THE BUILDER FEBRUARY 1929

The Degrees of Masonry; Their Origin and History

BY BROS. A. L. KRESS and R. J. MEEKREN
(Continued from January. All rights reserved)

THAT any body of Masons were so much influenced by Prichard's six-
penny pamphlet that they straightway gave up their old customs to
follow his imaginings seems so inherently improbable that only the
most definite evidence could convince us of it. However, Gould, in
making this suggestion has left himself a loophole. He may be
interpreted, if we read between the lines, as meaning no more than
that Prichard's work represents a procedure that was then being
followed in some quarters, which the Grand Lodge, or the Grand
Lodge officers and their circle, judged to be not in accord with
the "ancient and symbolic traditions of the Craft."

We think that this point was not really an essential part of the
theory of a misunderstanding. It was based in Gould's mind, so it
appears to us, upon his dislike for the "Ancients." Previous to the
Union in 1813, the "Moderns" changed certain features of their
ritual and thus came to differ, not only from the "Ancients," but
also from the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, on the grounds
of which the two latter bodies had for many years refused them
recognition while maintaining fraternal intercourse with the
Ancients a fact that Gould very much minimized and glossed over.
(1) He insisted that the original Grand Lodge had never made any
changes with the single exception of the one we have been
considering the unwilling sanction of the division of the
Apprentice's part into Entered Apprentice and Fellow Craft. He puts
this very strongly in his smaller History in commenting on the
negotiations that preceded the Union. (2)

. . . the virtual adoption of the method of working among the
"Ancients" which has been relied upon as affording decisive proof
of the "Moderns" having finally returned to the old ways I regard
myself from an entirely different aspect, and consider that it
points with certainty to "an alteration" for the first and only
time, "in its established forms," by the earliest of Grand Lodges.

This is explicit. According to him the yielding of the senior Grand
Lodge in matters of ritual was a surrender to innovations
introduced by the "Ancients"  at least so far as concerned
England from Ireland.

We must take this as representing his final and mature opinion,
though earlier utterances seem to conflict with it. As for example
in the larger and earlier work we find

These alterations [the expansion of the Apprentice's Part into our
first and second degrees] if I am right in my supposition were not
effected in a day. Indeed it is possible that a taste for "meddling
with the ritual," having been acquired, lasted longer than has been
commonly supposed- and the variations made in the "established
forms," which was one of the articles in the heavy indictment drawn
up by the seceding against the Regular Masons, may have been but a
further manifestation of the passion for innovation which was
evinced by the Grand Lodge of England during the first decade of
its existence. (3)

And later still, we are inclined to think.

In the same volume, referring to the changes made by the Moderns to
conform with the usage of the Ancients just before the Union, he
says:

This was virtually a return to the old practice, and it will be
sufficient to remark, that with the exception of the opportunities
selected under the two systems for the communication of secrets,
there appears to have been no real difference between the procedure
(or ceremonial) of the two fraternities. (4)

With the last statement we are unable to agree, unless the term
"real" be understood in an exceedingly general (not to say vague)
sense. But it does seem that here he did still accept the received
assertion that the Moderns had made deliberate changes (5) with a
view to excluding the members of lodges which were not in their
obedience. If so, he later modified his opinion, and we could wish
that he had given his readers warning of the fact.

It will be necessary now to show as briefly as possible how he
justified his later contention, in the face, not only of the fact
that it was regarded as a matter of general knowledge in the later
part of the eighteenth century, but also in view of the formal
admission by the Grand Lodge of the Moderns in a resolution passed
at the Quarterly Communication of April 12, 1809.

That this Grand Lodge do agree . . . that it is not necessary any
longer to continue in Force those measures which were resorted to
in or about the year 1736, respecting irregular Masons, and do
therefore enjoin the several Lodges to revert to the Ancient Land
Marks of the Society. (6)

He calls this "a lamentable exhibition of weakness and ignorance of
history." He quotes Bro. Sadler on an earlier page in support of
his view:

To adopt the words of Mr. Henry Sadler, "I am fully convinced that
at this period the leaders of the rival Grand Lodges really knew
very little of each others origin and antecedents." It would,
indeed, be quite possible to show, from their own writings, not
merely a sufficiency but an affluence of proof, that neither
Dermott nor Preston was even superficially acquainted with the
history of English Freemasonry between the years 1717 and 1751. (7)

This is undoubtedly true, but it does not follow that a tradition
to the effect that a deliberate change had been made for the
purpose specified, was without foundation in fact. That still
remains an open question.

