Rough Mason, Mason, Freemason, Accepted Mason - Oscar Patterson III 2017

Operative to Speculative

Master and apprentices

England, and with it the rest of Europe, changed dramatically during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Large-scale production replaced the smaller, cottage industries prevalent during previous centuries. Technology improved, and the transition from medieval to early modern social, political, and industrial systems moved quickly forward. Transition in the building industry did not occur, however, in a fashion similar to that in, for example, the weaving industry where technology exemplified by the introduction of Kay’s fly-shuttle marked the beginning of the industrial revolution. There was no similar drastic or sudden break with the past for the building trades,

In the medieval world, there was no clear demarcation between ecclesiastical and secular masons. There was interchangeability of function and responsibility. Walter of Hereford is listed as Master Mason at Vale Abbey in 1278 and then as Master of the Works at Caernarvon Castle; Henry Yevele was both Master Mason at Westminster Abbey and Disposer of the King’s Works at Westminster Palace; and Richard Beke was Chief Bridge Mason at London Bridge and, later, Master Mason at Canterbury Cathedral. While the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII markedly slowed ecclesiastical work, a similar decline in Crown building activity followed at the end of the sixteenth century. With this decline went profound change in the industry accompanied by transformation in public taste. Classical architecture began to replace the Gothic and that change was accompanied by the rise of professional architects who supplanted the medieval Master Mason. These architects preferred brick to stone because of lower costs; ready availability; and the ease with which it could be worked. They also expressed an advanced interest in all things Greek and Roman which was accompanied by a new interest on the part of scholars in architecture. This may well account for a part of the transition from operative to speculative Masonry.

This new age of inquiry was characterized by the revival of classical learning and style. The Italian style was adopted throughout Europe with a renewed focus on the classical orders of architecture. There already existed at this period, according to William Dugdale, author of A History of St. Paul’s, a fraternity of adopted masons. The men responsible for the great medieval buildings were not professional architects note Knoop and Jones, rather they were “freemason[s] which can draw his plat, work and set cunningly.”^[1] The men who reconstructed London after 1666 were of the likes of Christopher Wren, more architect and designer than stone layer. A close study of the records of the Masons’ Lodges indicates that, along with working and ex-masons, people of high social standing or wealth as well as those who were not trained as masons were on the rolls as members of the guild. William Suthis, listed as King’s Master Mason, was a member of the Goldsmith’s Company and Samuel Fulkes, a renowned mason-contractor, was by guild membership a Haberdasher. Since membership in the London Masons’ Company granted holders no special or definitive privileges why, then, did non-operatives associate with the guild in the first place?

Reasons for becoming an accepted free mason obviously varied. The main ones, based on diaries of such members, appear to include a sincere desire for knowledge about art and architecture; a fascination with and a desire to share in the Masons’ secrets; and personal curiosity about the admission ritual and mysteries. Fraternal or friendly relations also played a significant part as did moral and spiritual endeavors. Non-operative clerks of previous generations had been closely associated with the Craft, but the renewed interest in classical architecture on the part of scholars and the gentry led many to seek the trade secrets possessed by the fraternity as well as to gain access to the technical and geometrical knowledge operative masons possessed. As noted in Chapter I, these men were simply made a mason.

There appear to have been four main categories of men who sought membership in the speculative fraternity: landed gentry such as Col. Henry Mainwaring who was associated with Elias Ashmole; professionals, academics, clergy, and scholars such as Ashmole and Gotthold Lessing; men already connected with the trade such as goldsmiths, sculptors, and tomb makers; and other tradesmen such as tailors, bakers, and beer-sellers who had a product to offer the guild. Yet others were attracted to the Craft because of their interest in heraldry and antiquarianism with these men also indicating a strong interest in the mysteries of the craft and its association with ancient mystery religions. The probability is strong, therefore, that what is now purely speculative Masonry arose out of the non-operatives who attached themselves to the guild especially in the seventeenth century.

This group of emerging speculative Masons focused on the legends of the craft and developed ever more elaborate symbolism to include expanded uses of grips, words, signs, and spiritual or moral meanings for the working tools of the operative mason’s trade. They also began to shorten or, even, eliminate, the recitation of operative rules and regulations which were the main portions of the Old Charges (see Chapter III). They instituted in their place moral teachings veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. From the latter part of the seventeenth century into the early part of the eighteenth century, the ceremony of gaining admission was significantly elaborated upon and expanded, eventually developing by the mid-eighteenth century into the three-degree system familiar today (see Chapter I for a description of an early acception ceremony). These rites and ceremonies did not, however, any more than the Fraternity itself, emerge fully formed. They evolved as the members innovated to meet changing demands and interests.

