The Origin of Freemasonry

A New Theory

The Philalethes Lecture for 1992 (Part 1)

by C. N. Batham

First and most important of all, I wish to say how greatly honoured I felt when I received an invitation to be the speaker at this Annual Assembly and Feast of the Philalethes Society, an organization known and honored, not only in this country, but throughout the Masonic world. When the time comes that I cease to be actively engaged in Masonic matters, there are several events on which I shall look back with pride and pleasure, and I assure you that what is happening today will be one of the foremost in my mind.

Once I had accepted your invitation, the question arose as to what should be the subject of my paper. I could have chosen something commonplace and incontrovertible, about which everyone could have said afterwards, "I agreed with every word he said " But in that event no one would have found it necessary to exercise his mind, and no one would have been called upon to re-examine his beliefs.

Alternatively, I could do what I have done, choose a subject that is highly controversial, a theory of mine that I am certain some of you will not accept. But if you "shoot me down in flames," at least I shall have provoked you into serious thought. That, in my humble opinion, will justify my presence here today. My subject, therefore is, "The Origin of Freemasonry: A New Theory," and I know in advance that there is one person here present who will violently disagree with what I have to say.

It does have one disadvantage. When I came to set down my thoughts on paper, I realized that I could have written a book about it. The paper that eventually emerged would have taken about two hours to read so that I have been compelled to write a much shorter delivery version. As a result, regrettably, my arguments lose much of their force.

By way of introduction, I would remind you that the premier Grand Lodge of England, the mother Grand Lodge of the world, was founded on 24 June 1717, in a tavern with the delightful name of the Goose and Gridiron Alehouse in St. Paul's Churchyard, London. It subsequently acquired the nickname of the Grand Lodge of the Moderns.

Thirty-four years later, on 17 July 1751, a rival Grand Lodge, nicknamed thc Grand Lodge of thc Antients, came into existence. For well over one hundred years, its founders were looked upon without exception as schismatics, as men who had turned their backs upon the mother Grand Lodge of thc world, and, in violation of their Masonic obligations, were determined to destroy it and replace it with a Grand Lodge of their own making.

No words were bad enough for such traitors, and it was not until 1887, when Henry Sadler published his Masonic Facts and Fictions, that the truth was established. He was able to prove that, in the main, those founders were Irishmen, temporarily resident in London, members of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, who had never owed allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England; humble men who had not been made welcome in English Masonic circles, and who were concerned only with establishing a Grand Lodge in London under whose auspices they could practice the form of Freemasonry they had known in their native country of Ireland.

Why do I tell you this? To emphasize that, just because something has always been accepted throughout the entire Masonic world it is not necessarily true.

The theory I am going to challenge, and it is no more than a theory, is the Transition Theory of the origin of Nonoperative or Speculative Freemasonry. It was supported by that great Masonic historian R. F. Gould, and more recently by my predecessor as Secretary of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, the late Bro. Harry Carr.

The Transition Theory holds that men not actively involved in thc operative masons' trade were admitted into operative masons' lodges, lodges that were concerned solely with matters relating to the masons' trade; and that, as the masons' trade declined, these outsiders became sufficiently numerous to be able to take control of those lodges; and by eliminating the trade aspects entirely, they were able to change the ceremonies, and gradually bring about thc evolution of our present-day Non-operative or Speculative Freemasonry.

The theory is that, as this happened in Scotland (which in any case I very much doubt), therefore it must have happened in England as well. But, with the exception of one lodge on the border, which was more Scottish than English in character, there is no evidence that any nonoperative was ever admitted into an operative lodge in England, let alone enough to outnumber the operative members. Nor is there any evidence that any English operative lodge ever changed to a non-operative basis. Moreover--and I wish to emphasize this at the outset--although it is known that some Scottish lodges changed from operative to non-operative, this does not mean it was as a result of non-operative members obtaining control.

Thus, although no English lodge can show that it was active before 1717, three Scottish lodges can prove their existance prior to 1598, at least 119 years earlier, and others are well documented in the early or mid-seventeenth century.

Both trade and social conditions generally differed vastly in the two countries, so there is no foundation whatsoever for stating that there must have been similar developments in the two countries. The population of Scotland was only about onesixth of that of England, and the building trade in Scotland was very small, being confined mainly to the southern part of the country; its concentration there made it possible for control of the trade to be exercised by municipal authorities, rather than by individual lodges, as was the case in England. Communication between the two countries was virtually non-existent; relations between the two peoples were bad; the two countries had always been enemies, frequently at war; and there were no cultural or economic ties between them.

In England the building trade was many times greater, and was scattered over the whole country. A considerable number of written records survive. If there had been a period of transition in England, similar to that in Scotland, then these records would inevitably have recorded it--but they do not.

Moreover, there was no decline in the building industry at this time; indeed, more especially in the seventeenth century, it had never been in a more flourishing condition. In England, there was, in fact, a revolution in the building industry, in which there was no place for the temporary independent masonic lodge--which in any event leaves no trace later than the sixteenth century. The seeds of trade unionism were being sown, though Scotland as yet was immune from this.

