MASONIC HISTORY 19th CENTURY
From Basket Case Masonic History Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Masonic
History
- Biblical
References
- Labor
Origins, Part I
- Labor
Origins, Part II
- From Literal
to Symbolic
- Rise of
Modern Masonry
Anti-Masonry in
the U.S.
- The
Disappearance of William Morgan
- Ideology
- Scripture
- Politics
Appendices
-
Appendix
A:
Masonic Lodges in Operation by State, 1820-1860
Bibliography
Throughout my social studies classes in elementary and high school, textbooks
gave brief mention to the rise of a national political party in the early 1800s,
called the Anti-Masons.
As the child of a strongly Masonic family, I understood exactly what Masons
were. My grandfathers and stepfather were Masons. My mother, grandmother, aunts,
and all their friends have always been very active in Eastern Star, an
affiliated women's order (of which I am now also a member). I had been groomed
for initiation in Job's Daughters, a Masonic order for girls, which I joined
immediately upon reaching the required age of eleven. So a party name like
"Anti-Masons" meant something to me.
But public school texts offered no elaboration of the Anti-Masonic Party, no
explanation even of who the Masons were, much less why they inspired a national
movement dedicated to opposing them. I wondered what the Masons had done to
deserve the attention.
When I began researching the issue, then, I entered it with the assumption
that anything my family had been involved in was probably very conservative and
was probably up to some political infiltration on the scale of the modern Moral
Majority.
I was surprised to find that the opposite was true: in fact, the kind of
conservatism and closed-mindedness I had expected to find among Masons was
actually the compostition of their opponents. Eventually, I reconciled this
surprise when I realized that all the players in the American Masonic debates
were white men, mostly Protestant Christians. Clearly, they were all up to no
good.
Originally, I planned also to research twentieth-century Masonry and to
examine how it is reponding to issues of diversity: I was always skeptical of
the explanation that black Masons were segregated in separate lodges because
they wanted it that way, and I wondered if those practices might be changing.
Unfortunately, my paper ran long, while information and time ran short, so I
chose to limit my focus to the history of Freemasonry and the nineteenth-century
political uproar which rose up around it.
It often seems as though the history of Freemasonry has been as mysterious,
and as hotly debated, as the shrouded rites of the brotherhood itself. The roots
of Masonry can be traced to a number of widely varied sources, and no single
definition of history would adequately explain the structure which resulted from
their synthesis.
In the nineteenth century, both supporters and opponents of Masonry sought to
turn these permutations to their own advantage, for the group which controlled
the definitions of Masonic history also strongly influenced public opinion, at a
time when membership was at issue in political contests across the nation.
In this, as in many such delicately waged battles, the Masons found that the
secrecy of their order placed them at a disadvantage when they were required to
defend themselves. However, publications from that time suggest that the Masons
were fairly open about the essentials of their own version of their history, and
the public was fairly well aware of both sides of the debate.
The Masons' own account of their history and development, in fact, forms a
critical basis for their ritualistic work, and their claims to an origin in
Biblical times proved to be double-edged. While Masons felt that their antiquity
lent the organization a greater respectability, the anti-Masons in turn made
much of challenging both the stories and the scriptural interpretations.
The books of First and Second Chronicles contain the Biblical account of the
building of King Solomon's temple, and it is here that Masons begin their
history.
Our ancient brethren dedicated their lodges to King Solomon, because he was
our first Most Excellent Grand Master.1
According to Masonic accounts, three Grand Master Masons oversaw the building
of the temple: King Solomon himself, whom they further credit with the temple
design; Hiram, King of Tyre; and Hiram Abiff, a stoneworker sent to Solomon by
King Hiram. The three pillars of the temple, called Wisdom, Strength and Beauty,
represented each of these men.
They conducted lodge meetings in the sanctum sanctorum, or Holy of Holies, in
the temple, and were the holders of the Mason's word. Each kept one syllable,
and all were sworn to repeat it only when together, and standing in a particular
formation. However, before the temple could be finished, Hiram Abiff was
attacked on the road by three ruffians, who demanded that he reveal to them the
Mason's word and other secrets of the lodge. When he refused, they murdered him
and buried him in the hills.
Eventually his body was discovered by a party of Fellow Crafts, and was
disinterred by King Solomon, using what became the Master Mason's grip, or
lion's paw. Solomon then raised the body upon the five points of fellowship:
foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and mouth to ear.
The body was returned to the temple and buried under the sanctum sanctorum, and
a marble statue erected to honor the martyr:
A virgin weeping over a broken column, with a book open before her; in her
right hand a sprig of cassia; in her left, an urn; Time standing behind her,
with his hands infolded in the ringlets of her hair.2
Although the temple eventually was finished, as the Mason's word could not be
given without Hiram Abiff, it was lost.