Speculative Masonry, or what Murray Lyon calls symbolic Masonry, was soon synonymous with Freemasonry. A speech delivered at Trinity College in 1688 notes that a “Society of Freemasons, consisting of gentlemen, mechanics, porters, parsons, ragmen, hucksters, divines, tinkers, knights”^[2] had been formed at the college and that a collection had been made to provide charity for a reduced brother. There existed in England, Ireland, and Scotland in the seventeenth century, lodges of Accepted Masons that functioned in parallel with the traditional operative lodges, but there was no central authority and only lose control of the fraternity’s legends or the Mason’s Word. A document dated 1686 attributed to Robert Padegett gives his title as “clerke to the Worshippful Society of Free Masons of the City of London,” but it appears to relate only to a single company or lodge not some larger organization. And while the evidence is far from conclusive, English lodges appear to have derived their work in some way from Scotland and may even have looked to that nation’s lodge system for guidance. The result of this transition was the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1716-1717.

Other evidence for the existence of some form of Freemasonry or Accepted Masonry prior to the creation of the Grand Lodge of England may be found in Plott’s 1686 Natural History of Staffordshire where he wrote of the existence of a Society of Free-Masons which consisted of five or six members of the Ancients order who wore gloves and communicated with secret signs that they were Fellows of the society otherwise called accepted masons. And John Aubrey in A Natural History of Wiltshire, also dated 1686, refers to a fraternity of adopted-masons whose manner of adoption is formal with an oath of secrecy included. A 1691 addition to Aubrey’s text states that “a Fraternity of Accepted Masons was to be held at St. Paul’s Church, where Sir Christopher Wren and certain others were to be adopted as Brothers.”^[3] Also in existence are references to a lodge at Warrington based upon Elias Ashmole’s diary and a comment by Randle Holme III in his Accademie of Armory that he was a “member of the Society called Free Masons.”^[4]

GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND

The formation of the Grand Lodge of England is wrapped in as much mystery and speculation as are the rites and history of the Fraternity itself. There are no minutes from the inception of the Grand Lodge in 1717 until 1723. Neither are any minutes from individual Lodges in London from that period extant. The principle source for information about its formation is James Anderson. Anderson, educated at Marischal College in Aberdeen, was a minister in the Church of Scotland. His father was a non-operative Mason in the Lodge of Aberdeen and was its Master on two occasions, but there is no record of the son being made a Mason in that lodge nor is there any record of his participation in the formation of the Grand Lodge in 1716-1717. It is possible, however, that a statement in the Constitutions which notes that several gentlemen of the best rank to include clergymen and scholars joined the Society under Lord Montagu’s leadership may refer to Anderson. If Anderson was present at the formation of Grand Lodge, he would of necessity have been a Master or Warden of a regular lodge, but there is no record to support this contention.

Anderson’s main claim to fame comes from his authorship of the Constitutions. By his own account, he was appointed to produce a first edition, but it is possible, according to Walter Begemann, that Anderson volunteered for the job. However the assignment came about, in December 1721 Montagu appointed fourteen learned Brothers to review Anderson’s work and, after some amendments, it was approved and printed. In 1735 Anderson sought approval from the Grand Lodge to create a second edition of the Constitutions based on his contention that one William Smith had pirated the original work in such a manner as “to the prejudice of the said Br. Anderson it being his Sole Property.”^[5] The problem with the 1738 edition, though, is that Anderson gives the impression of being unable to copy exactly from his earlier work. That being the case, Anderson’s account of the history of masonry in England does appear to rest on the facts as then known and accepted, but he was also in the habit of assigning to men throughout all ages grand Masonic titles when no such titles had existed. Anderson wrote much like the Renaissance artists who depicted Biblical events in Renaissance attire and with Renaissance architecture.

The minimal evidence available suggests that the account of the establishment of Grand Lodge of England was not an invention of Anderson and that some of the facts in his interpretation are accurate though some details are in doubt. For example, Christopher Wren is named by Anderson as a starting point referring to him as Grand Master, but at Wren’s death in 1723, only two newspapers made reference to his association with Freemasonry and they most probably were using the term in its operative sense as was then common, though Aubrey appears to suggest otherwise. Secondly, there is some confusion regarding the number of local lodges that met to form the Grand Lodge with Anderson listing four and the Multa Paucis noting six but giving no specific names.

