
THE BUILDER APRIL 1926

The Background of Masonic History in the 18th Century

By PROF. E. E. BOOTHROYD, Canada

THE author of this article, written especially for The Builder, is
not a Mason, but he is the occupant of the chair of History in one
of the oldest Canadian Universities. In many ways the conclusions
reached by a disinterested outside observer are often found to be
of great value. We hope to have this theme of the historical
background of Masonry further developed in future articles.

THE average man, immersed in the cares of business and the
distractions of social life, is well contented to take his history
on trust. He knows that certain events happened at certain dates,
and is generally glad to leave the matter there, largely, perhaps,
because the teacher who drilled into him the historical knowledge
regarded as necessary by educational authorities was satisfied with
that limited amount of information. But when some interest of later
life leads him to study the past, he becomes interested in the why
and wherefore of things; he wants to know why this or that event
happened at all, why at one special time and not at another, why in
a certain way out of many apparently possible alternatives. And he
will discover that the answers to all these questions are to be
found in those inheritances from the past and conditions of
contemporary life and society which form what may be called the
"background" of any particular movement or institution.

To take an example, not a likely one of course: A boy has learned
at school that "In 1717 certain persons assembled at a tavern in
London and instituted the first Grand Lodge of the Masonic Order";
has committed this bald statement to memory, repeated it as
accurately as possible at some examination, and let the information
slip into the background of his mind. Years having passed, the boy,
now grown to manhood, becomes a Mason and grasps the importance of
the event thus briefly chronicled in his school text-book. Here was
an ancient and perhaps moribund institution reorganized and
remodelled; scattered and isolated groups of men united into a
single communion; the whole foundation of their activities changed;
and a development inaugurated which was to spread the Order round
the globe and make it one of the vital forces of modern life. At
once a host of questions arise. Why was this first Grand Lodge in
London, not in Paris or New York? Why did these men meet in a
tavern, not in a church or a Y. M. C. A. building? Why should they
wish to alter the old arrangements and change the activities of the
institution? And, above all, how was it that, so altered and
reorganized, Freemasonry arose from the ashes of a dead past to
become one of the greatest institutions and most powerful forces in
modern society? Now for these and a number of similar problems he
will find a solution, not in the private records o the Order
itself, but in the general conditions of the early 18th century, in
the institutions and ideas which had come down to the men of that
day from former ages and the character of the political, economic,
social, and even religious life of the time--in a word, in that
"background" to which allusion has been made.

If a number of gentlemen were to meet today in some club in one of
our modern American cities to organize a new or remodel an old
institution, they would not be free to perform their task in any
one of the innumerable ways abstractly possible, since they would
not meet in an intellectual or emotional vacuum. They would take
with them into that club a number of feelings and ideas, partly
inherited from the past, partly imbibed from the 20th century
American atmosphere in which their lives were being lived; for
these feelings and ideas would have become a part of their very
natures, and could not be left in the vestibule with their hats and
coats. Moreover they would not take with them many thoughts and
sentiments which had been familiar to their forbears but had been
abandoned by the present generation. And accordingly their actions
and the character they would give to the newly created or
reorganized association would largely be determined by the presence
or absence respectively of these various feelings and ideas. If,
then, the organization thus created were to become of such
world-wide scope and importance as to invite the attention of the
historian some two centuries hence, when ideas and emotions which
are commonplaces today no longer occupied the mind and heart of
mankind, the student would find himself under the necessity of
investigating American history and the social, political, economic
and religious atmosphere of the early 20th century to understand
why our hypothetical gentlemen had done one thing and left another
apparently obvious thing undone. If, for example, the movement for
prohibition had been so successful that the very idea of
intoxicating liquor had vanished from the thoughts of men, the
historian would find himself obliged to pen a foot-note on the
growth of the feeling for prohibition in the United states and the
enactment of the 18th amendment to explain to his 22nd century
readers the reason for the placing of stringent restrictions on the
refreshment-list of the association. If, on the other hand, intense
activity and strife were to replace our present attitude of
tolerance and semi-indifference in matters of religion, it would
seem strange to men of the future to find no reference whatever to
religious matters, and here again the later historian would have to
sketch the religious atmosphere of the period to explain this
startling omission. The entrance fee and yearly dues might seem
absurdly small, and require an explanatory appendix on economic
conditions and the purchasing power of the dollar in 1926.
Everywhere this particular association would be seen to touch the
life of its time, and to be shaped and conditioned by the national,
social and religious atmosphere in which it had its birth.

