THE BUILDER AUGUST 1918
SPECULATIVE MASONRY IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 

BY BRO. OSSIAN LANG, GRAND HISTORIAN, GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK

The birthyear of the present Grand Lodge period of Freemasonry is
securely fixed. Of the time of establishment, between 1717 and
1723, we have only a few more or less unimportant data and next to
nothing as regards reliable information explaining the momentous
developments which must have taken place before "The
Constitutions," the Magna Charta of modern Freemasonry, could be
formulated and issued in printed form.

The reasons for the lack of reliable historical material concerning
the status and activity of the Fraternity, before 1723, are simple
enough. History recording is an after-thought. It arises when some
degree of greatness, or at least the promise of greatness, is
achieved. That is why Israelitic History began with David and
Solomon. (1) That is why English history began with Alfred the
Great. That is why Masonic history began with the Grand Mastership
of John, Duke of Montagu, whose connection with the Fraternity
aroused widespread interest in Freemasonry.

The publication of the Constitutions, in 1723, became a direct
challenge to historians, and now began the questioning as to
antecedents which has been going on ever since. Before the Grand
Mastership of Montagu, there was nothing in the existence of the
Fraternity in any way suggesting that this was destined to attain
importance, let alone greatness. Of the lodges who united to form
the premier Grand Lodge, only one evidenced real vitality. One soon
became extinct. Another had to be reconstituted in 1723. A third
retained only thirteen members between 1721 and 1723. There
appeared to be no inducement to record history.

A suggestive side-light is thrown on existing conditions by a note
in the autobiography of Dr. William Stukeley, F. R. S. (1687-1765),
reading as follows:

"His curiosity led him to be initiated into the mysterys of
Masonry, suspecting it to be the remains of the mysterys of the
antients; when, with difficulty, a number sufficient were to be
found in all London. After this, it became a public fashion, not
only to spread over Brittain and Ireland, but all Europe."

Those of us who have experienced what it means to initiate
candidates with barely enough brethren present to form a lodge, can
sympathize with Brother Stukeley. The point of historical
significance in his recital is that on January 6th, 1721, the date
when he was "made a Freemason," it was only "with difficulty" that
"a number sufficient was to be found in all London" to welcome him
and two other distinguished Londoners into the Fraternity.

Another interesting item is the entry in Dr. Stukeley's diary,
under date of December 27th, 1721, as follows:


"We met at the Fountain Tavern, Strand, and by the consent of the
Grand Master present, Dr. Beal (D. G. M.) constituted a lodge
there, where I was chose Master."

That throws light on many things. Taken together with other
available stray bits of information, the entry suggests that "the
verbal consent of the Grand Master, or his Deputy, was sufficient
to authorize the formation of a lodge." We find, further, that the
now required qualifications for elevation to the chair, were not
known in 1721. Brother Stukeley had been a Mason for less than a
year when he was "chose Master."

The presence of the Grand Master, John, Duke of Montagu, is worth
noting. Dr. Stukeley and the Duke had both been elected Fellows of
the Royal Society in 1717. Both belonged also to the "Gentlemen's
Society" of Spaulding, a literary club, which counted among its
members a number of men who won distinction in Freemasonry:
Desaguliers, the Earl of Dalkeith, and Lord Coleraine, Grand
Masters of the Grand Lodge of England, 1719, 1723, 1727; Joseph
Ames, David Casley, Francis Drake (the latter serving as Grand
Master of the Grand Lodge of All England, 1761-2); Martin Folkes,
Sir Richard Manningham and Dr. Thomas Manningham; Sir Andrew
Michael Ramsey, Knight of St. Lazarus, reputed founder of the
Scottish Rite, became a member of this Society, in March, 1729.

The astonishing progress of Freemasonry, after the accession to the
Grand Mastership of John, Duke of Montagu, may be readily
understood when we take into account his zeal for the Fraternity
and the eminent men who were glad to co-operate with him. The rapid
rise to importance among the social organizations of the British
metropolis may be regarded as the first real impetus to the study
of the antecedents of the Fraternity. Each new edition of the
Constitutions revealed evidences of serious efforts to arrive at a
satisfactory explanation of origins.