Gould's argument may be summarized thus. Beginning with the
position, already sufficiently defined, that in England Masonry
emerges into history as a two degree system, but that in Scotland
it contained, on the esoteric or speculative side, only the "Mason
Word" (which, as we have said, he was apparently inclined to take
very literally as implying merely a single password) it followed
that in his opinion when the London Grand Lodge acquiesced in the
division of the first grade into two, it was fully competent to
decide how the division should be made. We must ask our readers
here to bear in mind that the most prominent and most definite
charge made against the Moderns was that they had transposed
certain words. Gould argues that whatever arrangement was followed
by the Moderns was the one that was made when the present second
degree was separated from the first, and whatever the merits of
that fundamental innovation might be it was within the competence
of the Grand Lodge to regulate it, and that this being the original
arrangement, and if a different one was improper, then it was the
other Grand Lodges that were at fault. That of the Ancients, and
also those of Scotland and Ireland which agreed with them. (8)

The argument is a very plausible one, but its weakness lies in the
impossibility of adequately accounting for the change being made in
Scotland and Ireland. If Scotland got the degree system from
England, as he holds, why did it twist things round in adopting it?
He suggests, in the case of Ireland, that it had the same right
that the Grand Lodge of England had to divide the original first
degree as it chose, and suggests that the Irish brethren were
misled by Prichard. The Ancients probably got their ritual from
Ireland, at least we may so think if we accept Sadler's thesis that
they were in the first place chiefly Irish immigrants to London.
Besides this we have Gould's own assertion (whatever it may be
worth) that in 1739 there were discontented lodges following
Prichard's arrangement. This, however, he ignores in the present
connection. It seems therefore that his hypothesis raises a dozen
difficulties in order to solve one. On the other hand he did not
consider the possibility that there might have been a traditional
sequence in the old Apprentice's Part, which was in itself the
basis of the original division. If so, then from the standpoint of
conservatism it would not be justifiable to alter it. There is
evidence overlooked by Gould that this was the case. To this we
shall have to come later on.

We have scarcely touched upon his discussion of the vestiges of the
old ritual practice as his treatment of these seems to be merely
auxiliary to his main argument. One point remains which we find
still rather obscure, and that is just what he meant by insisting
the "essentials" of the ancient symbolic system were the same as
those we have today? He intimated indeed that he could not speak
more precisely. However in his large History (9) he gives the
impression that he believed the legend of the Builder to have been
incorporated between 1723 and 1729, while in his paper on the
Antiquity of Masonic Symbolisms he says what seems to be the exact
reverse of this.

Gould bulks very largely in the discussion of this problem, not
only because of his extensive acquaintance with the facts
concerning it, but also from the sheer bulk of what he has written,
and because, owing to the comparative accessibility of his two
Histories and the Collected Essays his views are perhaps more
widely known than those of any other Masonic writer, with the
possible exception of Albert Mackey.

We have attempted to show that whatever degree of credence may be
given to his opinions, his arguments are not logically conclusive.
It is possible, it may even be probable, that no solution of the
puzzle can ever be discovered which will compel assent; but it is
something to know wherein certainty has not been reached. The facts
themselves, as our readers by now must fully realize, are complex
and obscure, and it is impossible to adequately discuss them
without entering into a complex argument. We hope that in this case
we have not made Gould's obscurity still greater in our attempt to
elucidate his position.

With Gould what may be called the classical period of the
discussion comes to an end. It seemed that, for the time being at
least, all the evidence available had been brought forward and
debated from every point of view, and that there was no more to do
than to give judgment upon the argument. Masonic students have very
generally accepted the two degree hypothesis; and though there is,
as we have seen, plenty of room for divergence of opinion within
those limits, yet probably a majority have taken it in the same
sense as Gould and Speth; that the original second grade was
equivalent to our third, and that our second has been manufactured
or evolved out of part of the original first.

Thus the focus of interest shifted to the origin of the third
degree and its relationship to the Royal Arch. These intensely
interesting problems fall outside the limits that, for purely
practical reasons, it has been necessary to lay down although
seeing they are closely, one might say organically, connected, it
will be impossible to avoid some mention of them, if the subject is
to be shown in its true relations.

For our present purpose, therefore, we will briefly mention such
contributions to the subject of the evolution of the Masonic
ritual, the origin of the Royal Arch and cognate topics, so far as
they bear upon the particular object of this survey.

Bro. Roderick H. Baxter read a paper before the Manchester
Association for Masonic Research in 1909, on the "Old Charges," in
which he briefly touched upon the question of their ritual use in
early Masonic lodges. (11) Eight years later he took up an
extension of this subject before the Humber Installed Masters
Lodge, under the head of "The Old Charges and the Ritual," and in
the following year gave substantially the same paper before Quatuor
Coronati Lodge. (12) In this he summarized Speth's arguments on the
subject of degrees and indicated his own adhesion to his
conclusions. He showed also a number of striking parallels between
passages in the MS. Charges and certain present day ritual
formulas, chiefly of a hortatory character. As against the doubt
expressed by Gould, whether these MSS. were used in the eighteenth
century lodges, he advanced the strong, though indirect, argument,
that Anderson's Constitutions were to take the place of the old
manuscript charges, and that it was directed that they should be
read at the making of Masons. Whether this was ever actually done
or not we do not know, and it is pretty certain that if it was done
it very soon dropped out of use. But it is a fair inference that
this direction was not a new thing, that in this too the printed
book was intended to take the place of the older and more concise
documents. This would also account for the evidences of borrowing
collected by Bro. Baxter. The position might be stated thus: There
was a definite recollection that the Old Charges and the
introductory legend had formed part of the ritual. They became
obsolete with the advent of the printed book. The latter, if for no
other reason, on account of its impossible length, was never used
in this way, or if used was soon disused, and so, in compensation,
the old MSS. were used as a quarry by ritualists in search of
material for exhortations, eulogiums, moralizings, and so on. Just
as, much later, Webb used Preston's Illustrations without regard to
the original place and purpose of his material. It is obvious that
this kind of ritual expansion and embellishment has no direct
bearing on the question of origins.

