Freemasonry and War

Chapter 26 Freemasonry and War François Rognon Introduction Anderson’s Constitutions (1723) can be considered as the founding charter of modern non-operative Freemasonry (Anderson 1723). The two authors, James Anderson (1684–1739) and Jean-Théophile Désaguliers (1683–1744), were very much exercised by the religious tensions which persisted in England. They drew on the old charges, the ancient duties of the stone masons, of which the oldest are the Cooke and Regius manuscripts, written between 1425 and 1450 (see the chapter on the “Old Charges” in this volume). In addition to setting out the physical and moral organisation of the building site, they suggest, in order to make it more effective and harmonious, that the workers, true to their obligations—a term adopted by Anderson—which were more persuasive than punitive, should develop an esprit de corps where each one was responsible for the smooth running of the lodge. Henceforth the obligations would be defined by reference to a constituted body and no longer to a single religious or political authority, bishop or king. Anderson’s Constitutions made reference to those ancient charges in order to legitimise and give an air of antiquity to the broth- erhood, but certain words which they add and which do not appear in any of the Medieval texts demonstrate the desire to envisage a kind of universal religion: “that religion in which all men agree”, that is to say: Christianity, as is clearly stated in article 1 (see Chakmakjian 2008 and Impens 2008). Some General Remarks Concerning Freemasonry and War Meanwhile, between the building sites for the cathedrals and the philosophy of Enlightenment, between the Regius Manuscript and Anderson’s Constitutions, Europe had been the theatre of bloody religious wars. After the Renaissance and the European humanist movement which followed it—with Rabelais, Erasmus, and Thomas More—the sixteenth century saw Europe torn asunder by the Reformation. For Paul Hazard, its moral unity was split with the population divided into two groups, which confronted each other (Hazard 1935). Wars, per- secution, bitter disputes, insults became the daily life of these ‘enemy brethren’. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/9789004273122_027 <UN> 474 Rognon Closely tied to the struggles for political influence, the religious wars from 1523—the year of Luther’s excommunication—to 1648—the end of the Thirty Years’ War—would turn Europe into a bloodbath. In the seventeenth century, in a attempt to rediscover Christian unity, people like Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) put forward the idea of political absolutism which, in order to prevent civil war and preserve the peace, proposed absolute power, suppressing individual rights and radically denying freedom of choice, or, like Jacques Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), proposed a religious absolutism which, adhering to the council of Trent, imposed a return to the bosom of the Church before addressing any questions of principle or dogma. Others however, in increasing numbers, developed the idea of Tolerance. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646–1716) wanted to bring together the protestant churches and then reunite them with the Catholic Church. For him, the love of God and charity should lead Christians to seek to re-establish unity. Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) demonstrates in the twentieth chapter of his Theologico Politicus (1670), “that it is impossible to take from men the freedom to say what they think”. The idea of Tolerance would be developed by David Hume (1711–1776) and John Locke (1632–1704) who predate by a short time the drawing up of the Constitutions of the Order of Freemasons. It should not be forgotten, moreover, that one of the authors of those constitutions (perhaps the real author), Jean-Théophile Désaguliers, was strongly influ- enced by the ideas of Isaac Newton (1642–1727), whose secretary he was, and his notion of a Great Architect of the Universe. We can therefore read the first article of Anderson’s Constitutions as a fundamental statement of principle concerning the prime motive for war which divides men—religion. Anderson’s Constitutions, Charge I. Concerning God and Religion. A Mason is oblig’d, by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine. But Though in ancient Times Masons were charg’d in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet ‘tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in wich all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish’d; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain’d at a perpetual Distance. Anderson 1723: 50 The final words imply that it is religions, understood as the various forms of Christianity, which, at that time created “perpetual distance”, which prevent <UN>.

Load more