In like manner, Masons who are interested in the origin and
development of the great Order to which they belong, and who delve
into the records of the past in search of information on these
points, will gradually realize, as their researches proceed, that,
in tracing the history of Freemasonry, they are not following a
single isolated strand. They will find that this particular thread
is interwoven with many others, differently constituted and
diversely colored, to create the great tapestry of human history;
and that a knowledge of these other threads and of the whole
pattern produced by the interweaving is essential for a true and
adequate comprehension of their own particular line of study. In a
word, they will acquire a real appreciation of that cardinal
doctrine--"the Unity of History."

A moment's reflection will show that the central or pivotal event
in the history of Masonry was the formation of the Grand Lodge in
1717; and the expenditure of another moment will suggest the two
vital questions, "Why should this event take place at the beginning
of the 18th century?" and "Why should the reorganization take the
shape it did ?" The answer to each is to be found in the historical
background of the event. The date was determined by the fact that
the early 18th century marks a particular stage in human
development, the form by the peculiar conditions of the time.

To appreciate how the stage of development reached in England at
the beginning of the 18th century determined the date of the event
we are considering requires a comprehension of what is implied in
the terms "Unity of History" and "Ages and Epochs of Historical
Development" (and I must trust to the interest and importance of
the subject to carry readers through a dry and dusty dissertation
on these topics). The idea of the Unity of History is derived from
the realization of the way in which the past determines the present
and the present conditions the future, and in which the different
sides of life are interrelated and mutually affect one another. A
man goes to church on Sunday because of certain events which
happened in the past; he takes off his overcoat when in church
because a competent heating system has been developed by our
present material civilization, and he reads the Gospels and Psalms
because printing has made copies available for the ordinary
individual and our system of education has enabled him to acquire
that art of reading which was so rare in earlier days that its
possession would save a convicted murderer from the scaffold. The
history of mankind is therefore a unity because the events of the
past and the ideas of the present combine to shape the thoughts and
determine the actions of men. But a comparison of life at Athens in
the 5th century B.C. and in New York in the 20th century A.D.
reveals differences in organization, thought, and conditions of
life so great that historians divide the whole story of the
development of man into books and chapters according to the
differences thus revealed. Some of these differences being greater
and more fundamental than others are the basis for the division of
human history into the three great Ages -- Ancient, Medieval, and
Modern Times (as our ancestors divided their long and bulky novels
into three volumes); others, being of a less radical nature, though
still of great magnitude and importance, constitute the reason for
the division within the three Ages into various epochs. An age or
an epoch has a unity within itself and is distinguished from other
ages and epochs because throughout its duration certain ideas-- on
organization, society and religion, for example-- govern the
actions of men, ideas differing from those which control their
actions at other periods.

