Anti-Masonry
Anti-Masonry. It is the purpose of this article to bring together in one place many anti-Masonic activities and movements, with appropriate sub-heads for those events which seem to have arisen somewhat separately, though it is the theory of this author that persecution of Freemasons has stemmed almost entirely from dogmatic or frenzied types of religious conviction or dictatorial or authoritarian government.
PRE-GRAND LODGE ERA
There is little record of any anti-Masonic s*ntiment in any country of the world during the Gothic operative era. The Freemasons of England experienced some hostile legislation in the form of numerous Statutes of Laborers, but that was shared with practically all other crafts and involved a national economic situation relating to wages in general. The Gothic Legends (See GOTHIC CONSTITUTIONS) emphasize the idea that Kings, Princes, Sheriffs, Mayors, Aldermen and other public officers approved the Fraternity and assisted in the administration of justice within it and in the punishment of infractions of Craft rules. The Act of 3 Henry VI Ch. 1 in 1425 may be cited as definitely anti-Masonic. It read:
”Whereas by yearly Congregations and Confederacies, made by the Masons in their General Assemblies, the good Course and Effect of the Statutes of Laborers be openly violated and broken in Subversion of the Law and to the great Damage of all the Commons, our said Sovereign Lord the King, willing in this case to provide a Remedy, by the Advice and Assent aforesaid, and at the special Request of the Commons, hath ordained and established, that such Chapters and Congregations shall not be hereafter holden; and if any such be made, they that cause such Chapters and Congregations to be assembled and holden, if they thereof be convict, shall be judged Felons, and that the other Masons that come to such Chapters and Congregations be punished by Imprisonment of their Bodies, and make Fine and Ransome at the King’s Will.”
That Act is set forth at page 35 of Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723, and there is a note at page 57 to the effect that Lord Coke had held this particular act ineffective, because the Statutes to which it referred had been repealed by 5 Elizabeth Ch. 4. (3 Coke Inst. 99).
In the Transition period, Dr. Robert Plot wrote (1686) a Natural History of Staffordshire in which he made some valuable and illuminating remarks about the Freemasons of England in that period when other records of the Craft were scant indeed; but certain Masonic writers have represented him as unfriendly to the Society, as they are apt to regard anyone who is not really panegyrical about Freemasonry. Plot spoke quite respectfully of the Order though he refused, as most Masonic students of the present day refuse, to credit the poorly prepared Legends of the Gothic Constitutions. Then, he mentioned the Statute of 3 Henry VI, the supposed repeal by 5 Elizabeth, which he thought as little observed as the former, wherefore, he supposed these chapters of Freemasons might do as much harm as theretofore and that it might be useful to examine them now. That was no more than a normal reaction of a neutral person respecting an asserted breach of law. A leaflet printed in London in 1698 attacked Freemasonry as being a ”devilish sect of men,” ”anti-Christ,” ”Evil-doers,” and ”Corrupt people,” and warned all ”godlike people in the citie of London” about the ”mischiefs and Evil practices in Sight of God by those called Freed Masons” and to ”take Care lest their Ceremonies and Swearings take hold of you; and be wary that none cause you to err from Godliness.” Probably many other such sermons were delivered without leaving any record, for example, one was delivered in 1768 on the subject, ”Masonry the Way to Hell; a Sermon wherein is Clearly Proved, both from Reason and Scripture, that All who profess the Mysteries are in a State of Damnation.”
EARLY GRAND LODGE ERA; RIVAL AND DISSENTING SOCIETIES
Very soon after the organization of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717, various kinds of feeling were expressed: on the part of some Old Masons or St. John Masons (q.v.), a feeling of distrust and dissent; on the part of disappointed or disgruntled Masons, a desire to make money; on the part of very respectable persons, a sense of jealousy and rivalry; on the part of a considerable number of apparently regular Masons, a tendency to criticize others and break the regulations themselves; and on the part of the uninitiated public, considerable interest and curiosity. Most of these sentiments were more or less normal reactions and to be expected and were very wisely treated as such by the Grand Lodge which, from the outset, established a custom, now universally recognized, of never responding to criticism and of refusing to be drawn into fights. The following orders, more or less Masonic and rivals or imitators of the new form of Masonry, are identifiable by scant records, sometimes no more than a newspaper notice: (1) Philo-Musicae et Architecturiae Societas Apolloni; (2) Apollonian Masons, possibly the same as the preceding one; (3) Antediluvian Masons; (4) Honorary Masons; (5) Real Masons; (6) Modern Masons; (7) Scald Miserable Masons. To the above are added three, which were non-Masonic: (8) The Noble Order of Bucks; (9) The Order of Gregorians; and (10) The Ancient Noble Order of Gormogons. Of these three, only the last was hostile to Masonry. See those respective titles.
