Masonic Twaddle.

Masonic journal could originate anything—even a novel kind of mistake calculated to provoke laughter rather than a sneer . That there are such organs claiming to represent the interests of Freemasonry is , unfortunately , true . It may bo said , why call them in question when

their aim is good . It is their misfortune , not their fault , that they are incapable of higher things . This plea is inadmissible . People have no business to thrust themselves before the pnblie , and to occupy prominent positions thev are wholly unfitted for . When any one undertakes a

public office , he renders himself justly liable to public criticism ; and if this criticism partake of a hostile character , it is no defence , but rather his severest condemnation , that he is capable of doing no better . Similarly , if a nowspaper assumes to represent Freemasonry , and yet contains

nothing but lists of names out of order , and leading articles in the shape of the most vapid nonsense ever penned by mortal man , then , we say , it is worthy of utter condemnation ; nor is there the shadow of an excuse admissible in

its defence , on the ground that it is doing or has done its best . It has committed a grievous , we ought almost to say an irreparable , injury to the Craft , by appearing as a journal . Its solo remaining duty is to appear no more .

Operative And Speculative Masonry.

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 Neno York Square , there are one or two statements in the section of Chapter I ., published on the 19 th 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 onr Masonic historians have clone . It is quite enough for us to know that tho 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 Ave 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 in 1717 , there are evidences that for nearly , if not quite a century before , the mere art or craft of Masonry was slowly , bnt 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 clay off Joulay 1631 . The quhilk day the Eight honirabell my LORD ALEXANDER is admitet folowe off the craft bo Hewe Forest diken , and Alexander Nesbet warden ; and tho hell re 3 t off tho mestercs off masones off Edenbroch ; and therfco euerie mester heath fiupscriuet with ther handea or set to ther markes , [ Deacon and

Operative And Speculative Masonry.

Warden's marks ] , Jn . Watt , Thomas Patorsone , Alexander , John Mylln . " " Tho 3 clay of Jonlio 1634 The quhilk day ANTONIE ALEXANDER , Hight honiraboll Mester of Work to his Majestic be admisione off

Hewo Forest dekon , and Alexander Neahpt warden , and the hell rest off tho Mesteros off mesoties of Edenbroch : and thorto enerio mestor heath snpscrinet with ther handes or eles pet to ther markes . Thomas Aiuslie , Thomas Patersone , Robert Gray [ Deacon and Warden ' s marks ] , Jn . Watt , Alexander , An . Alexander , Johno Mylln . "

"At Edinbnrsh , tho 3 rd of July 1634 . Tho qahilk day Si-ALEXANDRE STRACUAN of Thorntown is admittod fellow craft bo ITow Forrest deaken , and Alexr , Nisbet warden , and tho hailo rost of tho Mester measons of Edinbnrgho ; and in token thereoff tho

mesters nnderscryband have sett to their hands and marks to their prsnts . [ Deacon and Warden ' s marks ] Jno . Watt , Robort Gray , Thomas Ainslio , Thomas Paterson , Johne My lln , Alexander , An . Alexander A . Strachan . "

Other similiar minutes are given , among them one recording the admission , on the 20 th May 1640 , of " the right honerabell ALEXANDER HAMILTONE , generall of the artelerie of thes kingdom , " and another of the admission , on the 27 th 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 Ashmole and Colonel Manwaring , in 1646 , and the mention by the former of his presence in a Lodge at Masons' Hall , London ^ on 11 th 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 , m 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 tho 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 g-oing 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 join 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 im . pelled 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 . Wo 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

Freemasons 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