The murder, burial, raising, and reburial of Hiram Abiff are reenacted in in
detail during the initiation ceremony for the degree of Master Mason. The
candidate, blindfolded, is cast in the role of Hiram Abiff. He is symbolically
slain, is made to fall into a canvas, is buried in various places around the
lodge room, and is finally raised by the Worshipful Master upon the five points
of fellowship, at which time the Master Mason's word and other secrets are
revealed to him.
The Royal Arch and other subsequent degrees present further stories of Hiram
Abiff. In the Royal Arch degree, it is told that after his death, workers found
an underground arched vault, constructed by Hiram Abiff, and containing the Ark
of the Covenant.
Higher degrees reveal that Hiram Abiff had left his mark on the keystone of
the vault: the initial letters of "Hiram, Tyrian, Widow's Son Sent To King
Solomon." Other artifacts were also found in the Ark, including the only
remaining copy of the law, a key to the "ineffable letters of the degree," and a
triangular gold plate engraved with Hebrew vowel points spelling the "ineffable
name of God," as revealed to Enoch.
In essence, then, the Masons claim responsibility for the preservation of the
law, and further, claim to have sole knowledge of the true name of God.
Throughout these stories, however, we hear the anti-Masons' cries of dissent.
It is true that almost none of these accounts is found in scripture; while
Masons themselves acknowledge this, anti-Masons point out that many details in
fact directly contradict the teachings of the Bible.
For example, Solomon did not conceive of the plans for the temple, but
received them from David. None but the high priest was allowed in the sanctum
sanctorum, not even King Solomon himself, so lodge meetings could not have been
conducted there. The detailed description of the furnishings of this chamber do
not include any statue. The Ark of the Covenant was rested there, not buried or
missing. Most importantly, in chapter four of Second Chronicles, Hiram Abiff is
noted to have finished his work on the temple.
Intellectuals have further noted that Hebrew vowel points did not exist in
Enoch's time, so could not have been used by him to engrave the "true name of
God"; further, Hiram Abiff's "mark" could not have been composed of eight
English words.
To quote all that is scandalously false in its teachings and pretensions
would be to quote these books almost entire. We hear professed Christians, and
even ministers, claiming that Freemasonry enables them to better understand
the Bible. Can it be that they are so ignorant as to believe this? But this is
often urged as an inducement to join the lodge.3
While most anti-Masonic writers were content to point out the scriptural
inconsistencies in an organization which claimed for itself a religious
foundation, others took the matter further.
For example, Edmond Ronayne goes to great lengths to compare Masonry and its
rituals to the pagan rites of Baal-worship (and, interchangeably, Egyptian
sun-gods and "Hindoo Mysteries"). Other authors suggested connections to the
Druids and other "infidels." Others simply insisted that Masonry had not existed
at all before 1717, when the first Grand Lodge was founded in England. Nearly
all religious critics ignored Masons' even stronger ties to an economic,
decidedly secular past.
1 Mackey, "Manual of the Lodge,": quoted in Ronayne,
Edmond, The Master's Carpet; or, Masonry and Baal-Worship Identical
(Chicago: T.B. Arnold, 1887), p. 198.
2 Finney, C.G, The Character, Claims and
Practical Workings of Freemasonry (Chicago: Ezra A. Cook, 1887), 140.
3 ibid., 148.
In 1940, Douglas Knoop, himself a Mason, attempted to summarize the different
focuses of the anti-Masonic and intellecutal Masonic historians. He argued that
any true understanding of the development of Freemasonry had been obscured by
"polemics" and by the tendency of scholars to study a single origin exclusively,
rather than the union of several branches.
Some of them, chiefly concerned with the erection of ancient and medieval
stone buildings, were insufficiently aware of the fact that the history of
building is not the same thing as the history of freemasonry. Others,
conceiving of freemasonry mainly as a peculiar system of morality, veiled in
allegory and illustrated by symbols, explored the ancient history of symbolism
without realizing that symbolism became a characteristic of freemasonry only
in relatively modern times. Still others, primarily interested in masonic
ceremonies, sought to connect freemasonry with one or other of the ancient or
medieval societies which practised initiatory rites; but these investigators
commonly ignored the fact that the influence, if any, of old rituals could
have been exercised upon freemasonry only in and after the third decade of the
eighteenth century.1
By contrast, Knoop discusses the development of Freemasonry in the context of
economic history, and claims that it probably had its earliest beginnings among
British stoneworkers in the eleventh century. While modern symbolic, or
"Speculative" Masonry, bears little resemblance to the medieval "operative"
craft, or the literal working in stone, many of the traditions of the modern
lodge can be seen to have their origins in medieval practices.