Now for convenience of treatment and other reasons historians are
accustomed to divide history into these ages at definite points, to
date, for example, the end of ancient and the beginning of Medieval
times from the abolition of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D.
and the end of the Medieval and the dawn of the modern age from
Columbus' discovery of America or the battle of Bosworth. Any such
sharp and clearcut division is, however, very misleading and
inaccurate in view of our other general idea of the unity of
history. Because of the influence of the past upon the present, men
change, not "in the twinkling of an eye", but very slowly, doing
today much what they did yesterday and will do again tomorrow. A
moment's reflection on our life today will show this. There is no
doubt that future historians will regard the recent world-war as a
dividing line between two epochs, if not between two ages, and will
date the division either from August, 1914, or from the signing of
peace in 1919; and yet the life of the average man in 1926 varies
only slightly, if at all, from his life in 1913. He lives in the
same sort of house, goes to the same sort of church, conducts his
lodge-meeting in the same way, and wears the same sort of clothes,
with only a trifling variation in the width of the trouser or the
length of the coat to prevent his wearing the same suit longer than
is good for the tailoring business. It will not be for a generation
or perhaps several generations that any striking alterations in
habits of life and thought will have become apparent. And as it is
today, so it was in the past. The Westward voyage of Columbus and
the appearance of Luther before the Diet of Worms were striking
events--warnings that a new age had dawned; but the change from
Medieval to modern conditions of life and thought and feeling did
not take place overnight. Spaniard, German and Englishman did not
go to bed one night as Medieval individuals and come down to
breakfast next morning as moderns. The change had begun long before
Luther and Columbus were born and continued long after they were in
their graves.

With these ideas in mind, an appreciation of the position of the
early 18th century in the story of human development, and, the
point which especially concerns us, the relation of that position
to the reorganization of Masonry, is possible. The modern age of
mankind had, it is true, dawned at the beginning of the 16th
century. The new ideas on organization, society and religion which
distinguish it from earlier times had begun to reveal themselves.
Nationality, that assertion of the individual conscience and the
individual belief in religion which we associate with
Protestantism, the right of the people to be consulted in matters
of government, and a host of other principles and ideas which shape
our life at the present day, may be noticed more or less clearly at
work in the 16th and 17th centuries. But the organizations and
ideas distinctive of the modern world were not working smoothly.
The most striking feature of these two centuries is the intricate
and endless strife and disorder which characterize them. Europe was
divided in a number of ways into a host of warring groups and
factions. In Spain the monarchy with the approval of the bulk of
the people was crushing out the few struggling Protestant
congregations which had taken root. In England Crown and Parliament
were enacting penal laws against Roman Catholics. In France and
Germany during these centuries Protestant and Catholic had taken up
arms one against the other and were fighting bloody and devastating
civil wars. Here is one element of strife, and its cause is
apparent. Those ideas on religion (on church organization and
worship, religious belief, the necessity for religious uniformity,
and the like) which had come down from the Middle Ages were
fighting against the new ideas which were to direct thought and
action in modern times. Nor was it until nearly two centuries had
elapsed that this condition of strife and chaos passed away because
the world had become accustomed to the new ideas and new feelings
and was working smoothly and efficiently under their direction.

Most historians seem in agreement that the fundamental or root idea
which distinguishes the modern from earlier, and will differentiate
it from subsequent ages, is that of Nationality; the conception of
mankind, not as united into one homogeneous whole, but divided into
certain groups, the individuals composing any one of which are
united among themselves and distinguished from those composing the
others by the possession of certain common characteristics of race,
speech, and the like. This idea was unknown to ancient times when
men were divided, not into nations but into tribes or city-states,
or were united in the world-state of the Roman Empire, and,
although originating in the Middle Ages, practically unknown to the
Medieval world "theoretically united", it has been said, "in an
imaginary 'Christendom,' and practically divided into innumerable
feudal principalities and free cities." The 16th and 17th centuries
may therefore be regarded as the period in which Europe is settling
down to the new order and recasting and remodeling her institutions
and ideas into conformity with the new principle of Nationality.

