Modern Freemasonry was born in 1717, and its Constitutions were published in 1723. Since the beginning, their reference to God created problems and schisms.
by Massimo Introvigne
Article 4 of 8. Read article 1, article 2, and article 3.
Esoteric secrets were certainly not numerous when the first “accepted” Freemasons were received into the “operative” lodges at the end of the 16th century. By the end of the 17th century, on the other hand, a certain number of esoteric secrets could be found in the British Masonic lodges. The “accepted” and “speculative” Freemasons had brought them there themselves.
This slow transformation of the lodges from “operative” to “speculative” thus paved the way for the birth of modern Freemasonry as we know it today. June 24, 1717, marked the feast day of Saint John the Baptist, to whom Freemasons paid special worship along with the evangelist of the same name, regarding both as heralds of the Spiritual Light. Choosing, not coincidentally, this date, four London lodges with picturesque names met: The Goose and Gridiron, The Crown, The Apple Tree, and The Rummer and Grapes. The names betrayed the identification of the taverns and alehouses in which the brethren held their meetings. The event was under the presidency of the chief architect of St. Paul’s Church, Christopher Wren (1632–1723), who reportedly had been the leader of one of the London lodges from 1688 to 1695, and then again from 1698 to 1702. The outcome of the meeting was the birth of a unified organization, the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster (later called Grand Lodge of England). As Grand Master, the lodges appointed Anthony Sayer (1672–1742).
June 24, 1717, is accepted by the vast majority of historians as the founding date of modern Freemasonry. It was the acknowledgement, originally limited to the city of London, of a new situation. The lodges were now composed almost exclusively of “accepted” Freemasons, the majority of whom were in fact “speculative.” Modern “speculative” freemasonry was born in London, even though the first “accepted” had been admitted to the guild in Scotland. There, as late as in the 18th century, “operative” and “accepted” Freemasons coexisted in the same lodges. In England, by contrast, there were separate lodges composed exclusively of non-operative brothers. Indeed, it might even happen that an English architect who was passionate about esotericism belonged to two lodges: one “operative,” where he discussed the problems of his profession, and one “accepted,” where he cultivated philosophical-esoteric interests.
The last “operative” Freemasons, now feeling almost like outsiders, were gradually relegated to the periphery of the London lodges. These decided to give themselves new constitutions, necessary because the reality of lodges had changed. From guilds of arts and crafts they had become philosophical circles now completely devoid of any trade-related function.
The London lodges that met in 1717 in the Grand Lodge of London entrusted Presbyterian pastor James Anderson (1690?–1739) with the drafting of their new Constitutions. Anderson was a “speculative” Freemason, but also a professional willing to draft books for a fee. The text, completed in 1721, was revised by a committee of Freemasons, of which the Anglican pastor Jean-Théophile Desaguliers (1683–1744), son of a French Huguenot refugee and future third Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of London after Sayer and George Payne (1675–1757), was the de facto leader. It was published in 1723.
Anderson’s Constitutions entail four parts: a legendary history of the Masonic order and “art” (which goes back to Adam, Noah, Solomon, and Hiram Abiff); the charges and regulations; and a set of hymns for the three degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master Mason.
The most important part is that of the charges, still considered binding by several contemporary Masonic organizations and the source of numerous schisms in history, relating mainly to the first and second charges. The first prescribes that, “A Mason is oblig’d by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg’d in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet ’tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves.” The second charge demands of the Mason loyalty to the constituted political powers and forbids lodges any direct political activity. Some controversy was also caused by the sixth charge, where, although without using the word “secret,” it was recommended to be “cautious in your Words and Carriage, that the most penetrating Stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not proper to be intimated.”
In the Constitutions, the reference to secrecy coexists with the Enlightenment-style deism of the “religion in which all Men agree.” In fact, a reaction against Anderson’s Constitutions, which were considered too inclined to rationalism and the Enlightenment philosophy, resulted in the schism of the “Antients,” with its center in the city of York. The schism gave birth to a fourth degree, that of the Royal Arch, of Kabbalistic intonation, later embraced by all Freemasonry, and ended with a reconciliation in 1813.
In the Royal Arch, a name of God was revealed, Jahbulon or Jah-Bel-On, a synthesis of the Semitic (Jah or Jahveh), Chaldean (Baal), and Egyptian (On) names of the Deity. Regarding “On,” it seems that early Royal Arch ritualists fell into error regarding the biblical Potiphar “priest of On” (Genesis 41:45), interpreting On as being a deity (perhaps identified with Osiris) while in fact it was a city.
Regardless of the error, Christian anti-Masonic literature has often protested vociferously about the use of a “pagan” name for God in the Royal Arch. A committee appointed to study Freemasonry by the General Synod of the Church of England declared in 1987 that the use of the name “Jahbulon” for God was forbidden to Christians. The controversy led British Freemasonry to revise the Royal Arch ritual by deleting the word.
At the same time, following the discussions after the publication in 1984 of journalist Stephen Knight’s (1951–1985) anti-Masonic best seller “The Brotherhood,” Royal Arch leaders insisted that the syllables Jah-Bul-On have all three biblical meanings. The syllable “Bul” or “Bel” can be understood as consisting of the letter B (Beth, which also means “house”) and the word El (“the Most High,” i.e., God, in Hebrew), with the overall meaning, therefore, of “House of the Most High.” The syllable “On,” referring to the Egyptian city of which Potiphar was priest, whose daughter married Joseph, was intended precisely to honor the latter biblical character. The philological effort was valuable, but the interpretation was captious, since there is no doubt that for the early ritualists of the degree “Jah-Bul-On” was a word intended to contain reference to three different deities. Ultimately, to avoid a conflict with the Church of England, the word was removed from the ritual.
Not all problems were solved, though. One century ago, an Anglican pastor’s membership in Freemasonry would have been routine. Today this is no longer the case, and there are many voices in the Anglican Communion that the position of the Catholic Church should be seriously considered, and in fact one cannot simultaneously be a good Christian and a Freemason.
