Operative And Speculative Masonry

In a History of Freemasonry, by Augustus C. L. Arnold, LL.D., and the Rev. Wm. P. Strickland, D.D., now appearing in the columns of the New York Square, there are one or two statements in the section of Chapter I., published on the 19th ult., which appear to us to be well worthy of notice.

We agree with the learned doctors as to the unwisdom of turning to a very remote past for the origin of Speculative Freemasonry—in the sense, at least, in which so many of our Masonic historians have done.

It is quite enough for us to know that the principles of our Society have been in force from the very earliest times. To make this a ground for establishing a connected history of our Body, through all ages, with all the paraphernalia of persons, times, and circumstances, to impress into such history the names of the wise and learned of all ages and countries as having belonged to our Craft—the only result of this has been to make us the laughing-stock of the world.

Fully recognising, however, as we do, on the part of our readers, the indecency of such a course we are still not quite prepared to accept the theory that Modern, or Speculative Freemasonry dates no further back than the early part of the eighteenth century.

The more intently we study, the more painfully aware do we become of the difficulties to be surmounted, in order to arrive at a just appreciation of the origin of Masonry as a science.

Yet we think we see our way to a theory of no little value, which many, we believe, hold in common with ourselves, that Speculative Freemasonry gradually, and indeed almost imperceptibly engrafted itself on Operative Masonry.

We think we are justified in affirming that while the Society of Free and Accepted Masons was organised at the so-called Revival in1717, there are evidences that for nearly, if not quite a century before, the mere art or craft of Masonry was slowly, but surely, expanding into a science.

We pass by the question whether or not the New Atlantis of Bacon must be taken as foreshadowing the rise of a new philosophy, since known as Speculative Freemasonry.

We have it on the authority of early Scottish records, as quoted in Bro. Murray Lyon’s valuable work on Freemasonry in Scotland, that in Scotland, in the course of the seventeenth century, many persons of quality became members of the Fraternity of Masons, and were known subsequently by such appellations as ” Gentlemen Masons,” ” Theorical Masons,” “Geomatic Masons,” “Architect Masons,” “Honorary Members,” the Operative Members being known as ” Domatic Masons.”

The earliest of the minutes recording the introduction into the Lodge of Edinburgh of such personages is worth transcribing from our learned Brother’s interesting narrative.

They read as follow:—

The 3 day off Joulay 1631. The quhilk day the Eight honirabell my LORD ALEXANDER is admitet folowe off the craft be Hewe Forest diken, and Alexander Nesbet warden ; and the hell rest off the mestercs off masones off Edenbroch; and therto euerie mester heath supscriuet with ther handea or set to ther markes, [Deacon and Warden’s marks], Jn. Watt, Thomas Patorsone, Alexander, JohnMylln.

The 3 clay of Jonlio 1634 The quhilk day ANTONIE ALEXANDER, Right honirabell Mester of Work to his Majestic be admisione off Hewe Forest deken, and Alexander Nesbet warden, and the hell rest off the Mesteros off mesoties of Edenbroch : and therto enerio mester heath supscrinet with ther handes or eles pet to ther markes. Thomas Ainslie, Thomas Patersone, Robert Gray [Deacon and Warden’s marks], Jn. Watt, Alexander, An. Alexander, Johno Myllo.

At Edinburgh, the 3rd of July 1634. Thoe qahilk day St ALEXANDRE STRACUAN of Thorntown is admitted fellow craft be Hew Forrest deaken, and Alexr. Nisbet warden, and the haile rest of the Mester measons of Edinburghe and in token there off the mesters underscryband have sett to their hands and marks to their prsnts. [Deacon and Warden’s marks] Jno. Watt, Robort Gray, Thomas Ainslie, Thomas Paterson, Johne Mylln, Alexander, An. Alexander A. Strachan.

Other similar minutes are given, among them one recording the admission, on the 20th May 1640, of ” the right honerabell ALEXANDER HAMILTONE, general of the artilleries of the kingdom,” and another of the admission, on the 27th July 1647, of ” WILLIAM MAXWELL, doctor off Fisek ordinare to hes Maj’stie hines.”

