FREEMASONRY: THE EARLY YEARS

The curious thing about this secretive organization is there are no clearly reliable sources by which to establish its origins. This has led to a number of conjectures, both from within and without freemasonry, as to its founders. Not uncommonly, great age is attributed to this organization. Consider:

“The premier work on the subject was published in London in 1723, the Rev. James Anderson being the author of the historical portion, introductory to the first ‘Book of Constitutions’ of the original Grand Lodge of England. Dr. Anderson gravely states that ‘Grand Master Moses often marshalled the Israelites into a regular and general lodge, whilst in the wilderness….King Solomon was Grand Master of the lodge at Jerusalem….Nebuchadnezzar became the Grand Master Mason,’ &c., devoting many more pages to similar absurdities, but dismisses the important modern innovation (1716-1717) of a Grand Lodge with a few lines noteworthy for their brief and indefinite character.” [THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed., Vol. 11, p.78]

Why is this important? Consider:

“The Mother Grand Lodge of the world is that of England, which was inaugurated in the metropolis on St John Baptist’s day 1717 by four or more old lodges, three of which still flourish…Whatever the ceremonies may have been which were then known as Freemasonry in Great Britain and Ireland, they were practically alike, and the venerable Old Charges or MS. constitutions, dating back several centuries, were rightly held by them as the title-deeds of their masonic inheritance.

“It was a bold thing to do, thus to start a governing body for the fraternity quite different in many respects to all preceding organizations, and to brand as irregular all lodges which declined to accept such authority; but the very originality and audacity of its promoters appears to have led to its success, and it was not long before most of the lodges of the pre-Grand Lodge era joined and accepted ‘constitution’ by warrant of the Grand Master. Not only so, but Ireland quickly followed the lead, so early as 1725 there being a Grand Lodge for that country, which must have been formed even still earlier, and probably by lodges started before any were authorized in the English counties. In Scotland the change was not made until 1736, many lodges even then holding aloof from such an organization….

“It is important to bear in mind that all the regular lodges throughout the world, and likewise all the Grand Lodges, directly or indirectly, have sprung from one or other of the three governing bodies named;…It is not proved how the latter two became acquainted with Freemasonry as a secret society, guided more or less by the operative MS. Constitutions or Charges common to the three bodies, not met with elsewhere; but the credit of a Grand Lodge being established to control the lodges belongs to England.

“It may be a startling declaration, but it is well authenticated, that there is no other Freemasonry, as the term is now understood, than what which has been so derived. In other words, the lodges and Grand Lodges in both hemispheres trace their origin and authority back to England for working what are known as the Three Degrees, controlled by regular Grand Lodges. That being so, a history of modern Freemasonry, the direct offspring of the British parents aforesaid, should first of all establish the descent of the three Grand Lodges from the Freemasonry of earlier days; such continuity, of five centuries or more, being a sine qua non of antiquity and regularity.” [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11Ed., Vol.11, pages 78=79] 

One might well observe that among Freemasons there are many who want to stress “an ancient and honorable society” from which their organization is descended. On the other hand this is a secretive society. Therefore, claiming ancient antecedants is fairly safe, but talking freely and learnedly about a contemporary Freemasonic lodge might seem a violation of one’s pledge to secrecy. Consider:

“That there were signs and other secrets preserved and used by the brethren throughout this mainly operative period may be gathered from discreet references in these old MSS. The Institutions in parchment (22nd of November 1696) of the Dumfries Kilwinning Lodge (No. 53, Scotland) contain a copy of the oath taken ‘when any man should be made’:–

‘These Charges which we now reherse to you and all others ye secrets and misterys belonging to free masons you shall faithfully and truly keep, together with ye Counsell of ye assembly or lodge, or any other lodge, or brother, or fellow.’ ” [THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th ed., Vol. 11, page 80.]

Now, since the word “operative” is referenced above, rather than “speculative,” one can certainly infer that all or nearly all members of this lodge were in fact builders of cathedrals, castles, bridges and walled ramparts, etc. There is a very clear importance placed by these real masons on the word “free,” and they would not abide the company of nor work with other masons who were not free. Consider:

“In like manner, the privilege of working as a mason was not conferred before candidates had been ‘made free.’  The regular free-masons would not work with men, even if they had a knowledge of their trade, ‘If unfree,’ but styled them ‘Cowans,’ a course justified by the king’s “Maister of Work,” William Schaw, whose Statutis and Ordinanceis (28th December 1598) required that ‘Na maister or fellow of craft ressaue any cowanis to wirk in his societie or companye, nor send nane of his servants to work wt. cowanis, under the pane of twentie pounds.’  Gradually, however, the rule was relaxed, in time such monopoly practically ceased, and the word ‘cowan’ is only known in connexion with speculative Freemasonry.”

