_Accepted Masons_
I
Whatever may be dim in the history of Freemasonry, and in the nature
of things much must remain hidden, its symbolism may be traced in
unbroken succession through the centuries; and its symbolism is its
soul. So much is this true, that it may almost be said that had the
order ceased to exist in the period when it was at its height, its
symbolism would have survived and developed, so deeply was it wrought
into the mind of mankind. When, at last, the craft finished its labors
and laid down its tools, its symbols, having served the faith of the
worker, became a language for the thoughts of the thinker.
Few realize the service of the science of numbers to the faith of man
in the morning of the world, when he sought to find some kind of key
to the mighty maze of things. Living amidst change and seeming chance,
he found in the laws of numbers a path by which to escape the awful
sense of life as a series of accidents in the hands of a capricious
Power; and, when we think of it, his insight was not invalid. "All
things are in numbers," said the wise Pythagoras; "the world is a
living arithmetic in its development--a realized geometry in its
repose." Nature is a realm of numbers; crystals are solid geometry.
Music, of all arts the most divine and exalting, moves with measured
step, using geometrical figures, and cannot free itself from numbers
without dying away into discord. Surely it is not strange that a
science whereby men obtained such glimpses of the unity and order of
the world should be hallowed among them, imparting its form to their
faith.[100] Having revealed so much, mathematics came to wear mystical
meanings in a way quite alien to our prosaic habit of thinking--faith
in our day having betaken itself to other symbols.
Equally so was it with the art of building--a living allegory in which
man imitated in miniature the world-temple, and sought by every
device to discover the secret of its stability. Already we have shown
how, from earliest times, the simple symbols of the builder became a
part of the very life of humanity, giving shape to its thought, its
faith, its dream. Hardly a language but bears their impress, as when
we speak of a Rude or Polished mind, of an Upright man who is a Pillar
of society, of the Level of equality, or the Golden Rule by which we
would Square our actions. They are so natural, so inevitable, and so
eloquent withal, that we use them without knowing it. Sages have
always been called Builders, and it was no idle fancy when Plato and
Pythagoras used imagery drawn from the art of building to utter their
highest thought. Everywhere in literature, philosophy, and life it is
so, and naturally so. Shakespeare speaks of "square-men," and when
Spenser would build in stately lines the Castle of Temperance, he
makes use of the Square, Circle, and Triangle:[101]
/P
The frame thereof seem'd partly circulaire
And part triangular: O work divine!
Those two the first and last proportions are;
The one imperfect, mortal, feminine.
The other immortal, perfect, masculine,
And twixt them both a quadrate was the base,
Proportion'd equally by seven and nine;
Nine was the circle set in heaven's place
All which compacted made a goodly diapase.
P/
During the Middle Ages, as we know, men revelled in symbolism, often
of the most recondite kind, and the emblems of Masonry are to be found
all through the literature, art, and thought of that time. Not only on
cathedrals, tombs, and monuments, where we should expect to come upon
them, but in the designs and decorations of dwellings, on vases,
pottery, and trinkets, in the water-marks used by paper-makers and
printers, and even as initial letters in books--everywhere one finds
the old, familiar emblems.[102] Square, Rule, Plumb-line, the perfect
Ashlar, the two Pillars, the Circle within the parallel lines, the
Point within the Circle, the Compasses, the Winding Staircase, the
numbers Three, Five, Seven, Nine, the double Triangle--these and other
such symbols were used alike by Hebrew Kabbalists and Rosicrucian
Mystics. Indeed, so abundant is the evidence--if the matter were in
dispute and needed proof--especially after the revival of symbolism
under Albertus Magnus in 1249, that a whole book might be filled with
it. Typical are the lines left by a poet who, writing in 1623, sings
of God as the great Logician whom the conclusion never fails, and
whose counsel rules without command:[103]
/P
Therefore can none foresee his end
Unless on God is built his hope.
And if we here below would learn
By Compass, Needle, Square, and Plumb,
We never must o'erlook the mete
Wherewith our God hath measur'd us.