A brief review of English history during the period will, perhaps,
serve to make this clear, and give the necessary ballast of fact to
the foregoing generalization; a casual glance at the Tudor period
which roughly coincides with the 16th century might note as four of
the principal movements the Reformation, the creation of the Royal
Navy, the economic changes, and the institution of a definite
system of poor-relief. Now all these movements represent
reorganization of English institutions and activities, religious,
war-like, economic and social, on a national basis. The three chief
features of the English Reformation are the establishment of the
royal supremacy, the institution of the Prayer Book, and the
dissolution of the monasteries. In the first place all these
measures were effected by statute, that is by enactment of the
Assembly of King, Lords and Commons which "represented" the English
people. Further, their effect was to nationalize the religious
activities of England. Elizabeth's re-enacting statute of Supremacy
described how Henry VIII's laws had been for the "utter
extinguishment of all usurped and foreign powers and authorities,"
and established the control of the English Sovereign over the
English Church. The introduction of the Book of Common Prayer
translated religious services from Latin, the universal language,
into English, the national tongue. And the monasteries were
abolished because as parts of world-wide orders under the direct
control of Rome there was no place for them in a
nationally-organized church. The same idea can be traced in the
creation of the Royal Navy. In the Middle Ages any fighting ships
which happened to be required were provided, not by the whole
people, but by certain towns, the Five or cinque Ports of the
Southern coast on which the duty was devolved. The Tudors replaced
this system by a permanent naval fighting force, the ships of which
were built and the crews paid out of the royal or national revenue.
In the other two movements the same principle is equally evident.
That regulation of training for work, hours and wages which had
been the province of the local craft-guilds in earlier days, and
that provision for the poor and needy which had been left to
private charity, were now arranged and provided by the national
parliament in Elizabeth's famous statute of Apprentices of 1563 (in
the 23rd clause of which Masons will remember the presence of the
rough mason, plaisterer, brick-maker, brick-layer, tiler, slater
and tile-maker) and for the relief of the poor in 1601.

But, as we noticed, this new organization of life on a national
basis was not accomplished without friction. The religious changes
led to the rebellion of the Pilgrimage of Grace under Henry VIII,
the risings in East and West under Edward VI, and the revolt of the
Northern Earls in the reign of Elizabeth. The passing of Medieval
organizations of industry and charity led to the inundation of
England with "sturdy beggars", half mendicant and half foot-pad.
Nor did the friction cease with the coming of the new century, but
increased to the point of civil war. The danger from Spain had kept
internal dissentions within bounds under the tactful rule of the
Tudors; with the 17th century England found herself free from
foreign danger, and divisions deepened and widened until there was
no resource but the sword. Broadly considered the struggles of
Crown and Parliament, of Puritan and Churchman under the Stuart
kings represent the search for a satisfactory solution of the
problems nf ,where the supreme power should rest in the national
government and what form of organization should distinguish the
national church. The Puritans were not seeking toleration, but the
organization of the church in conformity with their particular
ideas; and Cromwell prohibited the services of the Anglicans as
Elizabeth had prohibited the Mass. 

With the close of the 17th century, however, this period of turmoil
and chaos came to an end; and with the opening of the 18th men were
busily and comparatively peacefully at work organizing their lives
and activities along modern lines. The question of government
having been settled in favor of Parliament, Walpole was shaping and
working the cabinet system by which parliamentary government
operates: the creation of the Bank of England and of the National
Debt had organized finance in conformity with the dominant
principle; the discovery having been made that differences of
religious belief were not destructive of national unity, the
Toleration Bill had been passed and the era of religious strife
ended. Clearly the psychological moment had arrived for those
gentlemen whose names are so well-known to the Masonic brotherhood
to meet together on st. John Baptist's Day in the Goose and
Gridiron Ale-house in London, the national capital, and inaugurate
a Grand Lodge which should draw together into one national
organization the various isolated lodges scattered over the length
and breadth of the land.

So it is that a knowledge of "the background of Masonic history in
the early 18th century", of the general character and place of that
particular period in the development of mankind, provides an answer
for two of the questions arising from a consideration of this
pivotal event in Masonic history--the formation of the first Grand
Lodge--why it should have happened at this particular time and in
this particular city. It happened in the early 18th century because
that was the time at which the new modern idea of Nationality had
permeated, through conflict and chaos, the whole life of England,
and was now shaping it into its modern form. It happened at London
because London was the capital city, the heart of the nation. For
these questions the answer is supplied by a knowledge of the
general aspect of the age.