There was no doubt then, as there is no doubt now, that the
Fraternity had at one time been connected in some way with the
craft gild of Masons. It was equally clear that the lodges which
formed the premier Grand Lodge had been made up of "Accepted"
Freemasons enjoying at one time membership in the Masons' Company
of London, but forming a distinct division within that Company and
having no direct interest in operative Masonry. The "Laws, Forms
and usages" which the Fraternity had in common with the "Craft and
Fellowship of Masons," were plausibly accounted for as having been
derived from former gild connections. The differences were not
explained so easily. It is here where the difficulty arose. The
problem was how to account for the "curious secret brotherhood" of
Accepted Freemasons, which was regarded as the true parent of the
Fraternity. It has remained an open problem to this day. The task
I have set myself for the present discussion is to suggest a
solution as far as arguments in support of it may be presented in
public print.

HINTS POINTING TO ROSICRUCIAN ORIGINS

Gould to whose faithful labors we shall ever be indebted for the
gathering together of a vast amount of valuable material relating
to the development of our Fraternity, found that there is practical
unanimity among serious historians to the effect that "Freemasonry,
as it emerged from the crucible in 1723, was the product of many
evolutionary changes, consummated for the most part in the six
years during which the craft had been ruled by a central
authority." We shall agree to this, with one rather important
reservation: The changes that were wrought, between 1717 and 1723,
did not spring from a desire to create something altogether new,
but rather to restore what was believed to have been the true
character of the Fraternity in the past; hence an earlier order was
assumed and served as a model for the "many evolutionary changes."
The attitude of the restorers may be gathered from the "Defence of
Masonry" appended to the printed Constitutions of 1734, from which
I quote for our present purpose this passage:

"The system as taught in the regular lodges, may have some
redundancies or defects, occasion'd by the ignorance or indolence
of the old members. And indeed, considering through what obscurity
and darkness the Mystery has been deliver'd down; the many
centuries it has survived; the many countries and languages, and
sects and parties, it has run through, we are rather to wonder it
ever arriv'd to the present age without more imperfection. In
short, I am apt to think that Masonry (as it is now explain'd) has
in some circumstances declined from its original purity! It has run
along in muddy streams, and, as it were, underground. But
notwithstanding the great rust it may have contracted * * * there
is (if I judge right) much of the old fabrick still remaining; the
essential Pillars of the Building may be discover'd through the
rubbish, tho' the superstructure be over-run with moss and ivy, and
the stones by length of time be disjointed."

The scholarly brother who wrote this, had in mind a very definite
idea of the derivation of Freemasonry. His very language, the
italicized words, and the reference to "the essential Pillars of
the Building," suggest to those familiar with these things, a
fairly clear explanation he had elaborated for himself, as we shall
see further on.

In connection with the cited extract from the "Defence of Masonry,"
I desire to invite your attention to the consideration of a
newspaper item appearing in the London Daily Journal of September
5th, 1730: (2)

"It must be confessed that there is a Society abroad from whom the
English Free-Masons (asham'd of their true Origin) have copied a
few Ceremonies, and take great Pains to persuade the World that
they are derived from them and are the same with them. These are
called Rosicrucians * * *.

"On this Society have our Moderns endeavor'd to ingraft themselves,
tho' they know nothing of their material Constitutions, and are
acquainted only with some of their Signs of Probation and Entrance,
inasmuch that 'tis but of late years (being better informed by some
kind Rosicrucian) that they knew John the Evangelist to be their
right Patron, having before kept for his Day that dedicated to John
the Baptist."

Here we have in convenient form a summary of comments given
currency by a number of contemporaneous critics of the Fraternity,
chiefly dissatisfied old brethren wedded to the belief that
Freemasonry was wholly derived from operative Masonry. By
intimating that "our Moderns" were trying to "ingraft themselves"
on the Society of Rosicrucians, they reveal a significant fact
which is verified, though in veiled terms, by our quotation from
the "Defence of Masonry." Bearing in mind that this "Defence" was
published with the implied official sanction of the Grand Lodge, we
must assume that the learned brethren who directed the inner
affairs of the Fraternity, were convinced that the substance of
Freemasonry was in nowise derived from operative Masonry, but that
the "Mystery" had come down through the ages by way of quite a
different channel. Since the suggestion is offered that the
"Rosicrucians" were regarded as the true forebears, it will be
worth our while to examine this question more closely. (3)

PRESUMPTIONS

We shall have to take for granted certain matters discussed in my
paper on "Medieval Craft Gilds and Freemasonry," published in THE
BUILDER (November and December, 1917):

(1) The Constitutions, including "Laws, Forms and Usages," reveal
former external connections of the forebears of the Fraternity with
gilds of operative Masons.

