Home

Freemasonry and Religion:
Confusions and Contradictions

by Jay Kinney

[A Research Paper delivered by Bro. Kinney
at the Third Annual California Masonic Symposium on "The Age of Franklin: Freemasonry, The Declaration of Independence, and the American Enlightenment," held August 1-3, 2003 at UCLA as the lead-in event for the International Congress on Global 18th Century.]

When I first heard about the theme for this year’s Symposium, I looked forward to attending so that I could relax, sit in the audience, and have the speakers cure me of my ignorance on the topics under discussion. Unfortunately, my plans were seriously messed up when I was suddenly asked to be one of the speakers! My hope for relaxation immediately evaporated, and I was faced with the daunting task of curing my own ignorance before the Symposium ever got underway.

Did I succeed? Well, that remains to be seen. I’ve spent the last two months diligently reading up on Masonic history, which is rather like opening up Pandora’ Box. There is always more to read than one has time for, and no two historians agree on everything. So, I appear before you today with more questions than answers. Like you, I still have much to learn. What I can offer, however, is my attempt to clear up a bit of the confusion that I’ve felt about Freemasonry and Religion in the 18th century.

+++++

Like many Masons, I have had vague and contradictory impressions of our Craft’s historical relationship to religion and the Enlightenment. For example, two years ago at the first Masonic Symposium, Bro. John Cooper made a very good case for the notion that Freemasonry has an implicit theology, even though Masonry is not a religion itself. In fact, he argued that, properly speaking, a deist couldn’t become a Mason because, early in the first degree ritual, the candidate is asked "In Whom do you put your trust?" – to which the proper answer is "God" or words to that effect. And since this question and response imply belief in an active and attentive God, this rules out deists, who admit to a Creator God, but deny His active involvement in ongoing daily life.1

Yet we know that Benjamin Franklin and other Founding Fathers were both deists and Masons. Some observers have even suggested that the famous Masonic name for God, "the Great Architect of the Universe," implies a deistic conception of the Supreme Being.

Confused? Well, I was. In order to make sense out of these contradictions, I decided I should go back to square one and look at the roots of modern Freemasonry when the first modern Grand Lodge was organized in London in 1717.2 The century prior to that in Britain was rife with religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, and between various Protestant sects and denominations – in fact, that’s why so many of them came over to the New World. In that same volatile period, the beginnings of what we now think of as modern science began to challenge certain blind spots of the religious worldview, and the Enlightenment era (or "the Age of Reason") was born.3 Modern Masonry emerged out of this social and intellectual ferment, but it was not terribly clear – at least to me – just what Masonry’s relationship was to these forces in conflict.

Was Freemasonry in England an expression of the Enlightenment? Did it take a consistent approach to matters of religion? We know that some early Masons were Deists, but how much influence did they really have within the Craft? These were some of the questions for which I sought answers.

I began my inquiry by reviewing the first Constitutions that were written for English Grand Lodge in 1722 and published in 1723 – just a few years after its founding. As you may recall, the Rev. James Anderson was given the task of composing the documents that included Freemasonry’s rules and regulations, its traditional history, and an updating of the ancient Charges that defined what was expected of a Mason. The first of these Charges, entitled "Concerning God and Religion," reads in part:

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 the Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished . . .4

This notion that Masons can be of any faith and that they need only adhere to "the Religion in which all Men agree," strikes an Enlightenment note from the start. It comes very close to the concept of a Natural Religion – a favorite Enlightenment concept. One of my sources described the idea behind Natural Religion thus:

. . . ideas to be valid must be based on man’s innate reason. In the case of religion this meant that there must be a natural religion, i.e. there must be a set of religious ideas emanating from human nature – ideas which are innate in the same manner as logical, mathematical and scientific ideas. They would therefore have general validity in the sense that all people at all times, independently of their cultural situation, must possess them.5