In an article in the book GRAND LODGE 1717-1967, which was published by the United Grand Lodge of England in 1967, Bro. Harry Carr wrote of the Transition Theory as though it was an established fact. This is unfortunate as, although the book was an official Grand Lodge publication and therefore bore the stamp of authority, the opinions expressed in the articles were those of the individual contributors, not necessarily approved by the United Grand Lodge of England. Nevertheless, many brethren have assumed that Bro. Carr's account was officially accepted. It must therefore be emphasized that his views have been challenged by several writers since then; and, as he had to admit to me, there is not a shadow of proof to support the theory he had put forward.

The theory that I am presenting is that within the English monasteries there were inner SANCTA, with membership restricted to senior and learned brethren, in which time-honored rites were practiced; and that on the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII in 1538, followed by the disendowment of the religious fraternities in 1547, although most of them disappeared, some survived as secret cells until late in the sixteenth or early in the seventeenth century; then, in more favorable conditions, they emerged, expanded, and gradually evolved into the form of Speculative Freemasonry known to us today.

I cannot prove this; I can only demonstrate that it probably happened. But, as I have already explained, there is no proof either of the Transition Theory, nor of any other theory of Masonic origins that has been suggested from time to time.

In putting forward my theory on a previous occasion, I was told that it "seems to rest on a faulty syllogism: in the seventeenth century there were secret societies and plots; in the seventeenth century masonic lodges existed; therefore masonic lodges had to take on a cloak of secrecy. " That charge I deny.

It is necessary, therefore, to examine each aspect of my theory in turn. The first is to decide whether there could have been inner SANCTA in the monasteries. In every order throughout history, including Freemasonry, there have been degrees or stages. The novice or initiate, call him what you will, has never been admitted to the full knowledge, to the complete mysteries, of the order. There has always been some ultimate stage restricted to the enlightened few, but because it was so secret, so exclusive, so restricted, written records are virtually non-existent, and, as in the case of monastic cells, very difficult to prove.

I will not ask you to rely on my opinions. What do others have to say about the possibility? J. E. Neale (QUEEN ELIZABETH) refers to a formidable and secret organization within the Protestant Church. H. M. F Prescott (THE MAN ON A DONKEY) records that Robert Ashe "inaugurated a secret body of men and imposed on them an oath. " IN BORN IN BLOOD John J. Robinson writes, "Lollardy indeed was subsequently driven underground and did exist for a couple of centuries in secret cells all over England. " Bro. Colin Dyer ("Some Thoughts on the Origins of Speculative Freemasonry," (AQC 95) states, "The entry on the Reformation in the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to religious societies in the 1500s in which the members addressed each other as brethren."

Bernard Jones (FREEMASONS' GUIDE AND COMPENDIUM) is more explicit: "there is reason to believe that hidden away within some of the craft mysteries was sometimes a religious mystery, a secret cell.... We seem to miss some evidence that would more amply and definitely link up the Old Charges with our ritual and we fall back on the idea ... that within the mason craft, as within most other medieval crafts, was a quasireligious body that only just managed to survive the Reformation and the ensuing century and so provided a real but dimly perceived link between the medieval operative and the modern speculative. Straight from operative to speculative in English masonry might to us be a difficult journey, but from operative via a fraternity hidden away at the very heart of the craft and emerging in the days of the Renaissance into an early form of modern symbolic masonry yes, that is a sequence not only natural but perfectly credible. "

What then would have happened to those inner SANCTA when the monasteries were dissolved? Understandably, as I have already indicated, most would have disappeared, but it is an established fact that, from the dawn of history, whenever any movement, especially of religious nature, has been suppressed, elements have survived underground, even though searched for in the most determined manner, an even with adherents subject to the direst penalties.

The early Christians in ancient Rome and members of the underground resistance movements in the last war spring readily to mind. Of such stuff are martyrs made. For such beliefs man went to the stake or faced a firing squad often after the vilest torture inflicted to make them reveal details of their activities and to betray the names of the accomplices.

I suggest that these cells remained underground for fifty years or possibly more, and that eventually they began to emerge and to expand. To judge the feasibility of this, it is necessary to consider the conditions in England at that time and especially during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603).

The break with Rome was essentially to establish Henry VIII as head of the church, rather than to alter fundamentally the nature of the faith. There was an extreme form of Protestantism during the short reign of Edward VI (1547 1553), followed by a more extreme form of Catholicism under Queen Mary (1553-1558); But even then Englishmen and especially Catholics, must have been very apprehensive, as there was a powerful opposition to the Spanish influence of Mary's husband, Philip II of Spain. This was shown in the attempt to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne--the Queen for nine days. Further, with Mary failing to produce an heir, Protestant Elizabeth was next in line to the throne.

