Click below for
More Secrets Revealed

The History of Freemasonry

by Albert Gallatin Mackey

Chapter 36 - The Invention of the Third or Master Mason's Degree

Previous - Contents - Next

WE have seen that up to the year 1719 the Masonic ritualistic system consisted of but one degree, which was common to the whole. and the secrets of which were communicated to the Apprentice at his initiation, or as it was, perhaps, more properly called, in reference to the paucity of ceremonies, his admission. At that time Desaguliers and his collaborators originated a Second degree, to be appropriated to the Fellow-Crafts. To do this it was necessary, or, at least, it was deemed expedient, to disintegrate the primitive degree and out of it to make two degrees, those of Entered Apprentice and Fellow-Craft.

For a short time - how long is to be hereafter seen - the Masonic system consisted of two degrees, and the summit of the system was the Fellow- Craft's degree.

From this time the Fellow-Crafts began to take a prominent place in the business of Masonry, and the Apprentice lost some of the importance he had obtained in early times as a component part of the Craft and an equal participant with Masters and Fellows in its secrets. He was permitted, it is true, to be present at the meetings of the lodge, and to take his share in its business (except, of course, where candidates were to be "passed "), and even to vote in the Grand Lodge on the question of an alteration of the "General Regulations," but the offices were to be held and the lodge represented in the Grand Lodge by Fellow-Crafts only. Of this there is abundant evidence in contemporary documents.

The first edition of Anderson's Constitutions contains "the Charges of a Free-mason, extracted from the Records of Lodges beyond Sea." The exact date when these "Charges" were compiled is not known. It must have been after 1718, for they distinctly refer to the Fellow-Craft's degree, and it must have been before the beginning of 1723, for that is the year of their publication. It is, however, certain from their phraseology that when they were compiled for the use of the lodges, the Fellow-Craft's degree had been instituted, but the Master's degree was not yet known. For this reason I am inclined to place the date between 1718, in which year Anderson tells us that "several old copies of the Gothic Constitutions were produced and collated," and 1721, when he submitted his manuscript, including the "Charges" and "Regulations" to the Grand Lodge. There is no date prefixed to the "Charges," but I think it not improbable that they were constructed by Payne in 1720, at the same time that he compiled the "General Regulations." It is certain that they must have been in existence on December 27, 1721, when a committee was appointed by the Grand Lodge to examine them and the Constitutions. And this date sufficiently accounts for the fact that there are no allusions in them to the Master's degree.

These "Charges," therefore, give us a very good idea of the status of Apprentices and Fellow-Crafts in English Masonry at the time when the system consisted of two degrees, and the "part of Master" had not yet been composed.

In Charge IV. it is said that if the Apprentice has learned his art, he then may in due time be made a Fellow-Craft, and then if otherwise qualified may become a Warden and successively Master of his lodge, the Grand Warden, and at length the Grand Master.

Here we see that at that time the Fellow-Craft was at the summit of the Fraternity so far as degrees and qualifications for promotions in rank were concerned. Nothing is said of the degree of Master; it was still simply as in primitive times - a gradation of rank.

In the same Charge we are told that "no Brother can be a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow-Craft, nor a Master (1) until he has acted as a Warden; nor Grand Warden until he has been Master of a lodge; nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow Craft before his election."

It is very evident that at this time there could be no degree higher than that of the Fellow-Craft. If there had been, that higher degree would have been made the necessary qualification

(1) That is, Master of a Lodge, as the context shows.

for these high offices. We are not without the proof of how these "Charges" would have been made to read had the degree of Master Mason been in existence at the time of their compilation.

Notwithstanding that Speculative Freemasonry owes much to Dr. Anderson, we are forced to reluctantly admit that, as an historian, he was inexact and inaccurate, and that while he often substituted the inventions of tradition for the facts of history, he also often modified the phraseology of old documents to suit his own views.

In 1738 he published a second edition of the Book of Constitutions, a work which, although at first perhaps carelessly approved, was subsequently condemned by the Grand Lodge. In this work he inserted a copy of these "Charges." But now the Master's degree had been long recognized and practiced by the lodges as the summit of the ritual.

Now let us see how these "Charges" were modified by Dr. Anderson in this second edition, so as to meet the altered condition of the Masonic system. The Apprentice is no longer admonished, as he was in the first edition, that his ambition should be to become a Fellow-Craft and in time a Warden, a Master of a Lodge, a Grand Warden, and even a Grand Master. But in the copy of 1738 he is told that "when of age and expert he may become an Entered Prentice, or a Free-Mason of the lowest degree, and upon his due improvement a Fellow-Craft and a Master Mason."

Again, in the "Charges" of 1720, (1) it is said that is "no brother can be a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow-Craft."

In the "Charges" of 1738, it is said that "the Wardens are chosen from among the Master Masons."

In Charge V. of 1720 it is directed that "the most expert of the Fellow Crafts shall be chosen or appointed the Master or Overseer of the Lord's Work."

In the same Charge, published in 1738, it is prescribed that "a Master Mason only must be the Surveyor or Master of Work."

Now, what else can be inferred from this collation of the two editions (which, if deemed necessary, could have been much further extended), except that in 1720 the Fellow-Craft was the highest degree,

(1) I assume this date for convenience of reference, and because, as I have already shown, it is probably correct.

and that after that year and long before 1738 the Master's degree had been invented.

But let us try to get a little nearer to the exact date of the introduction of the Third degree into the Masonic system.

The Constitutions of the Free-Masons, commonly called the Book of Constitutions, was ordered by the Grand Lodge, on March 25, 1722, to be printed and was actually printed in that year, for it was presented by Dr. Anderson to the Grand Lodge "in print" on January 17, 1723. So that although the work bears on its title-page the imprint of 1723, it must really be considered as having been controlled in its composition by the opinions and the condition of things that existed in the year 1722.

Now, in the body of this book there is no reference to the degree of Master Mason. It is true that on page 33 the author speaks of is such as were admitted Master Masons or Masters of the Work," by which expression he evidently meant not those who had received a higher degree, but those who in the "Charges" contained in the same book were said to be "chosen or appointed the Master or Overseer of the Lord's Work," and who the same Charge declares should be "the most expert of the Fellow-Craftsmen."

On the contrary, when speaking of the laws, forms, and usages practiced in the early lodges by the Saxon and Scottish kings, he says: Neither what was conveyed nor the manner how, can be communicated by writing; as no man can indeed understand it without the key of a Fellow- Craft." (2)

So that in 1722, when this note was written, there was no higher degree than that of Fellow-Craft, because the Fellow-Crafts were, as being at the summit of the ritual, in possession of the key to all the oral and esoteric instructions of the Craft.

Guided by the spirit of the "General Regulations," printed in the first edition of Anderson's Constitutions, I am induced to place the invention of the Third degree in the year 1722, although, as will be hereafter seen, it did not get into general use until a later period. The investigations which have led me to this conviction were pursued in the following train, and I trust that the reader, if he will follow

(1) Its preparation by Dr. Anderson had been previously directed on September 29, 1721. This and the date of its publication in January, 1723, lead us irresistibly to the conclusion that the work was written in 1722. (2)Anderson's "Constitutions," 1st edition, p. 29, note.

the same train of investigation with me, will arrive at the same conclusion. In pursuing this train of argument, it will be unavoidably necessary to repeat some of what has been said before. But the subject is so important that a needful repetition will be surely excused for the sake of explicitness in the reasoning.

The "General Regulations" were published in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions, edited by Anderson. This edition bears the imprint of 1723, but Anderson himself tells us that the work was " in print " and produced before the Grand Lodge on the 17th of January in that year. Hence, it is evident that although the work was published in 1723, it was actually printed in 1722. Whatever, therefore, is contained in the body of that work must refer to the condition of things in that year, unless Anderson may (as I shall endeavor to show he has done) have made some slight alteration or interpolation, toward the end of 1722 or the very beginning of 1723, while the book was passing through the press.

I have shown by the sold Charges," whose assumed date is 1720, that at that time the degree of Fellow-Craft was the highest recognized or known in Speculative Freemasonry, and I shall now attempt to prove from the "General Regulations" that the same condition existed in 1722, the year in which those "Regulations" were printed.

The "General Regulations" consist of thirty-nine articles, and throughout the whole composition, except in one instance, which I believe to be an interpolation, there is not one word said of Master Masons, but the only words used are Brethren and Fellow-Crafts - Brethren being a generic term which includes both Fellows and Apprentices.

Thus it is said (art. vi.), that "no man can be entered a Brother in any particular Lodge or admitted to be a Member thereof without the unanimous consent of all the members."

That is, no man can be made an Entered Apprentice, nor having been made elsewhere, be affiliated in that particular lodge.

Again (art. vii.), "every new Brother, at his making, is decently to cloath the Lodge." That is, every Apprentice at his making, etc.

The word "Brother," although a generic term, has in these instances a specific signification which is determined by the context of the sentence.

The making of a Brother was the entering of an Apprentice, a term we still use when speaking of the making of a Mason. The Fellow-Craft was admitted, or, as Ashmole says in his Diary, "admitted into the Fellowship of Freemasons."

Lyon,' referring to the nomenclature of the Scottish lodges "of the olden time," says, that the words "made" and "accepted" were frequently used as indicating the admission of Fellow-Crafts, but he adds that the former was sometimes, though rarely, used to denote the entry of Apprentices. He states, however, that toward the end of the 17th century these words gave way to the expression "passed," to indicate the reception of a Fellow-Craft, and that the Lodge of Mary's Chapel, at about that time, used the word "accepted" as equivalent to the making or passing of a Fellow Craft. But the Schaw statutes of 1598, which are among the very oldest of the Scottish records extant, employs the word "entered" in reference to the making of an Apprentice, and received or "admitted" in reference to the making of a Fellow-Craft.

I think, however, that in the English lodges, or at least in the "General Regulations" of 1720, the words "making a Brother" meant, as it does in the present day, the initiation of an Entered Apprentice, and that Fellow- Crafts were "admitted." The word 'passed" soon afterward came into use.

With this explanation of certain technical terms which appeared to be necessary in this place, let us proceed to examine from the document itself what was the status of Fellow-Crafts at the time of the compilation of the "General Regulations" by Grand Master Payne, in 1720, and their adoption in 1722 by the Grand Lodge. From this examination I contend that it will be found that at that period there was in Freemasonry only two degrees, those of Entered Apprentice and Fellow-Craft.

It will be admitted that in a secret society no one has such opportunities of undetected "eavesdropping" as the guardian of the portal, and hence, the modern ritual of Freemasonry requires that the Tiler shall be in possession of the highest degree worked by the body which he tiles.

Now the 13th General Regulation prescribes that a Brother "who must be a Fellow-Craft should be appointed to look after the door of the Grand Lodge."

(1) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 76.

But it may be argued that the Grand Lodge always met and worked in the Entered Apprentices' degree, and that Apprentices as well as Fellow- Crafts were present at its communications.

I admit the fact, and acknowledge that from this point of view my argument would be untenable. But why was not the office of Tiler entrusted to an Entered Apprentice ? Because, if there were three degrees at the time, it would have been manifestly improper to have bestowed this trustworthy and responsible office on one who was in possession of only the lowest. And if it was prudent and proper, as I suppose will be admitted, that it should have been bestowed on one of the highest degree, why was it not given to a Master Mason ? Simply, I reply, because there were no Master Masons, as a degree class, from whom the selection could be made. As the laws of every lodge at the present day prescribe that the Tiler must be a Master Mason, because the Third degree is the highest one known to or practiced in the lodge, so the laws of the Grand Lodge in 1723, or the "General Regulations," required the Tiler to be a Fellow-Craft because the Second degree was the highest one known to or practiced in the Grand Lodge at that time. It would seem hardly to need an argument to prove that if the Third degree had been in practical existence when these "Regulations" were approved by the Grand Lodge, they would have directed that the guardian of the door should be in possession of that degree.

Another clause in this 13th Regulation is very significant. The Treasurer and Secretary of the Grand Lodge are permitted to have, each, a clerk, and it is directed that he "must be a Brother and Fellow-Craft." Again, and for a silnilar reason, the officer is selected from the highest degree. Had the Third degree been known at that time, these assistants would surely have been chosen from among the Master Masons; for if not, theywould have had to be sometimes entrusted with the records of the transactions of a degree of which they had no right to possess a knowledge.

In the 14th Regulation it is prescribed that in the absence of the Grand Wardens the Grand Master may order private Wardens, that is, the Wardens of a subordinate lodge, to act as Grand Wardens pro fempore, and then, that the representation of that lodge in the Grand Lodge may be preserved, the lodge is to supply their place, not by two Master Masons, but "by two Fellow-Crafts of the same lodge, called forth to act or sent thither by the particular Master thereof."

The fact that the second was the highest degree known in the early part of the year 1723 is confirmed by the formula inserted in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions, and which is there entitled "the Manner of Constituting a New Lodge, as practiced by his Grace the Duke of Wharton, the present Right Worshipful Grand Master, according to the ancient usages of Masons." It was, according to Anderson's record in the second edition, presented to the Grand Lodge and approved on January 17, 1723. It is therefore a fair testimony as to the condition of the degree question at that date.

In this formula it is said that 'the new Master and Wardens being yet among the Fellow-Craft" the Grand Master shall ask his Deputy if he has examined them and finds the Candidate well skilled, etc. And this being answered in the affirmative, he is duly installed, after which the new Master, "calling forth two Fellow-Craft, presents them to the Grand Master for his approbation," after which they are installed as Wardens of the lodge. (1)

This, I think, is conclusive evidence that the degree of Fellow Craft was then the highest known or used. In January, 1723, it did not require a Mason to be more than a Fellow-Craft to prove himself, as Wharton's form of Constitution has it, " well skilled in the noble science and the Royal Art, and duly instructed in our mysteries, and competent to preside as Master over a lodge."

In the 25th of these "General Regulations" it is directed that a committee shall be formed at the time of the Grand Feast, to examine every person bringing a ticket, "to discourse him, if they think fit, in order to admit or debar him as they shall see cause." It was, in fact, an examining committee, to inquire into the qualifications of applicants for admission to the annual meeting of the Grand Lodge. The members of such a committee must necessarily have been in possession of the highest degree practiced by the Grand Lodge. It is very evident that a Fellow- Craft was not competent to examine into the qualifications and attainments of a Master Mason. Yet the Regulation prescribes that to compose

(1) Anderson's "Constitutions," edition of 1723, pp. 71, 72.

such a committee "the Masters of lodges shall each appoint one experienced and discreet Fellow-Craft of his lodge."

But there is evidence in these "Regulations," not only that Fellow-Crafts were in 1723 appointed to the responsible offices of Tilers, Wardens, and Committees of Examination, but that they were competent to fill the next to the highest office in the Craft. The 17th Regulation says that " if the Deputy Grand Master be sick, or necessarily absent, the Grand Master may chuse any Fellow-Craft he pleases to be his Deputy pro tempore."

This, I think, is as conclusive proof as legitimate logical deduction can produce, that at the beginning of the year 1723, which was the date of the publication of these "Regulations" for the governrnent of the Grand Lodge, the degree of Fellow-Craft was the highest practiced by the Grand Lodge, and that the degree of Master Mason was not then known or recognized in the system of Speculative Freemasonry. A Fellow-Craft presiding over Master Masons would indeed be a Masonic anomaly of which it would require something more than a blind reverence for the claims of antiquity to extort belief.

The citations that I have made seem to me to leave no doubt on the mind. The whole spirit and tenor of these "General Regulations," as well as the "Form of Constituting a new Lodge," which is so closely appended to them as to make, as it were, a part of them, go to prove that at the time they were approved by the Grand Lodge, which was on January 17, 1723, there were but two degrees recognized in Speculative Freemasonry, namely, those of Entered Apprentice and Fellow-Craft; and that at that time the degree of Master Mason constituted no part of the system.

That Anderson himself placed the same interpretation on these passages, and was perfectly aware of the deduction to be made from them, is evident from the fact that when he next published these "General Regulations," which was in the second edition of the Book of Constitutions, in 1738, at which time there is no doubt of the existence of the Master's degree, he almost invariably changed the words "Fellow- Craft" to "Master Mason."

And, accordingly, we find that in 1738 the Wardens, the Tiler, and the Assistant Treasurer and Secretary were required to be Master Masons. The change had taken place, and the Third degree had been adopted between the years 1723 and 1738.

But those who deny this theory and contend that the Third degree is of greater antiquity, and was known and practiced long before the beginning of the 18th century, would quote against my argument the words contained in the 13th Regulation, which words are as follows:

Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow-Craft only here (in the Grand Lodge) unless by a dispensation."

I candidly admit that if this passage be proved to be a genuine part of the original "General Regulations," compiled in 1720 by Grand Master Payne and approved in 1723 by the Grand Lodge, the question would be decided at once and we could no longer doubt that the Third degree was in existence not only in 1723, but three years before, that is, in 1720.

But I do not hesitate to assert that this passage is an interpolation by Anderson and Desaguliers, made for a certain purpose, and I think that this assertion is capable of critical proof.

In criticism there are two methods of determining whether a suspected passage in an ancient work or an old document is genuine or spurious.

The first method is by the collation of other editions or manuscripts. If, in the examination of an ancient manuscript, a certain passage is found which is not met with in any other manuscripts of an anterior or a contemporary date, it is deduced from this collation that the passage is an interpolation by the writer of that particular manuscript, because if it were genuine and a part of the original writing it would have been found in all the older manuscripts, from one of which it must have been copied.

It is by this method of reasoning that the most eminent Biblical critics have arrived at the conclusion that the celebrated passage in the First Epistle General of St. John (v. 7) is an interpolation. Since it is not found in any of the earlier Greek manuscripts of the Epistle, it must, they argue, have been subsequently inserted, perhaps from a marginal commentary, either carelessly or designedly, by some later copyist whose error has been followed by all succeeding scribes. This is criticism from external evidence.

But there are other instances in which it is not possible to collate the book or manuscript which contains the suspected passage with others of an earlier date. Where there is but one copy extant there can, of course, be no comparison. In such cases it becomes necessary to determine whether the passage be genuine or spurious by what the critics call the method by internal evidence.

If the suspected passage is found to contain the expression of opinions which, we are led to believe from the known character of the author, he could not have uttered; or, if the statements which it sets forth are plainly in conflict with other statements made in the same work; or if it be found in a part of the work where it does not harmonize with the preceding and following portions of the context; or, in short, if the whole spirit and tenor of the other writings of the same author are in unmistaken opposition to the spirit and tenor of the passage under review; and, above all, if a reasonable motive can be suggested which may have given occasion to the interpolation, then the critic, guided by all or most of these reasons, will not hesitate to declare that the suspected passage is spurious; that it formed no part of the original book or manuscript, and that it is an interpolation made subsequent to the original composition. This is criticism from internal evidence.

It is by this method that the critics have been led to the conclusion that a certain passage in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus, in which he eulogizes Jesus, was not written, and could not have been written, by the Jewish historian. Not only does its insertion very awkwardly interrupt the continuity of the narrative in which the author was engaged at the time, but the sentiments of the passage are wholly irreconcilable with the character of Josephus. As a Pharisee, at least professedly, he was influenced by all the prejudices of his sect and his nation against the new sect of Christians and its founder. Such a man never could have vouched, as the writer of this passage does, for the Messiahship, the miraculous powers, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Hence it is now believed by nearly all scholars that the passage was interpolated as a "pious fraud" by some early Christian who was anxious to enlist in favor of his religion the authority of one of the most eminent of its adversaries.

It is now my purpose to apply these principles to an investigation of the only passage in the "General Regulations" which furnishes any evidence of the existence of the Third degree at the time when they were compiled.

As the copy of the "General Regulations" contained in Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 is the first edition; as the original manuscript copy is lost; and as there were no previously printed copies, it is impossible, through comparison and collation, to prove from external evidence that the passage referring to the Third degree is spurious.

We must then have recourse to the second method of critical investigation, that is, by internal evidence.

And submitted to this test, the suspected passage fails, I think, to maintain a claim to genuineness.

Although the first edition of the Constitutions is now readily accessible in consequence of its numerous reprints, still, for the sake of convenience to the reader, in the discussion I shall copy the whole of the paragraph in which the suspected passage is contained, marking that passage by italics.

The passage will be found in the first paragraph of Article XIII. of the "General Regulations," and is in these words:

"At the said Quarterly Communications, all Matters that concern the Fraternity in general, or particular Lodges or single Brothers, are quietly, sedately, and maturely to be discours'd of and transacted: Apprentices must be admitted Masters and FellowCraft only here unless by a Dispensatson. Here also all Differences that can not be made up and accommodated privately, nor by a particular Lodge, are to be seriously considered and decided; And if any Brother thinks himself aggrieved by the decision of this Board, he may appeal to the annual Grand Lodge next coming, and leave his Appeal in Writing, with the Grand Master or his Deputy, or the Grand Wardens."

Anyone not prepossessed with the theory of the antiquity of the Third degree who will look at this paragraph will, I think, be struck with the suspicious incongruity of the clause in italics in relation to the parts that precede and follow it. I will endeavor to demonstrate this point as follows:

The 13th Article of the "General Regulations" is divided into eight paragraphs. Each of these paragraphs is wholly independent and homogeneous in respect to its subject-matter. Each is devoted to the consideration of one subject only, to the exclusion of all others.

Thus the first paragraph relates to matters that concern lodges and private brethren, such as differences that can not be settled otherwise than by the Grand Lodge. The second paragraph relates to the returns of lodges and the mode and manner of making them. The third relates to the charity fund and the most effectual method of collecting and disposing of money for that purpose. The fourth to the appointment of a Treasurer and a Secretary for the Grand Lodge, and to their duties. The fifth to the appointment of a clerk for each of those officers. The sixth to the mode of inspecting their books and accounts. The seventh to the appointment of a Tiler to look after the door of the Grand Lodge. And the eighth provides for the making of a new regulation for the government of these officers whenever it may be deemed expedient.

Thus it will be seen, from this synopsis, that each of these paragraphs embraces but one subject. Whatever is begun to be treated at the opening of a paragraph is continued without interruption and without the admission of any other matter to its close.

This methodical arrangement has, in fact, been preserved throughout the whole of the thirty-nine "Regulations." No Regulation will be found which embodies the consideration of two different and irrelevant subjects.

So uniformly is this rule observed that it may properly be called a peculiar characteristic of the style of the writer, and a deviation from it becomes, according to the axioms of criticism, at once suspicious.

Now this deviation occurs only in the first paragraph of the 13th Article, the one which has been printed above.

That paragraph, as originally written, related to the disputes and difference which might arise between particular lodges and between single brethren, and prescribed the mode in which they should be settled when they could not "be made up and accommodated privately." Leaving out the lines which I have printed in italics, we will find that the paragraph is divided into three clauses, each separated from the other by a colon.

The first clause directs that all matters that concern the Fraternity in general, particular lodges or single brethren, "are quietly, sedately, and maturely to be discoursed of and transacted" in the Grand Lodge. It is to questions that might arise between lodges and brethren - questions which in modern phraseology are called grievances - that the clause evidently refers. And in the Grand Lodge only are such questions to be discussed, because it is only there that they can be definitely settled.

The second clause continues the same subject, and extends it to those differences of brethren which can not be accommodated privately by the lodges of which they are members.

And the third clause provides that if the decision made by the Grand Lodge at its Quarterly Communication is not satisfactory to the parties interested, it may be carried up, by appeal, to the Grand Lodge in its Annual Communication.

Now, it is evident that this whole paragraph is intended to explain the duties of the Quarterly Communication as a Board of Inquiry in respect to matters in dispute between lodges and between the Craft, and the paragraph itself calls the decision of the Grand Lodge on these occasions the "Decision of this Board."

Viewed in this way, this first paragraph of the 13th Article is entirely congruous in all its parts, refers to but one subject, and is a perfect specimen of the style adopted by the compiler and pursued by him in all the other portions of the "Regulations" without a single exception - a style plain, simple, and methodical, yet as marked and isolated from other styles as is the Doric roughness of Carlyle or the diffusiveness of De Quincey from the manner of composition of other authors in a more elevated class of literature.

But if we insert the passage printed in italics between the first and second clauses, we will at once see the incongruity which is introduced by the interpolation.

Placed as it is between the first and second clauses, it breaks the continuity of the subject. A regulation which refers to the differences and disputes among the Craft, and the mode of settling them, is disjointed and interrupted by another one relating to an entirely different subject - namely, the initiation of Master Masons and Fellow-Crafts.

What has the subject of initiation to do with that of fraternal or lodge disputes? Why should a regulation relating to degrees be mixed up with another of a totally distinct and different character?

Judging, as we are not only authorized but compelled, as critical observers, to do, from the style of the compiler of the "Regulations" and the uniform custom pursued by him, we feel certain that if this passage formed a genuine part of the "Regulations," he would have placed it in an independent paragraph. That this has not been done affords a strong presumption that the passage is an interpolation, and that it formed no part of the "Regulations" when compiled about the year 1720, most probably by Grand Master Payne, at the same time that he compiled the "Charges" printed in the same volume.

Still more suspicious is the fact that except in this passage there is not in the "General Regulations" the slightest allusion to Master Masons or to the Master's degree. As has already been shown, the whole spirit and tenor of the "Regulations" is to the effect that the highest grade in Freemasonry at that time, and the one from which all officers were to be selected, was that of Fellow-Craft. It is impossible to believe that if, at the time of the preparation of the "Regulations" and their approval by the Grand Lodge, the degree of Master Mason was in existence, it would have been passed over in such complete silence, and all important matters referred to a subordinate degree.

Hence I again deduce the conclusion that at the time of the compiling of these "Regulations" and their approval by the Grand Lodge, the Third degree was not in existence as a part of Speculative Masonry.

And then I assume as a logical deduction from these premises that the clause in the first paragraph of the 13th General Regulation is an interpolation inserted in those "Regulations" between the time of their being approved and the time of their final passage through the press.

It is barely possible that the suspected clause may have been inserted in the copy presented to the Grand Lodge on March 25, 1722, for examination and approval, and have escaped the attention of the reviewers from the fact that it was obscurely placed in the center of a paragraph relating to an entirely different subject. Or the Committee may have concurred with Desaguliers and Anderson in the policy of anticipating the control of the degree when it should be presented to the Craft, by an ante factum regulation.

Be that as it may, the passage formed neither then nor at any time thereafter a genuine part of the "General Regulations," although from its appearance in the printed copies it was as a mere matter of course accepted as a part of the law. It was, however, soon afterward repealed and a regulation was adopted on November 22, 1725, which remitted to the Master and Wardens, with a competent number of the lodge, the power of making Masters and Fellows at discretion.

The questions next arise, by whom, at what time, and for what purpose was this interpolation inserted ?

By whom ? I answer, by Anderson at the instigation of Desaguliers, under whose direction and with whose assistance the former had compiled the first edition of the Book of Constitutions. (1)

At what time ? This question is more difficult to answer than the preceding one. At the communication of the Grand Lodge, September 29, 1721, Anderson was ordered to prepare the Book of Constitutions. On December 27, 1721, the manuscript was presented to the Grand Lodge and referred to a committee. On March 25, 1722, the Committee reported and the work was ordered to be printed. On January 17, 1723, Anderson produced the new Book of Constitutions, which was again approved, "with the addition of the Ancient manner of constituting a lodge."

Now, between September, 1721, when the book was ordered to be prepared, and March, 1722, when the work was approved and ordered to be printed, the passage could not have existed as a regulation, because, in the first place, it was directly antagonistic to the body of the work, in which there is no mention of the Third degree; (2) but, on the contrary, it is distinctly stated that the FellowCrafts were in possession of all the secrets, and they alone could understand them. (3) And, secondly, any such regulation would come in direct conflict with the "Manner of Constituting a Lodge" approved at the same time, and which, completely ignoring the Master's degree, directed the Master and Wardens to be selected from among the Fellow-Crafts of the lodge. The Master's degree could not have been known at that time as a part of the system of

(1) This edition is dedicated to the Duke of Montague, not by Anderson, but by Desaguliers, with an air of patronage to the author, as if it were a work accomplished by his direction. (2) In describing the Temple of Solomon, Anderson, it is true, enumerates among the workmen " 3,600 Princes or Master Masons, to conduct the work according to Solomon's directions." (Page 10.) But it is very clear that these were simply "Masters of the Work" - the "Magistri Operis" of the old Operative Freemasons - skilled Craftsmen appointed to superintend the bands or lodges of workmen engaged in the construction of the building. (3) In a note on a page of the "Book of Constitutions," Anderson says: "No man can indeed understand it (Masonry) without the key of a Fellow- Craft." Certainly, he at that time knew nothing of a higher degree. This passage was probably written in 1721, when he was directed by the Grand Lodge to compile a "Book of Constitutions." Much of the proposed work was then in manuscript.

Freemasonry, and no regulation in reference to it was therefore necessary.

Anderson has by implication admitted the soundness of this reasoning, because when he published the second edition of the Constitution in 1738, the Third degree being then a recognized part of the system, he changed the words "Fellow Crafts" whereever they occurred in the "Charges," as indicating the highest degree in the "Regulations," and in the "Manner of Constituting a Lodge," to the words "Master Mason."

I think, therefore, that the suspected clause was inserted in the 13th Regulation at the beginning of the year 1723, just before the work was issued from the press. There was neither time nor opportunity to make any other changes in the book and its appendices, and therefore this clause stands in reference to all the other parts of the Constitutions, Regulations, etc., in all the incongruity which I have endeavored to demonstrate.

For what purpose? The reply to this question will involve the determination of the time at which the Third degree was introduced into the ritual of Freemasonry. The theory which I present on this subject is as follows:

If the suspected clause which has been under consideration be admitted to be no genuine part of the Book of Constitutions, then it must follow that there is not the slightest evidence of the existence of the Third degree in the Ritual of Speculative Masonry up to the year 1723.

It is now very generally admitted that the arrangement of Freemasonry into the present system of three degrees was the work of Dr. Desaguliers, assisted by Anderson, Payne, and perhaps some other collaborators. The perfecting of this system was of very slow growth. At first there was but the one degree, which had been derived from the Operative Masons of preceding centuries. This was the degree practiced in 1717, when the so- called "Revival" took place. It was no doubt improved by Desaguliers, who was Grand Master in 1719, and who probably about that time began his ritualistic experiments. The fact that Payne, in 1718, "desired any brethren to bring to the Grand Lodge any old writings and records concerning Masons and Masonry in order to shew the usages of antient times," (1) exhibits a disposition and preparation for improvement.

(1) "Book of Constitutions," 2d edition, 1738.

The First and Second degrees had been modeled out of the one primitive degree about the year 1719. The "Charges" compiled in 1720 by Grand Master Payne recognize the Fellow-Craft as the leading degree and the one from which the officers of lodges and of the Grand Lodge were to be selected. The same recognition is found in the "General Regulations," and in the Constitutions which were printed in 1723.

Up to this time we find no notice of the Third degree. The "particular lodges " conferred only the First degree. Admission or initiation into the Second degree was done in the Grand Lodge. This was perhaps owing to the fact that Desaguliers and the inventors of the new degree were unwilling to place it out of their immediate control, lest improper persons might be admitted or the ceremonies be imperfectly performed.

In 1722 I imagine that Desaguliers and his collaborators had directed their attention to a further and more complete organization.

The Operative Masons had always had three different ranks or classes of workmen, but not degrees in the modern Masonic sense of that word. These were the Masters, who undertook the work and superintended it; the Fellow-Crafts or Journeymen, who did the manual labor; and the Apprentices, who were engaged in acquiring a knowledge of their handicraft.

After the "Revival," in 1717 (I use the term under protest), Desaguliers had divided the one degree which had been common to the three classes into two, making the degrees of Entered Apprentice and Fellow-Craft. It is not to be supposed that this was a mere division of the esoteric instruction into two parts. All is here, of course, mere guess-work. The rituals were oral, and there is no memorial of them left except what we can learn from The Grand Mystery and the Sloane MS. 3329. But we may believe that taking the primitive degree of the Operatives as a foundation, there was built upon it an enlarged superstructure of ceremonies and lectures. The catechism of the degree was probably changed and improved, and the "Mason Word," as the Operatives had called it, with the secrets connected with it, was transferred to the Second degrees to be afterward again transferred to the Third degree.

After this, Desaguliers continued to exercise his inventive genius, and consummated the series of degrees by adding one to be appropriated to the highest class, or that of the Masters. But not having thoroughly perfected the ritual of the degree until after the time of publication of the Book of Constitutions, it was not probably disseminated among the Craft until the year 1723.

The Second degree, as we have seen, had been invented in the year 1719. Its ritual had been completed, but the Masters of the lodges had not yet become so well acquainted with its forms and ceremonies as to be capable of managing an initiation.

The lodges, therefore, between 1719 and 1723, did not confer the Second degree. They were not restricted from so doing by any regulation, for there were no regulations on the subject enacted until the approval of the Book of Constitutions by the Grand Lodge in January, 1723. Besides, if there had been any law restricting the conferring of the Second degree lo the Grand Lodge, Desaguliers would not have violated the law, which was of his own making, by conferring it in 1721 in a lodge in Edinburgh.

The fact undoubtedly is, that the lodges did not confer the Second degree in consequence of a usage derived from necessity. Dr. Desaguliers and his collaborators were the only persons in possession of the ritual, and therefore qualified to confer the degree, which they always did in the Grand Lodge, for two reasons: first, for their own convenience, and secondly, because they feared that if the ceremony of initiation was intrusted to the officers of the lodges who were inexperienced and unskillful, it might be mutilated or unsatisfactorily performed.

In the meantime Desaguliers had extended his labors as a ritualmaker, and had invented a supplementary or Third degree. But as is said of a cardinal whose appointment the Pope has made but has not yet announced to the college of Cardinals, the degree was still in petto. The knowledge of it was confined to Dr. Desaguliers and a few of his friends.

It is absolutely impossible that the degree could have been known generally to the members of the Grand Lodge. For with the knowledge that the establishment of such a degree was even in contemplation, they would not have approved a series of regulations which recognized throughout the Second or Fellow-Craft as the highest degree in Speculative Freemasonry, and the one from which Grand Masters were in future to be selected.

But a code of laws was about to be established for the government of the Craft - a code expressly appropriated to the new system of Speculative Freemasonry, which by this time had completely dissevered itself from the Operative institution.

This code was to be published for the information of the Fraternity, so that every Freemason might know what was to be henceforth his duties and his rights. Law was now to become paramount to usage, and if there were no positive regulation which restricted the conferring of the Second degree to the Grand Lodge, it would, if permanently adopted as a part of the new system, fall into the hands of the Masters of the particular lodges.

This was an evil which, for the reason already assigned, was, if possible, to be avoided. It would also apply to the Third degree, which, though not yet in practical existence, was, soon after the adoption of the "General Regulations," to be presented to the Grand Lodge and put in working order.

Therefore, anticipating the dissemination of the Third degree, and being desirous to restrict it as well as the Second, by a positive law, to the Grand Lodge, he, with Anderson, interpolated, at the last moment, into the 13th of the "General Regulations" the words, "Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow-Craft only here, unless by dispensation."

This is a serious charge to make against any writer of good reputation, and it would be an act of great temerity to do so, unless there were ample proof to sustain it. But I think the arguments I have advanced, though only based on legitimate inferences and the internal evidence afforded by the document itself, have shown that this passage could never have formed a part of the "Regulations" as originally compiled by Payne and afterward approved and adopted by the Grand Lodge.

But while we pay all due respect to the memory of Dr. Anderson, and hold in grateful remembrance his zeal and devotion in the foundation and advancement of Speculative Freemasonry, it is impossible to concede to him the possession of those virtues of accuracy and truthfulness which are essential to the character of an historian.

The motive of Desaguliers and Anderson for inserting the interpolated clause into the "General Regulations" was to prevent the two new degrees from falling into the hands of unskilled Masters of lodges, until by future experience they should become qualified to confer them.

(Facsimile reprint from the original edition of the "Book of Constitutions.")

THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE FREE-MASONS.

CONTAINING THE

History, Charges, Regulations, &c. of that most Ancient and Right Worshipful FRATERNITY

For the Use of the LODGES.

LONDON: Printed by WILLIAM HUNTER, for JOHN SENEX at the Globe, and JOHN HOOKE at the Flower-de-luce over-against St. Dunstan's Church, in Fleet-Street.

In the Year of Masonry 5723 Anno Domini 1723

THE

CONSTITUTION.

History, Laws, Charges, Orders, Regulations, and Usages,

OF THE Right Worshipful FRATERNITY of

Accepted Free MASONS;

COLLECTED

From their generaI RECORDS, and their faithful TRADITIONS of many Ages.

TO BE READ

At the Admission of a NEW BROTHER, when the Master or Warden shall begin, or order some other Brother to read as follows:

ADAM, our first Parent, created after the Image of God, the great Architect of the Universe, must have had the Liberal Sciences, particularly Geometry, written on his Heart; for even since the Fall, we find the Principles of it in the Hearts of his Offspring, and which, in process of time, have been drawn forth into con

(49) THE CHARGES OF A

FREE-MASON,

EXTRACTED FROM The ancient RECORDS of LODGES beyond Sea, and of those in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the use of the Lodges in LONDON:

TO BE READ

At the making of NEW BRETHREN, or when the MASTER shall order it.

The General Reads, viz.

I. Of GOD and RELIGION

II. Of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE Supreme and Subordinate.

III. Of LODGES.

IV. Of MASTERS, Wardens, Fellows, and Apprentices.

V. Of the Management of the Craft in working

VI. Of BEHAVIOUR, viz.

1. In the Lodge while constituted.

2. After the Lodge is over and the Brethren not gone.

3. When Brethren meet without Strangers, but not in a Lodge

4. In Presence of Strangers not Masons.

5. At Home, and in the Neighbourhood

6. Towards a strange Brother,

(50)

I Cocerning GOD and RELIGION.

A Mason is oblig'd, by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be-distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.

II. Of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE Supreme and Subordinate.

A Mason is a peaceable 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 dispos'd to encourage the Craftsmen, because of their Peaceableness and Loyalty, whereby they practically answer'd the Cavils of their Adversaries, and promoted the Honour of the Fraternity, who ever flourish'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 or 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.

(51)

III. Of LODGES.

A LODGE is Place where Masons assemble and work: Hence that Assembly, or duly organizd Society of Masons, is call'd a Lodge, and every Brother ought to belong to one, and to be subject to its By-Laws and the GENERAL REGULATIONS. It is either particular or general, and will be left understood by attending it, and by the Regulations of the General or Grand Lodge hereunto annex'd. In ancient Times, no Master or Fellow could be absent from it, especially when warn'd to appear at it, without incurring a severe Censure, until it appear'd to the Master and Wardens, that pure Necessity hinder'd him.

The Persons admitted Members of a Lodge must be good and tre Men, free-born, and of mature and discreet Age, no Bondmen, no Women, no immoral or scandalous Men, but of good Report.

IV Of MASTERS, WARDENS, FELLOWS, and Apprentices.

All Preferment among Masons is grounded upon real Worth and personal Merit only; that so the Lords may be well served, the Brethren not put to Shame, nor the Royal Craft despis'd: Therefore no Master or Warden is chosen by Seniority, but for his Merit. It is impossible to describe these things in writing, and every Brother must attend in his Place, and learn them in a way peculiar to this Fraternity: Only Candidates may know, that no Master should take an Apprentice, unless he has sufficient Imployment for him, and unless he be a perfect Youth, having no Maim or Defect in his Body, that may render him uncapable of learning the Art, of Serving his Master's LORD, and of being made a Brother, and then a Fellow-Craft in due time, even after he has served such a Term of Years as the Custom of the Country directs; and that be should be descended of honest Parents; that so, when otherwise qualify'd he may arrive to the Honour of being the WARDEN, and then the Master of the Lodge, the Grand Warden, and at length GRAND MASTER of all the Lodges according to his Merit.

(52)

No Brother can be a WARDEN until he has passd the part of a Fellow- Craft; nor a MASTER until he has acted as a Warden, nor a GRAND- WARDEN until he has been Master of a Lodge, nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow-Craft before his Election, who is also to be nobly born, or a Gentleman of the best Fashion, or some eminent Scholar, or some curious Architect, or other Artist, descended of honest Parents, and who is of singular great Merit in the Opinion of the Lodges. And for the better, and easier, and more by honourable Discharge of his Office, the Grand-Master has a Power to chuse his own DEPUTY GRAND-MASTER, who must be then, or must have been formerly, the Master of a particular Lodge, and has the Privilege of acting whatever the GRAND-MASTER, his Principal, should act, unless the said Principal be Present, or interpose his Authority by a Letter.

These Rulers and Governors, Supreme and Subordinate, of the ancient Lodge, are to be obey'd in their respective Stations by all the Brethren, according to the old Charges and Regulations, with all Humility, Reverance, Love, and Alacrity.

V. Of the Management of the CRAFT in working

All Masons shall work honestly on working Days, that they may live creditably on holy Day; and the time appointed by the Law of the Land, or confirm'd by Custom, shall be observ'd;

The most expert of the Fellow-Craftsmen shall be chosen or appointed the Master, or Overseer of the Lord's Work; who is to be call'd MASTER by those that work under him. The Craftsman are to avoid all ill Language, and to call each other by no disobliging Name, but Brother or Fellow; and to behave themselves courteously within and without the Lodge.

The Master, knowing himself to be able of Cunning, shall undertake the Lord's Work as reasonably as possible, and truly dispend his Goods as if they were his.own; nor to give more Wages to any Brother or Apprentice than he really may deserve.

Both the Master and the Masons receiving their Wages justly, shall be faithful to the Lord, and honesty finish their Work, whether Task

(53)

or Journey, nor put the Work to Task that hath been acoustom'd to Journey.

None shall discover Envy at the Prosperity of a Brother, nor supplant him, or put him out of his Work, if he be capable to finish the fame; for no Man can finish another's Work so much to the Lord's Profit, unless he be thoroughly acquainted with the Designs and Draughts of him that began it.

When a Fellow-Craftsman is chosen Warden of the Work under the Master, he shall be true both to Master and Fellows, shall carefully oversee the Work in the Masters Absence to the Lord's Profit; and his Brethren shall obey him.

All Masons employ'd, shall meekly receive their Wages without Murmuring or Mutiny, and not desert the Master till the Work is finish'd.

A younger Brother shall be instructed in working, to prevent spoiling the Materials for want of Judgment, and for encreasing and continuing of Brotherly Love.

All the Tools used in working shall be approved by the Grand Lodge.

No Labourer shall be employ'd in the proper Work of Masonry; nor shall Free Masons work with those that are not free, without an urgent Necessity; nor shall they teach Labourers and unaccepted Masons, as they should teach a Brother or Fellow.

VI. Of BEHAVIOUR, VIZ.

1. In the Lodge while constituted.

You are not to hold private Committees, or Separate Conversation, without Leave from the Master, nor to talk of anything impertinent or unseemly, nor interrupt the Master or Wardens, or any Brother speaking to the Master: Nor behave yourself ludicrously or priestingly while the Lodge is engaged in what is serious and solemn; nor use any unbecoming Language upon any Pretence whatsoever;

(54)

but to pay due Reverence to your Master, Wardens and Fellows, and put them to worship

If any Complaint be brought, the Brother find guilty shall stand to the Award and Determination of the Lodge, who are the proper and competent Judges of all such Controversies, (unless you carry it by Appeal to the GRAND LODGE) and to whom they ought to be referr'd, unless a Lord's Work be hinder'd the mean while, in which Cafe a particular Reference may be made; but you must never go to Law about what concerneth Masonry, without an absolute Necessity apparent to the Lodge.

2. Behaviour after the LODGE is over and the Brethren not gone.

You may enjoy yourselves with innocent Mirth, treating one another according to Ability, but avoiding all Excess, or forcing any brother to eat or drink beyond his Inclinations or hindering him from going when his Occasions call him, or doing or saying anything offensive, or that may forbid an easy and free Conversation; for that would blast our Harmony, and defeat our laudable purposes. Therefore no Private Piques or Quarrels must be brought within the Door of the Lodge, far less any Quarrels about Religion, or Nations, or State Policy, we being only, as Masons, of the Catholick Religion above-mention'd; we are also of all Nations, Tongues, Kindreds, and Languages, and are resolv'd against all politicks, as what never yet conduc'd to the Welfare of the Lodge, nor ever will. This Charge has been always strictly enjoin'd and observ'd; but especially ever since the Reformation in BRITAIN, or the Different and Secession of these Nations from the Communion of ROME.

3. Behaviour when Brethren meet without Strangers, but not in a Lodge form'd

You are to salute one another in a courteous manner, as you will be instructed, calling each other Brother, freely giving mutual Instruction as shall be thought expedient, without being overseen or over

(55)

heard, and without encroaching upon each other, or derogating from that respect which is due to any brother, were he not a Mason: For though all Masons are as Brethren upon the same Level, yet Masonry takes no Honour from a Man that he had before; nay rather it adds to his Honour, especially if he has deferv'd well of the Brotherhood, who must give Honour to whom it is due, and avoid ill Manners.

4. Behaviour in Presence of STRANGERS not Masons.

You shall be cautious in your Words and Carriage, that the most penetrating stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not proper to be intimated; and sometimes you shall divert a Discourse, and manage it prudently for the Honour of the worshipful Fraternity.

5. Behaviour at HOME, and in your Neighbourhood.

You are to act as becomes a moral and wise Man; particularly, not to let your Family, Friends and Neighbours know the Concerns of the Lodge, &c. but wisely to consult your own Honour, and that of the ancient Brotherbood, for Reasons not to be mention'd here. You must also consult your Health, by not continuing together too late, or too long from home, after Lodge Hours are past; and by avoiding of Gluttony or Drunkenness, that your Families be not neglected or injured, nor you disabled from working.

6. Behaviour towards a strange Brother

You are cautiously to examine him, in such a Method as Prudence shall direct you, that you may not be impos'd upon by an ignorant false Pretender, whom you are to reject with Contempt and Derision, and beware of giving him any Hints of Knowledge.

But 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

(56)

him some Days, or else recommend him to be employ'd. But you are not charged to do 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.

FINALLLY, All these Charges you are to observe, and also those that shall be communicated to you in another way; cultivating BROTHERLY LOVE, the Foundation and Cape-stone, the Cement and Glory of this ancient Fraternity, avoiding all wrangling and Quarrelling, all Slander and Backbiting, nor permitting others to slander any honest Brother, but defending his Character, and doing him all good Offices, as far as is confident with your Honour and Safety, and no farther. And if any of them do you Injury, you must apply to your own or his lodge; and from thence you may appeal to the GRAND LODGE at the Quarterly Communications and from thence to the annual GRAND LODGE, as has been the ancient laudable Conduct of our forefathers in every Nation; never taking a legal Course but when the Case cannot be otherwise decided, and patiently listening to the honest and friendly Advice of Master and Fellows, when they would prevent your going to Law with Strangers, or would excite you to put a speedy Period to all Law-Suits, that so you may mind the Affair of MASONRY with the more Alacrity and Success; but with respect to Brother or Fellows at Law, the Master and Brethren should kindly offer their Mediation, which ought to be thankfully submitted to by the contending Brethren; and if that Submission is impracticable, they must however carry on their Process, or Law-Suit, without Wrath and Rancor (not in the common way) saying or doing nothing which may hinder Brotherly Love, and good Offices to be renew'd and continu'd; that all may see the benign Influence of MASONRY, as all true Masons have done from the Beginning of the World, and will do to the End of Time.

Amen so mote it be

They were not long, it appears, in becoming qualified, or at least the doubts of their qualification were soon dispelled, for we find that on the 22d of November, 1725, less than three years after its appearance in the Book of Constitutions, the Regulation was rescinded, and it was ordered by the Grand Lodge that "the Master of a lodge, with his Wardens and a competent number of the lodge assembled in due form, can make Masters and Fellows at discretion." (1)

It might be argued that although the words "Master Mason" may be an interpolation, the rule regulating the conferring of the Second degree might well have formed a part of the original "Regulations," seeing that they were not compiled until after the invention of the Second degree.

But the argument founded on the incongruity of subjects and the awkward interruption of their continuity in the paragraph occasioned by the insertion of the suspected words, is applicable to the whole passage. If the internal evidence advanced is effective against a single word of the passage on these grounds, it is effective against all.

But Bro. Lyon, in his History of the Lodge of Edinburgh, (2) has supplied us with an authentic document, which presents the strongest presumptive evidence of three facts. 1. That the Second degree had been invented before the year 1721, and at that time constituted a part of the new Speculative system. 2. That in the English lodges there was no positive law forbidding the conferring of it by them, but only a recognized usage. 3. That in the year 1721 the Third degree had not been invented.

In the year 1721 Dr. Desaguliers paid a visit to Edinburgh and placed himself in communication with the Freemasons of that city.

A record of the most important Masonic event that occurred during that visit is preserved in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh for the 24th and 25th of August, 1721. This record has been published by Bro. Lyon in his history of that lodge. It is in the following words:

"Att Maries chapped the 24 of August, 1721 years, James Wattson, present deacon of the Masons of Edinbr., Preses. The which day Doctor John Theophilus Desaguliers, fellow of the Royall Societie, and chaplain in Ordinary to his Grace, James, Duke of Chandois. late Generall Master of the Mason Lodges in England,

(1) Anderson's "Constitutions," 2d edition, p. 161. (2) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 151.

being in town and desirous to have a conference with the Deacon, Warden, and Master Masons of Edinbr., which was accordingly granted, and finding him duly qualified in all points of Masonry, they received him as a Brother into their Societie."

"Likeas, upon the 25th day of the sd. moneth the Deacon, Wardens, Masters, and several other members of the Societie, together with the sd. Doctor Desaguliers, haveing mett att Maries Chapell, there was a supplication presented to them by John Campbell, Esqr., Lord Provost of Edinbr., George Preston and Hugh Hathorn, Baillies; James Nimo, the asurer; William Livingston, Deacon-convener of the Trades thereof, and George Irving, Clerk to the Dean of Guild Court, and humbly craving to be admitted members of the sd. Societie; which being considered by them, they granted the desire thereof, and the saids honourable persons were admitted and receaved Entered Apprentices and Fellow-Crafts accordingly."

"And sicklike upon the 28th day of the said moneth there was another petition given in by Sr. Duncan Campbell of Lochnell, Barronet; Robert Wightman, Esqr., present Dean of Gild of Edr.; George Drummond, Esq., late Theasurer thereof; Archibald M'Aulay, late Bailly there; and Patrick Lindsay, merchant there, craveing the like benefit, which was also granted, and they were receaved as members of the societie as the other persons above mentioned. The same day James Key and Thomas Aikman, servants to James Wattson, deacon of the masons, were admitted and receaved entered apprentices, and payed to James Mack, Warden, the ordinary dues as such. Ro. Alison, Clerk."

I agree with Bro. Lyon that "there can be but one opinion as to the nature and object of Dr. Desaguliers's visit to the Lodge of Edinburgh." And that was the introduction into Scotland of the new system of Masonry recently fabricated by himself for the lodges of London. That he conferred only the First and Second degrees is to me satisfactory proof that the Third had not been arranged.

Lyon says "it is more than probable that on both occasions (the two meetings of the Lodge recorded above) the ceremony of entering and passing would, as far as the circumstances of the lodges would permit, be conducted by Desaguliers himself in accordance with the ritual he xvas anxious to introduce." (1)

(1) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 153.

This is undoubtedly true; but why did he not complete the instruction by conferring the Third degree ? Bro. Lyon's explanation here is wholly untenable:

"It was not," he says, "till 1722-23 that the English regulation restricting the conferring of the Third Degree to Grand Lodge was repealed. This may account for the Doctor confining himself to the two lesser degrees."

Bro. Lyon, usually so accurate, has here unaccountably fallen into two important errors.

First, the regulation alluded to was not repealed in 1723 but was only promulgated in that year. The repeal took place in 1725.

His next error is that the restriction was confined to the Third degree, while in fact, if we accept the passage in the "General Regulations" as genuine, it restricted, as we have seen, the conferring of both the Second and Third degrees to the Grand Lodge.

Therefore, if Desaguliers had considered himself as governed by this regulation (which, however, was impossible, seeing that it had not been enacted until after his visit to Edinburgh), he would have been restrained from conferring the Second as well as the Third degree.

That he conferred the Second degree in a lodge of Edinburgh, notwithstanding the usage in London of conferring it only in the Grand Lodge, may be accounted for on the very reasonable supposition that he did not consider that the English usage was binding on Scottish Masons.

Besides, there was, at that time, no Grand Lodge in Scotland, and if he had not conferred the degree in a lodge, the object of his visit would have been frustrated, and that was to introduce into the sister kingdom the new system of Speculative Freemasonry which he had invented and which had been just adopted in England or rather in London.

But that he should have taken a long and arduous journey to Edinburgh (a journey far more arduous than it is in the present day of railroads) for the purpose of introducing into the Scotch lodges the ritual invented by him for English Freemasonry, and yet have left the task uncompleted by omitting to communicate the most important part of the degree which was at the summit, is incomprehensible, unless we suppose that the Third degree had not, at that time, been invented.

For if the language of the "General Regulations" receives the only interpretation of which they are capable, it is evident that in the beginning of the year 1723, when they were published in the Book of Constitutions, the degree of Fellow-Craft was the highest degree known to the Freemasons of London.

It is the belief of all Masonic scholars, except a few who still cling with more or less tenacity to the old legends and traditions, that the Third degree can not be historically traced to a period earlier than the second decade of the 18th century. It has not, however, been hitherto attempted by anyone, so far as I am aware, to indicate the precise time of its invention.

The general opinion seems to have been that it was first introduced into the ritual of Speculative Freemasonry a very short time after the organization of the Grand Lodge in London, in the year 1717. But I think that I have conclusively and satisfactorily proved that the actual period of its introduction as a working degree was not until six years afterward, namely, in the year 1723, and after the publication of the first edition of the Book of Constitutions, and that the only passage referring to it in that work or in the "General Regulations" appended to it, was surreptitiously inserted in anticipation of its intended introduction.

The first writer who questioned the antiquity of the Third degree as conferred under the Grand Lodge was Laurence Dermott, the Grand Secretary, and afterward the Deputy Grand Master of that body of Freemasons which, in the year 1753, seceded from the legal Grand Lodge of England and constituted what is known in Masonic history as the "Grand Lodge of Ancients," the members thus distinguishing themselves from the constitutional Grand Lodge, which they stigmatized as "Moderns." In the second edition of the Ahiman Rezon, published in 1764, he has, in the part called "A Philacteria," the following statement in reference to the Third degree: (1)

"About the year 1717 some joyous companions who had passed the degree of a craft (though very rusty) resolved to form a lodge for themselves, in order (by conversation) to recollect what had been formerly dictated to them, or, if that should be found impracticable, to substitute something new, which might for the future

(1) This statement is not contained in the 1st edition, published in 1756.

pass for Masonry amongst themselves. At this meeting the question was asked, whether any person in the assembly knew the Master's part, and being answered in the negative, it was resolved nem. con. that the deficiency should be made up with a new composition, and what fragments of the old order found amongst them, should be immediately reformed and made more pliable to the humours of the people."

I should be unwilling to cite the unsupported testimony of Dermott for anything in reference to the "Modern" because of his excessive partisan spirit. But the extract just given may be considered simply as confirming all the evidence heretofore produced, that after the year 1717 a "Master's part" or Third degree had been fabricated. Dermott's details, which were intended as a sneer upon the Constitution Grand Lodge, should pass for nothing.

As for Dermott's assertion that the true Master's degree, as it existed before the Revival, was in the possession of the Grand Lodge of the Ancients, as it was called, it is not only false, but absolutely absurd, for if the Ancients were in possession of a Third degree which had been in existence before the year 1717, and the Moderns were not, where did the former get it, since they sprang out of the latter and carried with them only the knowledge which they possessed as a part of that Grand Lodge ?

Dr. Oliver, notwithstanding his excessive credulity in respect to the myths and legends of Freemasonry, has from time to time in his various writings expressed his doubts as to "the extreme antiquity of the present arrangement of the three degrees." (1) In one of his latest works (2) he admits that Desaguliers and Anderson were accused of the fabrication of the Hiramic legend and of the manufacture of the degree by their seceding contemporaries, which accusation, he says, they did not deny. (3)

Findel says: "Originally, it seems, there was but one degree ot initiation in the year 1717. . . . The introduction of the degrees of Fellow-Craft and Master Mason took place in so imperceptible

(1) State of Freemasonry in the 18th Century. Introduction to his edition of Hutchinson. (2) "The Freemason's Treasury," Spencer, 1863. (3) This is an example of the carelessness with which Masonic writers were accustomed to make their statements. The "seceding contemporaries" of Oliver consisted simply of Laurence Dermott, who first made the accusation, and when he made it, both Desaguliers and Anderson were dead.

a manner, that we do not know the accurate date. No mention is made of them before 1720, even not yet in the Book of Constitutions of 1722. (1)

I do not, however, concur with this learned German writer in his hypothesis that the Third degree originated as a reward for Masonic merits, especially to be conferred on all the brethren who had passed the chair from 1717 to 1720. Doubtless, as soon as it was invented it was conferred on all who were or had been Masters of lodges, but Findel places too low an estimate on the design of the degree. I think rather that it was intended by Desaguliers to develop the religious and philosophic sentiment in Speculative Freemasonry which it was his intention to establish. It is probable that the "eloquent Oration about Masons and Masonry," which Anderson tells us he delivered before the Grand Lodge in 1721, but which is unfortunately lost, contained a foreshadowing of hls views on this subject.

Bro. Hughan, who is of the very highest authority on all points of the documentary history of English Masonry, settles the question in the following remarks: (2)

"The sublime degree of a Master Mason, alias the 'Third degree,' may be very ancient, but, so far, the evidence respecting its history goes no farther back than the early part of the last century. Few writers on the subject appear to base their observations on facts, but prefer the 'traditions' (so called) derived from old Masons. We, however, give the preference to the minutes and bylaws of lodges, as all of which we have either seen, traced, or obtained copies of, unequivocally prove the degree of Master Mason to be an early introduction of the Revivalists of A.D. 1717. No record prior to the second decade of the last century ever mentions Masonic degrees, and all the MSS. preserved decidedly confirm us in the belief that in the mere Operative (although partly speculative) career of Freemasonry the ceremony of reception was of a most unpretentious and simple character, mainly for the communication of certain lyrics and secrets, and for the conservation of ancient customs of the craft."

Hughan cites a MS. (No. 23,202) in the British Museum showing that the rules of a Musical and Architectural Society formed in

(1) "History of Freemasonry," Lyon's Translation, p. 150. (2) See Voice of Masonry for August, 1873.

February, 1724, in London, required its members to be Master Masons. This might be, and yet the degree not have been fabricated until January, 1723.

He also cites the minutes of a lodge held at Lincoln (England). From these minutes it appears that in December, 1734, the body of the lodge consisted of Fellow-Crafts; and when the "two new Wardens, as well as several other Brothers of the lodge, well qualified and worthy of the degree of Master had not been called thereto," the Master directed a lodge of Masters to be held for the purpose of admitting these candidates to the Third degree.

Hence, as Bro. Hughan says, the lodge at that time worked the degree only at intervals. And he concludes, I think, correctly, that as there was a rule prescribing the fee when a "Brother made in another lodge shall be passed Master in this," that "all lodges had not authority or did not work the degree in question." I suppose they had the authority but not the ability.

All this shows that the Third degree in 1734 was yet in its infancy.

The provision contained in the "General Regulations," which restricted the conferring of the Second and Third degrees to the Grand Lodge was rescinded on November 22, 1725, and yet we see that nine years afterward the Third degree was not conferred in all the lodges.

It is a singular circumstance that in 1731, when the Duke of Lorraine was made a Mason in a special lodge held at the Hague, notwithstanding that Desaguliers presided over it, he received only the First and Second degrees, and came afterward to England to have the Third conferred upon him.

The first evidence of the Third degree being conferred in Scotland is in the minutes of Canongate Kilwinning Lodge in a minute dated March 31, 1735. (1)

The degree is first referred to in the minutes of St. Mary's Chapel Lodge under the date of November 1, 1738, when George Drummond, Esq., an Entered Apprentice, "was past a Fellow-Craft and also raised as a Master Mason in due form." (2)

According to Bro. Lyon, possession of the Third degree was not at this period a necessary qualification to a seat in the Grand

(1) Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 213. (2) Ibid., p. 212.

Lodge of Scotland. For thirty years after its introduction into Mary's Chapel it conferred no rights in the management of the lodge that were not possessed by Fellow-Crafts.

It was not, in fact, until the year 1765 that Master Masons alone were qualified to hold office.

Continental Speculative Masonry having derived its organized existence from the Grand Lodge of England, must necessarily have borrowed its forms and ceremonies and ritual from the same source, and consequently received the Third degree at a still later period.

From all that has been said, I think that we are fairly entitled to deduce the following conclusions:

1. When the four old Lodges of London met on June 24, 1717, at the "Goose and Gridiron Tavern" and organized the Grand Lodge of England, there was but one degree known to the Craft, to the esoteric instructions of which all Freemasons were entitled.

2. Between 1717 and 1720, in which latter year the "Charges" and probably the "General Regulations" were compiled by Grand Master Payne, a severance of this primitive degree into two parts was effected, and the Second or Fellow-Craft's degree was fabricated, the necessary result being that what was left of the primitive degree, with doubtless some modifications and even additions, was constituted as the Entered Apprentice's degree.

3. A Third degree, called that of the Master Mason, was subsequently fabricated so as to complete the series of three degrees of Speculative Masonry as it now exists.

4. The Third degree, as an accomplished fact, was not fabricated before the close of the year 1722, and was not made known to the Craft, or worked as a degree of the new system, until the beginning of 1723.

5. The inventor or fabricator of this series of degrees was Dr. John Theophilus Desaguliers, assisted by Anderson and probably a few other collaborators, among whom I certainly would not omit the learned antiquary, George Payne, who had twice been Grand Master.

In coming to these conclusions I omit all reference to the Legend of the Third Degree as to the time or place when it was concocted, and whether it was derived by Desaguliers, as has been asserted, from certain Jewish rabbinical writers, or whether its earliest form is to be found in certain traditions of the mediaeval Stonemasons.

Masonic Secrets recommends the following sites:

Secrets of Masons

Masonic Secrets Revealed

Real Magick - The Occult Library

Occult 100 Top Sites

Masonic Secrets

Chapters in Part 2

Back to Masonic Secrets Revealed

Masonic Secrets recommends the following sites:

Sacred-Magick.Com: The Esoteric Library

Real Magick - The Occult Library