Now, Anderson didn’t go quite that far in the first Charge, but one can see the kernel of this concept in his notion of "the Religion in which all Men agree." Given that Anderson was a Presbyterian minister, he obviously had no wish to invalidate Christianity.6 Rather, he seems to have codified the wish of some Masonic leaders of the time to eliminate the potential for religious conflict within the Craft, by paring its requirements of religious belief down to that "religion in which all Men agree."7

So far, so good. Yet in my readings of Masonic history, I kept running into references to the "de-Christianizing of the Craft" which were rather puzzling. The initial use of this term was in describing the impact of Anderson’s Constitution and the first Charge from which I just quoted.8 The implication of this so-called "de-Christianization" was that pre-1717 Freemasonry had had a more markedly and specific Christian character to it before Anderson stipulated a more universal basis. In other words, speculative Freemasonry, as defined by Anderson, moved away from the sectarian Christian assumptions of Operative Masonry to a broader Enlightenment-influenced inclusiveness.

However, the second reference to "de-Christianizing" Masonry that I ran into spoke of another de-Christianization nearly 100 years later. This was in the early nineteenth century, at the time when the two rival English Grand Lodges, the "Moderns" and the "Antients," finally merged to form the United Grand Lodge of England. The Duke of Sussex, Grand Master of the new United Grand Lodge that was formed in 1813, is usually credited with presiding over the de-Christianization that occurred at this time.9

This case of two separate de-Christianizations was rather puzzling. If Anderson and the premiere Grand Lodge had already de-Christianized Freemasonry in 1723, what was this de-Christianization of 1813 all about? If speculative Freemasonry in the early 1700’s was already a universalist Enlightenment project, what occurred in the following hundred years that required that its non-sectarian nature be renewed and re-implemented in the early 1800’s?

The answer that emerged from my readings had several facets. First, despite the ideals propounded in Anderson’s version of the first charge, the historical evidence indicates that these non-sectarian ideals were not universally upheld.10 Masonry during the 1700’s was not a monolithic entity. It was not especially uniform or consistent, certainly not in the way we think of it today.

For instance, as the 18th century proceeded, there was the rivalry in England between two competing Grand Lodges, the so-called "Moderns" and the "Antients," with the Antients being more likely to include Christian references in Masonic workings.11 The lodges that comprised the Antient Grand Lodge, were adamant that they upheld the earlier traditional rituals and landmarks over and against the innovations of the so-called Moderns.12 These allegedly earlier "Antient" traditions included more overtly Christian references and interpretations of symbols, presumed to date from the days of operative Masonry when society was overwhelmingly Christian.13 The "Moderns," on the other hand, appeared more likely to embrace Enlightenment values pointing towards a brotherhood beyond mere Christianity.14

Another complicating factor was that the rituals and catechisms of the 1700’s Masonic lodges were purely oral, which made for considerable variations – even from lodge to lodge — some of which showed an obvious bias toward a sectarian Christianity.15 While some of the more cosmopolitan Masonic leaders during the 18th century in Britain may have seen Freemasonry as a milieu in which to spread Enlightenment values, just how widespread their actual influence was in the Masonic rank and file is a matter of much debate.16

It was not until the merger of the "Antients" and the "Moderns" in 1813, (preceded by several decades of negotiation), that we might claim that the Enlightenment values of non-sectarian, universal brotherhood really held sway in Freemasonry. And even then, there is much evidence that various residual Christian symbols and references have remained in Anglo-American Freemasonry, right up to the present.17 We need only think of the reference, in the First Degree ritual of many American jurisdictions, to the lodge being dedicated to the holy Saints John, to cite an obvious example.18

As I read further, it became apparent to me why I had originally been confused about early Freemasonry’s attitude towards religion. I had been confused because . . . it was confusing! In its attempt to create a harmonious zone of brotherly love, Masonry chose to ban the discussion of religion and politics within the lodge, and its Charges set out a minimal requirement of non-sectarian religious belief for its members. At the same time, when all was said and done, its members were overwhelmingly Christian, its traditions harked back to Christian cathedral builders, and various of its symbols were open to a Christian interpretation. And to complicate matters further still, some of those same symbols were also open to esoteric, Pythagorian, Kabbalistic, and Hermetic interpretations — as were aspects of the rituals and traditional histories.

