Charges (Blindspots)
This paper will document how some of the most highly respected Masonic Writers have apparently overlooked text corruptions in relation to Charges (and Regulations), particularly those in Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 and derivatives. These Masonic Writers include:
Albert Mackey (1856 TPOML)
William James Hughan (1874 MMU)
Henry Sadler (1887 MFAF)
Lionel Vibert (1923, 1925 The Builder)
Carl Claudy (1940 STB)
Bernard Jones (1950 ... 2006 FGAC)
T. O. Haunch (1969 AQC 82 p. 291)
Wallace McLeod (1986 TOC)
Nelson King (2000 BAFF) (+ Kent Henderson, Jacques Huyghebaert, Michael Segall, Leon Zeldis)
Dan Doron (2002 LAOC)
Further research remains to be done concerning Preston, Webb, Sussex, Williams, and their contemporaries in relation to manipulations of foundational texts.
The obfuscation, cover-up, denial, and active suppression of this knowledge by institutional Masonic authority today is an ongoing research project.
This paper is about the text corruptions and their consequences. It is not about the writers. What matters is that the text corruptions were so entrenched that they escaped the notice of even the brightest and the best of Masonic researchers. Under these circumstances, ordinary Masons would be unlikely to recognize the surrogate texts as such, or to consider the possibility, that the texts that they had received from trusted authorities, had been manipulated surreptitiously.
\o-o/
We will examine how some of the most respected Masonic writers have overlooked some of the most egregious corruptions and deceptive manipulations of some of the most essential texts in Freemasonry by some of the most respected Masonic authorities.
This paper will evolve incrementally, with the relevant texts from the writers cited first. Interested researchers are invited to collaborate towards the outcome of this paper.
\o-o/
Citations
Albert Mackey (1856 TPOML)
It must never be forgotten (in the words of another regulation, adopted in 1723, and incorporated in the ritual of installation), that "it is not in the power of any man, or body of men, to make any alteration or innovation in the body of Masonry."
[Did Mackey know the text of the regulation adopted in 1723? Did he know that the text he quoted was contrary to the actual regulation?]
William James Hughan (1874 MMU)
In order to complete the "Memorials of the Masonic Union of 1813," we have likewise added, an exact reprint of the first edition of the "Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England," including the "Old Charges" of the Freemasons. These were compiled early last century, from the ancient MSS. of the Craft, forming an appropriate introduction to the premier "Book of Constitutions" issued in 1723, and all subsequent editions. [NB: "Now republished by Order of the Grand Lodge." (not "revised"). Published by William Williams.]
Henry Sadler (1887 MFAF)
[Sadler had scrutinized the writings Preston, and he was familiar with Anderson's Constitution as well as the post-1827 UGLE Constitution. He was severely critical of Preston's confabulatory writing style. Yet, in his book "Masonic Facts and Fictions", he made no mention of one of the most pernicious Masonic fictions in history -- Preston's falsification of the Regulation concerning Innovation, which Sussex inserted into the 1827 UGLE Constitution. Nor did Sadler mention the text mutation in the 1815 version of the "Charges of a Free-Mason". While these two matters are only indirectly related to the "schism", they are related, and they are certainly related to the book title.]
Lionel Vibert (1923, 1925 The Builder) [Vibert is included here mainly for context.]
The Builder, August 1923:
Of the six Charges themselves the first caused trouble immediately on its appearance. It replaced the old invocation of the Trinity and whatever else there may have been of statements of religious and Christian belief in the practice of the lodges by a vague statement that we are only to be obliged to that religion in which all men agree. Complete religious tolerance has in fact become the rule of our Craft, but the Grand Lodge of 1723 was not ready for so sudden a change and it caused much ill feeling and possibly many secessions. It was the basis of a series of attacks on the new Grand Lodge. [Has it really?]
. . .
The manner of constituting a New Lodge is noteworthy for its reference to the "Charges of a Master," and the question, familiar to us today: Do you submit to these charges as Masters have done in all ages? It does not appear that these are the six ancient Charges of a previous section; they were something quite distinct. But not until 1777 are any Charges of the Master known to have been printed. It is also worthy of notice that the officers to be appointed Wardens of the new lodge are Fellow Crafts. There is also a reference to the Charges to the Wardens which are to be given by a Grand Warden. This section appeared in the Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge as late as 1873.
