What is the
difference between AF&AM and F&AM Lodges?
by Roger M. Firestone
After the foundation of the first Grand Lodge in England in 1717, a rival
Grand Lodge arose less than two decades later, calling itself the Antients (or
Ancients), whereby it intended to assert greater authenticity than the rival
"modern" Grand Lodge. The Antients were also known as the Athol Masons, from
their first Grand Master, the Duke of Athol. Some authors (e.g., Carl Claudy)
say the Antients were schismatic--i.e., had split off from the "modern" Grand
Lodge; others (e.g., Allen Roberts) of more recent vintage say that the Antients
were founded independently by Lodges deriving from Scottish and Irish traditions
who were excluded by the English "moderns."
These competing English Grand Lodges, along with Grand Lodges established in
Scotland and Ireland, issued charters for Lodges in the American colonies into
the latter half of the 18th century, until the American Revolutionary War led to
the ties between the colonies and the mother country being severed. Long after
that event, in 1813 (when the two countries were again at war, in fact), the
rival English Grand Lodges amalgamated to form the United Grand Lodge of
England, which is the governing body of English Freemasonry to this day.
Meanwhile, in the new United States of America, Grand Lodges were organized
separately in each state, some as offspring of Provincial Grand Lodges and some
as self-declared independent Grand Lodges (e.g., Virginia). These Grand Lodges
comprised Lodges whose charters had been issued by both the Antient and "modern"
Grand Lodges in England (as well as a few Scottish and Irish constitution
Lodges). The designation of whether a Grand Lodge was Free and Accepted or
Ancient Free and Accepted was therefore almost an arbitrary choice, based
perhaps on who had a bit more political power when the new Grand Lodge was
formed.
In particular, one cannot conclude anything significant about the nature of
the ritual used by a Grand Lodge as to its Antient or "modern" content, based
only on the designation as F&AM or AF&AM. Many Grand Lodges use an amalgamation
of the forms, and it would take detailed study (never having been done to my
knowledge) to determine the precise provenance of each American Grand Lodge's
ritual contents. It does appear that Pennsylvania may adhere most closely to the
work of the Antients, while a northern tier of states, running from Connecticut
through Minnesota and perhaps farther west, preserves the "modern" ritual most
closely. In those states where a ritual cipher is permitted, which seems to be
more a characteristic of the "moderns," the incorporation of changes to the
ritual occur with much lower frequency (a fairly obvious observation). An
example is the phrase "any be due," which is synonymously rendered "aught be
due" in the apparently "modern" jurisdictions: The substitution of a common word
("any") for an archaic one ("aught") is a natural evolution of an oral
tradition, while the reverse substitution virtually never occurs in oral
transmission. The states with a printed ritual cipher have maintained "aught,"
while "any" has appeared in those states eschewing such written aids.
Incidentally, there are two jurisdictions which use neither F&AM nor AF&AM:
The District of Columbia uses FAAM, and South Carolina uses AFM. Again, these
are distinctions without any real difference.
Various suppositions are made about "four-letter" Lodges vs. "three-letter"
Lodges and relationships to Prince Hall (PHA) Masonry and issues of recognition,
but these are entirely unfounded.
back to top |