In short, Freemasonry in the English-speaking world of the 18th century appears to have reflected the various – and sometimes contradictory – intellectual and cultural currents of that era. As far as I could determine in my research, no single philosophy or sectarian belief dominated the Craft to an extent that would allow us to generalize that Masonry was Deist or non-Deist, Christian or non-Christian, and so on. Its members, whatever their Denominations or Persuasions, as Anderson put it, seemed to find sufficient latitude within its ideals and symbolism to interpret them in the light of their own beliefs.

It is easy today to take such tolerance for granted, but it was no mean feat in the 18th century. As one of my sources put it:

. . . Tolerance was the ideal to which the philosophers of the Enlightenment paid homage, and which they fought to spread and establish. . . . Locke, in his Letter on Toleration of 1689, had put forward the first serious argument in favour of tolerance as a matter of public importance, though it was solely the religious aspect, the freedom of religion, which he discussed in that pamphlet.19

So, there we have it. Coming full circle again to my questions at the beginning, perhaps Freemasonry – in its relationship to religion – was an Enlightenment project. Not in the sense that it intended to champion science over religion, or reason over faith — but simply in its vision of encouraging tolerance and brotherhood amongst its diverse members.

Present Masonic Grand Lodges – whether in Britain or North America – are unanimous in insisting that men of various religions can join together in Masonic brotherhood — with no single religion or concept of a Supreme Being given precedence. This remains one of Masonry’s most attractive virtues: it provides a template for cross-cultural harmony. Such an ideal of tolerance and universal understanding – despite its sometimes inconsistent application – bears witness to the ongoing influence of Enlightenment values today.

End Notes:

1. John L. Cooper III, "Is Freemasonry a Religion?", Proceedings, California Masonic Symposium, 2001, p. 7.
2. I have chosen to limit my discussion of 18th century Freemasonry and Religion to Anglo-American examples, in part because this is the historical stream that has most affected Masonry in California, and partly due to time constraints in preparing this paper. The reader should refer to Prof. Jacob’s Living the Enlightenment (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991) for a much wider-ranging discussion with special attention to Continental Freemasonry.
3. Many good things can be said about a "religious worldview" that acknowledges the reality of God and the importance of a spiritual grounding for individuals and communities. The blind spots of the religious worldview that the Enlightenment validly challenged, I would suggest, included the Church’s insistence that the results of scientific inquiry had to conform to the Church’s theological dogmas and scriptural interpretations. Needless to say, the Enlightenment’s faith in science and reason resulted in its own set of blind spots.
4. James Anderson, D.D., The Constitutions of the Free-Masons (London: William Hunter, 1723) p. 50. (1976 Facsimile edition, Quatuor Coronati Lodge).
5. Erik Lund, Mogens Pihl, Johannes Slok, A History of European Ideas, trans. by W. Glyn Jones, (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1972), p. 203.
6. David Stevenson, "James Anderson: Man and Mason," Heredom, Vol. 10 (Washington, D.C.: Scottish Rite Research Society, 2002), pp. 96-7.
7. Ibid., pp. 117-9. It is worth noting that Anderson seems to define the "religion in which all men agree," as ". . . to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguished." Strictly speaking, this is simply a prescription for moral behavior, not an explicit requirement of belief in Diety. It is based on such a reading that the Grand Orient of France claims adherence to the Constitutions of 1723. Eric Ward, on the other hand, has argued that Anderson’s use of the word "religion," implied Christianity, while "denominations," and "persuasions" were subdivisions within that. See: Eric Ward, "Anderson’s Freemasonry not Deistic," in AQC, Vol. 80, p. 39.
8. See, for instance: Revd. N. Barker Cryer, "The De-Christianizing of the Craft," (AQC No. 97, 1984, pp. 34-60)
9. Ibid., p. 55. Michel L. Brodsky in "Why was the Craft De-Christianized?" (AQC No. 99, 1986, p.158) offers the theory that the two Grand Lodges were merged as "the only way to avoid the politicisation of Freemasonry" that threatened to occur as disgruntled British soldiers (many of whom were "Antients") returned home from colonial wars to a situation in which the gentry and landowners (many of whom were "Moderns") feared unrest. Brodsky further suggests (p. 162): "The de-Christianization was outward in appearance, originating less in a will of those who adapted the ceremonies to mitigate religious forms than in their determination to provide the new United Grand Lodge with a ritual which would be acceptable to all. Any obvious Christian allusion had necessarily to be eliminated, not because it was Christian and not because those who adopted the changes were not Christians, but because religion was a contentious matter and in the end a political one as passionate debates in the House of Commons on the ‘Common Prayer Book’ later in the century would prove."
10. Cryer, pp. 34-60, op cit.
11. I should make it very clear that I am not saying that de-Christianization was the central issue dividing the Antients and Moderns. Nevertheless, John Heron Lepper includes it as one of nine issues of dispute between the two Grand Lodges. (See: John Heron Lepper, "The Traditioners," AQC 56, pp. 140-1.) Cryer ascribes a more explicitly Christian tilt to the Antients in his discussion of their use of the Royal Arch degree: "They also introduced the working of the Royal Arch degree as an essential part of their system and this inevitably gave a still stronger ‘Christian’ flavour to their practices. As Bernard E. Jones put it: ‘Its peculiar quality, its "colour", its religious and almost certainly its then Christian content – all these made an immediate appeal to masons, who in the main were simple religious folk.’" (Cryer, p. 46, op cit).
12. Lepper, pp. 140-1, op cit. Also, see: Lau. Dermott, DGM, The True Ahiman Rezon, pp.34-46. (The edition I have consulted is the first American edition, reprinted from the third London edition, by Southwick & Hardcastle, New York, 1805.)
13. F.L. Pick and G. Norman Knight, The Pocket History of Freemasonry, 5th Edition (London: Frederick Muller, 1969), p. 88. Pick and Knight note: "the Old Charges have almost without exception a positively Christian character."
14. Of course, even here, generalizations are risky. John Heron Lepper has made the case that some lodges comprising the "Moderns" Grand Lodge took what he calls a "Traditioner" stance, i.e., they were closer in sympathy and practice to the Antients’ approach than to the supposed Enlightenment innovations advanced by some Moderns. See: John Heron Lepper, "The Traditioners," AQC 56, pp. 138-183. Conversely, it was the Antients and not the Moderns who provided "alternate prayers to be used by Christians and Jews [in lodge ritual]." (comments of P.J. Dawson, AQC 97, pp.63-4.)
15. While Masonic ritual and catechism remain largely oral today as well, there are likely to be fewer variations from lodge to lodge, within a given jurisdiction, due to the institution of district inspectors, cipher books, and other means of standardization. For examples of Christian elements in Masonic conduct, see Cryer, op cit.
16. Eric Ward suggests, for instance: "The first B. of C. [Book of Constitutions] made no pretence at legislating for all England, let alone the whole world, but was in conception the Constitutions of the first and only provincial G.L. of London. From this it follows that in the beginning it could not and did not claim to provide a universal code of ethics necessary or desirable to secure the allegiance to masonry of men of widely divergent creeds. That it was later adopted by Masons far beyond London is irrelevant when considering its genesis." (Ward, p. 37, op cit.)
17. Cryer, p.35, op cit.
18. One common printed citation for this reference can be found in Malcolm C. Duncan, Duncan’s Masonic Ritual and Monitor (New York, NY: Dick & Fitzgerald, n.d.) p. 29.
19. Lund, Pihl, and Slok, p. 215, op cit.

© Copyright.
All rights reserved. No portion of this page may be reprinted or otherwise duplicated without express written permission from the respective authors.
___________