Parenthetically, a few decades back a well thought of basketball center, playing for the Boston Celtics, bore the name Dave Cowans. My thought is that his name probably signifies ancestral origins in this class of worker, Since freemasonic lodges existed in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, as well as England, it is a good bet that there is a consistency of language in regard to terms peculiar to operative freemasons.

I recall a conversation with an African American security guard once that touched upon the Prince Hall Masonic Lodge, the exclusively Black organization which was founded by and named for Prince Hall. This security guard seemed very knowledgeable (indeed, he may have been a mason). His version of events went something like this: Prince Hall was a former slave of George Washington’s, who, having learned a number of principles of free masons, apparently from overhearing  Mr. Washington and his friends (many of whom were masons) discussing lodge matters, desired to form a lodge for Colored People, based upon the lofty principles he understood to be at the core of masonry. Therefore, he asked Mr. Washington to assist him in forming such a lodge.

Mr. Washington thought the matter over and then told Mr. Prince Hall that he could not do this. The issue preventing him from doing so was the status of Prince Hall. Mr. Washington did not believe that the word “free” could apply to Prince Hall. [This was apparently so, even if Mr. Prince Hall were at this point a "freedman," and it may also have entailed a problem in Mr. Washington's mind that, even if Prince Hall is now, by my good gesture, a freedman, could he (Washington) be certain that men, who were not freedmen, might not at some time in the future be initiated into such a lodge as Prince Hall proposed? Worse, what if escaped slaves should join?] Are such concerns farfetched? Whatever the precise reasons were, George Washington refused to sponsor or help Prince Hall found a lodge.

As there is such a lodge thriving in America at this very moment, Mr. Hall somehow succeeded. According to the security guard who told me the story, Prince Hall went to England and convinced certain British masons of his project’s merit, and the Prince Hall Lodge was formed under the obedience of the Grand Lodge of England. If this story is true, then Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Patron of the Grand Lodge of England, as well as head of the Anglican Church, is also the Patron of the Prince Hall Lodge in America. 

Given the primacy of masons of the Prince Hall Lodge in African American politics, entertainment, education, business and the professions, and therefore their considerable “clout” in American affairs, it is interesting to be aware of this English connection. The secrets stored away in the lodges might explain much about the courses which we have followed over the years. 

As the trade of mason was a precious one, there can be little surprise that these skilled builders would want to keep their building secrets hidden from outsiders. By this means they could protect their livelihood by guarding the number of people who possessed the knowledge to do this work. They basically conspired to erect a monopoly of sorts, to which the prelates who wanted to build a cathedral must turn. These gothic cathedrals might take 3/4 of a century or more to complete. If the masons then were similar to builders today, they had a general incentive to “stretch out” the work and probably did. Still, they seemed to do pretty darn good work. Consider:

“The curious  legend of the craft, therein made known, deals first of all with the number of unemployed in early days and the necessity of finding work, ‘that they myght gete here lyvynge thereby.’  Euclid was consulted, and recommended the ‘onest craft of good masonry,’ and the genesis of the society is found ‘yn Egypte lande.’ By a rapid transition, but ‘mony erys afterwarde,’ we are told that the ‘Craft com ynto England yn tyme of good kynge Adelstonus (Aethelstan) day.’ who called an assembly of the masons, when fifteen articles and as many more points were agreed to for the government of the craft, each being duly described.” [ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed., Vol. 11, page 79]

Once again, there are the allusions to an ancient craft, and the craft itself seems to be considered honorable and respectable. Men who learn it well are made honorable not in and of themselves but by virtue of the anoiting craft. The craft, hence, takes on the attributes of an idol around which the anoited men gather. It is this idol which will make them free and blessed. Its secrets they fiercely protect.

Nevertheless, over the centuries there seems to have been a spreading knowledge of at least the general skills of the masons. There is a likelihood that some of the monks who were associated with higher prelates who had commissioned cathedrals and other buildings on church property (they had a lot in the middle ages) may have gleaned some practical knowledge of the craft, and subsequently employed this knowledge in lesser building ventures. Additionally, the more powerful lords of the various realms may have kept at their estates men who had acquired general mason’s skills at lesser ventures. Also, judging by today, there may have been ample supplies of general labor in the urban areas. Some of these laborers may have been “quick” and achieved a “working knowledge” of the trade in general. Over time, these laborers may have honed their skills, increased their knowledge both from observing masons and through their own trial and error vocational education.

At any rate there developed three classes of masons: masons (guild members of cities and larger towns), free masons (masons not bound by any local guild), and “cowans,” who may have originally been serfs.

