The History of Freemasonry

by Albert Gallatin Mackey

Chapter 48 - Origin of The Royal Arch

NO event in the history of Speculative Freemasonly has had so important an influence upon its development, as a system of symbolism, as the invention of the Royal Arch degree and its introduction into the Masonic ritual.

It is evident that the limitation of the system to three degrees, terminating in the "Master's part," left the cycle of symbolism in as incomplete a condition as would be a novel with the last chapter unwritten.

The ritual, as it was devised and presented to the Craft in the beginning of the 18th century, when the Speculative element was wholly dissevered from the Operative, was an immature conception of its inventors, and was marked by the imperfections and deficiencies which are always attendant on immaturity.

Accepting the meagre ritual, principally intended to embody merely methods of recognition, Desaguliers and his collaborators had gradually extended it, first by the development of the one simple degree, which had been common to the whole body of the Craft, into two and finally into three degrees.

Here, unfortunately, they desisted from further labors in the construction of a ritual. The experiment had so far been successful. It had given renewed vitality to an institution which had long languished; it had excited the curiosity and gained the support of many who had hitherto felt no interest in the ruder system of the Operative lodges; and it had placed the society upon a much higher plane than that which it formerly occupied before the absolute disseverance of the two elements of which it was composed.

It is much to be regretted that the experiment of fabricating a ritual so prudently begun, and which was so successful in its results, had not been continued, and the Third degree been supplemented by a Fourth that should have given perfection to the symbolic scheme.

What was precisely the ritual of the Master's degree as fabricated by Desaguliers, Payne, Anderson, and their contemporaries, it is impossible for us to know. The knowledge of facts which has been only orally transmitted are often lost in the lapse of time; tradition is scarcely ever unchanged; and when there is no written record to guide our inquiries, we necessarily grope in the dark.

The Masonic system of symbolism as now constituted presents us with a triple series of antagonisms - that of ignorance and knowledge; that of darkness and light; and that of loss and recovery.

With the first and second of these antagonisms we have nothing here to do. It is the last only that interests us in the present connection.

The antagonism of loss and recovery, when it is symbolized by death and resurrection - by the ending of the present and the beginning of the future life, is perfectly represented in the Master's degree. But when it refers to the doctrine of Divine Truth symbolized by the Word, which being lost for a time is ultimately recovered, the Third degree, as now constructed, and as it probably always was, fails completely to carry out the symbolism.

Everyone who has devoted full attention to the study of the ritual of Speculative Freemasonry must admit that the Word constitutes the central point around which the whole system of Masonic symbolism revolves. Its possession is the consummation of all Masonic knowledge when lost, its recovery is the sole object of all symbolic, Masonic labor.

These are not mere truisms, having only a general bearing upon the subject of symbolism; they are important axioms, indispensably connected with the history of the origin of the Royal Arch degree, and with the primary cause of its invention.

Even in the time of pure, unadulterated Operative Freemasonry, the Word was an important secret of the institution. The German Stonemasons had, at a very early period, a word, sign, and grip, and in the 17th century, if not before, the Operative Masons of Scotland attached much importance to the secrets of the Mason Word. Analogically we may infer that the English Operative Masons were also in possession of it, though no reference is made to it in the Old Constitutions or in the Legend of the Craft.

Whether this was or was not the same Word as that which afterward became the nucleus of the Royal Arch degree, it is impossible to determine. Most probably it was not. The Word given in the Catechism of the German Steinmetzen, which is to be found in Findel and that contained in the catechism of the Sloane MS., are different from each other and neither of them is the Word now used. There may, however, have been another Word, communicated only to a select few, which for obvious reasons has not been referred to, in either of these records. But this is merely conjectural, and I confess is hardly probable.

The Word as we now have it is indicative of a more elevated character of religious symbolism, to which the purely Operative Freemasons never apparently attained.

On the other hand, it can not be denied that the Freemasons of the Middle Ages indulged to a great extent in a species of religious symbolism. Christian iconography abounds in their architectural decorations, among which we find the triangle in its various modifications.

The question is therefore by no means settled by the reticence of the old catechisms on the subject. Happily, its settlement is not a matter of vital importance in the discussion of the Origin of the Royal Arch degree. Its decision would only determine whether the fabricators of the high degrees of which the Royal Arch was the earliest were original inventors of the Word, or only the followers of the older Freemasons and the resuscitators of their ideas.

Leaving the settlement of this question in abeyance, let us pursue our historical investigations of the origin and growth of the Royal Arch degree.

It is the opinion of many eminent Masonic scholars that the original Third or Master's degree of Desagulier's, which, with some modifications made from time to time by successive ritualists, continued to be recognized by the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England until the Union in 1813, contained the true Master's or Royal Arch Word.

Dr. Oliver has furnished, I think, a very convincing proof that the True Word was communicated in the original ritual of the Third degree, as practiced from 1723 onward. In his Origin of the English Royal Arch, he makes the following statement:

"I have now before me an old Master Mason's tracing-board or floor- cloth, which was published on the continent almost immediately after symbolical Masonry had been received in France as a branch from the Grand Lodge of England in 1725, which furnished the French Masons with a written copy of the lectures then in use: and it contains the true Master's Word in a very prominent situation." (1)

It can not be denied that his deductions from this circumstance are very legitimate. He goes on to say:

"This forms an important link in the chain of presumptive evidence, that the Word, at that time. had not been dissevered from the Third degree and transferred to another. If this be true, as there is every reason to believe, the alteration must have been effected by some extraordinary innovation and change of landmarks. And I am persuaded, for reasons, which will be speedily givenw that the ancients are chargeable with originating these innovations for the division of the Third degree and the fabrication of the English Royal Arch appear, on their own showing to have been their work."

A future proof of the fact that the true Word was contained in the original Third degree may be found in Wilkenson's edition of the Book of Constitutions. That work was published at Dublin in 1769 and in front of the first page is a tracing-board, purporting to be the delineation of "A lodge fitted up for the reception of the most respectable Master." Among the emblems depicted are the hillock, the sprig of Acacia and the coffin surrounded by the heraldic guttes de larmes, or drops of tears, symbolic of grief, all of which refer to the Hlramic Legend of the Master's degree while, in a prominent place and in conspicuous letters, is the true Master's Word.

In another work Dr. Oliver says that the "Royal Arch Word was anciently the true Wordf of the Third degrees" (2) and he refers to a French writer of 1745 as stating that "the Master's Word was originally . . . but that it was changed after the death of Adoniram."

The writer here referred to is, I think, Guillemain de St. Victor, who, however, published the first edition of his Recueil Previezex de Ma Maconnerie Adonhiramite, not in 1745, but in 1781. Guillemain

(1) "Origin of the Royal Arch," p. 20. (2) "Discrepancies of Freemasonry," p. 75. In this posthumous work Dr. Oliver has evidently made the personages of his interesting dialogues merely the media for communicating his own opinions.

gives the Word in full, which is precisely the Royal Arch Word of the present day. It was engraved on the tomb of Hiram upon a triangular plate of gold, and it was, he says, l' ancien mot de maztre." (1)

Now, what Guillemain knew of the Third degree had for its basis the primitive ritual of the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England, for this had passed over into France and been adopted on the Continent long before that Grand Lodge made the changes so much objected to by the seceding Masons of 1740, His authority may therefore be accepted as confirmatory of Oliver's statement that the Third degree originally contained the True Word.

But though it should be admitted that the Master's degree was known to the framers of the ritual of that degree, as it was fabricated soon after the organization of 1717, and was communicated in the last part of the degree, it will not follow that there was anything more than a mere communication of it, without comment or explanation.

Something in the teachings of the ritual must have been wanting; else why should there have been a secession of a part of the Craft, who sought professedly to supply a defect which they felt by supplementing a Fourth degree.

The loss and the recovery of the Word constitute the foundation on which the entire system of Masonic symbolism is built. Without these important points, Speculative Freemasonry as "a science of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols" would be a total failure. As a moral and social institution inculcating the practice of virtue and cultivating the principle of brotherhood, it might remain. But it would in no respect differ from hundreds of other societies professing the same objects, which have sprung into existence, and recanting the vitality which a deep, religious symbolism has given to Freemasonry have all passed through only an ephemeral existence.

Hence, the invention about the middle of the 18th century of a Fourth degree which should supply the deficiency of the original "Master's part," gave an impetus to the institution, which history records in the successful progress of the seceders who had adopted the invention

(1) "Recueil Preceiux de la Magonnerie Adonhiramite," p. 105, edition of 1787.

The interpretation of the loss and the recovery of the Word, lie, as has already been said, at the very foundation of all Masonic symbolism.

Now, it is more than probable that the fabricators of the original Third degree were acquainted with and communicated to their initiates the history of the loss. We know that the Hiramic legend constituted an important part of the ritual, and the loss of the Word must have been included in the allegory which forms the substance of that legend.

But as the history of the recovery of the Word is not included in the legend, it is evident that the original Third degree could have made no reference to it, and the dual symbolism of a loss and a recovery could not have been perfect.

The degree, as originally intended, being founded on the Hiramic legend, gave, of course, a history of the way in which the Word was lost. But though afterward it was communicated, as it is said, to a select few, we do not learn from its ritual in what way it was restored to the graft. There was, therefore, an important defect in the symbolism of the system.

Now, this defect must have at length attracted the attention of some of the students of the ritual who were looking at Speculative Freemasonry as something more than a mere social organization, and who were desirous to lift it to a more elevated plane of intellectuality.

It was on the continent that the disposition to expand the ritual first displayed itself. It was this disposition which, in time, passed out of the limits of propriety and gave rise to the almost innumerable hauts grades, which have rather overclouded than purified the atmosphere of Masonic symbolism.

At first, however, the attempt at expansion was conducted with moderation, and was confined to only two points - to supplying the deficiency in the history and symbolism of the Word, and to inventing a new account of the origin of the institution.

With the latter of these expansions, the present subject has no connection. It is only to the former that we must direct our attention.

The first innovator on the original ritual of Desaguliers and his collaborators was the noted Chevalier Ramsay, and it is to him that we have to trace the first addition to that ritual which was to supplement the Third degree with another, which has since under great modifications been known to English-speaking Freemasons as the Royal Arch.

The Masonic labors of Ramsay entitle him to, at least, a brief sketch of his life and character. (1)

Andrew Michael Ramsay, commonly known as the Chevalier Ramsay, was born at Ayr, in Scotland, on June 9, 1668. Having completed his education at the University of Edinburgh, where he was distinguished for ability and diligence, he became, in 1709, the tutor of the two sons of the Earl of Wemyss.

Subsequently, he left his native country and retired to Holland. There he became acquainted with Peter Poiret, a learned and philosophical disciple of the celebrated Quietist Antoinette Bourignon. Poiret was a prominent teacher of the mystic theology which then prevailed on the continent.

To his intimacy with this pious mystic, Ramsay was very probably indebted for that love of mystical speculation which he subsequently developed as the inventor of high degrees in Freemasonry, and as the author of a Masonic rite.

In 1710 Ramsay visited Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, became his guest and pupil, and six months afterward a proselyte to Romanism. (2)

Through the influence of the Archbishop he received the appointment of preceptor to the young Duke de Chateau-Thierry and the Prince de Turenne.

As a reward for his services in that capacity he was created a Knight of the Order of St. Lazarus, whence he derived the title of "Chevalier," by which he is always designated. (3)

In 1724 Ramsay went to Rome and was appointed tutor to the two sons of the titular James III., who, as the son and heir of James II., the exiled King of England, still claimed the throne of his ancestors.

(1) See a biography of Ramsay in Mackey's "Encyclopedia of Freemasonry," from which the present sketch is condensed. (2) In his "Life of Fenelon" Ramsay gives the full details of the intellectual process and the arguments of the prelate through which his conversion was effected. "Life," pp. 189 - 247 (3) The Order of St. Lazarus was first instituted in Palestine and the knights were devoted to the care of persons infected. They afterward united with the other Orders in the war against the Saracens. We may presume that Ramsay's connection with this Order first suggested to him the idea of tracing Freemasonry to the Crusades and ascribing its origin to a system of knighthood, which he embraced in his high degrees.

He is known in history generally by the more appropriate title of the is "Old Pretender."

Ramsay's close connection with the exiled family of Stuart, and with their adherents, the Jacobites, undoubtedly exerted much influence in the shaping of certain high degrees and in the modified interpretation of certain legends, so as to give a coloring to the preposterous theory that Speculative Freemasonry was invented or at least used as a political means of promoting the restoration of the House of Stuart to the English throne. Ramsay, himself, is not clear from the suspicion of having sown the germs of this theory. He was a firm believer in hereditary right, and, being an aristocrat at heart, he spurned the idea that Freemasonry could have had an Operative origin.

In the year 1728 he visited England and became an inmate of the family of the Duke of Argyle. While in England the University of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws, a tolerable evidence of his reputation as a man of letters.

On his return to France he took up his residence at Pointoise, a seat of the Prince of Turenne, and spent the remainder of his life as Intendant in the Prince's family, dying on May 6, 1743, in the seventy-fifth year of his life.

The literary career of Ramsay was marked by the production of only a few works, but each of these give evident proofs of his learn. ing and of his skill as a writer. His first work appears to have been The Life of Francois de Salignac de le Motte Fenelon, Archbishop, and Duke of Cambray. This was published at London in 1723, and gave rise to a severe criticism by "Britannicus" in several consecutive numbers of the London journals of that year.

In 1727 he published The Travels. This work, composed after the style of Fenelon's Telemaque, was enriched by a learned "Discourse on the Theology and Mythology of the Persians." The book was so favorably received as to be speedily translated into the French, the Dutch, the German, and the Danish languages. A much altered and improved edition was subsequently published by the author at Glasgow in Scotland. (1)

(1) The copy in my possession bears the imprint of James Knox, Glasgow, but without a date. Kloss registers several London and Paris editions of the work varying from 1760 to 1829, but omits any mention of this Glasgow edition. See Kloss, " Bibliography," No 3936

In the latter years of his life he wrote as a tribute of friendship a History of the Viscount Turenne. After his death his greatest work appeared, namely, The Philosophical Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, Unfolded in a Geometrical Order. This work, published in two quarto volumes at Glasgow in 1748, stamps its author not only as a man of varied learning but as a profound metaphysician and an astute logician. Of all the adversaries of Spinoza, none has so adroitly and successfully attacked the errors of that incredulous philosopher as Ramsay.

His contributions of published works to the literature of Speculative Freemasonry are still fewer. They consist of only two productions, and the authorship of one of these is only conjectural.

In 1738 there was published at Dublin, Ireland, a work, reprinted at London in 1749, with the title of Relation apologetique et historique de la Societe des Francs-Macons, par J. G. D. M. E. M. Kloss, who styles it a comprehensive and fundamental apology for the Institution of Freemasonry, and attributes its authorship without doubt to Ramsay. By order of the Sacred Congregation it was burnt in the following year, at Rome, by the public executioner, for containing "impious propositions and principles," and "the faithful" were prohibited from reading it. This act of literary cremation was the first instance of the impotent persecution of the Order by the Roman Church after the publication of the celebrated Bull in eminenti of Pope Clement XII.

In 1740, when Ramsay was Grand Orator of the Grand Lodge of France, he pronounced a discourse before that body. It was first published in 1741 in the Almanach des Cocus, under the erroneous title of Discours d'un Grand Maitre. Ramsay never attained to that official dignity.

This Discourse and the Apologetic Relation, conjecturally attributed to him, are the only published writings of Ramsay on Masonic subjects that have come down to us. It is not known indeed that he ever published any others.

But this Discourse is of great importance, inasmuch as in it he develops in explicit terms his theory of the origin of Freemasonry. It is sufficient here to say that that theory repudiated the idea of its connection with an Operative art and traces its birth to Palestine and to the time of the Crusaders. He thus gave to Freemasonry not an architectural but a religious and military character which connected it with the Orders of Knighthood.

It is to the influence of this theory on the Masonic mind that we are to attribute the subsequent incorporation of Templarism into the system of Freemasonry, a thought that never suggested itself to the original founders of the Society.

But though Ramsay wrote but little on Freemasonry for the public eye, no one during the 18th century exerted a greater influence over continental Masonry, and that influence, as it will hereafter be seen, extended, in some degree, even into England.

He was an assiduous and enthusiastic ritualist, and sought to develop the Masonic system by the invention of new degrees.

To him we are indebted (though the value of the debt is questionable) for the invention of the system of Rites, wherein the science of Speculative Freemasonry is expanded by a superstructure of "high degrees," based upon the primitive three.

At that time the Grand Lodge of England recognized and practiced only the three degrees of Apprentice, Fellow-Craft, and Master Mason. The same system was pursued by the Grand Lodge of France. (1)

This simple system had no congruity with the theory of Ramsay. It made no reference to the Orders of Chivalry and bore no appearance of a relationship to anything but an Operative art.

Ramsay, therefore, found it necessary to construct a new system, which should bear the evidence not of an Operative, but of a Chivalric origin.

If in carrying out these views he had rejected the primitive degrees, his new system would have had no pretensions to be a Masonic one.

He was unwilling to attempt such a revolution, which would, most probably, have been unsuccessful in its results.

Speculative Freemasonry had by that time become a popular Institution - it possessed wealth and influence, and men of rank and learning eagerly sought admission into the society. Ramsay, himself, was undoubtedly attached to it, though his aristocratic tendencies induced him to seek for it a more elevated sphere.

(1) La Grande Loge de France ne reconnaissait que les trois grades symboliques; ses constitutions ne s'etendaient pas au dela. Thory, "Fondation de la G. L. de France," p. 15.

Besides, he must have seen that it furnished, even in what he deemed its imperfect state, a firm foundation on which to erect the edifice of his "high grades."

Ramsay, therefore, constructed a new system, which has since been called a Rite. His example was afterward imitated, but with less moderation as to the number of degrees, by ritualists who inundated Freemasonry with their new inventions. But of all the succeeding rites, though some of them extended to nearly a hundred degrees, only one of the original ideas of Ramsay, that, namely, of perfecting the Master's part, by the symbolism of a recovery of the Word, was sedulously preserved.

This first Masonic Rite, which has since been known by the title of "The Rite of Ramsay," consisted of six degrees, designated as follows:

1. Entered Apprentice. 2. Fellow-Craft. 3. Master Mason. 4. Ecossais or Scottish Master. 5. Novice. 6. Knight of the Temple or Templar.

Rhigellini adds a seventh degree, which he says was the Royal Arch; but I find no evidence elsewhere of this fact, and Rhigellini, I am sorry to say, is worse than useless as an historical authority. (1)

The fifth and sixth of these degrees embodied his ideas of the chivalric or Templar origin of the Institution. Their consideration would throw no light upon the investigation of the Royal Arch which we are now pursuing.

It is the Fourth only in which we are interested - the Ecossais - from which it is supposed that the suggestions were derived which gave origin to the invention of the Royal Arch degree in England and to the great Masonic schism which followed.

Ramsay went to England in 1728. How long he remained there is uncertain, but it was long enough to win the favor of the University of Oxford, and to obtain from that body one of its highest literary favors. He had also gained warm friends in that country,

(1) Rhigellini, "La Masonnerie, etc.," tome ii., p. 125. It was a part of Ramsay's system to ascribe the invention of these degrees to Godfrey of Boulogne, in the days of the Crusaders. It was Ramsay's legend with less foundation in truth than legends usually possess.

among whom may be named the Duke of Argyle, in whose family he resided, and Lord Landsdowne, to whom he dedicated his Cravens of Cyrus, and of whose "singular friendship" he boasts.

It is not, therefore, improbable that he possessed some influence with the Freemasons of England, among whom it is said he sought to introduce his new ritual. (1) But he failed in his effort to get it adopted by the Grand Lodge, which was then, as it still is and always has been, extremely conservative in its views.

But though unsuccessful with the Grand Lodge, his Royal Arch seems to have excited an interest in some of the Fraternity. His method of supplying the allegorical symbol of a recovery of the lost Word had awakened them to the fact that this symbolism, so necessary to perfect the circle of Masonic symbology, was wanting in the old system of three degrees as then practiced by the Grand Lodge.

For some few years no effort was made to incorporate the new system into the then accepted ritual. But the thought did not die. It continued to grow, and at last was given actual life when, about 1738 or perhaps a few years earlier, (2) certain of the brethren began to manipulate the Master's degree, and to add to the story of the loss of the Word the new legend of its recovery.

This tampering with the Third degree was met by the Grand Lodge first with grave censure, and then, as the participants in the scheme continued to be refractory, with their expulsion.

This led, as we have already seen, to the schism which divided the Masons of England into two parties, distinguished by the titles of the "Moderns" and the "Ancients."

The latter having organized a Grand Lodge, adopted a new ritual of four degrees, and called the last the Royal Arch.

It has been said that Ramsay invented the Royal Arch degree. He did no such thing. He did not even invent the name. But he did the symbolism which referred to the recovery of a Word that had been once lost and afterward recovered. And this constitutes the whole essential sum and substance of all Royal Arch Masonry, no matter under what name and in what Rite it is to be found.

(1) Ill voulut introducerie a Londres, en 1728, un nouveau Rite; mais il echoua dans ce projet. Thory, "Acta Latomorum," tome ii., p. 568. (2) The Grand Lodge first officially noticed the "irregular makings" in 1738; but it does not follow that they had not been occurring for some time before attention was called to them.

We may suppose, and the supposition is a very tenable one, that he said to his disciples in England, " Your ritual gives you a recital of how the True Word of a Master was lost, but it does not tell you how it was afterwards restored to the Craft; and in this respect your system is perfect. The discovery of a lost Word constitutes a most important part of the symbolism of Speculative Freemasonry. This symbolism and the Legend which refers to it, I offer you as necessary development and improvement of your system."

His disciples accepted the idea of the symbolism, but they rejected his Legend, and invented one of their own.

Neither the Legend of what has been called Dermott's Royal Arch, though he was not its author, nor Dunckerley's, nor that which has been in existence in England certainly since the Union of 1813, has any similitude to that of Ramsay's Ecossais degree.

So then, the correct historical statement would be that Ramsay suggested to the English Masonic mind the symbolism of a Recovered Word, for which Speculative Freemasonry was indebted to his inventive genius.

In this guarded sense of the expression it may be permitted to be said, that he introduced the doctrine of the Royal Arch into English Freemasonry. Without the suggestive influence of his ideas, Royal Arch Masonry would have been unknown to the Masonic system.

This theory, which is, I think, generally accepted as correct by Masonic scholars, has met with, so far as I know, only one opponent.

The late Bro. Charles W. Moore, the learned editor for many years of the freemasons' Monthly Magazine, published at Boston, Mass., in an article (1) "on the Origin of Royal Arch Chapters, at Home and Abroad," says, "it is not true that Ramsay had anything to do with the Royal Arch degree." His grounds for this unbelief are thus stated:

"Ramsay's system consisted of the three degrees of Ecossaizs, Novice, and Knight Templar only. If he ever invented a Royal Arch degree, which is very doubtful, no traces of it now remain." (2)

Now the error of Bro. Moore consisted in his confounding the doctrine and symbolism of the Royal Arch degree with the specific name adopted in England. He could End no such title as Royal

(1) "Moore's Magazine." vol. xii. April, 1853, p. 160. (2) lbid., p. 163, note.

Arch among the degrees of Ramsay's Rite, and he rashly concluded that he had nothing to do with it.

It did not occur to him to look in Ramsay's system for the doctrine of the Royal Arch, under another name. Had he done so, he would have found it in the fourth degree, or Ecossais, of that system.

The word Ecossais, which may be correctly translated as Scottish Master or Scottish Mason, was invented and first used by the Chevalier Ramsay as the name of a grade in the Masonic ritual which he had constructed. In pure French the word signifies Scottish or Scotsman, and is said to have been adopted by Ramsay, because it was a part of his Legend, that though the degree, like the rest of Freemasonry, was originally fabricated by the Crusaders, it passed over from the Holy Land into Scotland, where at Kilwinning it found for a long period an abiding place, until it was disseminated over Europe.

From this as the original degree has sprung up numerous others having the same name and the same design.

That design is to detail the method in which the Lost Word was recovered, so that the true symbolism of the Word may be preserved.

This symbolism, which gave perfection to that of the hitherto incomplete Third degree, was so acceptable to the Fraternity everywhere, that in all the Rites subsequently established over the continent, the Ecossais of Ramsay was adopted with certain modifications

The extent to which this cultivation of Ecossaison, or the doctrine of the True Word, was carried by the ritualists who succeeded Ramsay may be shown from the fact that Ragon, in his almost exhaustive Nomenclature of the degrees, enumerates no less than eighty-three which bear the name of Ecossais.

In every legitimate Ecossais degree we meet with these two essential characteristics: first, there is a communication of the True Word which had been lost; and secondly there is a Legend which details the mode by which it was recovered and restored to the Craft.

In all these degrees the Word is substantially the same; in most of the Continental Rites the Legend of Ramsay, which accompanied it, has been preserved, with but little or no alteration.

The English Masons accepted the suggestions of Ramsay as to the necessity of expanding the Third degree or Master's partly They adopted the Word which indeed it is said had always existed in the original ritual of the Third degree; but they transferred its collocation from the Third to a Fourth degree; and they wholly rejected Ramsay's Legend, fabricating a new one for themselves, for which there is some reason for believing that they were partly indebted to a talmudic or rabbinical tradition. They also declined to adopt Ramsay's nomenclature, and having perhaps no liking for a name which, by implication at least, gave a Scottish origin to the Institution, they abandoned the title of Ecossais and took instead of it that of Royal Arch.

If the details of this narrative and the conclusions drawn from It are correct, then the theory has been established that the brethren who seceded about 1738 from the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England, with its three primitive degrees, and afterward organized a schismatic Grand Lodge of their own with an additional or Fourth degree, were indebted to Ramsay for the idea which led to the innovation.

Ramsay introduced the doctrine of the Royal Arch into English Masonry, but he did not succeed in introducing his degree.

Having thus settled the question of the origin of English Royal Arch Masonry, we are next to inquire at what time it was introduced into England and incorporated in the ritual of English Speculative Freemasonry.

There is no authority anywhere to be found which traces the existence of a Royal Arch degree in England anterior to the year 1738.

The earliest printed work which makes any reference to the degree is a book entitled A Serious and Impartial Enquiry into the Castle of the Present Decay of Free-masonry in the Kingdom of Ireland, by Fifield Dassigny, M.D., published in London in 1744. (1)

The references of the author of this work to the subject of Royal Arch Masonry, are, viewing the time when they were printed, of

(1) The book is very scarce, there not being a copy in the British Museum. There is none to be found in any library in Ireland, and only one in America, which is in possession of Bro. Carson of Cincinnati, O. Bro. Hughan having obtained a copy, republished it in his "Memorials of the Union." The passage here quoted is from p. 96 of his republication

great interest, and may throw some light on a contested point of history. They are, therefore, here quoted in full, as follows:

"Now as the landmarks of the constitution of Free-Masonry are universally the same, throughout all kingdoms, and are so well fixt that they will not admit of removal, how comes it to pass that some have been led away with ridiculous innovations, an example of which I shall prove by a certain propagator of a false system some few years ago, who imposed upon several worthy men under a pretense of being Master of a Royal Arch, which he asserted he had brought with him from the city of York; and that the beauties of the Craft did principally consist in the knowledge of this valuable piece of Masonry. However, he carried on his scheme for several months, and many of the learned and wise were his followers, till at length his fallacious art was discovered by a Brother of probity and wisdom, who had some small time before attained that excellent part of Masonry in London and plainly proved that his doctrine was false; whereupon the Brethren justly dispised him and ordered him to be excluded from all benefits of the Craft, and altho' some of the fraternity had expressed an uneasiness at this matter being kept a secret from them (since they had already passed thro' the usual degrees of probation) I cannot help being of opinion that they have no right to any such benefits until they make a proper application, and are received with due formality, and as it is an organized body of men who have passed the chair, and given undeniable proofs of their skill in Architecture, it can not be treated with too much reverence, and more especially since the character of the present members of that particular lodge are untainted and their behaviour judicious and unexceptionable; so that there can not be the least hinge to hang a doubt on, but that they are most excellent Masons."

As Dassigny's book was published in 1744, the phrase "a few years ago" may be interpreted as applying to about the year 1741, or perhaps even 1740. With this explanation as to time, we may infer several facts from this passage.

In the first place, it appears that an adventurer coming to Dublin to propagate the Royal Arch thought it favorable to his in terests to claim that he had brought the degree from the city of York. From this we may infer that it was a belief among the Freemasons of Ireland as well as elsewhere, that there was a Royal Arch organization then existing at York. This is not an absolutely essential inference, because he may have depended for its success on the prestige given to that city in the Masonic mind by the traditional belief that it was the cradle of Masonry.

But the inference gains some strength from what Dassigny says in a foot-note: "I am informed in that city (York) is held an assembly of Master Masons under the title of Royal Arch Masons, who as their qualifications and excellencies are superior to others, they receive a larger pay than working Masons."

Here we have the explicit statement of a Contemporary writer that such a belief was in existence. Whether it was founded in fact or in fiction is another question. Yet it is a proverbial dogma that there is no rumor without some foundation. "Flame," says Plautus, "is very close to smoke." (1)

However, Bro. Hughan, whose authority as a Masonic historian demands great respect, says it is doubtful whether an Assembly of Royal Arch Masons ever met in York so early as 1744, for there is no trace of such a degree until many years later in any of the Records preserved. (2)

But the absence of any records of a Royal Arch degree among the papers of the Grand Lodge of York, which have been preserved, is no sufficient evidence of the non-existence of that degree between 1740 and 1744. These wanted records may have been among those which have been lost or destroyed. Against this explainable deficiency of evidence by official records, which it is admitted are not complete, we have the testimony of a contemporary writer of repute and intelligence who says that there was in 1744 a rumor that the Royal Arch degree was conferred in York at that time.

The question therefore of this early existence of Royal Arch Masonry in York must still remain in abeyance; it is sub judice, nor can it ever be decided, until further testimony is produced. But notwithstanding the high authority of Bro. Hughan, I am disposed to think that in 1744 and a few years before, the Royal Arch degree was conferred in the city of York, having of course been brought there from London, where it originated.

It does not follow that at that time there was any regular organization

(1) Flamma fiemo est proxima Plautus, "Curculio," i., 53. (2) "Memorials of the Union," p. 6.

connected with the Grand Lodge (which, by the way, was at that time dormant, or of which we have no records) or with the lodge which was still in existence. The degree was about that time just beginning, even in London, to assume an official shape, and irregularities must have prevailed. Bro. Hughan tells us that Bro. William Cowling, an officer of the present York Lodge, is of opinion in reference to the later and undisputed organization of a Chapter in 1780, that "the Royal Arch Degree was kept distinct from the Craft at York, but that there was a very intimate connection between them." (1)

What is here said of the later organization may probably be applied to an earlier one. If so, it would be vain to look in the missing records of the York Grand Lodge from 1735 to 1760, if they are ever found, for any reference to Royal Arch Masonry.

Returning to the extract from Dr. Dassigny's Enquiry we infer, in the second place, that in the year 1744 there were Royal Arch Masons in Dublin who appreciated the degree as a valuable addition to the Masonic system.

We infer, thirdly, that at that time there was an organized body of Past Masters there who regularly conferred the degree, restricting it, however, to those Masons who had passed the chair. As this was the regulation which existed in London, it is evident, if other proof were wanting, that the degree given in Ireland was originally derived from London and from the "Ancients."

After this digression for the purpose of demonstrating the time of the first appearance of the degree at the cities of York and Dublin, we may return to our investigation of the history of its origin in England.

We have seen that in 1728, soon after the Chevalier Ramsay had fabricated his system of high degrees, among which was one that, under the title of Ecossais or "Scottish Master" developed his doctrine of the Royal Arch or the recovery of the true Word, he came to England.

There he had personal intercourse with many Freemasons and communicated to them his views, and demonstrated to them the incompleteness of the established ritual, which, terminating in the

(1) Hughan, "Memorials of the Union," p. 82.

Master's part, and the loss of the Word, made no provision for its recovery.

To the greater part of the English Freemasons his theory was either unintelligible as a doctrine or offensive as an innovation. Hence, the efforts he is said to have made for its adoption by tne Grand Lodge proved unsuccessful.

But, happily for the progress of Masonic light, there were some thinkers of more enlarged views. They saw the deficiency in the old ritual, and were ready to accept any modification that would improve it.

With this party, small at first but gradually increasing in numbers, the ideas of Ramsay became popular.

But while they adopted his doctrine concerning the recovery of the true Word as the basis of a new degree to be added to the ritual of three degrees, they refused in the end to adopt his legend.

It is not unlikely that the first English Freemasons who were engaged in 1738 in the "irregular makings" which were censured by the Grand Lodge may have used Ramsay's legend for a time.

This is mere guess-work. Still, it is very supposable that Ramsay taught his whole system to a few disciples who naturally would seek to propagate.

Dassigny, in his Enquiry, throws some gleams of light on this obscure subject in the following passage:

"I can not help informing the Brethren that there is lately arrived in this city a certain itinerant Mason whose judgment (as he declares) is so far illumined, and whose optics are so strong that they can bear the view of the most lurid rays of the sun at noon day, and altho' we have contented ourselves with three material steps to approach our Summum Bonum, the immortal GOD, yet he presumes to acquaint us that he can add three more, which, when properly placed, may advance us to the highest heavens." (1)

Now, it is at least a coincidence that Ramsay's newly invented Rite added just three degrees to the three of the original ritual. May not this "itinerant Mason" referred to by Dassigny have been a disciple of Ramsay, who was seeking to introduce his ritual into Dublin ?

But as I have said before, this is mere guess-work. It only

(1) Dassigny's "Enquiry," in Hughan's republication in the "Memorials," p. 97.

gives a sort of probability to the hypothesis that Ramsay had succeeded in imbuing the minds of certain English Freemasons with the principles of his system, so that they were prepared to formulate out of it a degree, which, though differing in name and differing in legend, retained its doctrine.

And so out of this system of Ramsay the seceding Masons of England formulated a Fourth degree, which they called the "Royal Arch," and which, though owing its origin to Ramsay's Ecossais, resembled it only in the doctrine of a lost Word, recovered, which is the true and only doctrine of Royal Arch Masonry, under whatsoever name it may be known.

It may be considered as a well-settled fact in history that the Royal Arch degree was not known in England before the year 1738, (1) at which time it was practiced by certain brethren who afterward assumed the name of "Ancient Masons," and finally seceded from the Constitutional Grand Lodge. (2) The degree then conferred was suggested by and founded on the Ecossais degree of Chevalier Ramsay.

"If the Royal Arch degree," says Brother Hughan, (3) "in its separate and distinct form, existed prior to 1738, and indeed, was as old as the Third degree, how comes it that the regular Grand Lodge of England persistently refused to recognize it until 1813, but the body of Masons which seceded from this original and premier Grand Lodge, made much of the degree, and by it, we may truly say, succeeded in making their numerical position in a few years almost equal to the regular Grand Lodge itself ?"

The degree as practiced by the seceding Masons was, as Dr. Oliver (4) remarks, "imperfect in its construction," and its rude and unfinished state betrayed its recent origin.

Its form was, however, gradually improved. When the Grand Lodge of Ancients was organized in 1753, that body adopted it as one of its series of degrees, making it the Fourth in order of precedence.

At first, the degree was conferred in the lodges and as a supplement to the Third degree.

(1) Hughan, "History of Freemasonry in York," p. 38. (2) See Northouck's "Book of Constitutions." where, in a note to p. 239, a full but not altogether impartial account of the secession is given. (3) In a Review of Higgins's "Anacalypsis," in the "Voice of Masonry," vol. xiii., p 887. (4) "Origin of the Royal Arch," p. 21.

Dr. Oliver describes it as having at that early period "jumbled together, in a state of inextricable confusion, the events commemos rated in Ramsay's Royal Arch, the Knights of the Ninth Arch, of the Burning Bush, of the East or Sword, of the Red Cross, the Scotch Fellow-Craft, the Select Master, the Red Cross of Babylon, the Rose Croix," etc. (1)

I know not whence Oliver derived his authority for this statement. But as none of the degrees which he mentions were then fabricated, it is impossible that he can be correct.

It is very probable that the Legend of Enoch which was embodied in Ramsay's Ecossais, and which was afterward adopted in the degree of Knights of the Ninth Arch, was at first used by the seceders in conferring their Fourth degree. But it was after ward changed for the very different Legend which is still taught in the English Royal Arch.

After a short time, when the degree had been nursed into a better shape by the Grand Lodge of Ancients, it was conferred into a body called a "chapter," but still constituting a part of a Warranted lodge.

The regulations "for the Instruction and Government of the Holy Royal Arch Chapter," adopted by the Atholl Grand Lodge, declare that severs regular and warranted lodge possesses the power of forming and holding meetings in each of these several degrees, the last of which from its pre-eminence is denominated among Masons a chapter." And this regulation continued in force until the Union of 1813. (2)

The earliest official minute of the Royal Arch degree among the "Ancients" bears the date of 1752. (3) At that time the "Ancients" were organized in a General Assembly, which bore the name of a "Grand Committee."

The degree was then conferred in the lodges but only on those who had passed the chair. We have seen that this right of the lodges to confer the Royal Arch was always recognized by the Atholl Grand Lodge.

But a Grand Chapter was subsequently established, at what precise date is not accurately known.

(1) "Origin of the Royal Arch," p. 21. (2) See the "Ahiman Rezon" published in 1807, p. 107. (3) Hughan, "Memorials of the Union," p. 6.

On April 6, 1791, the "Ancients" published "Laws and Regulations for the Instruction and Government of the Holy Royal Arch Chapters, under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of England, according to the Old Constitutions." These Regulations were subsequently revised, amended, and approved "in a General Grand Chapter" held at the "Crown and Anchor Tavern," in the Strand, on April 1, 1807, and are contained in the Ahiman Rezon of that year.

The first of these Regulations that, "There shall be a General Grand Chapter of the Holy Royal Arch held half yearly at the 'Crown and Anchor,' Strand, on the first Wednesday in the months of April and October. That agreeably to established custom the officers of the Grand Lodge, for the time being, are considered as the Grand Chiefs, and are to preside at all Grand Chapters, according to seniority; they usually appoint the most expert R. A. companions to the other Offices; and none but Excellent Masons, being members of warranted lodges, in and near the Metropolis, shall be members thereof. Certified sojourners may be admitted as visitors only." (1)

It will be perceived that the organization of this Grand Chapter of the "Ancients," though not recognized as legal, prepared the model on which the subsequent Grand Chapter of England has been founded. The government by three Chiefs has also been adopted in America, though they are no longer made identical, as they still are in England, with the three principal officers of the Grand Lodge.

Warrants were granted by the Grand Chapter for the formation of chapters, but only where the parties composing such chapter possessed a regular Warrant granted by the Grand Lodge. (2) Hence, every chapter under the system of the if "Ancients" was, though independent as to the degree, an appanage of a warranted lodge. An application for initiation to the Royal Arch degree was to be dlrected "to the presiding chiefs of the chapter of Excellent Royal Arch Masons, under sanction of lodge number_____." (3)

This usage prevailed in America as long as lodges of "Ancient Masons" existed there. I have in the early part of my life personally known several old Royal Arch Masons who received the degree in lodges attached to chapters.

(1) "Ahiman Rezon," 1807, p. 108. (2) "Laws and Regulations of the General Grand Chapter," No. iv. (3) Ibid., No. vi.

The chapters, though thus closely connected with the lodges, were so far under a separate jurisdiction as to be required to make returns of their exaltations and payment of fees to the Grand Chapter. (1)

Another regulation required that none should receive the Royal Arch degree but those who had "passed the chair." (2) The earliest custom was to confer it only on those who had been Masters of lodges. But this practice having been found inconvenient, as it too greatly restricted the number of candidates, the law was subsequently violated, and a fictitious degree of Past Master was instituted, brethren being permitted by a mere ceremony to "pass the chair" without having ever been elected Masters of lodges. Thus the distinction of actual and virtual Past Masters came in vogue, the degree or rank of Past Master being thus virtually conferred as a prerequisite to exaltation.

In 1813 the United Grand Lodge of England abolished this practice and it now admits Master Masons to be exalted. But the practice still prevails in the chapters of the United States, though efforts have at times been unsuccessfully made to abandon it.

The "Moderns" had seen with some envy, as we may suppose, the success which the "Ancients" were securing, and they very properly attributed it to the prestige given to the seceders by their fabrication of a Fourth degree.

It was therefore a very judicious movement on their part to avail themselves of a like prestige by the extension of their ritual and the adoption also of an additional degree.

Hence we find that some of the "Moderns" formed a chapter for conferring the Royal Arch degree on June 12, 1765. (3) It has been believed that Thomas Dunkerley was the founder of this chapter, but Bro. Gould denies this, because the minutes show that he did not become a member of it until January 8, 1766.

But I am unwilling to reject the almost universally accepted tradition that to him we owe the fabrication of the Royal Arch of the "Moderns" - a degree which is said to have differed in many points from that of the "Ancients."

Dunkerley, who was an illegitimate son of George the Second, and whose claims to that paternity received a sort of quiet recognition from the royal family, was a man of excellent character and

(1) "Laws and Regulations of the General Grand Chapter," No. xii. (2) Ibid., No. viii. (3) Gould, "Atholl Lodges." p. 38.

of considerable talents. He was very popular with the Craft and was the author of a new system of lectures, or an improvement of the old, which had been sanctioned by the Grand Lodge.

In the course of his Masonic studies he appears to have been convinced of the policy, under existing circumstances, of supplementing the deficiencies of the original Third degree. We may indeed attribute to him a higher motive than that of policy, and believe that as a Masonic scholar he saw the necessity of completing the system by the fabrication of a Royal Arch degree.

It does not therefore follow that because Dunkerley's name does not appear as a member of the new chapter until six months after its formation, he may not have had an important part in its organization. If he was, as there can be no valid doubt, the original fabricator of the Royal Arch of the "Moderns," from whom, except from him, could the original members of the new chapter have received the degree which qualified them to enter upon its organization?

That he appeared later on the scene does not militate against his influence and his quiet work in its formation. There are no records extant to show what he was doing between the time when he invented the degree and that when it was first put into practice by the foundation of a chapter. The leading character in a drama does not always make his appearance in the first act, nor the hero of a novel in the first chapter.

It is more logical to suppose that the inventor of the Royal Arch of the "Moderns" was the founder of the chapter in 1765. But if Dunkerley was not the inventor, who was? History upon the best grounds assigns the invention to him, and to him also I am willing to ascribe the foundation of the chapter, though his name does not appear on its records until six months after its formation.

The chapter did not long continue to hold the position of a private body. In 1766, according to Bro. Hughan, (1) it assumed the rank of a Grand Chapter. This it must have done, just as the lodge at York in 1725 resolved itself into a Grand Lodge. There were no other chapters to unite with it, as the four Lodges did in 1717 to form a Grand Lodge. It simply changed its title and enlarged its functions.

Dr. Oliver places the date of the formation of the Grand Chapter

(1) "Memorials of the Union." v. 8. note.

at a later date, that of 1779. (1) This is, however, only an assume tion, as he gives no proof of the correctness of his statement, and on a point of Masonic history dependent on the authority of old documents and the correctness of a deduction from them I am compelled to prefer the accuracy and the judgment of Bro. Hughan to those of even the venerable Oliver.

Notwithstanding that the Grand Chapter counted some of the most distinguished "Modern" Masons among its members, it was never officially recognized as a Masonic organization by the Grand Lodge. In 1792 it was resolved that the Grand Lodge has nothing to do with the proceedings of the Society of Royal Arch Masons. (2)

Still, it met with marked success. In 1796 it had one hundred and four chapters under its obedience and to which it had granted warrants.

Unlike the Grand Chapter of the "Ancients," it was independent in its jurisdiction, being, as has been seen, wholly unconnected with the Grand Lodge. Its presiding officers were called the three Principals, and bore respectively as titles the initials of the names Zerubbabel, Haggai, and Joshua. Thus there was Principal Z., Principal H., and Principal J. This usage has been preserved in the present Grand Chapter of England. It had for its chief Principal Thomas Dunkerley as long as he lived, and for its first Patron, the Duke of Cumberland, who on his demise was succeeded by the Duke of Clarence.

In 1813, on the union of the two Grand Lodges of the "Ancients" and the "Moderns," the Royal Arch degree was recognized as a component part of Ancient Craft Masonry, and the Supreme Grand Chapter was established as one of the powers of English Freemasonry.

Of the two rituals then in use that invented by Dunkerley, which had been practiced by the "Moderns," was preferred but the regulation of the "Ancients," which closely united the Grand Lodge

(1) "Origin of the Royal Arch," p. 38. (2) Hughan presents this fact in his "Memorials," p. 8. The Grand Chapter, he says, was purely a defensive organization to meet the wants of the regular brethren and to prevent their joining the "Ancients." (3) Dunkerley's ritual was Christian in its character, and his principal symbol, the foundation stone, was made to allude to the Saviour. In 1834 this ritual was abolished by the Grand Chapter, and a new one, less sectarian in its interpretation of the symbols, was adopted, which still continues in England and in English chapters.

and the Grand Chapter and vested the presiding officers of both bodies in the same persons, was adopted. Hence, the Duke of Sussex, who had been elected the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge, became, by virtue of his office, the chief Principal of the Grand Chapter.

Lyon says that the Royal Arch degree was introduced into Scotland about the middle of the last century, through the medium of military lodges whose members had received it in Ireland. (1) The statement that the degree was first worked in Scotland by the " Ancient Lodge of Stirling" in 1743 in connection with the Knight Templar and other high degrees, is said by Bro. Lyon to be without authentic evidence. But the writer of the introduction to the General Regulations for the Government of the Order of Royal Arch Masons of Scotland asserts that the Minute Mook of the Chapter from 1743 is still extant. (2)

About 1800 several Templar Encampments were founded in Scotland by charters granted by a body assuming that prerogative in Ireland. These charters authorized the conferring of the Royal Arch degree. There were other chapters which at that time practiced the degree without a charter. (3) The establishment of a Grand Encampment in 1811 by a charter granted by the Duke of Kent, the head of Templarism in England, put a stop to the practice of Royal Arch Masonry in Encampments, and that branch of the institution was for some time in a very irregular position, though there were many working chapters.

But on August 28, 1817, the Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland was established by the representatives of thirty-four chapters at a General convocation of the Order held at Edinburgh. (4)

The Grand Lodge of Scotland, persistently wedded to the idea that Speculative Freemasonry consists of only three degrees, has always refused to recognize the Royal Arch as a part of the system. At first it prohibited its members from receiving the degree, but as that extreme of opposition has long since ceased, the antagonism now reaches only a quiet, official non-recognition.

The introduction of Royal Arch Masonry into the continent of America, and especially into the United States, will occupy our attention in the following chapter.

(1) "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 291. (2) "General Regulations of the Grand Chapter of Scotland," Introduction, p. vii. (3) Ibid. (4) Lyon's "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 290.

Get More Information on Freemasonry

Masonic Secrets Revealed - The Secret Ceremonies And Oaths Of The Masons Exposed!
Masonic Secrets - The Secret Masonic Handshakes, Words, And Signs Of Craft Masonry.
Freemasonry and the Druids by W. Winwood Reade. Published 1861.
Secret Masonic Initiation Video - Secret video footage from Turkey.
Bristol Masonic Ritual - The Oldest and Most Unusual Craft Working in England
The Meaning of Masonry by W. L. Wilmhurst
Freemasonry - Its Hidden Meaning - by George H. Steinmetz
Masonic Books - Check out our selection of books on freemasonry.

Chapters in Part 2

Back to Masonic Secrets Revealed

Masonic Secrets recommends the following sites:

Sacred-Magick.Com: The Esoteric Library