The well-known case in England of the admission at Warrington of Elias Ashsole and Colonel Manwaring, in 1646, and the mention by the former of his presence in a Lodge at Masons’ Hall, London on 11th March 1682, when Sir William Wilson, Knt., Captain Richard Borthwick, and others were admitted into the Fellowship of Freemasons, need only to be mentioned here.

We shall have occasion to say later a few words on this case of non-operative Masonry. Neither is there reason for our doing more than refer to the statement of Dr. Plot, who says, in his Natural History of Staffordshire, as quoted by Findel at p. 117 of his history :

” I met with persons of the highest rank, who thought it no scorn to belong to this society.”

Taking these together we consider we are justified in accepting them as fair evidence that, for nearly a century anterior to 1717, the old art or Craft Masonry was gradually losing a portion of its distinctive character by the admission into its fold of persons of rank.

It is, of course, impossible to determine the reasons which influenced these persons to seek admission into this Guild.

We do not, however, consider we are going very wide of the mark, bearing in mind the influence of Bacon, not only on the age in which he lived, but likewise on the generations that immediately followed, if we include amongst them a desire to penetrate the hidden mysteries of an ancient and honourable society, in the hope that the acquisition of such knowledge might tend to promote the interests of science generally.

We do not believe they had any settled conviction that such a result would follow. They were curious as well as eager in their pursuit after knowledge.

Some, no doubt, were influenced to jo in by mere idle motives, some by a simple wish to bring the different classes of society into closer conjunction. But having made due allowance for these two categories of honorary Masons, we think it highly probable that others were impelled to join by their enthusiastic love of science.

We have said, in former articles, that we do not believe Speculative Freemasonry sprang into being all of a sudden, at the bidding of Desaguliers, Payne, Anderson, and a few others, learned though these undoubtedly were.

It is hardly in reason to suppose that a new philosophy should acquire universal fame at, as it were, a moment’s notice.

It appears to us there must have been a gradual preparation of men’s minds for its reception, and, in our opinion, the fact of there having been so many instances of ” theorical Masons ” admitted into operative Lodges, in Scotland and in England, during more than eighty years previous to the Revival, is so much evidence in favour of our theory.

We may smile at the notion that Speculative Freemasonry has existed through all time, but we do not think it sprang into being suddenly in 1717.We have said we should refer later to the case of Ashmole.

We are impelled to do so by reason of a statement in the article in The New York Square already mentioned. We take exception to the following passage:

” Hence, Elias Ashmole never was made a Free Mason, and instead of ‘ his diary showing incontestibly the existence of Free-masons in 1646,’ it proves directly the contrary, unless it can be shown that operative and speculative Masonry are one and the same thing.”

We see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the excerpt from Ashmole’s diary—we do not quote it, for it is so generally known, but our readers will find it in a footnote at pp . 139- 140 of Oliver’s edition of Preston’s Illustrations—or why the explanation ordinarily attached to it should be called in question. When Ashmole states that he was ” made a Freemason ” on 16th October 1646, and again that he was present, March 11, 1682, when certain gentlemen ” were admitted into the Fellowship of Freemasons,” we do not understand him to use the word Freemasons in its speculative sense. We consider he means that he was made free of the guild of Masons, just as, even now, we speak of men being made free of the City of London or of Edinburgh.

The value of Ashmole’s statement lies in the proof it furnishes that in the middle of the seventeenth century there were non-operative members of the guild of Masonry. The still earlier records we have quoted from Murray Lyon’s history show this was also the case in Scotland.

Here is evidence that cannot be doubted, nor need we, in accepting it, go the length of considering “operative and speculative Masonry are one and the same thing.”

Gradually, the non-operative element in Masonry, by reason of its increasing numbers, became more powerful than the operative, until, at length, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, Masons’ Lodges became wholly speculative.

It may be from our inability to appreciate the merits of the argument as stated in the last two paragraphs in the article of our contemporary, or it may be due to some other cause.

We confess, however, we do not quite understand the views laid down in them by our learned brethren. Perhaps, on some future occasion, we may be in a position to deal with it more successfully, having in the interim obtained a clearer understanding of the case. In the hope this may prove to be so, we close these remarks for the present.

– The Freemason’s Chronicle: 2/9/1876