(2) The "drooping" lodges which united, in 1717, to form the Grand
Lodge of England were of an essentially convivial character,
possessing certain "antient" ceremonies and modes of recognition
and guarding "mysteries" of the origin and meaning of which the
remnant of the earlier "secret brotherhood" were ignorant.

(3) The earlier London lodge or lodges of "Accepted" (Speculative)
Masons had no continuous history, revealing its existence rather by
sporadic revivals of "an old order."

(4) Degrees, symbolism and ritualistic peculiarities known as "Arts
and Sciences," consisted of borrowings from several sources, the
selection and elaboration being governed, in the first two decades
of the Grand Lodge, by deliberate efforts of the organizers of the
work to restore the "Original purity of the old fabrick."

(5) The spirit of Freemasonry is a growth from beginnings which may
he traced with some degree of certainty to societies quite
different from those which contributed Constitutions and
suggestions for initiatory ceremonies.


ROSICRUCIANS OR ROSY CROSS ALCHEMISTS

Our present inquiry will deal largely with explanations of
presumptions three, four and five, and more particularly with the
so-called Rosicrucian origins of Freemasonry.

Extensive researches regarding Alchemists and their reputed
successors in Rosicrucianism, covering a vast and largely
unprofitable literature on the subject, have led me to formulate a
few conclusions which I shall present more or less categorically.
A fuller discussion would be too cruel a trial of the fraternal
patience of the readers of THE BUILDER.

We shall probably never know for a certainty whether there ever was
an organized Fraternity of the Rosy Cross. We do know there were
reputed and professed Rosicrucians, particularly in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, and there were also distinguished
leaders of thought who stoutly defended the doctrines ascribed to
the Fraternity and many reputable men who adopted the Rosicrucian
symbolism, in an extensive array of books. There is furthermore
abundant testimony to warrant the inference that there were in
existence "invisible" or secret societies and lodges composed of
men seeking honestly to give realization to the practice of the art
or arts described in these books as characteristic of the mystic
Brethren of the Rosy Cross. The absence of a recognized
authoritative central body was in the course of events taken
advantage of by impostors parading under the name of Rosicrucians
who played upon the credulity of the public till the name sank into
general disrepute.

The English and Scottish Rosicrucians who are the only ones to be
taken into account for our purpose, were Christian Theosophists.
Like their brethren on the European continent, they made much of
Cabala, following chiefly the Alexandrinian Philo. Neo-Platonism or
Neo-Pythagorism, the Old Testament and Christian theology also
engaged their attention. They devoted themselves with fervor to the
study of chemistry, physics, music, astronomy and mathematics
(particularly geometry). Mystic, allegorical interpretation of the
Scriptures was a characteristic trait. Their supreme object,
however, to which all studies were subordinated, was the promotion
of the welfare of humanity.

These Rosicrucians were the lineal descendants of the theosophic
portion of the Alchemists who are sometimes called Hermetic
Philosophers.

DERIVATION OF MASONIC SYMBOLS

Bearing in mind that Hermetics and the Rosy Cross fraternity are
fundamentally the same, though they differ in name and somewhat in
allegorical interpretation, let me now quote for you a letter by
Albert Pike, addressed to the historian Gould, which contains this
interesting reference to Hermetic symbols to be found in
Freemasonry:

"I have been for some time collecting the old Hermetic and
Alchemical works in order to find out what Masonry came into
possession of from them. I have ascertained with certainty that the
square and compasses, the triangle, the oblong square, the three
Grand Masters, the idea embodied in the substitute word, the Sun,
Moon and Master of the Lodge, and others were included in the
number.

"The symbols that I have spoken of as Hermetic may have been
borrowed by Hermeticism, but all the same it had them, and I do not
know where they were used, outside of Hermeticism, until they
appeared in Masonry.

"I think that the Philosophers, becoming Free Masons, introduced
into Masonry its symbolism."