P/
For all that, there are those who never weary of trying to find where,
in the misty mid-region of conjecture, the Masons got their immemorial
emblems. One would think, after reading their endless essays, that the
symbols of Masonry were loved and preserved by all the world--_except
by the Masons themselves_. Often these writers imply, if they do not
actually assert, that our order begged, borrowed, or cribbed its
emblems from Kabbalists or Rosicrucians, whereas the truth is exactly
the other way round--those impalpable fraternities, whose vague,
fantastic thought was always seeking a local habitation and a body,
making use of the symbols of Masonry the better to reach the minds of
men. Why all this unnecessary mystery--not to say mystification--when
the facts are so plain, written in records and carved in stone? While
Kabbalists were contriving their curious cosmogonies, the Masons went
about their work, leaving record of their symbols in deeds, not in
creeds, albeit holding always to their simple faith, and hope, and
duty--as in the lines left on an old brass Square, found in an ancient
bridge near Limerick, bearing date of 1517:
/P
Strive to live with love and care
Upon the Level, by the Square.
P/
Some of our Masonic writers[104]--more than one likes to admit--have
erred by confusing Freemasonry with Guild-masonry, to the discredit of
the former. Even Oliver once concluded that the secrets of the
working Masons of the Middle Ages were none other than the laws of
Geometry--hence the letter _G_; forgetting, it would seem, that
Geometry had mystical meanings for them long since lost to us. As well
say that the philosophy of Pythagoras was repeating the Multiplication
Table! Albert Pike held that we are "not warranted in assuming that,
among Masons generally--in the _body_ of Masonry--the symbolism of
Freemasonry is of earlier date then 1717."[105] Surely that is to err.
If we had only the Mason's Marks that have come down to us, nothing
else would be needed to prove it an error. Of course, for deeper minds
all emblems have deeper meanings, and there may have been many Masons
who did not fathom the symbolism of the order. No more do we; but the
symbolism itself, of hoar antiquity, was certainly the common
inheritance and treasure of the working Masons of the Lodges in
England and Scotland before, indeed centuries before, the year 1717.
II
Therefore it is not strange that men of note and learning, attracted
by the wealth of symbolism in Masonry, as well as by its spirit of
fraternity--perhaps, also, by its secrecy--began at an early date to
ask to be accepted as members of the order: hence _Accepted
Masons_.[106] How far back the custom of admitting such men to the
Lodges goes is not clear, but hints of it are discernible in the
oldest documents of the order; and this whether or no we accept as
historical the membership of Prince Edwin in the tenth century, of
whom the _Regius Poem_ says,
/$
Of speculatyfe he was a master.
$/
This may only mean that he was amply skilled in the knowledge, as well
as the practice, of the art, although, as Gould points out, the
_Regius MS_ contains intimations of thoughts above the heads of many
to whom it was read.[107] Similar traces of Accepted Masons are found
in the _Cooke MS_, compiled in 1400 or earlier. Hope suggests[108]
that the earliest members of this class were ecclesiastics who wished
to study to be architects and designers, so as to direct the erection
of their own churches; the more so, since the order had "so high and
sacred a destination, was so entirely exempt from all local, civil
jurisdiction," and enjoyed the sanction and protection of the Church.
Later, when the order was in disfavor with the Church, men of another
sort--scholars, mystics, and lovers of liberty--sought its degrees.
At any rate, the custom began early and continued through the years,
until Accepted Masons were in the majority. Noblemen, gentlemen, and
scholars entered the order as Speculative Masons, and held office as
such in the old Lodges, the first name recorded in actual minutes
being John Boswell, who was present as a member of the Lodge of
Edinburgh in 1600. Of the forty-nine names on the roll of the Lodge of
Aberdeen in 1670, thirty-nine were Accepted Masons not in any way
connected with the building trade. In England the earliest reference
to the initiation of a Speculative Mason, in Lodge minutes, is of the
year 1641. On the 20th of May that year, Robert Moray, "General
Quarter-master of the Armie off Scottland," as the record runs, was
initiated at Newcastle by members of the "Lodge of Edinburgh," who
were with the Scottish Army. A still more famous example was that of
Ashmole, whereof we read in the _Memoirs of the Life of that Learned
Antiquary, Elias Ashmole, Drawn up by Himself by Way of Diary_,
published in 1717, which contains two entries as follows, the first
dated in 1646:
/#[4,66]
_Octob 16.4 Hor._ 30 Minutes _post merid._ I was made a
Freemason at _Warrington_ in Lancashire, with Colonel _Henry
Wainwaring_ of _Kartichain_ in _Cheshire_; the names of those
that were there at the Lodge, Mr. _Richard Panket Warden_,
Mr. _James Collier_, Mr. _Richard Sankey_, _Henry Littler_,
_John Ellam_, _Richard Ellam_ and _Hugh Brewer_.
