represented as relating the story of the Emperor Julian, who attempted at enormous cost to restore the most magnificent Temple at Jerusalem, which had been won by assault. He entrusted the work to Alypius of Antioch, but fire brought the work to an end.
The Callistus Version of the Legend
In another version of the legend, that by Callistus, it is an earthquake that interrupts the work. Here is his version much abbreviated (for an unabridged account, see A.Q.C., vol. xii):
“The Jews having got together” skilled men and materials, cleansed the place and “provided spades made of silver” (at the public charge). They cleared the ground “so that there was not a stone remaining upon a stone, according to the prophecy.” An earthquake the next day cast stones out of the foundation “so that many of the Jews were slain…. The publike buildings, also which were nearest the Temple were loosened, and falling down with great force, proved the sepulchres of those that were in them. . . . The earthquake was scarce over, but those that remained fell upon the work again, etc. But when the second time they attempted it, some fire violently issued out of the foundations … and consumed more than before…. Moreover, the fire which came down from Heaven consumed to ashes the hammers, graving tools, saws, hatchets, axes and all the other instruments which the Workmen had brought for their service, continuing a whole day together, etc., when Cyril, who was at the time Bishop of Jerusalem, saw these things: He considered in his minde the word of the Prophet Daniel, to which Christ also had set his seal in the Holy Gospel; He told them all, that now was the time that the Oracle of our Savour had its accomplishment; which said, That a stone should not remain upon a stone in the Temple. And when he had spoken this, a sore earthquake assiled the foundations, and cast out all the remaining stones, and dispersed them. Upon this there arose a fearful storm.”
Once again fire destroyed the company of workers. The narrative continues:
When the foundations were a laying … there was a stone amongst the rest, to which the bottom of the foundation was fastened, that slipt from its place and discovered the mouth of a cave which had been cut in the rock…. The Overseers … tied a long rope to one of the Labourers and let him down . . . searching every part of that hollow place, he found it to be four square, so far as he could conjecture by feeling.
Then follows the discovery in much the same words as in the first account above given.
It will be understood that in some details the versions vary one from the other, that they do not closely observe any precise order of events and that historical names are used with little or no regard for chronological sequence.
Other Versions of the Legend
The legends incorporated in the English, Irish, and Scottish rites are not the only ones by any means. The many variants cannot be given here (they belong more to certain additional degrees), but reference may be made to a vision of Enoch, father of Methuselah and the author of a Biblical book, which is known in a considerable number of versions. A. E. Waite, in a paper read before the Somerset. Masters’ Lodge in 1921, speaks of “The Book of Enoch,” said by him to be a series of visions beheld
by the Prophet when he was in the spirit … a prototype of Masonic tradition . . especially reflected in the Royal Arch. It is said that God showed Enoch nine. vaults in a vision, and that, with the assistance of Methuselah, his: son, be proceeded to erect in the bosom of the mountain of Canaan a secret ‘sanctuary, on the plan of which he had beheld, being vaults.beneath one another. In the ninth, or undermost, Enoch placed a triangle of purest gold, on which. he; had inscribed that which was presumably the heart, essence and centre of the Sacred Tradition, the True Name of God.
Later in the, paper the author refers “to the Royal Arch of Enoch or Knight of the Royal Arch, two titles and two forms, the second being incorporated into the long series of the Scottish rite.”
The Vault
The discovery by the Sojourners is assumed to have been made on the return of the Jews from their Babylonian exile,. approximately in the year 536 B.C. The crypt or vault in which the discoveries are made is not quite such a vault as might well have existed beneath the Sanctum Sanctorum, but is actually an arched vault of a construction closely associated with the medieval vaulted crypt, an architectural feature embodying a principle of construction not known until Gothic days and one well exemplified’ in the cathedrals of Norwich and Durham, these truly representing English Gothic architecture of the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. The Sojourners gained entrance to the crypt by removing one or more arch stones or keystones, a job presenting considerable difficulty and involving risk both to the workers and to the structure, but obviously the story cannot stand up to critical investigation and was not intended to do so. It must be accepted for what it is‑an attractive legend forming the background of a traditional history largely concerned with the efforts of the Jews returned from Babylonian exile to rebuild the Temple to the Honour and Glory of the Most High. A well‑known Masonic writer, the Rev. W. W. Covey Crump, once suggested that there may well be a factual basis for the legendary crypt, for he thinks that such crypts may be natural caves or survivals of structures built by Solomon and his successors; one of them, called Bir arruah ‑ ” the Well of Souls ” ‑ is said to be a place wherein spirits of deceased Moslems assemble twice a week for united prayer, but originally it seems to have been nothing more than a drain serving the sacrificial altar.