At the same time that the above mentioned groups were imitating and sometimes ridiculing Freemasonry, either they or others were exposing the rituals by publishing pretended and variant copies of them in periodicals of the day or in the form of loose sheets or folios. Doubtless some of these were circulated for spite, others for money, and some for pure mischief. Whatever the motive, it was deep and lasting, for that sort of irritation went on for more than a century. Incidentally, these intended injuries to the Fraternity were quite helpful to modern Masonic students, since they afford the only insight into the early rituals. For the texts and descriptions of the earlier of these exposes and other early publications about Freemasonry, see Knoop, Jones, and Hamer’s Early Masonic Catechisms and Early Masonic Pamphlets; and for a practically complete list of the ritualistic exposes from 1723 to 1852, see RITUALS.
POLITICO-RELIGIOUS
Throughout Europe, anti-Masonry has sometimes been political, that is monarchial, and sometimes religious, that is Roman Catholic, or has contained various mixtures of those two elements, depending on the relative influences of the Prince or the P*pe. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal opposition of the Church of Rome has been inexorable for more than two centuries, because of the close co-operation of Church and State. In northern and western Europe, Freemasonry had been comparatively safe until the advent of Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930’s. In eastern Europe and Russia, political conditions have been for the most part intolerable to the Society and Freemasonry has been permitted to exist only fitfully and with threat of extinction always imminent. In France, notwithstanding the predominance of Roman Catholicism, Freemasonry has been comparatively free from religious persecution, because French monarchs were always too strong to be influenced by the P*pe and the French Republic was based in part on the theory of separation of Church and State as was the government of the United States. The only exception to that condition seems to have been somewhat prolonged opposition from some of Freemasonry and, in 1748, published a Letter and Consultation on the Society of Freemasons, declaring that it was illegal and ought to be suppressed. That letter was republished by the Freemasons, themselves, with a reply in 1764 and again at Berlin, in 1766, with a reply by one Jarhetti (a pseudonym).
Strange as it may seem, actual anti-Masonic legislation has been about as pronounced in England as anywhere else. The Statute of 3 Henry VI is set forth above. (See also Statutes of Laborers) and, in 1797, came the Act of 37 George III Ch. 123, which condemned societies of a seditious, mutinous, or illegal nature and, though there was nothing in it respecting Freemasonry, it was ominous. Two years later, the Act of 39 George III Ch. 79, passed July 12, 1799, provided that all societies which exacted an oath not required by law were unlawful combinations and the members thereof subject to fine. That Act, however, expressly exempted lodges of Freemasons which were in existence prior to the Act, provided, the name, place, and time of meetings and the names of the members were registered with the Clerk of the Peace. The Statute 57 George III Ch. 19, adopted March 31, 1817, virtually re-enacted the statute of 1799. Half a century later, came the Statute 31 and 32 Victoria Ch. 72, providing that any society or body requiring an oath should substitute therefor a mere declaration or affirmation. Hence, all English lodges chartered in the past century and a half are required to file annually with the police authorities, but what they have done about eliminating the oath is not of record. The English have a way of reacting to unpleasant situations (they usually simply ignore them) and as they have over 5000 lodges in a small country, we may assume that English Freemasons are not seriously disturbed by this one. The Masonic persecutions of the 20th century just preceding the outbreak of W*rld W*r II were a new phenomenon, uninfluenced by the Church (except in Spain), and generated by a new type of totalitarian government, that is, instead of princely monarchs, who, after all, were gentlemen, this new type was in the unrestrained hands of the peoples’ own chosen dictators of low intellectual and moral standards.
"