Both accounts of The Grand Lodge of England’s formation do agree that Anthony Sayer was elected Grand Master. Anderson refers to him as a gentleman which suggests that he was of the landed gentry. By the end of his life, however, his circumstances had severely diminished when he petitioned Grand Lodge more than once for relief. Sayer was followed in the office of Grand Master by George Payne and John Desaguliers. Sayer, Payne, and Desaguliers were commoners who were succeeded by a long line of aristocracy and, ultimately, royalty as Grand Master and becoming Past Grand Master upon assuming the throne. These included George IV (1790), Edward VII (1874), and Edward VIII (1936).

In the United States, while there is no single Grand Lodge System, many of the nation’s founding fathers and presidents were Freemasons. Among the founding fathers were George Washington, Paul Revere, and Benjamin Franklin. Presidents who were Freemasons began with Washington and included Andrew Jackson, James Garfield, William Taft, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Gerald Ford—fourteen in all. President Truman was Grand Master of Missouri in 1940 and President Taft was made a Mason on sight at Kilwinning Lodge No. 356 in Cincinnati, Ohio. President Ronald Reagan was an Honorary Scottish Rite Freemason and President William Clinton was a member of the Order of DeMolay and inducted into the DeMolay Hall of Fame in 1988. President Abraham Lincoln applied for membership in Tyrian Lodge in Springfield, Illinois, in 1860. He withdrew his petition noting that he did not want it to be construed as a political move to obtain votes. He commented that he would resubmit his petition when he returned from the presidency. Sadly, Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. He was followed in the office by Andrew Johnson who was a Freemason.

Early English Grand Masters, especially those of conspicuous birth, lent distinction to the Craft but apparently exercised little authority. The most prominent officer in terms of influence on the Fraternity in England appears to have been the Deputy Grand Master with the existing minutes strongly suggesting that these men were active Freemasons and the moving force within the organization. The current Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England is Edward George Nicholas Paul Patrick, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent a grandchild of King George V and Queen Mary and first cousin of Queen Elizabeth II.

OPERATIVE TO SPECULATIVE CHARGES

The new or speculative Freemasons focused their attention on issues of charity and morality while specifically excluding politics and religion from the Lodge. The Constitution of 1723 notes that

if you discover him to be a true and genuine Brother, you are to respect him accordingly; and if he is in want, you must relieve him if you can, or else direct him how he may be reliev’d; You must employ him some Days, or else recommend to be employ’d. But you are not charged to go beyond your Ability, only to prefer a poor Brother, that is a good Man and true, before any other poor People in the same Circumstances.^[6]

Masons have throughout their history practiced charity in its many forms from providing food, clothing, and housing to needy Brothers to caring for widows and orphans, and establishing cemeteries for the interment of members of their Fraternity. This mandate for charity fits perfectly with the Craft’s principle tenets which are brotherly love, relief, and truth. In putting this clause into his constitution, Anderson was affirming an ancient and honorable tradition not establishing a new precedent.

Throughout their history, Masons had been charged to be loyal to their king (or president) and their country, and if aware of any treason to properly report it to the civil authorities. In Anderson’s constitution, this mandate is modified somewhat and political discussion within the lodge is prohibited.

A Mason is a peaceful Subject to the Civil Powers, wherever he resides or Works, and is never to be concern’d in Plots and Conspiracies against the Peace and Welfare of the Nation nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior Magistrates; for as Masonry hath been always injured by War, Bloodshed, and Confusion, so ancient Kings and Princes have been much disposed to encourage the Craftsmen, because of their Peacefableness and Loyality, whereby they practically answer’d in Times of Peace. So that if a Brother should be a Rebel against the State, he is not to be countenanc’d in his Rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy Man; and if convicted of no other Crime, though the loyal Brotherhood must and ought to disown his Rebellion, and give no Umbrage of Ground of political Jealousy to the Government for the time being; they cannot expel him from the Lodge, and his Relation to it remains indefeasible.^[7]