Symbolically the vault has always been associated with death and darkness. The Rev. Edward Young, an eighteenth‑century writer, dwelling on subjects to which authors of his day were much addicted, speaks of;
The knell, the shroud, the mattock, and the grave,
The deep damp vault, the darkness, and the worm.
Hence the imagery of the Royal Arch story, a simple allegory pointing the way from death to life, from darkness to light. With, the many more elaboratd symbolic explanations we in these pages are not concerned, but readers will be familiar with some of them occurring in the ritual, etc.
The crypt, of course, is an accepted hiding‑place, and we have come to regard 祖ryptic’ things as secret things or as things that are uncovered or revealed only to the enlightened few; indeed, the word itself tells us as much, for it is a slightly corrupted form of the Greek krupro ‑ ” hide, keep secret.”
The Arch
The arch is a very old architectural structure, but the use of the arch is not the most ancient way of covering in the space between two uprights. Much earlier than the arch is the method employed by the Babylonians; the Assyrians, the earliest Egyptians, and probably, to some extent, the Jews of Solomon’s day‑‑‑that of carrying beams across the opening. The arch, of course, made possible a much wider span, for the length of a beam is limited by its ability to support its own weight, and in the days of timber beams that length was not very great. Still, the arch was known in some countries at least two thousand years B.C., probably far earlier, and over a long period has been held to be an emblem of strength and beauty. Its use in symbolism has been largely inspired by the rainbow (“The triumphal arch fills the sky”), and quite early in Masonic ritual (actually in 1723) we get this question and answer:
Q. Whence comes the pattern of an arch?
A. From the rainbow.
And Laurence Dermott, in his first edition of Ahiman Rezon, quotes
And to confirm my Promise unto thee,
Amidst the Clouds my Bow a witness be;
A heav’nly Arch.
One of two old brasses, only three inches wide and nine inches long, preserved in the Stirling Lodge, No. 30 (probably the old “Lodge of Stirlinge” and, if so, dating to long before the year 1708), carries a rough engraving depicting five concentric arches, probably based on the rainbow, although a rough arch stone is indicated; these brasses are illustrated in A.Q.C., vol. vi. In a tracing‑cloth or tracing‑board bought in 1827 by the Chapter of Sincerity, No. 261, Taunton, a prominent emblem is a rainbow, the symbol of God’s covenant with man: “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth” Genesis ix, 13).
Despite the insistence of the architectural idea, it must be said that many Masonic writers have considered the possibility that the Masonic word ‘Arch’ originally had nothing to do with architecture, but was instead an adjective meaning ‘Chief,’ as in ‘Archbishop,’ ‘Archduke,’ and ,arch‑conspirator,’ and some authors have suggested that the association of the word in early masonry with ‘Excellent’ and ‘super‑excellent’ supports that interpretation. The possibility cannot be ruled out, but the architectural interpretation is much the more likely, having regard to the close association between the arch stone and the vaulted crypt.
The suggestion has been made that, as the Greek word for ‘beginning’ is arche, it is possible to read “In the Arch was the Word … and the Word was God.” A well‑known student regarded this as “an attractive possibility.” It is certainly ingenious, but it must be remembered that the early and ordinary references in Masonic literature to the arch relate to the noun representing a structure, and that this structure, in all probability, was introduced into freemasonry because its erection was then regarded as the work, of the most highly skilled craftsmen and its invention and design a supreme achievement.
The true arch, the arch of freemasonry, derives its strength from its principle of construction. The vertical supports carry a series of tapered or wedge‑shaped stones spanning the opening between them. Some strength may be provided by any cement or mortar joints between the stones, but the real strength of the arch, its ability to carry a load ‑ and that, after all, is the usual purpose of the arch ‑ depends on the presence of the keystone, the arch stone, the stone at the top and centre of the curve, without which the other stones must collapse. The arch stone functions independently of any cement or mortar, and transmits the weight of the superstructure through the other stones on both sides of it to the abut ments or side‑supports. In so doing, of course, it transmits an outward thrust that would tend to destroy the arch were it not for the supports, which have to be strong enough to resist the thrust, and are often buttressed, and were at one time often tied together for that purpose.
So the arch stone or keystone, the wedge‑shaped centre stone, crowns or completes the structure and is an essential part of the true arch. It is sometimes called the cape‑stone or cope‑stone or coping‑stone, although ordinarily a cope‑stone is merely the top stone or top course of a wall, hence the stone that crowns or finishes the work. Robert Burns used the word symbolically when he spoke of “the last sad cape‑stone o’ his woes,” and we get this same symbolism in the much‑quoted phrase “The Royal Arch is the Cope‑stone of the Masonic Order.” We have seen that the vault or crypt in Royal Arch masonry is a vault closed by a true arch, a catenarian arch, and it follows that the device of an arch, with arch stone removed or otherwise, is the accepted image of the vault or crypt in particular and of the Royal Arch in general. It has already been shown that it is in the highest degree unlikely that this particular form of vault or crypt could have been found in the Temple of Jerusalem, for the arch shown in Masonic illustrations is the Gothic arch, taking our minds back to medieval days, when masons learned to design and build arches having a boldness and freedom unknown to those of ancient times.
