It is important to bear in mind the fact that at the time when the Orange Institution (as we know it today) came into being, there was widespread sectarian unrest in Ulster, particularly in County Armagh, which became the birthplace of the first Orange lodges. Strife and bloodshed were prevalent, with various armed factions striving for military and economic supremacy over their local areas. Violent faction fights were endemic, and Protestants, particularly those in areas such as Armagh, banded themselves together in armed militias such as the Peep O'Day Boys and the Orange Boys. Many of those who joined such organisations had already received substantial military training through their membership of the Volunteers, an armed protestant organisation who had emerged in Ireland towards the end of the eighteenth century with the purpose of resisting potential invasions from revolutionary France and America. These Volunteers drew heavily on the Williamite tradition, and it would appear that they had many traits in common with fledgling Orange organisations such as the Boyne Society. The Reverend David A. Murphy, in his dissertation for the degree of Master of Theology, states:'The Volunteers, in the words of Professor David Miller, more closely resembled the B-Specials than a nationalist movement. These Volunteers celebrated the Williamite victory on the 12 July as opposed to the 1 July and they often clashed with Catholics as they marched to Armagh Cathedral playing the Protestant Boys and the Boyne Water...the old Volunteers did not disappear. Rather, they re-grouped in the Orange Society and it was this society established in 1794 who would hold the line at the Diamond on 21 September 1795, the decisive battle that led to the formation of the Orange Institution. It was therefore out of this background and history that the Orange Institution was born'.

Evidently, there are strong reasons to believe that organised Orangeism owes a great deal to the Volunteer movement for its structural and institutional basis. This substantially weakens the argument, put forward by Malcomson, that the Orange Institution and the Arch Purple are directly descended from Freemasonry. The evidence that shows clear links between Orangeism and the Volunteer movement would tend to suggest otherwise.

One of the central planks of Malcomson's argument is that James Wilson of the Dyan, one of the founding members of the Orange Institution, was a prominent Freemason. He ignores the fact, however, that prior to the foundation of the Orange Institution, Wilson had actually resigned from the Masons, on the grounds that they had failed to help protect the Protestant people of the Diamond area. This information is contained in RM Sibbett's work on the origins of the Orange Institution.

Of course, it has been pointed out repeatedly by many writers, not just Paul Malcomson, that there are structural similarities between the Orange Order and the Freemasons. It has been pointed out that Orangemen, like Masons, meet in lodges. This is only a very superficial parallel, however. The term 'lodge' was appropriated by modern 'speculative' Freemasonry to suggest continuity with the original 'operative' stonemasons of the medieval period, who literally 'lodged' (ate, slept and stored tools) in temporary buildings which ultimately became known as 'lodges'. The term itself is thus innocuous in its origins; the fact that the first Orangemen for their meetings adopted it does not necessarily imply that they were therewith appropriating the ideals or practices of Freemasonry. Many fraternal organisations in the eighteenth century used terminology that was redolent of Freemasonry at a superficial level, but the organisations themselves had ideals that were alien to those of Freemasonry. It is thus inaccurate and misleading to suggest that just because the fledgling Orange Order shared some basic terminology with Freemasonry, it was in some way taking on board the precepts and teaching of the Masonic Order. At a time when there were no organised political parties or trade unions, the Masonic Order was one of very few organisations that could have been used by the first Orangemen as a prototype for the structure of their new group.

Central to Malcomson's argument is his assertion that the Royal Arch Purple degree is, in content, barely distinguishable from the content of some Masonic degrees. A close examination of the Royal Arch Purple degree will dispel this view; we will deal with the actual content of the degree elsewhere on this site. However, it is worth considering at this stage some of the sharp contrasts that exist between the teachings and practices of the Masonic Order and the scriptural basis of the Royal Arch Purple degree. It is not our purpose to examine closely the private workings of the Masonic order; it is however necessary to draw some parallels for the sake of comparison and clarity.

