Читать книгу The Shadow of Solomon: The Lost Secret of the Freemasons Revealed - Laurence Gardner - Страница 9

Freemasonry is officially described as a ‘peculiar system of morality’, conceived as a neighbourly institution of fraternity and goodwill—and it rests upon well-defined codes of ‘brotherly love, faith and charity’. Indeed, these are all perfectly valid and admirable ideals, but they can exist perfectly well outside Freemasonry. No doubt there are other organizations which claim to support the same principles, but they are not covert and secretive. Any individual may aspire to the same codes of practice, but it does not take knowledge of secret signs and handshakes to make them possible. So, does Freemasonry confer some great and privileged secret to its members over and above these aspirations? Not according to James Anderson. He made it plain enough in the Constitutions that the secrets (whatever they were) have been lost. More than that, he said they had been burnt ‘for fear of making discoveries’.

From this it is evident that there is a distinct difference between pre and post-1688 Freemasonry, and that the earlier movement held secrets which are not apparent in the modern lodge workings. Candidates are advised on initiation that they will be ‘admitted to the mysteries and privileges of ancient Freemasonry’, but in fact they are not. They are admitted to the workings (and perhaps privileges) of modern Freemasonry. Some quaint rituals and entertaining ceremony have been preserved (or newly invented), but anything which made the brotherhood worthy of a code of silence, with secret signs and passwords of recognition, has long since been sidelined or forgotten.

So what happened in England in 1688 that was so dramatic as to change everything? Anderson specifically mentioned ‘the Revolution’, and it is with this that we should commence our investigation. From 1603 until 1688, the monarchy of Britain was the Royal House of Stuart. They had previously reigned in Scotland for 232 years from 1371, beginning with King Robert II, the grandson of Robert the Bruce. When Queen Elizabeth I Tudor of England died childless in 1603, her supposed nearest relative, King James VI Stuart of Scots, was granted dual crown status and invited to London to become James I of England.

James was succeeded by his son, who became Charles I of Britain in 1625 but, following the puritanical uprising of the parliamentary rebel, Oliver Cromwell, and the resultant Civil War, Charles was executed in 1649. There ensued a short period of Commonwealth, during which the late king’s son and royal heir was crowned King Charles II of Scots, at Scone, Perthshire, on 1 January 1651. Later that year, Cromwell’s army defeated the new King’s troops at Worcester in England, and Charles II fled to safety in France. Oliver Cromwell then decided to rule the nation by martial force alone, establishing his Protectorate in 1653 and dissolving Parliament to facilitate his military dictatorship.

In 1660, Charles II was restored to the British crowns, taking his hereditary seat in London. Although a popular and diplomatic monarch, Charles died without a legitimate heir, and was succeeded in 1685 by his brother, the Duke of York, who became King James II of England, while also being James VII of Scots (see Masonic and Monarchical Timeline, page 412).

In collaboration with such famed colleagues as the diarist Samuel Pepys (then Secretary to the Navy), James had previously revitalized the British Fleet after its abandonment by Oliver Cromwell. And, as James, Duke of York, he had named the American settlement of New York in 1664.¹ But, despite all his expertise and former glory, James became a very unfortunate king. Plagued in the first instance by a challenge for the throne from his illegitimate nephew, the Duke of Monmouth, James ultimately fell foul of his old trading enemies, the Dutch. He and Charles II had declared war against Holland in 1665 and, during his reign as King James II of England (VII of Scots), this loomed large to confront him in 1688.

At that time there was a religious upheaval in Britain—mainly because of Quaker and Presbyterian movements whose popularity in the rural areas was undermining the supremacy of the Anglican Church. It was also not long since England had been a formally Catholic nation, and Catholics still constituted about a seventh of the population.² In addition to this, there were many Jewish people in Britain and, throughout the reign of Charles II, everyone had been treated with due accord. His reign had been such a relief following the church-banning Cromwellian Protectorate that no one cared which religion their neighbour might prefer. But the Anglican ministers of James’s era were not so forbearing, and pressures (such as exclusion from trading opportunities) were brought to bear against those who did not conform to the Church of England doctrine.

James decided that, as King and Guardian of the Realm, he had a primary responsibility to the people before any allegiance to Parliament and the Church. On 4 April 1687, he issued a Declaration for Liberty of Conscience. It conveyed the ideal of religious tolerance and freedom for all, stating:

Conscience ought not to be constrained, nor people forced in matters of mere religion. It has ever been contrary to our inclination, as we think it is to the interests of governments, which it destroys by spoiling trade, depopulating countries and discouraging strangers. And finally, that it never obtained the end for which it was employed.

We therefore—and out of our princely care for all our loving subjects (that they may live at ease and quiet), and for the increase of trade and encouragement of strangers—have thought fit, by virtue of our royal prerogative, to issue forth this declaration of indulgence…and do straitly charge and command all our loving subjects that we do freely give them leave to meet and serve God after their own way and manner.³

It was one of the most public-spirited documentary pronouncements ever made by a reigning monarch, but it was more than the Anglican ministers could tolerate—a king who presumed to offer people freedom of religious choice. James had challenged their ultimate supremacy—he must be in league with the Catholics!

James had always been offended by the way in which the Church had abandoned his grandfather, Charles I, to the mercy of irreligious mobsters, and how the bishops had conformed so readily to Cromwell’s closure of the churches. He was no Anglican conformist, neither was he raised as a Presbyterian in the manner of his greatgrandfather James I. But, in attempting to grant an equality of conscience, he sought to repeal the restrictive Test Acts of 1673 and 1678, which bound those in public office to communion with the Church of England. His action, therefore, was seen to oppose the privileges of the Anglican clergy, as well as affording people a denominational choice over which Parliament had no control.

Much later, in 1828-9, England’s Test Acts were finally repealed in favour of Catholics (with the exception of the offices of monarch and Lord High Chancellor). Then, in 1858, the provisions were relaxed in respect of Jews, and the Scottish Test Act of 1681 was overturned in 1889. In Britain today, all religious denominations (Christian or otherwise) are afforded the right of worship according to their beliefs and conscience—precisely as King James II (VII) envisaged over 300 years ago. James was way ahead of his time, but his public popularity counted for nothing in 1688, neither did his earlier courage on the battlefields of France and Flanders, nor his years of relentless work for the British Navy. Because of his liberal attitude in religious affairs, the stage was set for James’s regnal demise.