Following the Norman conquest, the building of castles and cathedrals in
stone came into vogue, and along with it a demand for skilled craftsmen. With
this increased call to labor, it became necessary for both the workers and the
lords to standardize their dealings with one another. Lords wanted to ensure
that masons were properly trained, and were performing their duties as
efficiently as possible; masons wanted assurances that they would be treated
fairly and would receive their due benefits.
While other crafts responded to this need by unifying in guilds, such a
structure was unsuitable for masons. Guilds were primarily community-based
organizations, where craft workers in a particular geographical area would
gather with their neighboring fellows. But masons were primarily migrants, or
journeymen, required by the nature of their craft to live at a building site
until the job was finished, then to move someplace where more work was
available. For this reason, masonic organization centered around the "lodge."
The lodge itself referred to the building in which masons performed their
work, usually a large wooden shed which offered some shelter from the weather.
Besides serving as a workshop, however, the lodge provided a place for masons to
rest and to take midday meals, especially at building sites which were far from
towns.
...in many instances, no doubt, the masons rested at noon in the lodge, and
at the permitted times, drank there also. The lodge might thus be a kind of
refectory and club; and it is likely that questions affecting the mason's
trade were discussed, and grievances ventilated, within its walls.2
As the lodge was the basis for social contact with other masons, it naturally
became the basis for labor organization as well. In York, rules for the
governance of the lodge were in existence as early as 1352.
1 Knoop, Douglas, and G.P. Jones, A Short
History of Freemasonry to 1730 (Manchester: University of Manchester
Press, 1940), v-vi.
2 ibid., 13.
The Articles and Points, a compilation of masonic customs from the "Book of
Charges," dating back to about 1360, are one of the earliest records of rules of
conduct.
The Articles are directed chiefly to masters, i.e., to craftsmen in charge
of a building operation; they are to be loyal to the lord, i.e., the employer,
and not to waste his goods by giving more pay to any man than he may deserve,
the price of corn and victuals being considered; no master is to take an
apprentice of less than seven years, for the art cannot be learned in a
shorter time; nor may he take an apprentice of bond blood, nor one that is
maimed or physically incapable; like other masons, the apprentice is not to be
unduly charged for, "that the lord of the place that he is taught may have
some profit by his teaching"; a master is not to be a maintainer of
night-walkers or robbers; he is, wherever possible, to dismiss an
insufficiently skilled workman and to take a better in his place, "to the
profit of the lord"; lastly, no master is to supplant another, for no man can
so well finish a piece of work as he that began it.
The Points are directed to fellows, i.e., to workmen other than the master
in charge. Such a workman must love God and the Holy Church and regard his
fellows as brethren; he must be secret, not disclosing "the counsel of his
fellows in lodge or chamber"; he must take his pay meekly at the time
appointed and avoid quarrelling; if quarrels do break out between him and his
fellows, the discussion must be postponed to the next holiday and then
settled, for to pursue the matter immediately would mean hindering the
building work and cause loss to the lord. The mason must keep the seventh
commandment; the reason given for that, if not scriptural, may have been sound
enough, namely, that breach of the commandment would lead to discord among
masons. If a mason should be a warden, he should be a true mediator between
the master and his fellows. Lastly, a mason who is more skilled than his
fellows and sees one of them working wrongly, so that a stone is likely to be
spoiled, should instruct him and help him to do the work properly, "that the
more love may increase among them and that the work of the lord be not lost."1
The beginnings of a capitalist labor structure can be seen clearly in the
relationship between the lord, the laborers, and the managerial masters and
wardens. The Articles also show the extent of the authority which the master
mason had over his workers. Further, the Points in particular illustrate the
genesis of many of the traditions of Freemasonry, especially the charge to
maintain the secrets of the lodge.
Knoop suggests that these rules existed to prevent disagreement among Masons,
which would hinder the efficiency and quality of their work. He also traces the
development of one element of the lodge, the Mason Word, which made the secrecy
rule in particular a practical necessity.
The Mason Word refers not only to a password, but to an entire system or
"institution" of secret work within the lodge, including words, grips, and other
practices.
...the Mason Word was first instituted to serve a strictly "operative" aim.
That was to distinguish masons who were members of their trade organization,
and to enable them to claim, at need, benefits in the way of employment and
relief.2
The Mason Word served to protect trained masons (and their families) against
claims and competition from untrained stoneworkers, or "cowans," and from
entered apprentices, who had not yet completed their training. In modern times,
the secret work of the Masonic lodge is less important as a literal safeguard,
but the symbolic protection remains.
1 Knoop, Douglas, and G.P. Jones, A Short
History of Freemasonry to 1730 (Manchester: University of Manchester
Press, 1940), 21-22.
2 ibid., 43.