We are all well aware of the anachronism involved. It is quite clear that the designers of Solomon’s days were barely acquainted with the arch, still less with any means of arriving at its theoretical form, and that the imtenarian idea symbolized in the Royal Arch chapter is an introduction of very much later days, being due originally, it is thought, to Galilei, who propounded it in the seventeenth century. The objection is not of much moment, for, although the traditional history based upon the Bible narrative belongs to a period a few centuries B.C., the ritual story tends largely to assume the complexion of medieval days, which, architecturally, were distinguished for one particular introduction, that of vaulting or arched roofing worked in stone.
The Catenarian Arch
While the form of the Craft or Symbolic lodge is that of an oblong square (two units long by one unit wide), that of a Royal Arch chapter approaches that of a true catenarian arch, symbolically preserving a memorial of the vaulted shrine. Further, the “impenetrable nature of this the strongest of all architectural forms” teaches various lessons which are brought to the attention of the Royal Arch mason. The word 祖atenarian’ is derived from a Latin word catena, meaning 祖hain,’ and in architecture
refers to the curve which a chain (or a rope, etc.) naturally forms when suspended at its two ends. The curve so formed is a catenarian curve, and. when inverted, delineates the curve of a type of arch better able to resist forces of destruction than the earlier semicircular arch. Investigators who followed Galilei and studied the catenarian arch mathematically were able to show that a simple catenarian outline was formed by the chain suspended as already described, the length of the chain depending upon the required span and rise of the arch. More truly, the curve is given by swinging the chain suspended at its two ends (roughly, the skipping‑rope, gives the idea). It is highly probable that long before the properties of the catenarian arch had been developed by the philosophers the type of arch was known to the old freemasons who built Henry VII’s chapel and other structures of about the same period.
A correspondent, aware that Sir Christopher Wren caused chains to be embedded in cement or concrete at the base of the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral, suggested in A.Q. C., vol. lxiv, that the term “catenarian arch” is not used as above explained, but merely implies a reference to Wren’s chain. Such an implication arises from a misunderstanding. The catenarian arch is a philosopher’s and mathematician’s effort to produce an arch as nearly perfect as design and material could make it, one capable of supporting great weight and having a minimum destructive (sideways) thrust on the arch supports. Wren’s chain has nothing to do with masonry; instead it is an engineering device for containing certain outward and destructive pressures. If Wren had so wished he could have contained those pressures in other ways, but aesthetic considerations, the need for economy ‘of material, and any other of half a dozen reasons known to that remarkable architect led him to indulge in what was then a daring experiment.
The reader will appreciate that a chapter conforming to Wren’s chain would be circular in plan and would not agree with the explanation in the ritual.
Reference to any architectural manual will show that the catenarian arch is one of a great many accepted arch forms.
In the Royal Arch chapter we have to use imagination to see the catenarian arch and its supports, for they exist there not in the vertical plane but in the horizontal. In the earliest Royal Arch lodges or chapters they may well have been represented by chalk lines on the floor. On the North side of the chapter are the Companions and Scribe E., forming one pillar; on the South the Companions and Scribe N., forming the other one. Those are the pillars with which we are familiar in Craft masonry. Connecting them in the East is the curved line of the catenarian arch, and at the apex of the curve are the Three Principals. In a public advertisement in London in 1754 the Scribes are referred to as the pillars, and in an gold Scottish minute (Kilwinning, 1780) the Candidates are described as having “royally descended and ascended the Arch.” John Coustos in his evidence before the Inquisition in 1743 (see p. 43) said that on the floor of the London lodges were fashioned (in white chalk) two columns (those of the Temple). It is these columns which are still to be seen in the form of a Royal Arch chapter ‑ but only by the eye of imagination!
The Triple Arch
Many tracing‑boards and particularly jewels of the eighteenth century depict the arch with the centre stone removed, and in a great many cases the arch is not of single construction. Often it consists of three arches, one .arch built within the other, perhaps the most notable example being the jewel worn by the Nine Worthies appointed by the Antients’ in 1792; it will be seen that the arches are one within the other, so lending colour to the legendary story of the three separate discoveries made in the course of the successive removal of three arch stones.