[Cf: Preston 1775; and perverted 1781; why no mention of 1827?]
[Cf: Hughan MMU p.75]
. . .
And the Question was moved that it is not in the Power of any person, or Body of men, to make any alteration, or Innovation in the Body of Masonry without the consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge. And the Question being put accordingly Resolved in the Affirmative.
. . .
In the next edition of the Constitutions, 1754, the Regulations were rewritten by Entick, but the history was preserved. Entick also reverted to the Charges as drawn up in 1723 into which, especially the first, Anderson had introduced various modifications in 1738, and those Charges are the basis of the Ancient Charges to be found today in the Constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England, the only differences, except as regards the first Charge, not amounting to more than verbal modifications. [Not only was the first Charge tamed, the 2nd one was tamed too; but the evidence was not removed from the 6th.]
. . .
It was a far more serious matter that he was instrumental in removing from the literature of the Craft all definite religious allusions; but as we now see, the Craft in fact owes its universality today to its wide undenominationalism and in this respect he builded better than he knew. The Constitutions of 1723 remains one of our most important texts and only awaits publication in full facsimile with suitable notes and introduction at the hands of some Society with the requisite funds.
The Builder, May 1925:
a resolution ... was submitted that it was in the power of no person to make any innovation in the Body of Masonry without the consent of the Annual Meeting of Grand Lodge.
. . .
The Six Charges stand today very nearly as he wrote them in 1723. [why say this, instead of telling the truth: they are made to look identical, but are a denatured substitute!]
Carl Claudy (1940-09 STB)
Innovations -- The Short Talk Bulletin
"You admit that it is not in the power of any man or any body of men, to make Innovations in the body of Masonry.
Many Grand Masters, many Worshipful Masters must give their assent to this or some similar statement during the ceremony of installation. But nowhere in the installation ceremony, is a definition offered as to the "Body of Masonry" or of "innovation."
[Is the definition offered outside the ceremony of installation? What else is undefined: "The Original Plan of Free-Masonry"? Who wrote this "Summary"? What does it purport to summarize? Has it remained fixed or has it been changed? If so, when, how, and why? Is there any veracity in "as Masters have done in all ages"? Is it conceivable that Claudy and the others asked the question, but gave it no thought at all? If they did read the source texts, could they have failed to notice the text corruptions, and to wonder whether they were malicious, pernicious, and surreptitious? If they did not bother to read the source texts, what would that amount to? -- Perhaps, to say "body of masonry" and "innovation" are not defined, functions as a way to obscure the fundamental fact that this text has been falsified.]
There is less dispute over what constitutes the body of Masonry than regarding the nature of an innovation. Usually brethren agree that the body of Masonry is composed of the laws, customs, rules, landmarks, ceremonies, teachings, which make Freemasonry and not something else."
[Did Claudy not know the facts? Even after Vibert's articles in The Builder, 1923-08 and 1925-05?]
Bernard Jones (1950 ... 2006 FGAC)
"The Constitutions of 1723 obliged the mason, who prior to that time apparently was expected to be a Christian, to believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth and to practise the sacred duties of morality, whatever his religion or mode of worship might be." p. 504 in the 2006 edition
[FGAC is #1 on McLeod's top 10 book list; this error was not corrected throughout many editions over in 50 years.]
T. O. Haunch (1969 AQC 82 p. 291)
From the paper "The Lodge, Just, Perfect and Regular."
"A tendency towards a wider theism can then be detected which was to culminate nearly a century later in the disappearance of all, or nearly all, Christian references from the ritual itself. We can see the beginnings of this process in the first charge of the original Book of Constitutions, "Concerning God and Religion", which stated:
" ...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 which all Men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves . . ."
and so it is that, if you refer to the first of the "Charges of a Free-Mason" printed in our present-day Book of Constitutions -- charges which have-altered but little from those in that
first Book of Constitutions of two and a half centuries ago
"let a man's religion or mode of worship be what it may, he is not excluded from the order, provided he believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth, and practise the sacred duties of morality".
and so it is, that the Book which makes the well formed lodge "just", and upon which all initiates shall take their obligation, is the open Volume of the Sacred Law, by which is meant (to quote a basic principle enunciated by the United G.L. of England):
"the revelation from above which is binding on the conscience of the particular indivi- dual who is being initiated".