During Elizabeth's reign the problem of religion dominated not only aspects of domestic affairs, but foreign policy as well, especially a far as France, Spain, and the Netherlands were concerned

The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity were enacted when she ascended the throne. The former constituted her a head of all religious and civil affairs, and the latter not only established Protestantism as the official religion, but prohibited the practice of any other faith, Roman Catholicism in particular, and it laid down severe penalties for all who acknowledged or supported the authority of the Pope in England.

In spite of this, the majority of Englishmen remained Catholic at heart, and this problem was the gravest concern of Elizabeth's ministers, who constantly had to face the threat of rebellion at home, and of foreign invasion at the instigation of the more militant Catholics who had fled to the continent.

The-most active of Elizabeth's ministers in the religious controversies was her Secretary, Sir Francis Walsingham (lived about 1530-1590), who was regarded by Catholics, not without cause, as their most violent enemy, and as the minister who was chiefly responsible for the extreme way in which the Queen's religious policy was carried out. His duty was to give effect to the decisions of the Privy Council, acting within the laws of Parliament; but his rabid Protestantism inevitably had a bearing on the way in which he interpreted them.

Early in his life, when Catholic Mary ascended the throne, he had fled to Padua, in Italy where he obtained a complete insight into the methods employed by the statesmen of the province, of whom it was said that they "had got thc maxims of Machiavelli by heart, " and who used any means, no matter how barbaric, to obtain the information they required.

Walsingham turned that experience to his advantage throughout the whole of his career, making full use of the weapons of cunning and deceit, and building up a vast network of secret agents "to catch indiscreet whisperings through every keyhole and behind every arras. "

His spies and double-agents penetrated every movement and every household suspected of being at variance with official

Government policy, often obtaining substantial rewards for their services, whilst the most successful secured themselves pensions. Walsingham even succeeded in corrupting the Secretary of thc French Ambassador in London, and in engaging secret agents to spy on members of their own families.

He became known as "a most subtle searcher out of secrets, nothing being contrived anywhere that he knew not by intelligence. " Amongst his other skills he acquired the knack of opening letters without it being detected, and he was able to decipher even the most complicated codes.

He had been a comparatively rich man but he died poor; although Queen Elizabeth made him a regular allowance out of the royal exchequer for bribing spies (amounting in 1599 to #2,000 PER ANNUM, a very substantial sum in those days), he also spent a considerable amount of his own money on his secret service.

How did this affect the members of the secret cells that had survived? By their very training they would be extreme in their Catholic faith, and so would be in considerable danger, even during the five years that Mary was on the throne.

The sole fact that their religious faith differed from that prescribed by law was sufficient for them to be subject to persecution and torture, followed by hanging and, while Still alive, having their entrails drawn and burned by the executioner, who then quartered their bodies. That sounds horrible to us, but such persecution was normal, deliberate, habitual, and a fundamental characteristic of the age.

There were always individuals who feared any secret organization and, if only to establish their own position with authority, were anxious to denounce its members and see the full rigors of the law applied. No wonder that absolute secrecy prevailed in such groups!

When Walsingham returned to England after Queen Mary's death and was appointed by Queen Elizabeth as her principal Secretary of State, their position would have been especially perilous, and it would have been essential for their very survival for them to have remained hidden.

Jesuits were entering England in increasing numbers and were inciting the Catholic community to rebellion, while foreign Catholics were promising support by armed invasion.

The situation became more dangerous when Mary, Queen of Scots, took refuge in England in 1568. From then until her execution in 1587, there were countless Catholic plots aimed at killing Elizabeth and placing Mary on the throne.

In 1570 the Pope declared Elizabeth illegitimate and a heretic, absolved all her subjects from allegiance to her, and promised reward and benediction to anyone who attempted to murder her.

To Catholics, therefore, Mary of Scotland, the great granddaughter of Henry VII, was the rightful Queen of England; and anyone suspected of even latent Catholicism was in dire danger. One false move or one incautious word would be certain to lead to arrest, torture and execution.

Mary's death undoubtedly removed the greatest danger to Elizabeth in particular and to England in general, and the atmosphere in the country as a whole was more relaxed, but English Catholics were still a menace to the realm, if only because of the threat of foreign invasion was still there, as was shown by the arrival of the Spanish Armada in 1588, financed in part by Pope Sixtus V Even after the defeat of the Armada, Spain and France Still remained threats, either directly or through the invasion of Scotland and Ireland

The religious tension was eased after Walsingham died and when James I came to the throne, but danger still existed. The Stuarts, considering themselves to be Kings by Divine Right, largely ignored their Protestant Parliaments and carried out a pro-Catholic policy. Civil War broke out in 1642, and even after the monarchy was restored, England seemed to be heading for civil war once again, and it was avoided only when the bigoted Catholic James II fled to the continent.

In the midst of this turmoil and uncertainty, and under the general pressures of the times, it is not surprising that the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries saw the proliferation of secret societies, formed for purpose for preserving valued traditions.

Here I am going to pause in my narrative for a very special reason. You may think that I am delivering a history lesson rather than a theory about the origin of Freemasonry, but there is a reason for that.

(Continue to Part 2)