A paper which undertakes to demonstrate an influence of Kaballah on Freemasonry, particularly one presented to a non-Masonic audience, should certainly start with some information about the nature and history of the Masonic Order. A definition of the Order as it exists today is relatively easy: Freemasonry is a secular fraternal organization, open only to men, which promulgates the principles of morality and seeks to advance the practice of brotherly love and charitable action among all persons-not simply among Masons. It is not a religion; but it is a society of religious men in that as it requires its members to believe in the existence of "a Supreme Being." The name of that Being and the form in which It is to be worshipped is entirely the business of the individual Mason. Masons are obligated on the "Volume of Sacred Law," and each Mason takes his obligation on that particular volume of sacred writings which he holds to be sacred. While encouraging each Brother to follow the teachings of his own religion, Freemasonry is not concerned with the details of those religions; and sectarian religious discussion is forbidden at Masonic gatherings. While not a religion, the Order might be considered to be a "philosophical companion to religion." To my way of thinking that idea is implicit in this definition, taken from the First Lecture: Masonry is "A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." * As might be expected of a society of religious men, the moral and philosophical principles communicated by these symbols are considered to have been derived from the Divine source. 

Historical information about Freemasonry's origin is much more difficult to provide than a definition. As one historian of thought, Francis A. Yates, has put it, "The origin of Freemasonry is one of the most debated, and debatable, subjects in the whole realm of historical enquiry." * Some of the Masonic histories written in the 19th century were quite fanciful and uncritical in their approach.  More recent authors have sought to be more rigorous, but the data which is available present a real and ongoing puzzle. Citing Yates again, "… recent books on the subject have been moving in the direction of exact historical investigation, but the writers of such books have to leave as an unsolved question the problem of the origin of "speculative" masonry, with its symbolic use of columns, arches, and other architectural features, and of geometrical symbolism, as the framework within which it presents a moral teaching and a mystical outlook towards the divine architect of the universe." *

At the present time there is no real agreement, even among Masons, about the origins of the Order. Some Masons, those who are romantically inclined, like to think that they have participated in the very rituals which were used by King Solomon to instruct the workmen at the building of his Temple. This is certainly an unrealistic view. * Without doubt, there are plenty of operative masons [ stonecutters ] to be found in European history, but there is no evidence of a group of philosophically inclined men who transmit a Masonic tradition from Biblical times to England in the late renaissance. Others Masons, at the opposite pole of opinion, consider that Masonry started as nothing more than a gentleman's club, one of the myriad clubs that sprang up in London in the early  part of the 18th century. If that be true, it was a very unusual club, indeed. Unlike the other clubs of the period, very shortly after its initial organization in 1717 it grew explosively, not simply in England but also in Scotland, Ireland, France, the Low Countries and Germany. In addition Masonry acquired, somehow, Royal Patronage, a profoundly philosophical orientation, and a very elaborate system of symbolism. In arguing that Masonry is simply "a club" one should explain why this particular club developed as it did. One of the obvious explanations for its rapid growth is that  Masonry was teaching and practicing something that was, at the time, of very widespread interest to the intellectual community. The Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition of the Renaissance is certainly such a thing; and, as we shall see, it would account for Masonry's unique symbolic structure and for many of its rituals and practices.

In my own view, Freemasonry is a codification of the Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition which formed the intellectual essence of renaissance thought; * and the material presented here will reflect that view. We will start with a very brief overview of what is known of Masonic history, and during this overview we will cite those historical references which mention Kaballah specifically. In the interest of keeping to a reasonable space we will acknowledge an early and important Scottish influence, but confine ourselves to English material in this presentation. After we have acquired this  background, we will consider how the symbolic structure of Freemasonry reflects the teachings of Kaballah.

The diagram in Figure 1 * presents a very general overview of the development of English Freemasonry. "Events" involving reference to Kaballah are shown as red asterisks, and will be discussed below.  The parts in blue represent the Grand Lodge(S) , and the dotted portions at the left of the drawing are intended to indicate how very uncertain our information about their origins really is. Even with respect to the period after the formal organization of the Premier Grand Lodge in 1717, there are large areas about which only a little is known. For example, in the area of ritual and
symbol-what Masons actually did at their meetings-we must rely almost entirely on exposures for the period from 1717 until the last quarter of the 18th century. We do know a little. There certainly was "Masonic activity" in England in the middle of the 17th century. The first speculative Masons that we can identify positively are Sir Robert Moray and Elias Ashmole. They were initiated into the Order in 1641 and 1646 respectively, both in the north of England. Both were closely involved with the Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition *:  Ashmole was a significant contributor to the literature of that  Tradition; and Moray was the patron of the alchemist, Thomas Vaughan. 

In Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum Ashmole makes a point which it will be useful for us to note at the outset. He writes, "And therefore is it not less absurd, then strange, to see how some Men "will not forbeare to ranke True Magicians with Conjurers, Necromancers and Witches [ those grand Impostors ] who violently intrude themselves into Magick, as if Swine should enter into a faire and delicate Garden." * This distinction between "True Magicians," whom Ashmole considers to be practitioners of the mystical ascent in the Hermetic/Kabbalistic Tradition, and "Conjurers, Necromancers, and Witches," who attempt to use "Magick" to influence the physical world is a significant one. For Ashmole, "Magick" aspires to a transformation of the individual; it requires the individual to surrender his will to the will of the Divine; and it is part of the mystical ascent. Conjuring and witchcraft aspire to produce result in the physical world upon which the individual seeks to impose his own will. * This distinction has been made by the contemporary scholar, Donald Tyson, in his analysis of speculative and practical Kaballah presented with his annotation of Agrippa's De Occulta Philosophia. * We will see shortly how this issue may have influenced the early development of Freemasonry.