This, then, is the means by which masonry has become "the centre of union between good men and true", open to all religions and creeds, all races and colours."
[Historiographers may be interested in this passage on p. 292:
"Q. What is a just and perfect or just and Lawfull Lodge ?
A. A just and perfect Lodge is two Interprintices two fellow craftes and two Masters more or fewer the more the merrier the fewer the Better Chear but if need require five will serve that is two Interprintices two fellow Craftes and one Master on the highest hill or Lowest Valley of the World without the crow of a Cock or the bark of a Dogg" (Sloane MS. 3329, c. 1700)."
Emphasis added. Note the redefinition of "just" by Preston, and the defence of this by Haunch.
]
Wallace McLeod (1986 TOC from TQFL 1997)
From TOC 26 June 1986:
If you open your Book of Constitutions of the Ancient Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons under the United Grand Lodge of England at the very beginning, right after the 'Summary of the Antient Charges and Regulations' you will find ten pages entitled. 'The Charges of a Free-Mason.' Virtually the same pages occur in The Book of Constitution of the Grand Lodge under which I was initiated.
...
In its present form more than 99% of the wording goes back two hundred and fifty years.
...
We note simply that in 1723, Anderson, with the approval of the Grand Lodge, published the most influential work on Masonry ever printed, the first book of The Constitutions of the Free-Masons. Suffice it to say that he included a section entitled 'The Charges of a Free-Mason, extracted from The ancient Records of Lodges beyond Sea, and of those in England) Scotland, and Ireland, for the Use of the Lodges in London: to be read At the making of New Brethren, or when the Master shall order it.' Apart from a dozen or so tiny changes, the modern wording is identical.
From TQFL 1997:
"Many jurisdictions have in their law-code, or their book of Constitutions a section entitled "The Charges of a Free-Mason". ... In its present form, more than 99% of the wording goes back 275 years. ... in 1723, Anderson, with the approval of the Grand Lodge, published the most influential work on Masonry ever printed, the first book of The Constitutions of the Free-Masons. He included a section entitled "The Charges of a Free-Mason ..." Apart from a dozen or so tiny changes, the modern wording is identical."
Nelson King (Kent Henderson, Jacques Huyghebaert, Michael Segall, Leon Zeldis) (2000 BAFF)
Foreword by McLeod, p. v; Thanks to Zeldis, Segall, Henderson, Huyghebaert for their help, p. 11
"I believe in and adhere to the Ancient Charges, or what is better known as Anderson's Constitutions of 1723. [see attachment]" p. 5
The attached Appendix contains the Williams Charges of 1815. p. 11-18, and the corrupted Sussex
"Summary of the Antient Charges and Regulation" of 1827, p. 19-20.
[N.B.: The UGLE had corrected this corruption in 1986.]
Dan Doron (2002.09.29 LAOC) http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/doron.html
FREEMASONRY : LANDMARKS AND OLD CHARGES
...
Antient Charges & Regulations have nothing to do with the Old Charges.
They are a set of 15 regulations which appear in the first pages of the Book of Constitutions of the UGLE.
Though they are said to be "Summary of the…" they are the only ones.
They are not a summary of any other set.
Every Master-Elect has to promise to keep them before he is obligated as WM.
…
According to William Preston, Landmarks are boundaries set up in order to check all innovations. This is expressed well in the 11th Regulation, namely: "You admit that it is not in the power of any Man or Body of Men to make innovations in the body of Masonry"
\o-o/
Andrew Prescott is a notable contrast to the above writers.
Hint, for serious researchers:
1. Find the source for each of the 15 items in the "Summary".
2. Compare the "Summary" in the 1775 and 1781 editions.
Discussion
[work in progress -- contributions invited]