          This file is copyright (c) 1994 The Philalethes Society and
          uploaded here with permission. All rights including any
          redistribution rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
          Permission to quote from, redistribute or to otherwise use
          these materials must be obtained from the copyright holder
          directly by contacting The Philalethes, Nelson King, FPS,
          Editor, 2 Knockbolt Crescent, Agincourt Ontario Canada,
          M1S 2P6. Tel: 416-293-8071 Fax: 416-293-8634 or 
          CIS: 71202,22
          
          Response to The First Schism in Freemasonry
          BY Cyril N. Batham, FPS
          
          Unfortunately a great deal of complete and utter rubbish has
          been written about the early days of Freemasonry which, it
          has been truly said, "are lost in the mists of time," and it has
          been written indeed with such conviction that many brethren
          have been sadly misled by it, including Michael Jenkyns, the
          author of "The First schism in Freemasonry" in the October
          issue of your magazine. 
          As a result the article contains many errors on which I will
          comment, as far as possible in the order in which they
          appeared. 
          The four original lodges that created the mother Grand
          Lodge of the world certainly did predate 1717 but the dates
          of their constitutions are unknown. The correct title is "The
          Grand Lodge of England"' so the word "premier" should be
          spelled with a small "p" as it is not part of the title, but is an
          adjective. 
          The statement that there were about 300 lodges existing by
          1700 is sheer fantasy and unlikely to be correct. There were
          a few operative lodges in Scotland, some of which had non-operative members but definitely no speculatives. Also there
          were some non-operative lodges in England but when
          speculative lodges began to appear is unknown. 
          It is quite wrong to state that there was a Grand Lodge of
          York in existence from about 1561 and the largely dateless
          list of Grand Masters from then until 1725 is absurd. In that
          year an old lodge at York formed itself into The Grand Lodge
          of All England but it never exercised any decisive influence
          over the evolution of Freemasonry in general. In spite of its
          grandiose name its authority was confined to the counties of
          York, Cheshire and Lancashire. It was dormant from 1740 to
          1761 and disappeared in 1792. It most certainly had no
          control over London and the statement that the action of the
          four original lodges in founding The Grand Lodge of England
          was a rebellion of those lodges, wishing to be in control of
          their own government rather than be under that of a Grand
          Lodge at York is the product of someone's over-fertile
          imagination.
          That Grand Lodge could not possibly have been the
          ancestor of The Grand Lodge of England which was founded
          eight years earlier.
          The mention of Sir Thomas Sackville relates to a delightful
          fiction that Queen Elizabeth I, fearing that Freemasons were
          plotting against her in their lodges, sent a posse of men
          under Sir Thomas Sackville to break up their annual
          assembly at York on 27 December 1561 but that when they
          arrived they were freely admitted into the lodge and were so
          impressed that they allowed themselves to be initiated and
          Sir Thomas was immediately elected Grand Master. On his
          return to London he gave the Queen such a favourable
          report of Freemasonry that she left them in peace for the
          remainder of her reign. What a pity the story is not true!!
          The Grand Lodge of England south of the River Trent was
          founded in London in 1779 by a few brethren, including
          William Preston, who had broken away from the Lodge of
          Antiquity. After an uneventful period of only ten years it
          quietly passed out of existence so it is completely impossible
          for it to have had such an impressive list of Grand Masters
          over 150 years from 1561 to 1717. It was authorized by the
          Grand Lodge at York but was not a schismatic offspring of it
          and it most certainly was not an ancestor of the premier
          Grand Lodge of England, which was founded 62 years
          earlier. 
          Further the story of the first assembly of stonemasons at
          York in AD 926 is completely untrue, though it accounts for
          the fact that some members of the Craft refer to themselves
          as Antient York Masons and claim that they work a ritual
          derived from York.
          It is said that Prince Edwin called this meeting, usually
          claimed to be of non-operatives, after obtaining a Charter
          from his father, King Athelstan, who did not have a son. In
          Anderson's constitutions, which were issued in 1723, not
          1722, there is reference to "General Lodge" at York of which
          Prince Edwin was Grand Master, but Anderson is notorious
          for his flights of fancy. There definitely was no Grand Lodge
          of York that provided a forum for the regulations of the affairs
          of English stonemasons or for the spread of Freemasonry
          southwards which decidedly did not incur the wrath of King
          Henry VI in 1425. Further, there is no reference in
          Anderson's Constitutions, nor in any other documents of that
          period, to the Grand Lodge South of the River Trent which,
          as I have already pointed out, was not founded until 1779. 
          Bro. Jenkyns refers to the English schism of 1751 but as
          Henry Sadler showed in his "Masonic Facts and Fictions"
          (1887) there was no such thing. The founders of the Grand
          Lodge of the Antients in 1751 were largely members of the
          Grand Lodge of Ireland, temporarily resident in London,
          made unwelcome in English lodges, who had never owed
          allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England and were
          concerned only with creating a Grand Lodge on Irish
          principles so as to be able to practice the kind of
          Freemasonry they had known in their native country.
          There are other inaccuracies in Bro. Jenkyns's article:
          1. There was no Grand Lodge from about 1646 until 1653
          when it was revived under the patronage of Charles II and
          again, the suggestion that he was received into the order
          during his French exile is entirely without foundation.
          2. Sir Christopher Wren was never Grand Master of the
          Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent. He died in
          1723, fifty-six years before it was founded.
          3. There is no record of any lodges in England (including
          London) and Scotland, remaining loyal to York throughout
          the 1717-1751 period, joining the fast-growing premier
          Grand Lodge, and being instrumental in separating into the
          Antients.
          4. There is no evidence of any correspondence such as is
          suggested, between the Moderns and York. The reversal of
          the modes of recognition in the first and second degrees by
          the Moderns was to prevent irregular masons, especially
          members of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, from gaining
          admittance into its lodges and of obtaining grants from its
          charity fund.
          5. The Lodge of Antiquity could not possibly have severed its
          connection with the Antients Grand Lodge as it was a
          Moderns lodge and had been on its register continuously
          form 1717 until the present day and it never had any
          connection with the Grand Lodge at York.
          6. The 1717 Grand Lodge was the one referred to as the
          Moderns and that of 1751 as the Antients.
          Bro. Jenkyns is to be applauded for interest in Masonic
          research but he must be careful to confine it to reliable
          books of reference.