The historian Kevin Haddick-Flynn points out in his 'Orangeism: The making of a Tradition' (1998) that 'it is of course true that Freemasons were among the founders of the Orange Order and that the Masonic model was readily adopted. This, however, tells us little. Freemasons were among the founders of many contemporary societies which were the very antithesis of Orangeism, such as the republican Society of United Irishmen. Besides, it was commonplace in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries for new societies to imitate Masonry. The most significant and, indeed, fundamental difference between the two orders is that one is unequivocally Christian and forthrightly Protestant and the other is Deist...Freemasonry admits to membership candidates who believe in a "supreme being" whom it styles "The Great Architect of the Universe". This being is not necessarily the Christian God and can be interpreted variously...Orangeism holds that the godhead is reached exclusively through Jesus Christ, whom it terms the saviour of mankind. Another difference is that masonry draws on pre-Christian mysticism, Gnosticism, and even elements of paganism in its workings. Orange ritual, by contrast, is based exclusively on biblical material, and excludes what Masons call "traditional history".

In regard to the Royal Arch Purple degree, Haddick-Flynn writes 'its theology is distinctly different from the comparable degree (the Holy Royal Arch) in Masonry. In the arch purple, the candidate is required to act out certain dramatic passages from the Exodus story. All the material is scriptural, and the prayers have a particular Christian orientation. In contrast, the Masonic degree mixes biblical references with what Masons call "traditional history", or in less varnished terms, with mythology. For instance, in the Book of Kings, when Solomon built his temple in Jerusalem, he sent for a man called Hiram from Tyre to complete the decorations. Hiram was neither a mason nor an architect, but a worker in brass. A man of similar name did not enter Masonic ritual until the 1720s, when he was given the surname "Abiff" and styled "the most accomplished mason who ever existed". In fact the latter character is a fabrication and unknown outside masonry. No such constructs exist in the Arch Purple'.

Similarly, in the 'History of the Royal Arch Purple Order' (1993), we read: 'it has been stated by some researchers and writers that there is some similarity between the Royal Arch purple and the degrees of the Masonic Order. If this is so, then it is in method only as the basis or theme of the two orders is completely different. The theme of the Craft Degrees of the Masonic Order is based upon the building of King Solomon's Temple and the basis of the Holy Royal Arch degree is the rebuilding of that Temple. Again the emblems used in both have been said to be comparable but as has been shown it is evident that whilst some similarities exist in the method of working the degrees, these would have come about through dual membership and not because of any connection organisationally or historically between them. The Royal Arch Purple was more likely to have been influenced by the Loyal Orange Boyne Society, which also used similar emblems, than by the Freemasons'.

It is important to note the reference to the Boyne Society, a Protestant fraternity which predated the Orange Institution by several decades and which used signs and emblems quite distinct from Freemasonry, many of which are still to be found in the Royal Arch Purple. This connection is discussed in more detail in the section of this site dealing with symbols.

The 'History' continues, 'the traditions now concentrated in the Royal Arch Purple Order go back to the generation go back to the generation which defended Enniskillen and Londonderry, and fought victoriously at the Boyne and Aughrim. They come down to us through the Boyne Society, the Volunteers, The Orange Boys, who fought at the battle of the Diamond in 1795 and into the new Orange Society now known as the Orange Institution...The Boyne Society, variously known as the Orange Boyne Society and the Boyne Orange Society, commonly called Orangemen, had branches in Counties Antrim, Armagh, Fermanagh and almost certainly in the other Ulster counties with the possible exceptions of Londonderry and Donegal'.

It is abundantly clear from the evidence cited here that the Orange and Arch Purple did not simply evolve from Freemasonry; their true origins are in fact far more complex. To suggest that they are simply Protestant versions of Freemasonry is effectively to ignore the nature of those organisations in which they found their origins. It also ignores the facts regarding the scriptural content of the degrees in contrast to Freemasonry, which we will examine more closely elsewhere.