Note: This material was scanned into text files for the sole purpose of convenient electronic research. This material is NOT intended as a reproduction of the original volumes. However close the material is to becoming a reproduced work, it should ONLY be regarded as a textual reference. Scanned at Phoenixmasonry by Ralph W. Omholt, PM in June 2007.
FREEMASONS' BOOK OF THE ROYAL ARCH
BY
BERNARD E. JONES
P.A.G.D.C. P.G.ST.B. ROYAL ARCH
MEMBER OF QUATUOR CORONATI LODGE
AUTHOR OF
"FREEMASONS' GUIDE AND COMPENDIUM"
New Impression
Revised by
HARRY CARR, P.A.G.D.C., P.G.ST.B.(R.A.)
P.M. and Secretary, Quatuor Coronati Lodge
and Editor of its Transactions
and
A. R. HEWITT, P.A.G.D.C., P.G.ST.B.(R.A.)
P.M. and
Treasurer, Quatuor Coronati Lodge
Librarian and Curator of Museum,
United Grand Lodge of England
With thirty‑one plates in half‑tone and
many line illustrations in the text
GEORGE G. HARRAP & COMPANY LTD
LONDON TORONTO WELLINGTON SYDNEY
PREFACE
THIS book, uniform in style and presentation with my earlier Freemasons' Guide and Compendium, which, in the main, dealt with Craft masonry, is an attempt to provide a simple explanation of the origin, rise, and development, and the customs, ritual, and symbolism, of Royal Arch masonry so far as present knowledge and considerations of Masonic propriety permit. I use the word ‘attempt' advisedly, for great difficulties are in the way of complete achievement in writing historically of this "elusive degree," although, let me say, in the task of coping with them I have been greatly cheered by recollections of the indulgence given me by readers of my earlier book.
The greatest obstacle in the path of the writer seeking to explain the early history of Royal Arch masonry is his comparative ignorance of the formative days of the Order ‑ the mid‑eighteenth‑century period. The facts on record are not enough to preclude different interpretations and conflicting views. Perhaps it is a slight compensation that the traditional history upon which the ceremonial of the Order is founded was clearly anticipated in published writings to an extent considerably greater than in the case of the Craft, for whereas, for example, there is hardly any recorded foreknowledge of the Third Degree Hiramic story, the Legend of the Crypt might well have been inspired by one known to have been in written form in the fourth century of the Christian era, while the sword‑and‑trowel motif, derived from the Old Testament account of the return of the Jews from exile, was the pride and glory of a Crusading Order of the early Middle Ages.
What I have tried to do in writing this book is to make available to Companions who have had little opportunity for specialized study an essentially readable account, as authentic as possible, of the history and lore of the Royal Arch, affording an insight into some matters which in the past have tended to escape the attention of all but the serious student. Not only do I hope that my readers will enjoy reading my book, but that some few of them will be able to use it as a source of material for short, simple addresses designed to arouse and foster the interest of their Companions. And most sincerely, also, do I hope that the serious student will find in it occasion for kindly, constructive criticism; indeed, I am
8
sure he will, for there are wide and unavoidable differences of opinion on some of the subjects discussed by me.
The title of this book may be thought to err by omission. Inasmuch as the Articles of Union, 1813, use the term ‘Holy Royal Arch' and the early Companions knew the Order by that name, it may be thought that the word ‘Holy' ought to be included in the title and commonly used in the text. True, there is history in the word. ‘Holy' is thought to have been derived more than two centuries ago from the ‘Antient' masons' motto, "Holiness to the Lord"; or to have been inspired by the Holy of Holies, the Inner Chamber of the Temple Sanctuary; or, again, to have reflected the religious, and even Christian, character of the primitive Royal Arch ceremonial. But it is to be noted that it is only sparingly used nowadays in the accepted rituals, and ‑ a fact that has mainly influenced me ‑ it does not form part of the titles of the Grand Chapters of England, Ireland, and Scotland.
So great a part of our knowledge of Royal Arch matters having been revealed by modern, and even quite recent, research, it follows that oldtime writings on the subject need generally to be read with caution. In no section of Masonic authorship has history been so badly served as in that of the Royal Arch, where the blending of fact and fancy so often causes the reader perplexity. I hope that my readers will do their best to approach this book with minds open and as free as possible of preconceptions.
In preparing myself for my task I have necessarily ranged over a wide variety of writings, and hope that I may fairly claim for this book what my old friend the late J. Heron Lepper so appreciatively said of my earlier one‑namely, that "it provides the man who has small leisure for extensive reading with the essence and marrow of what has been accomplished in two generations of Masonic scholarship." The List of Contents and the 16‑page Index reveal at a glance the very wide scope of my book.
My qualifications as a Royal Arch mason may be briefly stated: I was exalted in the Savage Club Chapter, No. 2190, in 1913, and was in the First Principal's Chair in 1925‑26. The writing of Masonic books comes at the end of a long and active life spent largely as an editor of technical books and periodicals. After much desultory Masonic reading and some modest lecturing I settled down in 1945 to serious work preparatory to writing my Freemasons' Guide and Compendium, which was published in 1950, since when I have applied myself more especially to the study of Royal Arch masonry, and of that study this book offers the more particular fruit.
Slight disparity between the opinions now expressed, particularly in the early sections of this book, and some in my other work may possibly
9
give occasion for comment. I confess that, with still wider reading and much further meditation, assisted by the results of recent research, I have come to regard the origin and rise of Royal Arch masonry in what I believe to be a truer perspective, allowing of my taking a more generous view of some of the questions involved. But I am very far from pretending that I am able (or that anybody ever will be able) to offer a noncontroversial account of the early history of the Order.
I am happy in acknowledging very considerable help extended to me in the course of gathering material for this book, and it is with gratitude that I mention especially one source of information to which I am under a heavy obligation: the late J. Heron Lepper, Librarian and Curator (1943‑52) of the United Grand Lodge of England, a man of great gifts and considerable achievement, wide learning, and with profound knowledge of Masonic history, built up over the course of years a most unusual file of Royal Arch information (neither now nor then normally available for reference), with possibly some idea that, given opportunity, he might one day turn it to account in the printed word. Such a book, had he been spared to write it, would have been a classic, and mine would have remained unwanted and unwritten. But his opportunity did not come, for, to the sorrow of us all, he died at Christmas 1952, at the age of seventy‑four. By unique good fortune, to which my book owes very much indeed, his successor, Ivor Grantham, courteously extended to me the privilege of working steadily through Heron Lepper's file and of taking copies of any of its contents, and for this great kindness‑just one of a great many from the same hands ‑ I shall ever be grateful.
My debt to two other sources, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum (the "Transactions" of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, No. 2076, the world's premier lodge of Masonic research) and Miscellanea Latomorum (let us hope only temporarily suspended), is a heavy one, for there is little on my subject in the lengthy files of these publications that I have not read in my search for enlightenment. All Masonic authors of to‑day have reason to be grateful to these two remarkable founts of knowledge.
To many of my fellow‑members of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge (all of them authors of Masonic writings) I offer thanks for many marked kindnesses ‑ as, for example, to John R. Dashwood (Secretary and Editor of the lodge "Transactions"), for many privileges, especially his help in connexion with the history of the First Grand Chapter and his kindness in finding and lending illustrations. (His publication, in the lodge "Transactions," of the actual record of the interrogation of John Coustos by the Inquisition (1743 and 1744) and of the minutes of the chapter that so quickly became the First Grand Chapter (1766), with his comments thereon, gives us two of the most notable recent contri‑
10
butions to authentic Masonic history. I have well profited by them.) Also, I would thank Harry Carr, for his painstaking revision of the section on the Ineffable Name; George S. Draffen (Grand Librarian, Grand Lodge of Scotland), for placing his manuscript The Triple Tau at my disposal in advance of publication and for permission to quote from it; Gilbert Y. Johnson, for help in connexion with the history of York Royal Arch masonry and for lending me his writings on the subject; Bruce W. Oliver, for his loan of an old MS. ritual, of which I have been able to make considerable use; Sydney Pope, for arranging for the photographing of an ancient banner preserved in the Canterbury Masonic Museum, of which he is Curator; Norman Rogers, for help in general and for the loan of his MS. on Royal Arch masonry in Lancashire; Fred L. Pick, for arranging for the loan of many photographs, some preserved in the museum of which he is Curator and others belonging to the Manchester Association of Masonic Research; John R. Rylands, for reading two early sections, the loan of his papers on Yorkshire Royal Arch masonry, and permission to use his photographs of the Wakefield jewels; William Waples, for his many notes on North‑east Royal Arch masonry and for permission to use two photographs; and Eric Ward, for providing me with copies of minutes of old military chapters.
Also, I wish to thank Ward K. St Clair, Chairman, Library and Museum Committee, Grand Lodge of New York, U.S.A., for his courtesy and for permission to quote from his MS. paper relating to the "Past Master Degree" in United States freemasonry; Norman Hackney, for the use of photograph and description of an ancient Indian metal plate carrying significant symbols; G. S. Shepherd‑Jones, for the use I have made of his explanation of the symbolism of the Royal Arch jewel; C. F. Waddington, for his help in connexion with some of the Bristol ceremonies; and the great many lodges and chapters whose records I have quoted and whose treasured possessions I have, in some cases, been able to illustrate, suitably acknowledged where possible.
I take particular pleasure in recording my great debt to members of the staff of the Library and Museum, Freemasons' Hall, London, who over a period of years have freely given me of their knowledge, and have allowed me, times out of number, to bother them in my search for information. To the Librarian and Curator, to whom I have already referred; the Assistant Librarian, Edward Newton (who has suffered much of my importunity); to H. P. Smith and T. Barlow, members of the staff to all of them I offer my warm thanks for assistance in so many, many matters; to Henry F. D. Chilton, the Assistant Curator, I record my sincere appreciation of his help in choosing from among the Museum exhibits many of the diverse subjects included in the thirty‑one photographic plates with which the Publisher has so generously adorned this book. In this connexion I wish to thank the United Grand Lodge, the Supreme Grand Chapter, and also Quatuor Coronati Lodge for their loan of a great many of the illustrations, and the first named for its particular kindness in taking the trouble on my behalf of having photographs made of a number of its Library and Museum treasures.
It will be understood, therefore, that it is with a lively sense of the help I myself have enjoyed that I now address myself to Companions everywhere in the hope that my book, in adding, as I trust, to their knowledge of Royal Arch masonry, will serve also to add to the happiness and satisfaction which they derive from membership of the Order.
B.E.J.
BOLNEY
SUSSEX
PREFACE TO THE REVISED IMPRESSION
TWELVE years have passed since this monumental work on the Royal Arch was first published, and in preparation for a new impression opportunity has been taken to make a number of important amendments in the light of modern studies in this field. The main changes occur in the sections dealing with the organization of the ‘Antients' Royal Arch. Research has shown that there never was an ‘Antients' Grand Chapter as such, so frequently mentioned in the earlier impressions; its Royal Arch activities were controlled by the ‘Antients' Grand Lodge. Similarly, it was something of a misnomer to refer to the ‘Moderns' Grand Chapter, which was, throughout its history, the premier and the only Grand Chapter in England. The requisite modifications have now been made, together with necessary corrections in the section dealing with the Ineffable Name and minor corrections of dates, captions, spellings, etc., where needed. The general scheme of the original work, and the pagination, remain unchanged.
H.C.
A.R.H.
JANUARY 1969
27 GREAT QUEEN STREET
LONDON, W.C.2
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. WHENCE CAME THE ROYAL ARCH? 19
2. HOW CRAFT CONDITIONS PREPARED THE WAY FOR THE
ROYAL ARCH 31
3. THE EARLY YEARS OF ROYAL ARCH MASONRY 36
4. THE ‘ANTIENT' MASONS AND THE ROYAL ARCH 52
5. THE ‘MODERNS' MASONS AND THE ROYAL ARCH 62
6. THE FIRST GRAND CHAPTER IN THE WORLD 68
7. THE SO‑CALLED ‘ANTIENTS' GRAND CHAPTER 93
8. YORK ROYAL ARCH MASONRY 100
9. SOME FAMILIAR TERMS 105
10. THE'UNION'‑SUPREME GRAND CHAPTER, 1817 109
11. TRADITIONAL HISTORY: THE CRYPT LEGEND 126
12. TRADITIONAL HISTORY: THE BIBLICAL BACKGROUND 138
13. THE INEFFABLE NAME 148
14. THE RITUAL AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 156
15. THE PRINCIPALS AND THEIR INSTALLATION 175
16. AN EARLY QUALIFYING CEREMONY: PASSING THE CHAIR 181
17. PASSING THE VEILS 195
18. SEQUENCE AND STEP DEGREES 201
19. THE IRISH ROYAL ARCH 208
20. THE SCOTTISH ROYAL ARCH 219
21. SYMBOLS: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS; THE CIRCLE 226
22. SYMBOLS: THE TAU AND THE TRIPLE TAU 233
23. SYMBOLS: THE TRIANGLE AND INTERLACED TRIANGLES 238
24. THE ALTAR STONE, LIGHTS, BANNERS 245
25. ROYAL ARCH CLOTHING 252
26. ROYAL ARCH JEWELS 258
APPENDIX: THE CHARTER OF COMPACT 272
BIBLIOGRAPHY 277
INDEX 279
ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATES IN HALF‑TONE
PAGE
I. THE ROYAL ARCH AS DEPICTED BY LAURENCE DERMOTT frontispiece
II. SWORD‑AND‑TROWEL EMBLEM, FROM GEOFFREY
WHITNEY'S "CHOICE OF EMBLEMES," AND TRIPLE
ARCHES FROM ROYAL ARCH CERTIFICATES 32
III. FRONTISPIECE OF SAMUEL LEE'S "ORBIS MIRACULUM,"
OR "THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON" (1659) AND
FRONTISPIECE TO "AHIMAN REZON" (1764),
INCLUDING IN ITS UPPER PART THE ARMS OF THE
‘ANCIENT' MASONS 33
IV. THE CHARTER OF COMPACT 48
V. CADWALLADER, NINTH LORD BLAYNEY (1720‑75) 49
VI. TWO DECORATIVE APRONS OF THE LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 64
VII. THE KIRKWALL SCROLLGS
VIII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROYAL ARCH EMBLEM AND JEWEL 80
IX. ANCIENT METAL PLATE AND THE ALL‑SEEING EYE IN
WROUGHT‑IRON ORNAMENT 81
X. THE CRYPT OF YORK MINSTER AND TWO TYPICAL
SUMMONSES, LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 96
XI. SOME EARLY VARIATIONS OF THE ROYAL ARCH JEWEL 97
XII. TRACING‑BOARD OF CHURCHILL LODGE, NO. 478,
OXFORD, AND CEREMONIAL SWORD USED IN
‘ANTIENTS' GRAND LODGE AND NOW BORNE IN
SUPREME GRAND CHAPTER 112
XIII. TWO PAINTED APRONS WORKED IN APPLIQUE 113
XIV. BANNER PAINTED IN COLOURS LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 128
XV. COMBINED P.M. AND P.Z. JEWELS, LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 129
XVI. CHARTER OF THE CANA CHAPTERS COLNE, NO. 116 AND
BANNER OF AN OLD LODGE) NO. 2o8, AT WIGTON, CUMBERLAND 144
XVIL TWO HANDSOME CHAIRS COMBINED CRAFT AND ROYAL ARCH 145
XVIII. APRONS OF THE 1790 PERIOD 160
XIX. TODDY RUMMER, EARLY 1820'S 161
XX. PLATE JEWELS AND HEAVY CAST JEWELS, LATE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 176
XXI. OLD PRINTS EMBLEMATIC OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY 177
XXIL FIVE SMALL JEWELS, 1780‑1825 PERIOD 192
XXIII. A SET OF PRINCIPALS' ROBES) APRONS, AND HEAD DRESSES 193
XXIV. THE UNIQUE JEWELS OF UNANIMITY CHAPTER, WAKEFIELD 208
XXV. HEAD‑DRESSES ANCIENT AND TRADITIONAL 209
XXVI. RICHLY ORNAMENTED APRONS OF THE 1800 PERIOD 224
XXVIL JUGS DECORATED WITH MASONIC TRANSFERS 225
XXVIII. THE BELZONI AND OTHER RARE JEWELS ALL SET IN BRILLIANTS 240
XXIX. A MINIATURE PEDESTAL AND THE NEWCASTLE WATERCLOCK 241
XXX. FOUR APRONS PAST AND PRESENT 256
XXXI. FIVE NOTEWORTHY AND CONTRASTING JEWELS 257
ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
THE CATENARIAN ARCH 134
SYMBOLIC CIRCLES 231
VARIATIONS OF THE CROSS 233
THE T‑OVER‑HAND THE TRIPLE TAU 233
HOW THE PLAIN CROSS DEVELOPED INTO FORMS OF THE SWASTIKA
OR FYLFOT 234
SYMBOLIC FIGURES 234
SYMBOLIC TRIANGLES 238
THE HEXALPHA SIX‑POINTED STAR AND A FEW OF ITS VARIATIONS 241
A VARIETY OF INTERLACED TRIANGLES FOUND IN MASONICPAGE ILLUSTRATION 242
MANY MASONIC DEVICES BUILT UP WITH AND WITHIN
INTER LACED TRIANGLES 243
THE PENTALPHA (FIVE‑POINTED STAR) IN SOME OF ITS VARIATIONS 244
A PIERCED JEWEL SHOWING TRIPLE ARCHES AND FIGURE OF
SOJOURNER 259
A JEWEL OF THE THREE CROWNED STARS LODGE, PRAGUE 259
TWO SIDES OF OLD JEWEL OF UNCOMMON SHAPE AND CROWDED
WITH EMBLEMS 261
A SQUARE‑AND‑SECTOR COLLAR JEWEL OF BOLD AND ATTRACTIVE
DESIGNS DATED 1812 263
OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF THE ENGLISH ROYAL ARCH JEWEL 264
OBVERSE AND REVERSE OF THE SCOTTISH ROYAL ARCH JEWEL 265
OBVERSE OF THE IRISH ROYAL ARCH JEWEL 265
A DESIGN (DATE 1630) BY THE FRENCH ENGRAVER CALLOT, A
POSSIBLE PREFIGUREMENT OF THE ROYAL ARCH JEWEL (1766) 266
TWO IRISH SILVER JEWELS, LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 267
AN EARLY IRISH JEWEL CARRYING EMBLEMS OF MANY DEGREES
AND SHOWING SOJOURNER WITH SWORD AND TROWEL 268
Section One
WHENCE CAME THE ROYAL ARCH?
THERE has been long argument on how Royal Arch masonry came into existence. Was it present in some slight form in the earliest fabric of speculative masonry or was it, frankly, just an innovation in the first half of the eighteenth century? Those accepting the first possibility believe that long before the earliest recorded dates of Craft masonry ‑ the Acception in the London Company of Freemasons in 1621 and the ‘making' of Elias Ashmole in 1646 ‑ there was a legend or a series of legends from which was developed (a) the Hiramic Degree which was working in a few lodges certainly as early as the 1720's; (b) the Royal Arch Degree known to be working by the 1740's and 1750's; and (c) some additional degrees. All three were thought to have come from one common source and, although developed on very different lines, to have running through them a recognizable thread. Students of the calibre of J. E. S. Tuckett and Count Goblet d'Alviella were prominent in advancing such a possibility. They felt that the legends relating to Hiram and to the Royal Arch were the surviving portions of a Craft lore that originally contained other and similar legends, the Count holding that freemasonry sprang from "a fruitful union between the professional Guild of Medieval Masons and a secret group of philosophical adepts." The Guild furnished the form and the philosophers the spirit.
Many students have thought that the Royal Arch was torn from the Hiramic Degree and that the 1813 Act of Union between the ‘Antients' and the ‘Moderns’1 did scant justice in pronouncing "that pure Ancient Masonry consists of Three Degrees and no more, namely those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft and the Master Mason including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch." We know that the Hiramic Degree was developing into a practicable ritual in the years following 1717, in which year the Premier Grand Lodge was founded, and that the Royal Arch Degree was going through a similar experience two or three decades later; this sequence in time is held to favour the idea that from the store of tradition came first the Hiramic story of the First Temple and secondly the Sojourner story of the Second Temple.
1 For explanation of these terms see the author's Freemasons' Guide and Compendium, chapter 12.
20
Although Count Goblet d'Alviella suggests a union between medieval masons and the philosophers, most students (the present writer among them) cannot see even a slight possibility that the Royal Arch has developed from operative masonry. The Count probably had in mind the association between the slight speculative masonry of the seventeenth century possibly centred in the London Company of Freemasons and the learned mystics practising Rosicrucian and alchemical arts. Many of the learned men who came into masonry in those early days were scholars well acquainted with classical and medieval literature, who brought with them a curious and special knowledge and, so far as can be judged, grafted some of that knowledge upon the short and simple ceremonies which then constituted speculative masonry. There is a good case for assuming that much of the symbolism of masonry was brought in by those mystics, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that some of the best‑known symbols of Royal Arch masonry bear a close resemblance to those of alchemy; this point will be developed later; for the moment we must accept the likelihood that Royal Arch masonry borrowed directly from the alchemical store of symbolism. But this or any similar statement does not imply that Craft and Royal Arch masonry came from one common source, for while, on the one hand, there are suggestions in Biblical and medieval literature on which a sort of Hiramic Degree could be based and, on the other hand, traditions which almost certainly supplied the basis of the Royal Arch story, we do not know of any traditions containing fundamentals common to both‑an ignorance on our part that is far from proof that such a source never existed! With this slight introduction let us now inquire more closely into the problems that arise.
Did the Royal Arch develop from the Hiramic Degree?
At times it has been strongly and widely held that the original Third Degree of the Craft was ‘mutilated' to provide material for the Royal Arch ceremonial. Dr Mackey, the well‑known American writer, stated that, "until the year 1740, the essential element of the R.A. constituted a part of the Master's degree and was, of course, its concluding portion." Both the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford and the Rev. Dr Oliver asserted that the Royal Arch was the second part of the Old Master's Degree; Dr Oliver maintained that "the difference between the ‘Antient' and the ‘Modern' systems consisted solely in the mutilation of the Third Degree," and that "the R.A. was concocted by the ‘Antients' to widen the breach and make the line of distinction between them and the Premier Grand Lodge broader and more indelible." It has been said that the 'Moderns, resenting taunts on their having transposed the words and signs of the First and
21
Second Degrees, were merely retaliating when they accused the ‘Antients' of mutilating the Third Degree.
It so happens that the reverend gentlemen, A. F. A. Woodford and George Oliver, are seldom reliable when dealing with any matter relating to the great division in eighteenth‑century masonry (a division which is explained in the author's earlier book'). Both of them, forming their opinions somewhat lightly, wrote in a day lacking the new information which research has brought us in this matter. Dr Oliver professed to have a Third Degree ritual of 1740 in which some of the esoteric knowledge now associated with the R.A. is mixed up with similar knowledge now associated with the Third Degree, but it is doubtful if such a document exists. The modern student would require to see the document and give close attention to its provenance ‑ that is, its origin and true date.
W. Redfern Kelly believed that a Mason Word, recognized under the ancient operative system and included in the First and Second Degrees round about IM, was transferred to the Third Degree in the 1750's (apparently by the Premier Grand Lodge), and that later, perhaps about the year 1739, the Third Degree was seriously mutilated to provide a fourth degree, it being an easy matter, once again, to transfer both the Word and some of the legendary matter to the new creation. But, frankly, few students nowadays accept these beliefs or look kindly upon the term ‘ mutilation' when used to describe the process by which the Third Degree is assumed to have yielded to the R.A. some of its choice content. To the present writer ‘mutilation' seems to be quite beside the mark.
Who is supposed to have been responsible for this process, whatever it was? The ‘Moderns' are alleged to have taunted the ‘Antients' with being the offenders, but the suggestion is ridiculous ‑ and for the very good reason that the R.A. was being worked as a separate degree before the ‘Antients' got into their stride! How could there be any obvious ‘mutilation' in view of the fact that the Craft ceremonies as worked by the ‘Antients' more or less agreed with those worked by the Irish and Scottish masons? It is certain that the Irish and the Scottish Grand Lodges, which were in the closest association with the ‘Antients,' did not mutilate the Third Degree to provide a Royal Arch Degree, nor did they countenance others doing so, for, officially, they were just as hostile to the Royal Arch as the ‘Moderns' were, and took a long, long time to modify their attitude. At a particular date, it is known, says Hughan, that there was no essential difference between the first three degrees in the French working and those in the English, proof that no violent alterations had been made in the Third Degree for the sake of an English Royal Arch rite. If the ‘Antients' did not ‘mutilate' the Craft degrees it is inconceivable that the ' Freemasons' Guide and Compendium (Harrap, 1950).
22
‘Moderns' did so; it would be quite ridiculous to suggest that officially they ‘mutilated' a Craft degree to produce something which they then repudiated or treated with frigid indifference. This point will be returned to.
No; it can be taken for granted that the most enlightened students agree that there was no extraction from or transfer of any large part of the Third Degree. There does not seem to be any evidence to support the statement that the Royal Arch was originally a part of any Craft degree.
A point of real importance is that the Hiramic Degree itself had only been more or less generally worked in England from some time late in the 1720's, and that if the argument that it was ‘mutilated' has anything in it we should have to believe that a newly worked degree was itself pulled to bits to provide another one. Douglas Knoop, a professional historian of marked ability, stated definitely that there is no evidence that our Third Degree legend and our R.A. legend were ever combined in one ceremony.
But let it be freely admitted that, while, on the available evidence, there were no ‘mutilations,' it is likely ‑ indeed, certain ‑ that there were borrowings. We know, for example, that mention of any stone‑turning in the Craft ritual of the 1730's known to John Coustos (see p. 44) did not remain in the Craft working, but that the motif, amplified and drastically developed, does find a place in the R.A. working. Certain French tracingboards of the 1740’s depict ideas which are not now in the Third Degree but are present in the R.A., but tracing‑boards are seldom convincing evidence in such a matter as this, because in the early days Craft and Royal Arch ceremonies were worked in the same lodges, and inevitably an artist introduced into a tracing‑board emblems from all the degrees known to him. Similarly, early jewels commonly depict both Craft and Royal Arch emblems, but by the time such jewels became popular the lines of the then early Royal Arch ceremony had been fairly well defined. These early jewels often include the emblems not only of the Craft and Royal Arch, but of one or two or more added degrees.
A lodge that would be working Craft degrees on one Wednesday, let us say, and the Royal Arch the next Wednesday, in the same inn room and to a large extent with the same Brethren present, would be likely, given time enough, to arrive at some admixture of detail; all the more likely would this be in the absence of printed rituals and any close control from superior authority. Given time enough, it is not difficult to see that in such conditions a feature could pass from one degree to another without causing much disturbance. This process of borrowing, in a day in which communication was slow, may have led to some of the variation in working occurring between one district and another. Hughan thought that a particular test given in one of the sections of the Third Degree had found
23
its way into a prominent position in the Royal Arch Degree; the "test" he had in mind is apparently the Word, and the statement is made that this word is still recognized in some Master Masons' lodges on the Continent. Hughan's allusion is probably to a Craft ritual given in an irregular print of the year 1725: "Yet for all this I want the primitive Word. I answer it was God in six terminations, to wit I am and Jehovah is the answer to it." A telling argument against the suggestion that the Royal Arch was a ceremony largely taken from the Third Degree has already been referred to. It arises from the question: If such ‘mutilation' took place, how could the official ‘Moderns' have denied the authenticity of the Royal Arch? They would obviously have known the treatment to which the Third Degree had been subjected; they would have been aware that a new ceremony had been made by partly unmaking another one, but they could hardly have questioned its essentials if originally these had been part of their own rite! Still more obviously, how vastly different the Third Degree of the ‘Moderns' would have been from that of the ‘Antients'! We know, of course, that there were detail differences between them, but the two ceremonies were recognizably and essentially the same. Until proof is produced that the ‘Moderns' practised a Third Degree vastly different from that of the ‘Antients' ‑ a degree retaining cardinal features which the other side knew only in the Royal Arch ‑ until then we have no option but to conclude that the Third Degree certainly was not ‘mutilated' to provide a separate degree.
A strange version of the ‘mutilation' idea put forward by W. Redfern Kelly is that, to assist in bringing about the complete reconciliation of the two rival bodies at the Craft Union of 1813, some section of the Third Degree may have been transferred to the Royal Arch! Surely the idea is quite hopeless! Where, in the rituals of the 1850's, which are reasonably well known to us, should we look for the transposed "section"? Officially, the ‘Antients' would not have allowed any serious alteration of a degree which to them was certainly "more august, sublime and important than those [degrees] which precede it and is the summit and perfection of Antient Masonry" (Laws and Regulations, 1807). The ‘Moderns' would certainly not have robbed a Craft ceremony for the purpose of strengthening a rite whose status as a fourth degree they were trying (officially) to belittle and disparage.
Was the Royal Arch ‘devised' or ‘invented'?
We cannot hide the fact that there is a considerable body of opinion in favour of the theory that Royal Arch masonry was a creation, a ‘fabrication,' of French origin, brought to England round about 1730. The French had taken their freemasonry from England, and in their eyes it
24
must have lacked the qualities of colour and drama, or so we must conclude from the fact that the ceremonies that came back from France had become dramatically effective. The sword had found a place in the Initiation ceremony, as one example. Something different from the original rather colourless English rite had been brought into existence, and in the light of this innovation many students have come to regard the Royal Arch as a degree deliberately contrived by the imaginative Frenchman to appeal to the English Master Mason, to whom it might have been presented quite naturally as a fourth degree.
Chevalier Ramsay (to whom we return on a later page) has often been credited with having brought a number of new degrees from France to England, among them the Royal Arch. The Rev. Dr Oliver, already mentioned, was quite definite in his statements to this effect, but there is not a scrap of real evidence in support of an idea which seems to depend solely upon a few words in an address by Ramsay composed in the year 1737 (see p. 42). But, if not Ramsay, it is possible that some other Continental (almost certainly French) framer of degrees might have evolved the Royal Arch ceremonial with a foreseeing eye on what he thought to be the needs of the English mason. Such an innovation might, in the process of time, have been amplified and embellished and ultimately become moulded into the degree that is now such an important part of the Masonic system. W. Redfern Kelly thought that the R.A. was created in or about the year 1738 or 1739, and might have been taken by an English reviser from a newly fabricated Continental degree. Indeed, the general idea among those who believe that the Royal Arch was an innovation is that an English editor in the late 1730's availed himself of a framework provided by one of the new French degrees. Through so many of these ran the idea of the secret vault and the Ineffable Name. These are the selfsame degrees that some students believe to have provided the basis for the Rite of Perfection of twenty‑five degrees, later absorbed in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of thirty‑three degrees more particularly developed early in the 1800's.
But it is certainly worth noting that Royal Arch masonry has never at any time flourished in France and, further, that the statement that there were Irish Royal Arch chapters in France in 1730, which, if true, would have greatly strengthened the suggestion of a French origin, is simply and finally repudiated by Hughan as a mere typographical error. There were not Royal Arch lodges in France at that early date, and very few at any later date, either.
Students who support the theory that the Royal Arch came from the same stock of lore as the Hiramic Degree argue against the suggestion of a Continental origin by pointing out that the historical setting of the English
25
R.A. is not to be found in any Continental setting. Against this, however, we must admit the possibility that a clever deviser ‑ assuming for a moment that the R.A. was an innovation ‑ might, in drawing his foundation story from ancient classic legends, have done his best to produce his new degree not for Continental consumption, but for export to England, where, let it never be forgotten, speculative masonry had its birth and its richest development. Then, too, as already suggested, the R.A. idea might have been French, although the development was English.
There are those who hold that, as the Royal Arch is believed to have first gained popularity with the ‘Antients,' who must have regarded it as having time‑immemorial sanction, it follows that it was much more likely to have grown from an original Masonic lore than to be a mere innovation. But what is the argument worth? While the ‘Antients' glibly dubbed their opponents ‘innovators,' they themselves were more often the real innovators, for by the time their Grand Lodge was established, at about the middle of the eighteenth century, they had been led to introduce or adopt more than one ceremony which certainly had no place in the Masonic rite when the first Grand Lodge was formed.
A Compromise Theory probably the Truest
We may fairly be expected to offer a statement of our own belief in these matters. We do not believe that the Royal Arch developed from the same source as the Hiramic Degree, and we have found no trace of any connexion with operative masonry. But neither do we believe that the Royal Arch Degree was an out‑and‑out fabrication. We feel that some masons and some lodges were early acquainted with element now associated with the Royal Arch ceremonial, in which respect we have been greatly influenced by the reference to stone‑turning and the finding of the Sacred Name made by John Coustos in his evidence when in the hands of the Inquisition (see p. 44). And we cannot disregard Gould's suggestion that the much‑talked‑of and little‑known Scots degrees, worked in the early eighteenth century, were cryptic in character and might well have provided ideas that developed on the Royal Arch pattern. We cannot ignore certain of the early allusions to the Royal Arch idea or motif given in the next section of this book, and we are realizing that such words as ‘created' and ‘fabricated' do not apply in their acknowledged and accepted meanings to the manner in which the Royal Arch was brought into the world of Masonic observance. The arranger or editor might well have been French, but could as easily have been English; there is not a scrap of evidence on the point.
In the main the theme of the Royal Arch story is provided by versions
26
of an ancient crypt legend with which many learned men would have been quite familiar. The arranger might first have gone to one or more of these versions (as in our opinion he undoubtedly did) and then incorporated an idea or ideas present in the Craft ceremonials in use by some few lodges. The arranger ‑ with the material of the old crypt legends, the references in the Craft ritual, and the Old Testament story of the Jewish exile ‑ was able to erect what was actually a new degree or rite containing the features of the vault, the discoveries and the reiterated belief in the ‘Word.' The restoration of the Christian content and of the ‘true secrets,' together with a story attractive and even dramatic in itself, assured the popularity of the new degree. The essential elements known to us to‑day were in the early ceremonies‑the essential elements ‑ but, as the ritual took half a century to develop and was heavily revised and rearranged in the 1830’s, it is quite obvious that the early ceremony was little more than the primitive form of to‑day's.
With the opinion as above expressed in this difficult and controversial matter J. Heron Lepper, whose knowledge of Royal Arch history, both English and Irish, was unrivalled, might well be held as being in agreement. In an address (1933) to Supreme Grand Chapter (unfortunately not suitable for extensive quotation in this place) he takes certain of Dassigny's statements (see p. 45), relates them to significant references to a tripartite word in an irregular print of the year 1725 (see p. 38), and concludes that "various essential portions of the degree of R.A. were known to our forerunners in England as early as the Craft Degrees themselves. .... Definite traces of the stepping‑stones from the Craft to the R.A. still exist in our ritual." He feels that such proof of the real antiquity of the degree justifies "the traditions and good‑faith of our predecessors of 1813" (the Brethren who, in recognizing the Union, declared that pure Ancient Masonry consisted of three degrees, including the Royal Arch). Well, it is said that the heart makes t
