BryanMaloney
Premium Member
This is not a properly-cited essay. It is a musing, an opinion piece.
We are often reminded (and remind ourselves) that sectarian religion has no place in the Lodge and that, while encouraged to become strong in our multiple faiths, we are not to let it interfere with fundamental Masonic fraternalism outside the lodge. We all have some vague notion, at least, of the origin of this practice, but I have noticed that many men have a very distorted vision of how it probably came about. Specifically, many Masons seem to think this is a "We're not bad like the Catholics" matter. Many Masons know better, but I have even seen Masonic religious tolerance contrasted to alleged Catholic intolerance in Masonic writings. The actual historical context paints a different story. In the time and place that immediately gave rise to Speculative Masonry, the Roman Catholic Church was more of a combined oppressed domestic minority and foreign political factor than a particularly strong source of sectarian oppression within the Three Kingdoms (Scotland, England, and Ireland). Indeed, if any sect was the source of the worst repression in living memory of the early Speculative Masons, it was none other than Evangelical Christians (mostly of a Calvinist stripe). The fact that many early Speculative Masons were, themselves, Evangelical Christians of a Calvinist stripe shows that sect to not necessarily be inherently oppressive, but I get ahead of myself.
Speculative Masonry, now called Freemasonry, was formed in the late 17th century, given that the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster (ancestor of UGLE) was constituted by four Lodges already in existence. This time and place are critical to understanding many of the principles of Freemasonry, particularly those regarding religion. Between the years of 1639-1651, the Three Kingdoms were under a series of internecine wars (aka "The Wars of the Three Kingdoms"). There were many factors behind the conflict, but this set of wars had a strong religious element. It was not a simple matter of "Catholic vs. Protestant". There were many actual sides, differing on matters of practice, doctrine, church governance, Scottish vs. English vs. Irish law, etc. They would flow into and out of alliance. The practical result was that, in the name of God, various Christians of various flavors were happy to slaughter various other Christians of various other flavors. No hands were unstained from the blood of innocents.
This went on for over a decade and ended in an open theocratic-military dictatorship (aka the "Commonwealth" or the "Interregnum"). For those of you not familiar with the Commonwealth, it was run by Oliver Cromwell, as self-appointed Lord Protector. He was a staunch Calvinist, very much invested in doctrines that would now fall under "TULIP", for example. This lasted roughly two years, during which not only Catholics were suppressed, but Episcopal practices were also outlawed. A regiment of severe blue laws were enacted as well. While there was official "tolerance", it was not always evenly extended. When this ended in the Restoration, there was a backlash against both Catholics and any non-Established (Anglican or Presbyterian) Christian. Even attempts by Charles II to extend some tolerance to non-Anglicans within England (1672 Royal Declaration of Indulgence) was abolished by Parliament. In essence, to have any public life at all, one had to be a member of the Established Church, and nowhere in the Three Kingdoms by that time was that the Roman Catholic Church.
Into this stepped the Speculative Masons. For whatever reasons, they knew the lethality of sectarian divisions. For them, sectarianism wasn't just rude, it was the cause of mass slaughter, it was the cause of effective disenfranchisement, and more to the point, it was not the sole guilt of a single sect. So, in these men's minds, some of whom no doubt had living memory of how every sect felt itself justified to slaughter every other sect, this was not to pass their door when they were acting as Masonic brothers.
As I already noted, this is opinion. It is not a proper scholarly essay.
We are often reminded (and remind ourselves) that sectarian religion has no place in the Lodge and that, while encouraged to become strong in our multiple faiths, we are not to let it interfere with fundamental Masonic fraternalism outside the lodge. We all have some vague notion, at least, of the origin of this practice, but I have noticed that many men have a very distorted vision of how it probably came about. Specifically, many Masons seem to think this is a "We're not bad like the Catholics" matter. Many Masons know better, but I have even seen Masonic religious tolerance contrasted to alleged Catholic intolerance in Masonic writings. The actual historical context paints a different story. In the time and place that immediately gave rise to Speculative Masonry, the Roman Catholic Church was more of a combined oppressed domestic minority and foreign political factor than a particularly strong source of sectarian oppression within the Three Kingdoms (Scotland, England, and Ireland). Indeed, if any sect was the source of the worst repression in living memory of the early Speculative Masons, it was none other than Evangelical Christians (mostly of a Calvinist stripe). The fact that many early Speculative Masons were, themselves, Evangelical Christians of a Calvinist stripe shows that sect to not necessarily be inherently oppressive, but I get ahead of myself.
Speculative Masonry, now called Freemasonry, was formed in the late 17th century, given that the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster (ancestor of UGLE) was constituted by four Lodges already in existence. This time and place are critical to understanding many of the principles of Freemasonry, particularly those regarding religion. Between the years of 1639-1651, the Three Kingdoms were under a series of internecine wars (aka "The Wars of the Three Kingdoms"). There were many factors behind the conflict, but this set of wars had a strong religious element. It was not a simple matter of "Catholic vs. Protestant". There were many actual sides, differing on matters of practice, doctrine, church governance, Scottish vs. English vs. Irish law, etc. They would flow into and out of alliance. The practical result was that, in the name of God, various Christians of various flavors were happy to slaughter various other Christians of various other flavors. No hands were unstained from the blood of innocents.
This went on for over a decade and ended in an open theocratic-military dictatorship (aka the "Commonwealth" or the "Interregnum"). For those of you not familiar with the Commonwealth, it was run by Oliver Cromwell, as self-appointed Lord Protector. He was a staunch Calvinist, very much invested in doctrines that would now fall under "TULIP", for example. This lasted roughly two years, during which not only Catholics were suppressed, but Episcopal practices were also outlawed. A regiment of severe blue laws were enacted as well. While there was official "tolerance", it was not always evenly extended. When this ended in the Restoration, there was a backlash against both Catholics and any non-Established (Anglican or Presbyterian) Christian. Even attempts by Charles II to extend some tolerance to non-Anglicans within England (1672 Royal Declaration of Indulgence) was abolished by Parliament. In essence, to have any public life at all, one had to be a member of the Established Church, and nowhere in the Three Kingdoms by that time was that the Roman Catholic Church.
Into this stepped the Speculative Masons. For whatever reasons, they knew the lethality of sectarian divisions. For them, sectarianism wasn't just rude, it was the cause of mass slaughter, it was the cause of effective disenfranchisement, and more to the point, it was not the sole guilt of a single sect. So, in these men's minds, some of whom no doubt had living memory of how every sect felt itself justified to slaughter every other sect, this was not to pass their door when they were acting as Masonic brothers.
As I already noted, this is opinion. It is not a proper scholarly essay.