There seems to be no evidence that the church prelates, no matter how learned they may have been in some respects, had much knowledge of Euclid, geometry, engineering, mathematics related to these sciences, or practical knowledge relative to physical laws, and, indeed, architecture, blueprints/drafts all of which were required to construct a great cathedral. The early masons prized and protected the knowledge of “the seven sciences” derived from Euclid.

Lords and nobles coming into contact with these “honorable builders” must have felt, as they came to realize the vast knowledge and skill of these master builders, a little humbled. As with self-confident but ignorant “roughs” of today, the worst elements of the nobility may have protected their dawning sense of inadequacy before these “lords of construction” by drawing the sword. Perhaps charges of “withcraft” arose to secure the lord in his violence. The guildhall may have served as a rampart, as well as a meeting hall, on occasion.

Still, although this aspect seems to be there, these men which we are considering lived in a period of Christian faith and general uniformity. The Roman Catholic Church, as custodian of the Biblical truths until the Gutenberg invention of the press, inaugurated the era of vernacular Bible translations and widespread study, leading to objections to Vatican-led interpretations. At the outset the builders were Christian believers, apparently. Consider:

“The rules generally, besides referring to trade regulations, are as a whole suggestive of the Ten Commandments in an extended form, winding up with the legend of the Ars quatuor coronatorum, as an incentive to a faithful discharge  of the numerous obligations. A second part introduces a more lengthy account of the origin of masonry, in which Noah’s flood and the Tower of Babylon are mentioned as well as the great skill of Euclid, who–

‘Through hye grace of Crist yn heven, He commensed yn the syens seven’;” [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. 11, page 79.]

The reference to “Crist” may be ritualistic but probably was sincere. To reenforce this observation I’ll provide another citation. Consider:

“Until quite recently no representative or survival of this particular version had been traced, but in 1890 one was discovered of 1687 (since known as the William Watson MS). Of some seventy copies of these old scrolls which have been unearthed…They have all much in common…and when complete, as they mostly are, whether of the 16th or subsequent centuries, are noteworthy for an invocation or prayer which begins the recital:–

‘The mighte of the ffather of heaven And the wysedome of the glorious Sonne through the grace and the goodness of the holly ghoste yt been three p’sons and one God be with us at or beginning and give us grace so to gou’ne us here in or lyving that wee maye come to his blisse that nevr shall have ending.–Amen.’ (Grand Lodge MS. No. 1, A.D. 1583.) [ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed., Vol. 11, page 80.]

To provide additional evidence of these earlier freemasonic lodges and the clearly stated Christianity, consider:

“You shall be true men to God and his holy Church, and that you do not countenance or maintain any error, faction, schism or herisey, in ye church to ye best of your understanding.” (History of No. 53, by James Smith.) [ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed., Vol. 11, page 80.]

So, the casual observer of modern freemasonry with its by-words of  “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” as well as the newest by-word, “Tolerance,” would have little occasion to perceive that once these were places of Christian faith only.

The Christian character was very clear. Consider:

“…the ‘First Charge that you shall be true men to God and the holy church’; the York MS. No. 6 beseeches the brethren ‘at every meeting and assembly they pray heartily for all Christians’; the Melrose MS. No. 2 (1674) mentions ‘Merchants and all other Christian men,’…Until the Grand Lodge era, Freemasonry was thus wholly Christian.” [ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed., Vol. 11, page 80.]

Well may the student ask: What happened to change freemasonry? Was it advances in knowledge, as was being made with considerable force into modern times? Was it the infiltration gradually of “illuminism” into British freemasonry, especially after the advent of the United Grand Lodge? Was the ethnic and racial homogeneity of British freemasonry increasingly diluted, even as progressively deadly colonial, or mercantile, wars drained away the best blood of England? Did capitalism affect the Lodges? Did Marxism? Or were there so many confused crashing of waves of these types, as to cause British freemasonry to retreat from the category of Christian vertebrate, preferring some form of exoskeleton, even as it waved the flags of progress and evolution.

Hard to say. There are clues to pursue, such as why the date, St John Baptist’s Day was chosen to unite the four lodges (not all English lodges joined at this time). Was there a clandestine Roman Catholic connection, seeing that the Biblical law and Christianity seemed very important parts of early masonic thinking. Further these lodges, although spread at Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England and independent, seemed to have a “universal” procedure and core of beliefs. They were much alike. The close connection between masonic builders and Roman-obedience prelates, who commissioned the great building projects, might suggest that Vatican ”strategists” viewed the masons and their guilds as useful “tools” in understanding what was going on in their temporal realms. This would be important for a vast landholder, who may well be suspicious of the growing power of  competitors (nobles).  