The transition from labor-based, operative masonry to symbolic, Speculative
Masonry was gradual, with its beginnings in the sixteenth century, and was
brought about by two primary influences. First, the frenzy of stone-building
died down, in part because the Reformation stalled the construction of elaborate
churches and cathedrals. Masons generally found less employer demand for their
skills, and the importance of a large-scale labor organization was diminished.
In addition, the structure of that organization was changing from within.
Up until this time, the skill of the master mason included not only the
hewing and laying of stones, but also the architectural design of the building
itself. Manuscripts from about 1390 to as late as 1703 show provisions for the
master mason to study, to design, and to be paid for that work.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the educated classes also began to take an
interest in the craft of masonry, as the work of the mason-architect represented
a practical application of geometry, one of the revered seven liberal arts. As
the number of working masons active in the lodge began to shrink, the formation
of "adoptive" lodges began. In these, persons with an interest in masonry and
building design could meet together with the trained stoneworkers and could
learn more about the craft.
When the Lodge records commence in 1670, we find that of the forty-nine
fellow-crafts or master masons who were then members of the Lodge, only ten
were operative masons; the other thirty-nine consisted of four noblemen, three
gentlemen, eight professional men, nine merchants and fifteen tradesmen.1
Ultimately, this interest developed not only into the strictly symbolic
modern lodges, but also into a division of labor, in which the professional
architect superseded the mason-architect.
Freemasonry as it is known today probably developed in England, Scotland and
Ireland from the adoptive lodges. The spread of the craft is a study in colonial
export: in the eighteenth century, European colonial administrators carried
Masonry to nearly every conceivable part of the globe.
While in many areas, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, Lodge work remained the
exclusive province of white men, it is interesting to note that in India,
northern Africa, and other regions, indigenous participation (within certain
class limits) was actually encouraged.
By the nineteenth century, Masonic participation flourished on every
continent, in virtually every nation.
1 Knoop, Douglas, and G.P. Jones, A Short
History of Freemasonry to 1730 (Manchester: University of Manchester
Press, 1940) 65-66.
The features of the Speculative Lodge have significantly changed in substance
from the work of medieval stonemasons, and today bear only faint resemblance to
the goals of the original lodges. The directive of the Articles and Points, that
a spirit of brotherhood be preserved for efficiency's sake, were transformed
into the ideal of a fraternal order.
The benefits and relief offered by trade organizations became a doctrine of
benevolence and charity; the social character of the working lodge became a
forum where political and business connections could be forged; the travels of
the journeyman mason grew into a system of international Masonic acceptance.
Most importantly, however, the mandate of the Points that each fellow "love God
and the Holy Church" expanded into a religious philosophy which forms the
foundation of modern Masonry.
From the mythic history of Solomon's temple developed an intricate system of
ritual which provided the structure of each meeting. The layout of the Lodge
room is said to have been based on the design of the sanctum sanctorum, the
chief officers and their stations on its three master masons, and so forth.
Devotion to God was a requirement for membership, prayer became a central part
of Masonic ritual, and participation was considered an opportunity to expand
religious learning.
Outside the lodge, brothers founded Masonic Homes (continuing-care
communities for elderly members of Masonic and affiliated orders); today, nearly
every state offers at least one Home. Lodges began group participation in
charity work as well. In general, Masons tried to build an overwhelmingly
positive public face for their order.
This theme, just now, seems to absorb all others, and if the brethren are
to be believed, Freemasonry is one of the noblest, if not the noblest,
tinstitution [sic] in the world. "Its members," they say, "assist each other
in distress. It is purely benevolent. It is petted and patronized by the
government, encouraged and upheld by ministers of the gospel. It can count
within its membership some of the very best and greatest men in the
community," and they argue, and, I must confess, not without some show of
reason, that "if Freemasonry were as bad as its enemies would make it out to
be, all those great and good men would not continue to be members of it."1
Yet above all, Masonry remained an intensely secret society, and it is not
surprising that those outside the lodge doors might envision some unknown threat
growing within.
1 Ronayne, Edmond, The Master's Carpet; or,
Masonry and Baal-Worship Identical (Chicago: T.B. Arnold, 1887), 18-19.
Although it is likely that anti-Masonic sentiment has existed as long as
Masonry itself, the political climate in the post-revolutionary United States
created an atmosphere where these undercurrents of opposition grew into a
movement with a national agenda and a new sense of urgency.
With a solid victory over the Crown, Americans faced a "villain vacuum"
similar to our early-'90s directionlessness in the wake of the Cold War, and
they too sought the focus of a new bad guy. Secret societies, it was believed,
were a threat to the fragile new republic, and the Freemasons were public enemy
number one.
