untenable theory as that proposed by some imaginative writers, that the
Freemasonry of the patriarchs was in its organization, its ritual, or its
symbolism, like the system which now exists. We know not indeed, that it
had a ritual, or even a symbolism. I am inclined to think that it was made
up of abstract propositions, derived from antediluvian traditions. Dr.
Oliver thinks it probable that there were a few symbols among these
Primitive and Pure Freemasons, and he enumerates among them the serpent,
the triangle, and the point within a circle; but I can find no authority
for the supposition, nor do I think it fair to claim for the order more
than it is fairly entitled to, nor more than it can be fairly proved to
possess. When Anderson calls Moses a Grand Master, Joshua his Deputy, and
Aholiab and Bezaleel Grand Wardens, the expression is to be looked upon
simply as a _façon de parler_, a mode of speech entirely figurative in its
character, and by no means intended to convey the idea which is
entertained in respect to officers of that character in the present
system. It would, undoubtedly, however, have been better that such
language should not have been used.

All that can be claimed for the system of Primitive Freemasonry, as
practised by the patriarchs, is, that it embraced and taught the two great
dogmas of Freemasonry, namely, the unity of God, and the immortality of
the soul. It may be, and indeed it is highly probable, that there was a
secret doctrine, and that this doctrine was not indiscriminately
communicated. We know that Moses, who was necessarily the recipient of the
knowledge of his predecessors, did not publicly teach the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul. But there was among the Jews an oral or secret
law which was never committed to writing until after the captivity; and
this law, I suppose, may have contained the recognition of those dogmas of
the Primitive Freemasonry.