The Secret History of Lucifer: And the Meaning of the True Da Vinci Code (38 page)

Some authorities" suggest Newton (who was knighted in 1705) may have actually achieved the fabled Great Work - after all, secrecy is no proof of failure, especially in such an intensely private discipline as alchemy. Look at how Leonardo triumphed behind closed doors, although his natural secretiveness did little to prevent the spread of rumours about his `sorcery'.

However, in the case of the British scientist Andrew Crosse, such a reputation - and worse - was to cost him a very promising career and the prospect of being feted throughout history as the discoverer of something very strange, perhaps even the creator of life itself ...

One who, according to his second wife, `delighted in whatever was strange and marvellous', Andrew Crosse was born in 1784 in the west of England and grew into a clever, questing young man. Probably because his father knew Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Priestley, both pioneers of the new science of electricity, Crosse was fascinated by it from the age of twelve. After some wasted years as a typical `lad-about-town', he settled down to experiments into electro-crystallization in partnership with George John Singer. But then in 1837 something happened that remains bewildering to this day, as Crosse explains:

In the course of my endeavours to form artificial minerals by a long continued electric action on fluids holding in solution such substances as were necessary to my purpose, I had recourse to every variety of contrivance that I could think of; amongst others I constructed a wooden frame, which supported a Wedgwood funnel, within which rested a quart basin on a circular piece of mahogany. When this basin was filled with a fluid, a strip of flannel wetted with the same was suspended over the side of the basin and inside the funnel, which, acting like a syphon, conveyed the fluid out of the basin through the funnel in successive drops: these drops fell into a smaller funnel of glass placed beneath the other, and which contained a piece of somewhat porous red oxide iron from Vesuvius. This stone was kept constantly electrified ...

On the fourteenth day from the commencement of this experiment I observed through a lens a few small whitish excrescences or nipples, projecting from about the middle of the electrified stone. On the eighteenth day these projections enlarged, and stuck out seven or eight filaments, each of them longer than the hemisphere on which they grew. On the twenty-sixth day these appearances assumed the form of a perfect insect, standing erect on a few bristles which formed its tail ... On the twenty-eight day these little creatures moved their legs ... After a few days they detached themselves from the stone, and moved about at pleasure 42

What on earth were the acari, or tiny mites? Further experiments only served to reinforce the mystery. Crosse recorded after the third attempt at replication:

I had omitted to insert within the bulb of the retort a resting place for these acari (they are always destroyed if they fall back into the fluid from which they have emerged). It is strange that, in a solution eminently caustic and under an atmosphere of oxihy- drogen gas, one single acarus should have made its appearance 43

Strange indeed.

Having involved the steady and methodical W. H. Weeks to attempt to replicate the experiments - whose first concern was to ensure that no extraneous insect eggs fell into the equipment - matters were progressing well. But then Crosse made the mistake of discussing his discovery with the editor of a local newspaper, when all hell broke loose. Had this mad scientist actually created life in his secret laboratory? Who was this mere man to play God? Although eminent scientists such as Michael Faraday (1791-1867) went to some lengths to defend Crosse, Mr Weeks ruined it by solemnly announcing that the experiments had indeed `given birth' to living creatures.

Bewildered and hurt, Crosse retired to his rural laboratory, only to find himself a social pariah: the local vicar even carried out an exorcism on the locality. Crosse's innocent and objective discovery had marked him out as a Mephistophelean dabbler in the Black Arts. Although he returned to his research - intending to construct `a battery at once cheap, powerful and durable'' and worked on the preservation of food and the purification of sea water through the use of electricity - he remained a broken man, an object of ridicule and superstitious fear.

Before he died from a stroke in May 1855 he said: `... the utmost extent of human knowledge is but comparative ignorance' 45 The inscription on his gravestone reads:

Sacred to the memory of

ANDREW CROSSE/THE ELECTRICIAN ... HE WAS HUMBLE TOWARDS GOD AND KIND TO HIS FELLOW CREATURES

- perhaps a dig at those who thought him very arrogant towards God, and those who were less than kind to him.

To this day, no one is sure what the acari were, and Crosse is largely forgotten except in books about mysteries. But this true scientist may be remembered in much more sensational form: in 1814 the poet Robert Southey (1774-1843) visited his friends Mary and Percy Shelley after having discussed his experiments with Crosse himself. The three friends spent some hours on the subject. And the Shelleys attended a talk given by Crosse that same year. Four years later Mary Shelley (1797-1851) produced her first novel, Frankenstein, about an eccentric scientist who creates life in his laboratory through the use of electricity ... Was this a particularly bizarre case of life following art, or a nasty attack of the Cosmic Joker? Although sceptics might claim Shelley's novel put the idea of creating life in Crosse's head, all the evidence suggests that his mystery was genuine. But in any case, his is the classic case of the Luciferan martyr, persecuted by the mindless mob for honestly investigating a scientific anomaly.

Sons of the Widow

On Saint John the Baptist's Day (24 June) 1717 the Grand Lodge of English Freemasonry was formed, taking what had been a truly secret society concerned with the preservation of sacred knowledge into a new semi-secret era that some might argue saw it degenerate into little more than a well-refreshed dining club.

An `Invisible College' of Masons had existed in 1645,46 but if as certain authors47 claim, they were the rightful descendants of the Knights Templar, then obviously they possessed a much longer pedigree. Indeed, an alchemical treatise dating from the 1450s specifically uses the term 'Freemason' ,4' and researcher John J. Robinson cites evidence of Masonic lodges as far back as the 1380s.49 But as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries passed, it became clear, according to one writer, Robert Lomas, that the Freemasons were at the forefront of a Luciferan explosion of unprecedented scientific invention and discovery and intellectual progress, with the formation of the Royal Society in 1660, `the oldest and most respected scientific society in the world'.50 Under the auspices of Freemason Sir Robert Moray, the aims of the Society were to be:

To overcome the mysteries of all the works of Nature for the benefit of human life51 ... and this is the highest pitch of human reason; to follow all the links of this chain, till all secrets are open to our minds; and their words advanced, or imitated by our hands towards the settling of an universal, constant and impartial survey of the whole Creation 52

Predictably, the Masons have suffered their fair share of abuse and outsiders' paranoia, especially from zealous Catholics and, more recently, fundamentalist Christians, who see `the Brotherhood' as a sinister conclave of either quasi-Devil worshippers or outright Satanists. A quick glance at the host of fundamentalist websites devoted to this subject will soon reveal the gist of their attitude. According to American scientist and Masonic writer S. Brent Morris, their fulminations usually begin with the words: `On July 14, 1889, Albert Pike, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, addressed to the 23 Supreme confederated Councils of the world the following .. .'53 They go on to quote Pike's alleged declaration:

If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay, whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adanay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.

Thus the doctrine of Satanism is heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adanay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adanay, the God of Darkness and Evil 54

There have been no shortage of others willing to condemn Pike for the worship of Lucifer. The French commentator Jules Bois wrote in 1902:

It is surprising, the sacrilegious Gospel of Albert Pike. He divides Christ's existence into two parts: in the first, he classes his doctrine in a way rational, natural (Christ was then, for him, the envoy of the `Good God', that is to say Lucifer). In the second, he had the mystic exaltation ... such as his affirmation that he is himself the son of God and equal to the father .. . According to Albert Pike, Jesus had signed a pact with Adonai ... [where] a desire for solitary divinisation had intoxicated him, rendering him unreasonable and in human. From then, Lucifer abandoned him and, in exchange for his apostasy, had inflicted on him by the people the torture due to thieves.

I believe that, with this example, we touch the centre of Lucifer ss

However, according to Brent Morris and many other modern Masons, all this and similar commentary is slander, based on a hoax perpetrated by `Leo Taxil' (Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages). He publicly confessed his deception in 1897,56 although that part of the story is usually overlooked by those eager to brand Masons as Satanists. Brent notes that rabbis, bishops and other men of God are among those who should have been taught `this disgusting "Luciferian doctrine"' if it existed, and it `is inconceivable there would not have been mass resignations'.51

Some Catholic zealots and fundamentalists also tend to quote Madame Blavatsky in the same breath as the Taxil slander: this nineteenth-century Russian visionary and founder of the Theosophical Society has a perhaps not entirely deserved reputation for charlatanism - but her monumental writings have been most influential on many to this day, including various secret societies. For example, she wrote: `Lucifer represents ... Life ... Thought ... Progress ... Civilization ... Liberty ... Independence ... Lucifer is the Logos, the Serpent, the Saviour.'"'

In this light, it is worth examining Madame Blavatsky's writings more closely in order to understand the esoteric tradition she represented. In her Isis Unveiled: A Master-Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology she quotes the Vatican's Ecumenical Council of 1870: `Let him be ANATHEMA ... who shall say that human Sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions even when opposed to revealed doctrines'.59 She adds: `Christianity is on trial, and has been, ever since science felt strong enough to act as Public Prosecutor.'60 Although temptingly - and endlessly - quotable, just two more of her little gems will have to suffice here: she notes that the ancients were `too enlightened to believe in a personal devil 161 and `Hell and its sovereign are both inventions of Christianity, coeval with its accession to power and resort to tyranny . . .' With a contemptuous flourish, she adds: `Sad degeneration of human brains!'62

While the Masons indignantly deny Pike's alleged devotion to Lucifer - and there is no reason to doubt that Taxil did perpetrate a hoax intended to slander them - one is left wondering why they are quite so upset. As we now know there is absolutely no need to equate Lucifer with Satan, and in any case, the quotations given above reflect almost pure Gnosticism. In fact, for an organization that prides itself on mystical understanding and tolerance one is left hoping that they do secretly honour the real Lucifer, whose attributes would have made him the perfect patron for the Royal Society.

Indeed, the Masons take religious tolerance particularly seriously, as the following extract from a letter to myself from Masonic writer Robert Lomas makes very clear:

No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical, and assert the right to persecute, if we would, and claim our toleration as a merit.

The Mason's creed goes farther than that; no man, it holds, has any right, in any way, to interfere with the religious belief of another. It holds that each man is absolutely sovereign as to his own belief, and that belief is a matter absolutely foreign to all who do not entertain the same belief; and that if there were any right of persecution at all, it would in all cases be a mutual right, because one party has the same right as the other to sit as judge in his own case - and God is the only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them 63

Robert Lomas points out, therefore, that `Freemasonry is not liked by organized religions because it is tolerant of any and all religious beliefs. And shows no favouritism to any. So Freemasonry does not encourage devil worship but neither does it condemn it. [My emphasis].' Of course to Christians this in itself would be tantamount to devil-worship.

Leaving aside the Taxil hoax, do Masons have any connection with Lucifer? The Bright Morning Star is, according to Lomas, `a key feature in both the First Degree Tracing Board and Third Degree Ceremony', key initiations intended to change the Mason's entire outlook in radically profound ways, as he explains in a Masonic paper:

The process of initiation is one of regeneration. It means Developing your inmost essence, first to birth and then to full growth. This involves a rejection and mystical death of all the lower principles that obstruct your growth. This is the path traced through our three Degrees.

The first stage involves refining your gross sense-nature, killing your desire for material attractions and developing indifference to the allure of the outer world.