After the struggle of the Revolution, and no enemy near to disturb their
deliberations, a government was founded on plain, simple, republican
principles.... Now let us examine our institution, and clearly ascertain
whether it is founded upon as pure a basis as that of our common country. If
it is as pure and well adapted to our circumstances, we had better ingraft
with it our political government; if not, and if it does have a tendency to
inculcate aristocratical principles, then abandon Masonry, and adhere to the
government as founded by our ancestors, for it is true, in the various
requirements of life, we cannot fulfil our duty to both at the same time.1
Still, denouncements of Masonic influence were limited to local editorials
and sermons for years, until the disappearance of one outspoken anti-Mason
brought an accusation of murder against the Fraternity, and with it national
attention to the Masonic debates.
1 Greene, Samuel D., The Broken Seal; or,
Personal Reminiscences of the Morgan Abduction and Murder (Chicago: Ezra
A. Cook & Co., 1873), 212.
In Batavia, New York, in 1826, a Royal Arch Mason named William Morgan
announced that he intended to publish a pamphlet exposing the secret work of the
first three degrees of Masonry. Although exposures were already gaining
popularity in Europe, this was the first such document to be published in the
United States, and it aroused great excitement in the lodge.
The accounts of Masons and anti-Masons differ greatly in the events which
followed, but it is agreed that Morgan was kidnapped by a group of Masons, was
taken to the Canadian border and held for several days, and then disappeared.
Anti-Masons charged that Morgan had been murdered according to the provisions in
his oath, but no body was ever found. Masons responded that they had simply paid
him to leave the country.
In any case, David Miller, Morgan's publisher, went ahead with the release of
the pamphlet, entitled "Illustrations on Masonry," which sold predictably well.
In the years which followed, a number of local Masons were charged with
involvement in Morgan's disappearance, and several men offered confessions. No
one, however, was ever convicted of Morgan's murder, which anti-Masons
attributed to the Masonic makeup of the courts. Masons, on the other hand,
insisted that the courts had already been purged of Masonic involvement, and
anti-Masonic jurors had simply been overwhelmed by the lack of evidence.
Thirteen months after Morgan's disappearance, the discovery of a body drowned
in Lake Ontario led to a political scandal—for the anti-Masons. Initially, the
body was determined to bear no resemblance to Morgan, and was buried. Almost
immediately, however, Thurlow Weed, an ambitious anti-Masonic politician,
demanded that the body be exhumed and reexamined. Although the evidence was
unconvincing, Weed remarked that "it is a good enough Morgan until after
election." Lucinda Morgan was persuaded to testify that the body was indeed her
husband's, and with great ceremony it was reburied as the martyr William Morgan.
Shortly thereafter, however, word came from a small Canadian town that one
Sarah Munro was looking for her husband, who had last been seen in a rowboat on
Lake Ontario. Her description of her husband and his possessions matched the
body exactly. It was disinterred again, examined again, and found to be not
Morgan, but Timothy Munro.
As the story became public, two men at last came forward to testify that they
had seen Thurlow Weed himself shave the whiskers off of the corpse before
examination to ensure that it resembled Morgan, who had worn none. The press
made sure that Weed never lived down his attempted hoax.
As to the real outcome of Morgan, in 1932 Thomas Knight, a Mason, published
documents which suggest that Morgan fled first to Boston, then to Smyrna, where
he remained until his death.
A spectacular monument to Morgan still stands at the "martyr's grave" in
upstate New York. Although the tale is not well-known among modern Masons or
anti-Masons, the issue of Morgan's "murder" is occasionally raised in
publications and Internet debates. Anti-Masons, however, frequently discredit
their arguments by claiming (whether innocently or deliberately) that the body
found in Lake Ontario was Morgan's. The facts are much more interesting.
Opponents of Masonry had a wide range of quarrels with the order. At the
height of anti-Masonic activity, in the 1830s, publications assailed Masonry
from nearly every conceivable angle; however, these critiques generally fell
into two categories.
On one side, Christians (of a decidedly fundamentalist inclination)
questioned its religious nature, while intellectuals on the other warned of a
Masonic conspiracy to undermine the authority of the republic. All sides
wondered whether the true character of the order lived up to its claims, and in
every case, its secrecy was at issue.
The Masons' complete collection of secret work at this time would likely have
filled several volumes, and the public were intensely curious about what such a
prominent organization could have to hide.
This made the Masons particularly expedient targets in any conspiracy theory:
first, their secrecy created curiosity which, when thwarted, led to suspicion
and closer scrutiny. Second, secrecy made it difficult, if not impossible, for
Masons to answer any of the charges against them, and made it unlikely that the
answers they gave would be convincing.
Public curiosity fed one branch of anti-Masonic writing, where publishers
concerned themselves less with ideological convictions than with sensationalism
and sales. This led to a flood of "exposures," pamphlets and books which simply
listed much of the secret work of the Masonic degrees, describing and often
illustrating passwords, grips, hand and arm signals, steps, costumes, symbols,
and other minutiae with what appears to have been reasonable accuracy. For a
time, exposures were practically guaranteed money-makers.
