MODERNS AND ANTIENTS
The history of early organized Freemasonry is scanty, sketchy, much of it
shrouded in mystery Historians without number have guessed much and their
suppositions, after a long period of discussion of what might be called "trial
and error", finally coalesced into a fairly coherent story. This began as a
"might have been" and finally became a "must have been" tale.
But the modern Masonic chronicler, in the face of different conclusions from
such stalwarts as Gould, Mackey, Hughan and company, is perfectly willing to
admit the gaps in sources and to emphasize our uncertainties as to many of the
facts.
The first Grand Lodge was formed in 1717. The first account of it was
published in "Anderson's Constitutions" six years later. Not until
1738--twenty-one years later, with the second edition of Anderson--did the
Masonic world possess the following minutes:
"After the Rebellion was over, A.D. 1716, the few Lodges at London . . .
thought fit to cement under a Grand Master as the center of Union Harmony, viz.,
the Lodges that met,
"1. At the Goose and Gridiron Ale- house in St. Paul's Churchyard.
"2. At the Crown Ale - house in Parker's-Lane, near Drury-Lane.
"3. At the Apple-Tree Tavern in Charles Street, Covent-Garden.
"4. At the Rummer and Grapes Tavern in Channel-Row, Westminster.
"They and some old Brothers met at the said Apple-Tree, and having put into
the Chair the oldest Master Mason (now the Master of a Lodge), they constituted
themselves a Grand Lodge pro Tempore in Due Form, and forthwith revived the
Quarterly Communication of the Officers of Lodges (called the Grand Lodge),
resolv'd to hold the Annual Assembly and Feast, and then chuse a GRAND MASTER
from among themselves, till they should have the Honour of a Noble Brother at
their Head.
Accordingly
On St. John Baptist's Day, in the 3d Year of King George I, A.D. 1717, the
ASSEMBLY and Feast of the Free and Accepted Masons was held at the aforesaid
Goose and Gridiron Ale-house.
"Before Dinner, the oldest Master Mason (now the Master of a Lodge) in the
Chair, proposed a List of proper Candidates; and the Brethren by a Majority of
Hands elected Mr. Anthony Sayer, Gentleman, Grand Master of Masons,--Capt.
Joseph Elliot, Mr. Jacob Lamball, Carpenter, Grand Wardens--who being forthwith
invested with the Badges of Office and power by the said oldest Master, and
installed, was duly congratulated by the Assembly who paid him the Homage."
How many lodges were in London in 1717? We do not know. Were any others asked
to join with the original four in formation of the first Grand Lodge? We do not
know. And we do not know too much even of the four.
According to the "Engraved List of Lodges", dated 1729, the lodge which met
at the Goose and Gridiron was constituted--by whom or what, unknown--in 1691. It
moved from tavern to tavern, it changed its name, it became the Lodge of
Antiquity, but not until 1774 when William Preston became its Master did it
become really important.
The second of the four old lodges, meeting at the Crown Tavern, died out in
1736 and disappeared from "The Engraved List" in 1740.
The third lodge, which met in the Appletree Tavern, gave Anthony Sayer to the
first Grand Lodge as its first Grand Master. It seems to have done much moving
about, both as to meeting place and name and even number. It finally became the
Lodge of Fortitude (1768) and after the Union (1813) in 1818 it united with
Cumberland Lodge and became the Fortitude and Old Cumberland Lodge No. 12.
The fourth lodge was, apparently, composed almost wholly of speculative
Masons, while the other three were still largely of a membership of the
operative or workmen class. It had a membership of at least seventy and many of
these were of England's nobility and high social distinction. This, "The Old
Horn Lodge", was probably preeminent in the first Grand Lodge in its formative
period .
It is extremely difficult to avoid reading today's ideas and practices into
yesterday's happenings, when those events are so sketchily supported by
documentary evidence. Any American Grand Lodge today is a body which thoroughly
understands its purpose, its beginnings, its powers, its duties. The first Grand
Lodge merely groped its way in Masonic darkness towards a new conception of
Freemasonry. That it builded so well is our good fortune. That it had such a
difficult time in doing it is perhaps understandable.
The passage of years has greatly smoothed out the mistakes which the Grand
Lodge made, the troubles it encountered and the difficulties it had to overcome.
But, those difficulties resulted in a new Grand Lodge which appeared in 1751.
Whole libraries have been written as to why. And if no historian is satisfied as
to all the "whys", perhaps all of them together may have been the real
motivation.
Of the mistakes of the first Grand Lodges, some wholly speculative features
were important. The paragraph "Concerning God and Religion" in "Anderson's
Constitutions" caused much dissension. Now we know that without that paragraph
Masonry would not have survived--that its wholly non-sectarian character is its
greatest strength. But in the formative days of the first Grand Lodge most
Freemasons were Christian, even Trinitarian Christian. Religious dissension in
modern lodges and Grand Lodges seems to us impossible; in the formative days it
played a big part in the beginnings of the new, often called "schismatic", Grand
Lodge.