#/
Such is the record, italics and all; and it has been shown, by hunting
up the wills of the men present, that the members of the Warrington
Lodge in 1646 were, nearly all of them--every one in fact, so far as
is known--Accepted Masons. Thirty-five years pass before we discover
the only other Masonic entries in the _Diary_, dated March, 1682,
which read as follows:
/#[4,66]
About 5 p.m. I received a Summons to appear at a Lodge to be
held the next day, at Masons Hall, London. Accordingly I
went, and about Noone were admitted into the Fellowship of
Free Masons, Sir. William Wilson, Knight, Capt. Richard
Borthwick, Mr. Will. Woodman, Mr. Wm. Grey, M. Samuell Taylor
and Mr. William Wise.
I was the Senior Fellow among them (it being 35 years since I
was admitted). There were present beside myselfe the Fellowes
afternamed: [Then follows a list of names which conveys no
information.] Wee all dyned at the halfe moone Taverne in
Cheapside at a Noble Dinner prepared at the charge of the
new-accepted Masons.
#/
Space is given to those entries, not because they are very important,
but because Ragon and others have actually held that Ashmole made
Masonry--as if any one man made Masonry! 'Tis surely strange, if this
be true, that only two entries in his _Diary_ refer to the order; but
that does not disconcert the theorists who are so wedded to their
idols as to have scant regard for facts. No, the circumstance that
Ashmole was a Rosicrucian, an Alchemist, a delver into occult lore, is
enough, the absence of any allusion to him thereafter only serving to
confirm the fancy--the theory being that a few adepts, seeing Masonry
about to crumble and decay, seized it, introduced their symbols into
it, making it the mouthpiece of their high, albeit hidden, teaching.
How fascinating! and yet how baseless in fact! There is no evidence
that a Rosicrucian fraternity existed--save on paper, having been
woven of a series of romances written as early as 1616, and ascribed
to Andreae--until a later time; and even when it did take form, it was
quite distinct from Masonry. Occultism, to be sure, is elusive,
coming we know not whence, and hovering like a mist trailing over the
hills. Still, we ought to be able to find in Masonry _some_ trace of
Rosicrucian influence, some hint of the lofty wisdom it is said to
have added to the order; but no one has yet done so. Did all that
high, Hermetic mysticism evaporate entirely, leaving not a wraith
behind, going as mysteriously as it came to that far place which no
mortal may explore?[109]
Howbeit, the _fact_ to be noted is that, thus early--and earlier, for
the Lodge had been in existence some time when Ashmole was
initiated--the Warrington Lodge was made up of Accepted Masons. Of the
ten men present in the London Lodge, mentioned in the second entry in
the _Diary_, Ashmole was the senior, but he was not a member of the
Masons' Company, though the other nine were, and also two of the
neophytes. No doubt this is the Lodge which Conder, the historian of
the Company, has traced back to 1620, "and were the books of the
Company prior to that date in existence, we should no doubt be able to
trace the custom of receiving accepted members back to pre-reformation
times."[110] From an entry in the books of the Company, dated 1665, it
appears that
/#[4,66]
There was hanging up in the Hall a list of the _Accepted
Masons_ enclosed in a "faire frame, with a lock and key." Why
was this? No doubt the Accepted Masons, or those who were
initiated into the esoteric aspect of the Company, did not
include the _whole_ Company, and this was a list of the
"enlightened ones," whose names were thus honored and kept on
record, probably long after their decease.... This we cannot
say for certain, but we can say that as early as 1620, and
inferentially very much earlier, there were certain members
of the Masons' Company and others who met from time to time
to form a Lodge for the purpose of Speculative Masonry.[111]
#/
Conder also mentions a copy of the _Old Charges_, or Gothic
Constitutions, in the chest of the London Masons' Company, known as
_The Book of the Constitutions of the Accepted Masons_; and this he
identifies with the _Regius MS_. Another witness during this period is
Randle Holme, of Chester, whose references to the Craft in his
_Acadamie Armory_, 1688, are of great value, for that he writes "as a
member of that society called Free-masons." The _Harleian MS_ is in
his handwriting, and on the next leaf there is a remarkable list of
twenty-six names, including his own. It is the only list of the kind
known in England, and a careful examination of all the sources of
information relative to the Chester men shows that nearly all of them
were Accepted Masons. Later on we come to the _Natural History of
Staffordshire_, by Dr. Plott, 1686, in which, though in an unfriendly
manner, we are told many things about Craft usages and regulations of
that day. Lodges had to be formed of at least five members to make a
quorum, gloves were presented to candidates, and a banquet following
initiations was a custom. He states that there were several signs and
passwords by which the members were able "to be known to one another
all over the nation," his faith in their effectiveness surpassing that
of the most credulous in our day.