Most analytical writers, however, focused their analyses on a relatively tiny
portion of these volumes, the mysterious Masonic oaths.
The oaths were a logical focus for a number of reasons. First, they were
universal, in that every Masonic degree had an oath, and every candidate for a
degree first took its oath as part of the initiation ceremony. In addition, the
oath was the first experience of Masonry for the initiate.
For a writer attempting to explain Masonry to the general public, however,
the oaths had one distinct advantage over nearly all other secret work: the
language of the oaths was clear and explicit, in stark contrast to the heavily
veiled symbolism of other rituals. Signs, grips, or passwords, for example, were
entirely symbolic, in that their origins and importance may have been
well-understood by the Masons who used them, but the hand gestures or syllables
themselves carried no inherent meaning outside of the lodge.
The oaths, on the other hand, simply delineated each member's obligations to
the lodge. The symbols were the words and promises themselves, and the scope of
their meaning and significance extended far beyond the lodge doors. The
non-Masonic reader could examine the oaths, understand them on their face, and
draw conclusions about their implications for society as a whole.
Masons, however, argued the opposite. The public was taking the oaths too
literally, they protested, when their intent was strictly symbolic and rooted in
tradition.
The debates over interpretation of the oaths essentially parallel similar
controversies in other disciplines, such as the Constitutional studies of
founders' intent versus strict constructionism, or the tension between literal
and symbolic interpretations of the Bible.
I spake openly to the world, and in secret I have said nothing. (John
18:20)
The words of Christ in this passage from scripture formed the basis for much
of anti-Masonic opposition to secret societies in general, and Freemasonry in
particular. Christian writers also took strong exception to the uses of the
Bible throughout Masonic ritual. The Masons' embellishment of the story of
Solomon's temple is only one such example; others similarly embellish the
teachings of scripture with specifically Masonic messages, to the horror of
conservative Christians.
I beg my Christian readers to examine these books for themselves, and then
see what they think of the assertions of so many professors of religion, and
even of professed Christian ministers, that "there is nothing in Freemasonry
inconsistent with the religion of Jesus Christ!" I cannot imagine anything
more directly calculated to bring the Word of God into contempt, than such a
use of it in Masonic lodges. It is enough to make one's blood curdle in his
veins to think that a Christian minister, or any Christian whatever, should
allow himself to pass through such an abominable scene as is frequently
represented in the degrees of Masonry:—multiplying their horrid oaths, heaping
up one imprecation upon another, gathering up from every part of the Divine
oracles the most solemn and awful sayings of Jehovah, and applying them in a
manner so revolting, that the scene must make a Christian's heart tremble, and
his whole soul to loathe such proceedings.1
In examining the Masonic oaths, opponents also argued that the taking of any
oaths was blasphemous.
But I say unto you swear not at all. (Matthew 5:34)
Further, they claimed that the invocation of God in each oath constituted a
violation of the third commandment, by the use of the Lord's name in vain.
For some anti-Masons, however, oath-taking was the least of the blasphemies
professed by Masonry. The religious practices of Masonry were essentially
deistic; that is, they were set up to be inclusive of any religion whose
foundation was a belief in a deity.
Prayers were directed to God, or the Lord, and retained a distinctly
Christian flavor, but the actual name of Christ was carefully omitted. Again,
conservative Christians were appalled, insisting that Christless religion was
the work of hypocrites, pagans, and infidels. (Today, TV evangelist and author
John Ankerberg uses similar arguments in his anti-Masonic works.)
No man can serve two masters; and no Christian can worship God, through
Christ, in the church, while he pretends to worship the pagan's God, without
Christ, in the lodge.2
While these writers objected that Christ was the only way to know the true
God of heaven, their writings make it clear that eternal salvation was not their
only concern.
The claim is made that "the Budhist, the Parsee, and the Confucian,"
according to Masonic law and usage "may, and do, harmoniously combine with the
Mahomedan, the Jew, and the Christian in the moral and intellectual work" of
the Masonic institution, but surely all these do not believe in the same God.
The Confucian believes in the God Josh; the Mahomedan believes in the God of
the Koran; while the Budhist and the Parsee are idolatrous pagans of the most
pronounced and positive type.3
The idea that professing Christians might associate thus with non-Christians,
"including the wild Arab and the American savage," was equally distressing.
Conservatives discussed the issue in terms of outside influences compromising
their rigid religious standards, but their language clearly shows that contempt
for other cultures and races was a motivating factor.
Indeed, in some parts of the world it seems that the ideal of Masonry to
"harmoniously combine" different ideologies was successful. In Tunis in 1877,
the Lodge of Ancient Carthage reported a membership of 17 Protestants, 75 Roman
Catholics, two Greek Orthodox, 35 Jews, and five Muslims.