My own investigations have verified Albert Pike's conclusions. In
fact, I would greatly extend the list of symbols, adding to them
symbols which are to be found among the true Brethren of the Rosy
Cross, with this result:

Purely Rosy Cross Symbols: (4) Jacob's ladder; rough and perfect
Ashlar; Sun, Moon, and Master of the Lodge; flaming star; three
Grand Masters; three columns; two pillars; circle between parallel
lines; point within a circle; sacred delta (triangle); oblong;
three, five and seven steps.

Symbols which the Operative Gild and Brethren of the Rosy Cross had
in common: Square; compasses; level; plumb; trowel; bee-hive; horn
of plenty; hour glass; cassia.

Purely Masonic: Three windows; twenty-four-inch gauge; gavel;
trestle board; tesselated border.

The first and second lists might have been extended. We hope to
have given enough, however, to suggest the indebtedness of
Freemasonry to the Rosy Cross.

The choice of two explanations is offered. One is that implied in
the quotation we have given from the London Daily Journal in 1730,
which would have us conclude that "the English Free-Masons (asham'd
of their true origin)" imported Rosy Cross symbols and ceremonials
into the system of the Fraternity. The other is founded on the
quoted passage from the "Defence," which tells in so many words
that Freemasonry had come down the ages through the Fraternity of
the Rosy Cross, that much had been lost on the way which the Grand
Lodge of England sought to restore in its proper place. In other
words, following the former allegation, the Grand Lodge adopted the
Brethren of the Rosy Cross as forefathers; following the latter
declaration, the Brethren of the Rosy Cross were the true
forebears.

There is no reason for assuming that the Alchemists were the
originators of the symbols referred to in the foregoing list. In
fact, I am sure these symbols were borrowed from an older source.

FLUDD AND FRISIUS

We agreed to confine our attention chiefly to the theosophic
Alchemists of England and Scotland. Let us limit the range still
further by disregarding the older Alchemists and taking note only
of the representative leaders of the later (if not the last) of the
"True Brethren of the Rosy Cross." (5) Here we have an abundance of
first hand information in the several treatises in defense of the
mystic Fraternity by that renowned English physician and
philosopher, Robert Fludd, and in the "Summum Bonum" (The Supreme
Good), a Latin dissertation by a Scottish friend of Fludd's, who
wrote under the pseudonym of Joachimus Frisius (or Frizius).

The Century Dictionary gives this brief biographical notice of
Robert Fludd, or Flud: "Born at Bearsted, Kent, 1574, died at
London, Sept. 8th, 1637. An English physician and mystical
philosopher. He wrote several treatises in defense of the
fraternity of the 'Rosy Cross." Waite, who presents a more
extensive biography in "The Real History of the Rosicrucians," adds
this word of appreciation: "The central figure of Rosicrucian
literature * * * is Robertus de Fluctibus, the great English
mystical philosopher of the seventeenth century, a man of immense
erudition, of exalted mind, and, to judge by his writings, of
extreme personal sanctity." Fludd was one of the last, if not the
last, of the giants of universal scholarship of whom there were
many, before the days of specialization set in. He was a devout
Christian and a staunch Protestant, basing his philosophy of the
universe frankly on the Bible.

Of Joachimus Frisius, Frizius or Frize, whom we shall call Frisius,
we know nothing, except that Fludd tells us he was a Scotchman and
wrote his book partly in Scottish and partly in Latin. Fludd
translated the Scottish portions into Latin, made a few slight
changes in the text, and had the whole put into print, under the
title of "Summum Bonum."
(To be continued)

(1) See "Early Hebrew History" by that distinguished authority on
Old Testament literature, our R.'. W.'. Brother, the Rev. John
Punnett Peters, Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York.

(2) As quoted by Gould who had access to the original.

(3) In Scotland, too, we find allusions to a connection between the
Brethren of the Rosy Cross and Masonry; as for instance in a poem
forming part of Adamson's "Muses Threnodie," published at
Edinburgh, in 1638. There in singing the praises of the beauties of
Perthshire, the poet says:

"For we be brethren of the Rosie Cross: 
"We have the Mason word and second sight."

(4) Or Rosy Cross and Hermetic combined,-or Alchemist symbols.

(5) We exclude, of course, altogether the spurious Rosicrucianism
which brought the name of the, Fraternity into disrepute by its
grandiloquence and diletantism and the charlatanry and deliberate
fraud carried on under its banner.