The first Grand Lodge had much poor leadership (as well as some fine
leaders). Anthony Sayer, apparently an operative Mason, was no real leader. Lord
Byron (Grand Master 1747) appeared before his brethren but little--so little
that there was an abortive movement to displace him.
There was much complaint about "irregular makings"--Grand Lodge kept a loose,
not a tight rein, on its lodges and members.
Grand Lodge made a number of innovations in the then ritual and practice
which were bitterly resented by many. Perhaps these changes had to be made. In
its early years the first Grand Lodge ran head on into public ridicule and many
exposes were published; these made it easy for scoundrels to pretend to Masonic
rank and to have the authority to confer degrees--a crime, by the way, still
with its criminals to practice it!
Of these changes the late, great H. L. Haywood wrote:
"Clandestinism became so rife that at last Grand Lodge, in self-defense,
determined upon making changes in the esoteric work that would enable regular
lodges to detect frauds. It is now next to impossible to learn with certainty
just what these changes were, but according to the enemies of the Grand Lodge of
1717 and to scattered references in Grand Lodge records they were somewhat as
follows: The installation ceremony of the Worshipful Master was either abolished
or suffered to go by default; the Third Degree was remodeled; the symbolism of
the preparation of a candidate was changed; one of the most important secrets of
the First Degree was transferred to the Second, and vice versa; some of the old
'geometrical secrets' long practiced among 'ancient Operative Masons' were
either entirely omitted or else changed out of all recognition, etc. As a proof
that such charges of innovations were not without foundation in fact is an entry
in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of 1717, 1784 edition, which says, 'Some
variations were made in established forms,' and this goes on to explain that
these changes were made, 'more effectually to debar them (i.e. clandestines) and
their abettors from the Lodges.'"
Besides all this there was much dispute concerning the degree of Royal Arch.
The new, wrongly called "schismatic" Grand Lodge, in a master stroke by Laurence
Dermott, its Grand Secretary, denominated as the Antients, desired the Royal
Arch as a part of symbolic Masonry. The older, first Grand Lodge, called by
Dermott the Moderns, did not practice it. And indeed this difference must have
been a powerful influence, as the Union, in 1813, specifically included the
Royal Arch in pure ancient Freemasonry.
Finally there was the Irish question; the Moderns did not recognize Irish
Masons and many of them wanted to join in London lodges.
So, from one cause or another, from many causes or all causes, came the new
Grand Lodge of Antients and a most dynamic personality at its head and front as
Grand Secretary.
Again quoting the indispensable Haywood:
"Dermott was born in Ireland in 1720, twenty-two years before the birth of
William Preston, who first saw the light of day in Edinburgh, July 28, 1742, and
who alone of all the luminaries in Freemasonry shares with Dermott an equal
fame. Dermott was initiated in Ireland in 1740, and went through the chairs of
Lodge No. 26, Ire- land, where he was installed Worshipful Master, June 24,
1746. It appears that he was fairly well-educated for those days, and Gould is
of the opinion that he probably knew a little Hebrew, which will account for the
fondness he had of covering his papers with Hebrew characters--that ancient and
difficult language! He moved to London, probably as a youth, with little in his
pocket but many schemes boiling in his head, which head was tireless, alert,
witty, sarcastic, and often a bit unscrupulous in waging war on his foes, of
which his energy made him many. It seems that he engaged himself as a journeyman
painter (Preston became a journeyman printer, it will be remembered ) and that
he prospered so that in after years he spent much money in charity and in
Masonic activities. In late records he was described as a wine merchant, and it
appears that he enjoyed the luxury of gout. Once made a Mason he never rested
but devoted himself to it as to a mistress, with passionate earnestness, never
permitting himself to become discouraged, and always in the front line of
battle. Aside from his genius in putting a Grand Lodge under way his greatest
achievement was the composition of his AHIMAN REZON (meaning Worthy Brother
Secretary), the Constitutions of the new Grand Lodge, and afterwards adopted by
many other Grand Lodges, our own Pennsylvania, Maryland and South Carolina among
them."
The new Grand Lodge grew rapidly and there was "confusion in the Temple" in
London; how should the profane distinguish between two Grand Lodges, two sets of
lodges, two complications of claims? Dermott's master stroke of naming--the
names stuck--added to the confusion for if the Antients were not ancient, what
were they? And could the Moderns possibly be the older? Two Grand Lodges, two
sets of lodges, disputes and quarrels among Masons, Irish Freemasons with Irish
tempers and Irish determination (a majority in the newer Grand Lodge) . . .
Freemasonry was in a sorry pass!