Ironically, lodges in the United States seem to have been less concerned with
inclusivity. Although Native Americans were active in some lodges, membership
was virtually all white, mostly Protestant, and despite the good intentions of
the order, American Masons were not particularly enlightened with regard to
ethnic issues. One pro-Masonic writer, for example, shows his sympathy for
another secret society of the day:
And coming down to a later date has anyone outside of the Negroes
themselves condemned the Klu Kluxers of 1867-68 for their lawless acts when
they arose in their righteous might and unlawfully punished the all too
obstreperous Negro office holders?4
Anti-Masonic writers, interestingly, strongly condemned the Ku Klux Klan,
although often on the same secrecy grounds as they did Masonry.
1 Finney, C.G., The Character, Claims and
Practical Workings of Freemasonry (Chicago: Ezra A. Cook, 1887), 136.
2 Ronayne, Edmond, The Master's Carpet; or,
Masonry and Baal-Worship Identical (Chicago: T.B. Arnold, 1887), 67.
3 ibid., 65-66.
4 Knight, Thomas A., The Strange
Disappearance of William Morgan (Brecksville, Ohio: By the author, 1932),
56.
But to all this testimony adhering Masons have objected. First, that the
movement against Freemasonry was a political one. Answer: I have already said
that by its having seized upon all the civil offices, and totally obstructing
the course of justice, it was forced into politics by Masons themselves.
It was found that there was no other way than for the people to rise up and
take the offices out of their hands by political action.1
At the time of the abduction of Morgan, the public began to realize the
extent of Masonic membership among their public officials. In upstate New York,
nearly every county sheriff was a Mason, as were many judges. DeWitt Clinton,
the state governor, had also served as Grand Master of the state lodge.
Anti-Masons alleged that these public servants valued their Masonic
obligations over their oaths of office, and that allegiance to the order was
obstructing justice, not only in the Morgan case, but on a nationwide scale.
Opponents of Masonry feared that the Masonic oaths constituted a mandate to
subvert the rule of law.
It is perfectly plain that if Freemasons mean anything by this oath, as
they have given frequent evidence that they do, this obligation must be an
effectual bar to the administration of justice wherever Freemasons are
numerous. No wonder, the refore, that dishonest men among them are very
anxious greatly to multiply their numbers.2
An examination of the oaths themselves (see Appendix A) shows that
anti-Masons may in fact have had good cause for alarm. Even the lowest-rank
Mason faced a gruesome death penalty for violating his oath. In the higher
degrees, however, dangerous potential is clearer.
Master Masons were sworn to answer the call of distress (para.
3), and to obey all signs and summons (para.
11); anti-Masons worried that such signs might be given, at their extreme,
by a Masonic defendant to a Masonic witness, juror, or judge. A Master Mason was
required to warn another of approaching danger (para.
8), which could mean of subpoena or arrest.
Master Masons were required to keep a brother's secrets, "murder and treason
excepted" (para. 12),
which amounted to Masonic protection, perhaps even sanction, of robbery, rape,
arson and the like.
Master Masons swore not to wrong their fellows "to the value of one cent" (para.
4), which suggested preferential treatment in business dealings.
Finally, a Master Mason swore not knowingly to "violate the chastity" of a
brother's female relatives (para.
9):
But why not this promise in respect to all women? If this oath had included
all women, it would have the appearance of justice and benevolence, but as it
is, it is only an odious partiality, and does not imply even the semblance of
virtue.3
Similar dangers were posed by the Royal Arch degree. Royal Arch Masons were
required to keep all secrets of their fellows, without exception (para.
3), and to cast their votes for Royal Arch candidates over others (para.
2).
It was these perceived threats which inspired the creation of a national
political party devoted solely to the opposition of Masonry, and to the ousting
of Masons from public office.
If masonry is to be thus fortified behind the patronage and power of the
government, where is it to be sought and attacked by those who desire to
destroy its baneful influence on morality and religion, and its usurpation of
the rights and privileges of the people? It is to be sought where alone it is
to be found,—in its intrenchments. Anti-masonry, therefore, is necessarily
political.4
At its height, the Anti-Masonic Party nominated a candidate in the
presidential election of 1832, who captured the electoral votes of the state of
Vermont. Nevertheless, Andrew Jackson, past Grand Master of the state lodge of
Tennessee, seemed untouched by the Masonic controversy, and went on to win the
presidency in spite of it.
With the beginnings of the Civil War, the anti-Masonic fervor died out almost
as quickly as it had begun, but the effects on the Masonic institution continued
to be felt for decades.
In many states, particularly New York, Masons were convinced to secede in
large numbers. In Vermont, the exodus was so great that the Grand Lodge
suspended operations for several years for want of members. One Masonic author,
however, notes that the secession rates had less to do with choice than with
pressure from the anti-Masonic public.