Still another striking record is found in _The Natural History of
Wiltshire_, by John Aubrey, the MS of which in the Bodleian Library,
Oxford, is dated 1686; and on the reverse side of folio 72 of this MS
is the following note by Aubrey: "This day [May 18, 1681] is a great
convention at St. Pauls Church of the fraternity, of the free [then he
crossed out the word Free and inserted Accepted] Masons; where Sir
Christopher Wren is to be adopted a Brother: and Sir Henry Goodric of
ye Tower and divers others."[112] From which we may infer that there
were Assemblies before 1717, and that they were of sufficient
importance to be known to a non-Mason. Other evidence might be
adduced, but this is enough to show that Speculative Masonry, so far
from being a novelty, was very old at the time when many suppose it
was invented. With the great fire of London, in 1666, there came a
renewed interest in Masonry, many who had abandoned it flocking to the
capital to rebuild the city and especially the Cathedral of St. Paul.
Old Lodges were revived, new ones were formed, and an effort was made
to renew the old annual, or quarterly, Assemblies, while at the same
time Accepted Masons increased both in numbers and in zeal.
Now the crux of the whole matter as regards Accepted Masons lies in
the answer to such questions as these: Why did soldiers, scholars,
antiquarians, clergymen, lawyers, and even members of the nobility ask
to be accepted as members of the order of Free-masons? Wherefore their
interest in the order at all? What attracted them to it as far back as
1600, and earlier? What held them with increasing power and an
ever-deepening interest? Why did they continue to enter the Lodges
until they had the rule of them? There must have been something more
in their motive than a simple desire for association, for they had
their clubs, societies, and learned fellowships. Still less could a
mere curiosity to learn certain signs and passwords have held such men
for long, even in an age of quaint conceits in the matter of
association and when architecture was affected as a fad. No, there is
only one explanation: that these men saw in Masonry a deposit of the
high and simple wisdom of old, preserved in tradition and taught in
symbols--little understood, it may be, by many members of the
order--and this it was that they sought to bring to light, turning
history into allegory and legend into drama, and making it a teacher
of wise and beautiful truth.
FOOTNOTES:
[100] There is a beautiful lecture on the moral meaning of Geometry by
Dr. Hutchinson, in _The Spirit of Masonry_--one of the oldest, as it is
one of the noblest, books in our Masonic literature. Plutarch reports
Plato as saying, "God is always geometrizing" (_Diog. Laert._, iv, 2).
Elsewhere Plato remarks that "Geometry rightly treated is the knowledge
of the Eternal" (_Republic_, 527b), and over the porch of his Academy
at Athens he wrote the words, "Let no one who is ignorant of Geometry
enter my doors." So Aristotle and all the ancient thinkers, whether in
Egypt or India. Pythagoras, Proclus tells us, was concerned only with
number and magnitude: number absolute, in arithmetic; number applied,
in music; and so forth--whereof we read in the _Old Charges_ (see "The
Great Symbol," by Klein, _A. Q. C._, x, 82).
[101] Faerie Queene, bk. ii, canto ix, 22.
[102] _Lost Language of Symbolism_, by Bayley, also _A New Light on the
Renaissance_, by the same author; _Architecture of the Renaissance in
England_, by J.A. Gotch; and "Notes on Some Masonic Symbols," by W.H.
Rylands, _A. Q. C._, viii, 84. Indeed, the literature is as prolific as
the facts.
[103] J.V. Andreae, _Ehreneich Hohenfelder von Aister Haimb_. A
verbatim translation of the second line quoted would read, "Unless in
God he has his building."