In a list of the Grand Secretaries of the Antient Grand Lodge it will be
noted that Dermott served eighteen years: 1751, John Morgan; 1752-70, Laurence
Dermott; 1771-76, William Dickey; 1777-78, James Jones; 1779-82, Charles
Bearblock; 1783-84, Robert Leslie; 1785-89, John McCormick; 1790-1813, Robert
Leslie.
Most instructive still is the list of Grand Masters elected: 1753, Robert
Turner; 1754-56, Edward Vaughan; 1756-59, Earl of Blesington; 1760-66, Earl of
Kelly; 1766-70, Hon. Thomas Mathew; 1771-74, John, third Duke of Atholl (also
spelled Athol, Athole); 1775-81, John, fourth Duke of Atholl; 1783-91, Earl of
Antrim; 1791-1813, John, fourth Duke of Atholl; 1813, Duke of Kent.
Of the sixty years during which the Antients had a Grand Master, a Duke of
Atholl occupied the throne for thirty-one years therefore, the Antients were
often called Atholl Masons." For a similar reason, the Moderns were sometimes
called "Prince of Wales Masons."
Introduction to Freemasonry states:
Dermott kept the Antients a Christian body and wrote distinctively Christian
sentiments and references into its Constitutions and its documents.
Meanwhile other Grand Lodges arose; they were not very important and never
grew very large, but they belong in the story of Freemasonry; the "Grand Lodge
of All England," "The Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent," "The
Supreme Grand Lodge," all made their bids for recognition, lived their little
day and passed on, each leaving its trace, its influence, but unable to contend
against the Antients and the Moderns.
The benefits which came from the clash seem today to be greater than the
evils. Then Freemasons saw only harm in the rivalry which split the Fraternity.
Now we can see that where one Grand Lodge established lodges on warships, the
other retaliated with Army Lodges which carried Freemasonry to far places; where
one body started a school for girls, the other retorted with a school for
boys--both still in existence, by the way. Where one Grand Lodge reached out to
the provinces, the other cultivated Scotland and Ireland. Both worked
indefatigably in the American Colonies.
The heart burnings, the jealousies, the sorrows and the contests between the
Antients and Moderns, if they exhibited less of brotherly love than the
Fraternity taught, were actually spurs to actions. Without some such urge
Freemasonry could hardly have spread so fast and so far. As the United States
became a much stronger and more closely welded union after the cleavage of
1861-65, so Freemasonry was to unite at last in a far greater, stronger and more
harmonious body when the two rival Grand Lodges came together, composed their
differences, forgot their rivalries, and clasped hands across the altar of the
United Grand Lodge.
The reconciliation is as astonishing and mysterious as the discord.
The death of Dermott, who was gathered to his fathers in 1791, fighting for
the Antients to the last, removed one cause of difference between the two Grand
Lodges; as the Antients had grown in power and prestige not only in England but
in the Colonies until they outnumbered the Moderns in both lodges and brethren,
the Moderns might well have thought that union would be a life saver; time heals
all differences and what had seemed important in 1751 in fifty years had
dwindled in vitality.
What is amazing is that after the difficult period, when overtures were made,
refusals recorded, committees appointed and differences finally composed, the
Antient Grand Lodge, in accepting the idea of reconciliation, receded from
almost all the positions for which it had fought so long! It was as if the
spirit of combat, so alien to the gentle genius of Freemasonry, had worn itself
out and brethren became as eager to forgive and forget and compromise as they
had previously been strong to resist and to struggle.
Whatever the spirit which caused it, the final reconciliation took place in
Freemasons' Hall in London, on St. John's Day, December 27, 1813. The two Grand
Lodges filed together into the Hall; the Articles of Union were read; the Duke
of Kent retired as Grand Master in favor of the Duke of Sussex, who was elected
Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge.
The second of the Articles of Union reads: "It is declared and pronounced
that pure ancient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more; viz, those of
the Entered Apprentice, the Fellowcraft and the Master Mason (including the
Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch)."
In 1815 a new Book of Constitutions pro- claimed to all the world forever the
non-sectarian character of Freemasonry in this Charge concerning God and
religion:
"Let a man's religion or mode of worship be what it may, he is not excluded
from the Order, provided he believes in the glorious Architect of heaven and
earth, and practices the sacred duties of morality."
Newson says of this:
"Surely that is broad enough, high enough; and we ought to join with it the
famous proclamation issued by the Grand Master, the Duke of Sussex, from
Kensington Palace, in 1842, declaring that Masonry is not identified with any
one religion to the exclusion of others, and men in India who were otherwise
eligible and could make a sincere profession of faith in one living God, be they
Hindus or Mohammedans, might petition for membership in the Craft. Such in our
own day is the spirit and practice of Masonic universality, and from that
position, we may be very sure, the Craft will never recede."
back to top |