In some cases it meant social ostracism from neighbors and friends; in
others it meant what amounted to disfranchisement; in a good many cases a
Mason had no chance whatever of holding public office and, as has been pointed
out, there were many instances where physical castigation was resorted to.5
Masonry experienced a rebound following the Civil War, as did the opposition
to it, but the controversy never again reached the fever pitch it had known
before.
1 Finney, C.G., The Character, Claims and
Practical Workings of Freemasonry (Chicago: Ezra A. Cook, 1887), 33-34.
2 ibid., 79.
3 ibid., 84.
4 The Proceedings of the United States
Anti-Masonic Convention, Held at Philadelphia, September 11, 1830
(Philadelphia: J.P. Trimble; New York: Skinner & Dewey; Albany: D.B. Packard;
Utica: William Williams; Ithaca: D.D. Spencer; Hartford: N.D. Strong; Boston:
John Marsh & Co., Office of the Boston Christian Herald, and of the Free Press;
and at most of the bookstores in the United States, 1830), 73.
5 Knight, Thomas A., The Strange
Disappearance of William Morgan (Brecksville, Ohio: By the author, 1932),
221.
| State |
1820 |
1830 |
1840 |
1850 |
1860 |
| New Jersey |
37 |
43 |
9 |
12 |
51 |
| New York |
295 |
82 |
79 |
172 |
432 |
| Connecticut |
59 |
75 |
30 |
30 |
64 |
| Vermont |
52 |
73 |
* |
17 |
53 |
| Maine |
31 |
58 |
58 |
60 |
96 |
| Rhode Island |
15 |
19 |
19 |
19 |
20 |
| Ohio |
57 |
91 |
60 |
166 |
295 |
| North Carolina |
37 |
50 |
42 |
65 |
124 |
| Georgia |
31 |
40 |
34 |
114 |
242 |
| Florida |
0 |
3 |
10 |
23 |
48 |
| Virginia |
118 |
* |
64 |
88 |
184 |
| Pennsylvania |
185 |
224 |
226 |
262 |
350 |
| Maryland |
67 |
84 |
86 |
92 |
111 |
| District of Columbia |
8 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
11 |
| Mississippi |
3 |
17 |
38 |
105 |
238 |
| Missouri |
3 |
15 |
29 |
110 |
205 |
| Kentucky |
45 |
67 |
37 |
* |
320 |
| New Hampshire |
35 |
55 |
55 |
56 |
69 |
| Massachusetts |
86 |
108 |
56 |
66 |
116 |
| Delaware |
* |
* |
* |
17 |
19 |
| South Carolina |
— |
— |
— |
— |
— |
| Indiana |
13 |
* |
20 |
112 |
263 |
* Indicates that no report was made to the Grand Lodge for this period.
— Indicates that records were burned during the Civil War.
Knight, Thomas A., The Strange Disappearance of William Morgan
(Brecksville, Ohio: By the author, 1932), 220-221.
Finney, C.G. The Character, Claims and Practical Workings of
Freemasonry. Chicago: Ezra A. Cook, 1887.
Gould, R.F. Gould's History of Freemasonry Throughout the World.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936.
Greene, Samuel D. The Broken Seal; or, Personal Reminiscences of the
Morgan Abduction and Murder. Chicago: Ezra A. Cook & Co., 1873.
Katz, Jacob. Jews and Freemasons in Europe, 1723-1939.
Translated by Leonard Oschry. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970.
Knight, Thomas A. The Strange Disappearance of William Morgan.
Brecksville, Ohio: By the author, 1932.
Knoop, Douglas, and G.P. Jones. A Short History of Freemasonry to 1730.
Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1940.
Odiorne, James C. Opinions on Speculative Masonry, Relative to Its
Origin, Nature and Tendency. Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 1830.
The Proceedings of the United States Anti-Masonic Convention, Held at
Philadelphia, September 11, 1830. Philadelphia: J.P. Trimble; New York:
Skinner & Dewey; Albany: D.B. Packard; Utica: William Williams; Ithaca: D.D.
Spencer; Hartford: N.D. Strong; Boston: John Marsh & Co., Office of the Boston
Christian Herald, and of the Free Press; and at most of the bookstores in the
United States, 1830.
Stearns, John G. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Tendency of Speculative
Free-Masonry. 3d ed. Utica, New York: Northway & Porter, 1829.
Ronayne, Edmond. The Master's Carpet; or, Masonry and Baal-Worship
Identical. Chicago: T.B. Arnold, 1887.
[Ward, H.D.] Free Masonry. New York: Privately printed, 1828.
Wright, Dudley. Woman and Freemasonry. London: William Rider &
Son, Ltd., 1922.
back to top |