By the time of the Reformation, one might perceive the increasing weight of “speculative” masons, as opposed to the “operative” masons, who were actually master builders, fellow craftsmen, and apprentices. A struggle for the “soul” of this useful group may well have begun. The progress of freemasons in England, Scotland and Ireland may have been different from the para-masonic lodges that sprang up in Continental Europe after the Reformation, much as an isolated species of a genus of animals might develop through natural selection one or more species distinctly different from that of the original species of that genus. The Counter-Reformation may have partially been fought in these lodges, though clandestinely and intellectually. These latter traits are more akin to the modus operandi of speculative masonry.

There may be importance to the “new developments” in freemasonry about 1717, and the circumstances surrounding the advent of a central bank in England at about 1696. The development of that bank had two important aspects: 1.) the inclusion of certain royal and noble personages as beneficiaries of this bank’s profits and 2.) the re-introduction of important Jewish advisers into England. [Reference is here made to Amsterdam financiers, as well as certain Sephardic "princes" in Iberia (or exiles therefrom).] One may well keep in mind that Jewry had been “booted” out of England in 1290 A.D. by King Edward, as a sort of British “final solution” to the problems caused by debt-mongering Jews, who had “gnawed England to the bone.” [Also, this provided the Crown with the opportunity of "re-stealing the loot."] Although Jews re-entered England on the sneak over the centuries, they were not officially welcomed again until the time of the establishment of the “Glorious Revolution,” which success appears to be indebted to Amsterdam financiers, who supported Oiver Cromwell’s forces. Cherchez le Gold.

Indeed, one is safe in asserting that a great part of human suffering among the Israelite people [Celto-Germanic people] results in their stiff-necked resistance to Yahwey’s Laws against usury. They have only uncommonly shone any intelligence about the issue of money. The subject of money issue, incredibly, is left to moneychangers and debt-mongerers [typically Jews]. There is, then, little wonder that their lands are constantly afflicted with “economic problems.” Interestingly, freemasonry, although always influential in modern western governments, have never solved this problem (and never will). Therefore, the leadership of the Israelites Christian on money issues is withheld from the wretched world in general, in violation of the Christ’s directive to go forth to the world with His Truths [which are Yahwey's]. The result is global debt and suffering.

The reader should be aware that, soon after the establishment of the united Grand Lodge of England, Royal and Noble individuals, including the king, joined this lodge. In time the Sovereign became the “patron” of the Freemasons of the Grand Lodge. Presently, the Duke of Kent, QE2’s uncle, nephew, or cousin [I can't recall which], is the head of this lodge. Therefore, membership carries a considerable cachet, or seal of approval by the British establishment. [If approved by the British Establishment, then approved by the Anglophile American Establishment.]

There should also be some focus, or notice, of the date, 1717. As freemasonry became predominantly “speculative,” its members became increasingly “open-minded,” although still secretive about lodge matters. The mystery religions, myths,  and occult matters such as “prophetic numerology” became increasingly subjects of intense study. Many became converted to the “ancient wisdom of the East.” [Parenthetically, this sort of conversion afflicted Alexander the Great and ultimately resulted in the destruction of a great culture: the High Greek Culture developed in various city states of that peninsula. The central Greek homogeneity gave way to "diversity," leading to tolerance, confusion and destruction.]

The division of free masonry/masonry between the Grand Lodges and the Grand Orient Lodges in particular seems suited to such “cold war.” But what of the Roman Obedience? Of the plethora of masonic-like organizations that arose in Continental Europe and beyond?

Whatever the answers may prove to be, I am reasonably satisfied that the masons, the masonic guilds, and the free masons were essentially Christian in their guild and lodge ceremonies. There is, among the British/Scot/Irish masons, almost an Israelitish manner at their meeting houses, as they insisted on reading their “constitutions” at ceremonies, recalling the numerous occasions when the Israelites would read the Law given by Yahweh to Moses. As we have earlier learned, these “constitutions were in part straight out of the Bible.

Unfortunately for England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and America, The masonic lodges “turned” from The Way of Yahshua Christ, and set their sights for cosmological heights, as rich with gods-presumptive as those abiding on the heights of India. Choose your god, they encourage, for they all proceed from the same “heaven,” and they all lead back there as well. In this transition, led by masonry, we have ceased to be a “good people,” as De Tocqueville perceived us, for the very reason that we have ceased to be a Christian people.

This, then, has been an introduction to the development of Anglo-Saxon freemasonry, and areas for consideration associated with this development, which we will, perhaps, consider in subsequent reports on freemasonry.

All rights reserved. Nomoonnight, 2008.