[104] When, for example, Albert Pike, in his letter, "Touching Masonic
Symbolism," speaks of the "poor, rude, unlettered, uncultivated working
Stone-masons," who attended the Assemblies, he is obviously confounding
Free-masons with the rough Stone-masons of the Guilds. Over against
these words, read a brilliant article in the _Contemporary Review_,
October, 1913, by L.M. Phillips, entitled, "The Two Ways of Building,"
showing how the Free-masons, instead of working under architects
outside the order, chose the finer minds among them as leaders and
created the different styles of architecture in Europe. "Such," he
adds, "was the high limit of talent and intelligence which the creative
spirit fostered among workmen.... The entire body being trained and
educated in the same principles and ideas, the most backward and
inefficient, as they worked at the vaults which their own skillful
brethren had planned, might feel the glow of satisfaction arising from
the conscious realization of their own aspirations. Thus the whole body
of constructive knowledge maintained its unity.... Thus it was by free
associations of workmen training their own leaders that the great
Gothic edifices of the medieval ages were constructed.... A style so
imaginative and so spiritual might almost be the dream of a poet or the
vision of a saint. Really it is the creation of the sweat and labor of
workingmen, and every iota of the boldness, dexterity and knowledge
which it embodies was drawn out of the practical experience and
experiments of manual labor." This describes the Comacine Masters, but
not the poor, rude, unlettered Stone-masons whom Pike had in mind.
[105] Letter "Touching Masonic Symbolism."
[106] Some Lodges, however, would never admit such members. As late as
April 24, 1786, two brothers were proposed as members of Domatic Lodge,
No. 177, London, and were rejected because they were not Operative
Masons (_History Lion and Lamb Lodge, 192, London_, by Abbott).
[107] "On the Antiquity of Masonic Symbolism," _A. Q. C._, iii, 7.
[108] _Historical Essay on Architecture_, chap. xxi.
[109] Those who wish to pursue this Quixotic quest will find the
literature abundant and very interesting. For example, such essays as
that by F.W. Brockbank in _Manchester Association for Research_, vol.
i, 1909-10; and another by A.F.A. Woodford, _A. Q. C._, i, 28. Better
still is the _Real History of the Rosicrucians_, by Waite (chap. xv),
and for a complete and final explosion of all such fancies we have the
great chapter in Gould's _History of Masonry_ (vol. ii, chap. xiii). It
seems a pity that so much time and labor and learning had to be
expended on theories so fragile, but it was necessary; and no man was
better fitted for the study than Gould. Perhaps the present writer is
unkind, or at least impatient; if so he humbly begs forgiveness; but
after reading tomes of conjecture about the alleged Rosicrucian origin
of Masonry, he is weary of the wide-eyed wonder of mystery-mongers
about things that never were, and which would be of no value if they
had been. (Read _The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception_, or _Christian
Occult Science_, by Max Heindel, and be instructed in matters whereof
no mortal knoweth.)
[110] _The Hole Craft and Fellowship of Masons_, by Edward Conder.
[111] _Ibid._, Introduction.
[112] Whether Sir Christopher Wren was ever Grand Master, as tradition
affirms, is open to debate, and some even doubt his membership in the
order (Gould, _History of Masonry_). Unfortunately, he has left no
record, and the _Parentalia_, written by his son, helps us very little,
containing nothing more than his theory that the order began with
Gothic architecture. Ashmole, if we may trust his friend, Dr. Knipe,
had planned to write a _History of Masonry_ refuting the theory of Wren
that Freemasonry took its rise from a Bull granted by the Pope, in the
reign of Henry III, to some Italian architects, holding, and rightly
so, that the Bull "was comfirmatory only, and did not by any means
create our fraternity, or even establish it in this kingdom" (_Life of
Ashmole_, by Campbell). This item makes still more absurd the idea that
Ashmole himself created Masonry, whereas he was only a student of its
antiquities. Wren was probably never an Operative Mason--though an
architect--but he seems to have become an Accepted member of the
fraternity in his last years, since his neglect of the order, due to
his age, is given as a reason for the organization of the first Grand
Lodge.
GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND
/#
_The doctrines of Masonry are the most beautiful that it is
possible to imagine. They breathe the simplicity of the earliest
ages animated by the love of a martyred God. That word which the
Puritans translated_ CHARITY, _but which is really_ LOVE, _is the
key-stone which supports the entire edifice of this mystic
science. Love one another, teach one another, help one another.
That is all our doctrine, all our science, all our law. We have no
narrow-minded prejudices; we do not debar from our society this
sect or that sect; it is sufficient for us that a man worships
God, no matter under what name or in what manner. Ah! rail against
us bigoted and ignorant men, if you will. Those who listen to the
truths which Masonry inculcates can readily forgive you. It is
impossible to be a good Mason without being a good man._
--WINWOOD READE, _The Veil of Isis_
#/