Anderson goes on to note that private quarrels are not to be brought within the Lodge “far less any Quarrles about Religion, or Nations, or State Policy . . . we are also of all Nations, Tongues, Kindreds, and Languages, and are resolved against all Politics.”^[8] Regarding religion, Anderson charges Freemasons to “obey the moral Law.” Later authors have argued that Anderson’s reference to Freemasonry as being the Center of Union suggests a strong association with deism if not a direct affiliation with that philosophy. Considering what is known about him, however, it is improbable that he would attempt to impose his personal belief system on others, something deist philosophy and Freemasonry prohibit, as well. Based on both Masonic and non-masonic writings from the period, there is nothing to suggest that these new Anderson charges in any went against established attitudes or that he introduced into the Fraternity any unusual innovations. Many influential men of the age were identified with the deist movement or had deist leanings to include Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Gotthold Lessing, and Voltaire. A considerable number of these individuals were also Freemasons.

DEISM

Deism is a philosophy that derives its name from Deus the Latin word for God. It came of age during the Enlightenment in Europe among Christians who believed in One God but had become disillusioned with organized religion. Classical Deists did not necessarily conceive of The Deity as non-interventionists, but rather as the creator of the natural world and of all that it contained. They sought the Deity through reason and the observation of nature, but included within their philosophy spiritual elements which included a personal knowledge of God through nature. They rejected dogma and were skeptical of miracles yet they strongly espoused the existence of God and that He gave to man the singular ability to reason thereby raising him above all other creatures. They believed that God could be experienced and that man, through reason, could partake of His perfection though they themselves were imperfect creatures. They tended to hold a variety of beliefs about immortality, with a sizeable number espousing the belief that the soul existed and that in the afterlife there would be reward or punishment for their behavior in life. They commonly used terms such as Grand Architect of the Universe and Nature’s God to refer to the Supreme Being with Benjamin Franklin specifically referring to Him as the Father of Light. These eighteenth-century Deists were not believers in a cold, impersonal, non-interventionist creator. They inculcated a strong moral order and were wholly committed to intra-personal and inter-personal relationships with the Deity. They prayed what we now call Affirmative Prayer and were consistently appreciative to God saying we thank you rather than please, God, grant unto me.^[9]

MASONIC RITUAL

As noted in Chapter I, Masonic ritual has evolved significantly since the first references to it are found in the seventeenth century. No longer are Brothers simply made Masons in a single ceremony. To find the origin of current practices, we must look at the legends as well as the history of the craft as recounted in the various Old Charges and at how the Word was transmitted. The earliest rituals suggest that a catechism was an integral part of initiation as was the imparting of words and signs accompanied by a demonstration of proficiency in both. In addition, some form of Craft history was recounted to the initiate, similar to the lectures given in modern degree work. All of this ceremonial activity was utilized to form a link with the operative past or time immemorial as well as between the Brothers.

Virtually all evidence currently existing relating to Masonic ritual and its inherent secrets is of Scottish origin which focused on the passing of The Word or tenets from generation to generation. This was done mouth-to-ear using a memorized catechism similar to religious instruction. Included in the ritual were set prayers for before, convening, and dismissing a Lodge similar to those found in the Book of Common Prayer. Evident as well in the evolution of the Grand Lodge system is the introduction of trigradual Freemasonry.

Early Freemasonry utilized a single ceremony to make a Mason which included parts of the current Entered Apprentice and Fellow Craft Degrees (see Chapter I). There is some evidence to suggest that as early 1696 in Scotland there were two ceremonies—one for Entered Apprentices and the other for Fellow Crafts/Master Masons, and that each propounded its own secrets. It further appears that at some point after 1726 in England, the three-degree system evolved, but the reasons behind this modification are unknown with the evidence supporting the contention that the evolution of the three-degree system in both English and Irish Lodges after 1730 may have originated about 40 years earlier as an attempt to expand Masonic education through more elevated moral and ritual instruction. This much is for sure, the work of speculative Masonic Lodges was significantly different from that of their operative ancestors and their manner of adoption or acceptance had become much more formal.

NOTES

Douglas Knoop & G.P. Jones. Introduction to Freemasonry. (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1937), p. 53.

Knoop & Jones. The Genesis of Freemasonry, p. 152.

Knoop & Jones, p. 148.

Knoop & Jones, p. 150.

Knoop & Jones, p. 164.

James Anderson. Constitutions of the Free-Masons. New York: Masonic Publishers, 1855, pp. 55-56.

Anderson, p. 50.

Anderson, p. 54.

For more information on Deism see Encyclopedia Britannica; The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization; and Wilson and Reill’s Deism; English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits.