THE BUILDER MAY 1925

Royal Arch Masonry Prior to the Union of 1813

By BRO.JOHN STOKES, M.A., M.D.,

PAST ASSISTANT GRAND SOJOURNER, R.A., England; SENIOR WARDEN,
QUATUOR CORONATI LODGE, NO. 2076, England

In the whole history of the Craft there is nothing more puzzling
than the mysterious origin of the Royal Arch Degree. Two
circumstances have contributed to this somewhat nebulous condition
of affairs. The first is, that those who did know something
definite as to its inception have left no record of their
knowledge; the other, that those who did write concerning this
degree in the early years of the last century knew very little
about it, but were tolerably certain that what they did not know
about it--and incidentally about all other Masonic questions--was
not worth knowing. The subject was approached very much after the
manner of the learned gentleman, presumably of Teutonic descent,
who had occasion to describe a camel. He had never seen a camel,
and had not the remotest idea of what it resembled, so he proceeded
to evolve a camel out of the depths of his imagination, with
somewhat surprising results.

In like manner, the evolution of Royal Arch Masonry was attributed
to various sources, with which in reality it had nothing whatever
to do, nor even the smallest kind of relation. The ipse dixit of
these people was laid down in such an authoritative style and with
such a wealth of quotation from numerous writers, that it would
have taken a bold man to doubt their assertions, or attempt to
refute their conclusions. When, however, the origin of the degree
was looked into by examining the original minutes of the Grand and
private lodges and chapters, it became obvious that the method of
writing history by means of a travel into the realms of phantasy
was not the best way to arrive at the truth of the matter. It was
also evident that the assertions of these soi disant historians
were founded, not on the sure ground of fact, but merely on more or
less intelligent surmise. It was assumed that the degree ought to
have arisen in a certain way, and therefore did arise in that way.
This attitude of mind is fatal to research, but is very easy to
pursue. A theory, more or less probable, is first brought forward,
and then the facts, or such of them as may appear the most
suitable, are so arranged that they fit in with theory. Such
methods must have a chaotic effect on the mind of the genuine
seeker after knowledge.

Perhaps it will be best to deal first with the exploded notions of
the older writers, and then to give a summary of what we really
know, leaving the domain of conjecture, which is all very well in
its proper place, to those who prefer that method of resolving a
vexed question.

THE 'CHEVALIER RAMSAY THEORY" EXPLODED

Our dear and most elusive friend, the Chevalier Ramsay--who may or
may not have been a Freemason for there is no certainty one way or
another-- was given the credit at one time. He must have been a
most remarkable man if he did even a tenth part of the things
attributed to him. He was, at one period, tutor to the Stuart royal
children and led a rather variegated career, devoting his life to
the restoration of the Stuart family on the throne of England, in
which enterprise he failed, as did all those who tried to help that
unfortunate and decadent dynasty. He seems to have turned his
attention to any and every quarter from which assistance, however
vague and unlikely, might perchance come to help his designs. And
what so likely as from the world-wide organization of the Masonic
order, then the fashionable cult of the French aristocracy, and
their imitators everywhere? With this end and aim in view he is
credited with the invention of all sorts of Masonic and other
degrees. There is no definite proof that he did anything of the
kind. The whole story is of that delightfully indefinite type, that
is so undeniably charming but so demonstrably unreal. At any rate
his precise schemes came to nothing, the house of Hanover remained
firm on the throne; also, so far as we know, Freemasonry went on as
usual. On March 21, 1737, Ramsay wrote a Masonic oration, to be
given before the Grand Lodge at Paris, or before some ordinary
lodge, in which various Masonic degrees are mentioned. The speech
was certainly not read at this or any other lodge. It is not
certain that Ramsay wrote this or any other Masonic oration; all
that we know is that he was said to have done so. From this feeble
source comes all the theoretical implication of Ramsay as a sort of
arch conspirator, bringing all sorts of innovations into the
Masonic fold.

DR. OLIVER IS UNRELIABLE

Bro. Hughan in his Origin of the English Rite (1909 Ed pp. 81,
sqq.), says: "Dr. Oliver (Origin of the English Royal Arch, p. 39)
asserts that the Chevalier Ramsay 'visited London at the very
period in question, for the purpose of introducing his new degrees
into English Masonry; and his schemes being rejected by the
Constitutional Grand Lodge, nothing appears more likely than that
he would throw himself into the hands of the schismatics.... It is
therefore extremely probable that Ramsay was concerned in the
fabrication of the English degree.' I demur entirely to such
statements for many and sufficient reasons. There is not a tittle
of proof that Ramsay's 'inventions' were either entertained or
rejected by the Grand Lodge of England, by its rival of the 'Athol
Masons', or by any other Masonic body in Great Britain and Ireland;
added to which he had 'joined the majority' some three years, at
least prior to the period of Dermott's exaltation as a Royal Arch
Mason, and the 'Atholl Grand Lodge' had no existence until some
seven years or more after Ramsay's decease. I am entirely of the
opinion that if the Chevalier 'did visit any part of England or
Ireland about 1740, it was not for Masonic, but political
purposes'- but as to that, the necessary information being lacking,
we need not speculate."

The Rev. Dr. Oliver was a very estimable man and a most voluminous
writer. As a pillar of the Church of England as by Law Established,
he really ought to have been more careful about making statements
without proof; and though, as Sydney Smith said of a preacher in
the pulpit that he was "three feet above contradiction, "yet the
learned Doctor so frequently contradicts himself, that we are saved
the necessity of doing it for him. All the same we are left
uncertain to what extent he expects us to believe in him, and to
what extent he himself believed in his own statements.

OTHER THEORIES ARE NOT PROVIDED

Bro. R. F. Gould in his History of Freemasonry (Vol. II, p. 457)
tries to prove that the degree of the Royal Arch had its inception
in the "Scots" degrees, which sprang up in all parts of France
about 1740. At this period, France was full of English and Scottish
adherents to the Stuart cause, who, finding the climate of their
own land somewhat unhealthy, crossed the Channel to plot and
counterplot for the Stuarts. Many of these were, or became Roman
Catholics, and it is doubtful if these men could conscientiously
join the Masonic Order. Gould does his best with a rather poor
case, but does not prove anything.

In Findel's History of Freemasonry, p. 182, it is asserted that:
"The Royal Arch Degree is in its essential elements decidedly
French in its origin, but received a somewhat different form in
England, with additions from the higher degrees then flourishing on
the Continent." Here again we meet with a statement given ex
cathedra but without the slightest attempt at proof. What we should
like to have is chapter and verse for these assertions. If merely
a guess, it would be better to say so and leave it at that.

Kloss, however, goes one better than the others, for he gives a
definite date. He says that Royal Arch Masonry was introduced into
England in the year 1774, and then goes on to say that the English
first became acquainted with the degree during the Austrian War of
Succession between the years 1741 and 1742. Here, fortunately, we
have something definite to deal with. We know the movements of the
English troops during that inconclusive campaign, in which
Frederick the Great got what he wanted, and the rest, including
England, added to their national debt. Some 16,000 English troops
were stationed in Holland, but none were actually engaged with the
forces of Maria Theresa. We cannot say that no Englishmen were in
Austria or in its neighborhood during this period, but the whole
tale sounds improbable on the face of it. In any case, why did
these people, who got the degree in 1741 or 1742, wait until 1774
before bringing the degree into England? One other point may be
mentioned, viz., we know the Royal Arch to have been here before
that date.

It will be noticed that all these authorities ascribe the
"invention" of the degree to foreign sources, preferably to France.
We have got so accustomed to things being attributed to any origin
rather than an English one, that this is not a matter of surprise;
but, if the degree was invented somewhere, is it not possible that
this effete and downtrodden country might have been capable of
giving birth to someone equal to the task?

THE FACTS OF R.A. MASONRY

Let us now leave these fascinating realms of conjecture, these wild
and extravagant hypotheses without a scintilla of proof, and put
down what we really can vouch for.

Hughan, a writer whose statements are always supported by adequate
documentary evidence, who never made an assertion without first
thinking what it meant, and whose judgment was of the highest
judicial order, says:

"It is probable that Royal Arch Masonry was the first ceremony
associated with the Craft Degree, though before minutes relating to
the Royal Arch are met with, there are records of other extra
degrees; but references to the former of 1743-4 place it in the
position of being one of the earliest known of the additional
Ceremonies." (Origin of the English Rite, p. 73.)

The date of the appearance of the Royal Arch may therefore be taken
as somewhere about the year 1740 It may have been worked before
that date, but documentary evidence, referring to it as being
well-know after that date, is becoming more and more established,
as the old records are brought to light.

The first mention of the degree in contemporary literature is in
that interesting work entitled, A Serious and Impartial Enquiry to
the Cause of the Present Decay of Free-Masonry in the Kingdom of
Ireland, written by Fifield Dassigny, M. D., and published in
Dublin in 1744. This book was lost sight of until Bro Hughan, in
1867, discovered a copy, now in the Library of the Grand Lodge of
Iowa, U. S. A. Another cop was found subsequently, which is in the
Library of West Yorkshire. In this work Dassigny specifically
alludes to the Royal Arch Degree as being worked in various cities.
Dermott quotes from it on several occasions, e. g., Ahiman Rezon,
first edition, 1756.

RECORDS FROM THE UNITED STATES

From the point of view of continuity of working, our American
brethren can justly congratulate themselves, for the Chapter of
Jerusalem, No. 3, of the city of Philadelphia has gone on working
the degree from 1758 up to the present time, truly a proud position
to occupy! The earliest minute so far traced of the conferring of
the Royal Arch Ceremony is also to be found in the U. S. A., where
in an irregular lodge, held at Fredericksburg, in Virginia, on Dec.
22, 1753, several brethren were "Raised to the Degree of Royall
Arch Mason ."

"THE ANTIENTS ADVOCATE R.A. MASONRY

The great protagonist of the Royal Arch was Laurence Dermott, who
lost no opportunity, in season and out of season, of advocating the
claims of the degree to be an essential and necessary part of
Freemasonry. Dermott was initiated in Ireland in 1740, and was
Master of Lodge 26, Dublin, in 1746, the same year he became a
Royal Arch Mason. In 1748 he came to London, and in 1752 he became
Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of "Atholl" Masons generally
known as the "Antients." His capacity for work must have been
simply wonderful; he was, at the beginning of his career, a
journeyman painter, working twelve hours a day at his trade. After
his day's work at this, he did his work as Grand Secretary. He
wrote innumerable letters, and was always in the wars with:
somebody, either in his own or in the opposite section. If
quarrelsomeness is a characteristic of the Irish race, as we are
sometimes led to believe, then Dermott must have had a double
allowance of this interesting trait. His correspondence is rather
more forcible than polite, and in general, it may be said that he
used the mailed fist, carefully and even ostentatiously discarding
the velvet glove. To his powerful advocacy is undoubtedly due the
rapid advance of what he firmly believed to be "the root, heart and
marrow of Masonry." He died in 1791, and did not therefore live to
see the fruition of his fondest hopes; but before his decease it
was obvious that his ideas had gained the ascendancy, and that it
was only a question of a few years for them to prevail.

"THE MODERNS" AND R. A. MASONRY

It was only with great difficulty that the regular Grand Lodge
(Moderns) could be brought to take any notice of the Royal Arch
Degree. On the other hand, the degree was worked extensively by the
"Regular" Masons in spite of the frowns of those in authority. At
the present day, the same condition exists in the Grand Lodge of
Scotland, which refuses any form of recognition to the Royal Arch
Degree, though this lack of recognition does not prevent the
successful working of the degree in that country.

In England, successive Grand Secretaries poured cold water on the
degree, and from time to time issued such dicta as "Our Society is
neither Arch, Royal Arch, or Ancient." The inexorable course of
events, however, compelled a decided change from this attitude of
aloofness, culminating in the final acceptation of the degree in
the Articles of Union between the two Grand Lodges of Freemasons of
England proposed on Nov. 25, 1813, and ratified on Dec. 1, 1813:

BY CLAUSE 2 OF THESE ARTICLES

"It is declared and pronounced that pure Ancient Masonry consists
of three degrees and no more, viz., those of the Entered
Apprentice, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason, including the
Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. But this Article is not
intended to prevent any Lodge or Chapter from holding a Meeting in
any of the degrees of the Orders of Chivalry according to the
Constitutions of the said Orders."

Thus was given to the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch that
alliance with the Craft, which Dermott had spent the greater part
of his life to secure.

