JACOB'S PILLAR #5
THE CORONATION STONE
The Coronation Stone that reposes in St. Edward's Chapel in
Britain's sacred Abbey of Westminster (NOW it is back in Scotland
for safe-keeping - Keith Hunt) has stirred men's imaginations for
centures. In light of Bible history no other inanimate object on
earth has been given such honored use and glorious purpose as
that given to this block of sandstone known as the "Stone of
Destiny". What is its origin? What enshrines it with an
importance far beyond its intrinsic value?
In his essay on "Certain Monuments of Antiquity", Weaver says (p.
118):
"It appears that the Irish kings, from very ancient times until
A.D.513, were crowned upon a particular sacred stone called
'Liath Fail', 'the Stone of Destiny', that, so also, were the
Scottish kings until the year 1296, when Edward I of England
brought it here. And it is a curious fact that this stone has not
only remained in England unto now, and is existing still under
the coronation chair of our British sovereigns in Westminster
Abbey, but that all our kings, from James I, have been crowned in
that chair. This being a fact so curious, we shall quote its
particulars in a note taken from Toland, in his 'History of the
Druids' (pp.137-9)."
Toland's statement is this:
"The Fatal Stone (Liag Fail) so called, was the stone on which
the supreme kings of Ireland used to be inaugurated, in time of
heathenism on the hill of Tarah; it was superstitiously sent to
confirm the Irish colony in the north of Great Britain, where it
was continued as the coronation seat of the Scottish kings ever
since Christianity; till in the year 1300 (1296 A.D.). Edward I,
of England brought it from Scone, placing it under the coronation
chair at Westminster, and there it still continues. I had almost
forgot to tell you that it is now called by the vulgar, Jacob's
stone - as if this had been Jacob's pillow at Bethel!"
Dean Stanley, one-time custodian of the Stone, in his book
"Memorials of Westminster Abbey", sums up its historical
importance in these words:
"It is the one primevel monument which binds together the whole
Empire. The iron rings, the battered surface, the crack which has
all but rent its solid mass asunder, bear witness of the English
monarchy - an element of poetic, patriarchal, heathen times,
which, like Araunah's rocky threshing floor in the midst of the
Temple of Solomon, carries back our thoughts to races and customs
now almost extinct; a link which unites the Throne of England to
the traditions of Tara and Iona" (2nd Edit. pg.66).
The he rugged surface of the Stone of Destiny is of a steely
dull-purplish color, varying somewhat, and with some reddish
veins. It is composed of calcareous sandstone and imbedded in it
are a few pebbles; one of quartz and two others of a dark
material (porhyrite or andesite?). Its shape is roughly
"pillow-like" being about 26" in length; 16" in width, and 10 and
1/2" in depth. Across its surface runs a crack and some
chisel-marks are still visible on one or two sides. It appears to
have been in the process of being prepared for building purposes,
but was discarded before being finished. There are two large iron
rings (of some rust resistant alloy), one at each end of the
Stone which hang loosely from eyes, made of similar metal let
into the Stone.
The rings in the ends of the Stone would indicate that
porter poles were once used to transport the Stone. At first, it
would appear as if two poles were used, one of them passed
through the ring at each end, so that four persons would be
required to carry it. However, when turned up, these rings
protrude above the top of the stone, enabling one pole to be
passed through both rings across the top of the Stone,
theoretically allowing it to be carried by only two persons.
In preparation for King George V's coronation, the Stone was
temporarily removed from the Coronation Chair, and a photograph
was taken of it. This photograph disclosed that a groove runs
right across the stone from ring to ring. From its appearance
this groove was not cut, but was clearly the result of friction
from a single pole being passed across from ring to ring. Such an
indentation and wearing away of material indicates the enormous
amount of carrying that the Stone was subjected to. If, as it
appears, a single pole was used, because of the weight of the
Stone (about 336 pounds) it is probable that more than two
persons actually carried the Stone. Yoke-like cross beams could
have been attached to both ends of the pole for the convenience
of two or more persons at each end of the pole.
British, Scotch and Irish records of the Stone of Destiny
locate it at Tara, Ireland (some five centuries before Christ),
from where it was transported to Scotland in circa A.D. 498 by
Fergus the Great. From there it was taken to Iona circa A.D. 563;
then to Dunstaffnage from where it was removed to Scone, near
Perth, Scotland. Finally it was moved, by Edward I, to
Westminster Abbey, London in A.D.1296. Thus, from Tara to
Westminster, coverning over 1800 years of history, it was never
carried to any appreciable extent. The mere removal from these
places could not account for the wearing away of the Stone that
was evidently caused by the friction of a pole used in constant
carrying. This must have been the result of many months of
continuous carrying, prior to its arrival in Tara. The story of
its journeying from Bethel, in the time of Jacob, and its
accompanying the children of Israel in the Wilderness, would
account for its present condition.
One of the most significant facts about the Coronation Stone
is that no similar rock formation exists in the British Isles.
Professor Totten, the eminent professor of Science at Yale
University, after making a rough examination of the Stone made
the following statement: "The analysis of the stone shows that
there are absolutely no quarries in Scone or Iona where-from a
block so constituted could possibly have come, nor yet from
Tara". Professor Odlum, a geologist (and Professor of Theology at
an Ontario University), also made microscopic examinations of the
Coronation Stone, comparing it to similar stone from Scotland
(including Iona and the quarries of Ireland) and found them
dissimilar.
Professor Odlum became tremendously interested in the Stone.
He was intrigued with the idea that perhaps its source could be
found in Palestine, as suggested by the ancient records of
Ireland. Determined to make the search, and after several weeks
of unsuccessful exploration, Odlum discovered a stratum of
sandstone near the Red Sea at Bethel, geologically the same as
the Coronation Stone. Relating the circumstances of the discovery
to a friend upon his return to Britain, the Professor stated:
"I put on my old mackintosh, I stuck my geologist's hammer in my
pocket, and I went out for one last look. It was pouring rain. I
walked along the same places I had walked over and over again,
looking for stone. Suddenly, while I was walking along a certain
pathway, with a rocky cliff on either side, the sun shone on the
rain-streaked piece of rock, and I noticed a peculiar sort of
glitter that I thought I recognized. I climbed up, and I found
that wet rock, as far as I could see with the magnifying glass I
had, was of the identical texture I had been looking for.
I chipped off a piece from the living rock. I took it back to the
hotel and examined it as well as I could. I was sure I had got
what I wanted".
Although a microscopic test of the sample Bethel stone
matched perfectly with the same test made of the Coronation
Stone, the Professor wanted to make chemical tests of both
stones, to dispel all doubts as to the source of Britain's
treasured relic. To save time, Odlum cabled a geologist friend in
England and said: "Will you do all you possibly can to get a
piece of the Coronation Stone no bigger than a pea, in order that
we may submit it to a chemical test." The geologist friend made
application to the Dean of Westminster Abbey to be allowed to
take a piece, no bigger than a pea, from the Coronation Stone.
The Dean said: "I daren't let you have permission. The only way
you can get permission would be from the Archbishop of
Canterbury."
Application was made to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
this was the reply of the Archbishop: "To take a piece from that
stone no bigger than a pea would require a special Act of
Parliament to be passed by the House of Commons, endorsed by the
House of Lords and signed by the King; and if you get that," said
the Archbishop, "I WON'T give you permission."
..................
To be continued
|