A triple arch of quite different character appears in a certificate issued by a chapter of “the Royal Arch, York Rite,” at Paris in the Phoenix Lodge in 1817 ‑ an attractive drawing of three arches probably of a completely impracticable character (see Plate II); two arches side by side have resting on their central arch stones a third arch. In another certificate issued by the same lodge there is the image of a semicircular arch divided by internal masonry to form three arches (see second illustration, Plate II).
In an added degree whose ritual is closely suggested by that of the Royal Arch the essentials of the Royal Arch discovery were traditionally preserved through the centuries by certain means, including the construction of a secret vault which led through nine arches from Solomon’s innermost apartment to a spot immediately under the Sanctum Sanctorum.
There is no doubt that some old chapters and Royal Arch lodges, particularly Irish and American, found some use in their ceremonial for miniature arches made of wood; one known to exist was semicircular, about eighteen inches wide and built of mahogany. A 喪eal’ arch was used in the North of England ceremonial given in an earlier section.
The Double‑cubical Stone
The most helpful inquiry into the evidence for the existence in ancient Jewish times of a double‑cubical stone was made by the Rev. W. W. Covey Crump, and in publishing its result in Miscellanea Latomorum, vol. xxix, he admits that he does not know how the double‑cube came into freemasonry, and feels that no precedent can be seriously claimed for it in ancient symbolism. (It is regretted that the learned author did not widen his search to include alchemical writings, for the basic idea of the double‑cubical stone might possibly be found there.) The V.S.L., says Covey Crump, does not provide any authority for the idea that the Hebrews attached any significance to a cube or to a double cube, except that it can be inferred that the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Mishkan (or ‘Tabernacle,’ as distinct from the Ohel, or ‘tent’) was a cubical apartment ‑ 10 cubits in length, breadth, and elevation. The Ark of the Covenant‑by far the most sacred and important appurtenance of the Tabernacle and of the subsequent Temple was 2 ｽ by 1 ｽ by 1 ｽ cubits, thus neither a cube nor double cube. The Altar of Burnt Offering in the Tabernacle was 5 by 5 by 3 cubits, a hollow bronze enclosure intended to be filled with earth and stones. In the Temple of Solomon those dimensions were much greater, 20 by 20 by 10 cubits, but still did not constitute a double cube.
Finally, says Covey Crump, in the description of the Tabernacle (Exodus xxx, 2; xxxvii, 25) the dimensions of the Golden Altar of Incense are given as 1 by 1 by a cubits, thus a double cube (see Josephus iii, 6, 8). Modern scholars question whether there really was an Altar of Incense in the Mosaic Tabernacle, for at that period manual censers were used ‑ that is, ladles of bronze with stems and handles of gold, such as are frequently shown on Egyptian monuments and referred to in Numbers xvi, G, 39; Leviticus xvi, 12; and elsewhere. Not until the time of King Uzziah (roughly 759 B.C.) can we be certain that there was an Altar of Incense in the Temple (a Chronicles xxvi, 16); after which time such altars became numerous in Jerusalem (a Chronicles xxx, 14), but apparently no significance was attached to their proportions. In Zerubbabel’s Temple there was a similar altar, which was carried away when the Temple was plundered in the second century B.C.
With the foundation‑stone of King Solomon’s Temple the mythical “Stone of Foundation” is often confused. Still quoting Covey Crump, the stone Shethiyah mentioned in the Talmud is said to have been taken from His throne in heaven by God, Who cast it into the primeval Abyss to form a foundation for the world. A Talmudic legend relates that it (or a fragment of it) became a base for the Ark of the Covenant in Solomon’s Temple; there it stood “three fingers above the ground” ‑ that is, not touching the ground, but poised in mid‑air to preserve the sacred Ark from contact with the earth.
A remarkable allusion to Solomon’s principal foundation‑stone of the Temple occurs in Samuel Lee’s Orbis Miraculum, freely quoted from earlier in this section:
The Mysteries laid up in the foundation of the Temple. . some assert that God placed this [foundation] stone … in the Centre of the World, for a firme basis and settled consistency for the Earth to rest upon. Others held this stone to be the first matter, only which all the beautiful visible beings of the World have bin hewn forth, and produced to light. Others relate that this was the very same stone laid by Jacob for a pillar near his head, in that night when he dreamed of an Angelical vision at Bethel, and afterward annointed and consecrated it unto God. Which when Solomon had found … he durst not but lay it sure, as the Principal Foundation stone of the Temple. Nay (they say further) he caused to be engraven upon it, the Tetragrammaton or the ineffable name of Jehovah. All which stories are but so many idle and absurd conceits.
The characters borne by the double cube in our chapters are referred to elsewhere; meanwhile such an early and significant allusion as Samuel Lee’s to a stone bearing the Tetragrammaton in engraved characters ‑ it is of the year 1659 ‑ will not escape the reader’s attention.