In another paper before the Manchester Association Bro. Baxter
discussed the Chetwode Crawley MS. (13) and its bearing upon the
"two degree" hypothesis. This MS. seems to shed a good deal of
light upon the well known "Haughfoot minute," and Baxter notes
Hughan's admission in regard to it, that it did give real support
to the theory of an original system of two grades. A rather
grudging admission it must be said. (14) Bro. Baxter however
expresses the opinion that the argument in favor of two degrees is
conclusive, the Chetwode Crawley MS. being an additional and
convincing piece of evidence. But it must be remembered that it is
possible to hold that there were two original degrees, and yet to
suppose the third degree to be a modern invention. As we saw in the
discussion of Speth's argument, Bro. J. Ramsden Riley was of this
opinion (15), as some other students still appear to be also. Bro.
Baxter, however, agrees in this with Gould, and in 1914 in a paper
read before the Humber Installed Master's Lodge, he undertook to
prove the antiquity of our Third Degree. (16) In the course of his
argument he referred, as others have done also, to the various
legends of Masonic tragedies; as those of Roslin, Gloucester,
Cologne, etc., and also to the folk tragi-comedy embodied in the
Mummer's play. In this, however, we must not follow him now.

The late Bro. E. L. Hawkins read a paper in Quatuor Coronati Lodge
on the Evolution of the Masonic Rituals He however only dealt in
this with the period ending with 1716. He covered in this very much
the same ground that we have already traversed but in the
discussion Bro. Dring made a point that had not definitely been
brought out before and that was that certain of the MS.
Constitutions, the Watson and Heade versions being specially
mentioned,

... show a distinction between being made a Mason and a Fellow
being received and allowed. According to those versions it was on
the latter occasion (when the Fellow was received and allowed )
that the Charges might be read to him. My view is that one can only
form personal conclusions or opinions as to what the procedure
really was. (18)

And he went on to say that the differences and discrepancies were
due to the transition from the Operative to the Speculative regime
proceeding at different rates in different places. (19)

In 1917 Bro. Redfern Kelley (20) discussing the origin of the Royal
Arch, intimated his acceptance of the single initiation theory,
with second, third and fourth degrees added in succession, but
without advancing any new arguments. He however did not take it in
exactly the same sense as Hughan and Mackey and the other brethren
of their school, as the following passage shows:

In Ancient Craft Freemasonry there would appear to have existed
from time immemorial, so to speak, a certain essential and well
recognized archaic legend; and in connection with that legend a
peculiar secret, which may be regarded as being one of the ancient
esoteric landmarks of the Order, primitively considered- that this
particular esoteric landmark, the M. . . W. . . [presumably these
letters stand for "Mason Word"], was recognized under the ancient
"Operative" system and subsequently under the combined "Operative
and Speculative" systems; and as well under the more recent and
improved purely "Speculative" system which obtained since the year
1717; and that, as a "Prime Secret," it was invariably communicated
to all candidates indiscriminately, on their admission into the
Order under the primitive one degree Ritual of the Craft, as
acknowledged and practiced in, and prior to, the latter year [1717]
irrespective of any distinction of class either of "Apprentice,"
"Fellow of the Craft," or "Master" of the Guild or of the Lodge.
(21)

In other words, that all the essentials of our three degrees were
included in the primitive ritual of initiation. It will be
remembered that Bro. Sydney Klein had suggested a very similar
theory in the discussion of Speth's paper. (22) Bro. Klein,
however, begins with the second degree, that is, he supposes the
original initiation to have taken place at the end of the
Apprentice's term of servitude, when he was made free of the Craft.

Bro. R. J. Meekren, in an article published in the Tyler-Keystone,
March and April, 1918, had also developed at some length a similar
theory, more like Bro. Kelley's than that of Bro. Klein. It was,
however, written with insufficient information, and is another
example of the difficulty would-be students so often experience in
gaining access to the results of the investigations made by others.
A further suggestion was made in this article that the first of the
Masonic degrees to be put third in the series was not the "Master
Mason" but that of "Past" or "Passed Master," and that from this as
a germ the Capitular Degrees eventually were developed, i. e., the
various Excellent Masterships and the Royal Arch. This, as will be
remembered, was not wholly unanticipated. Bro. Upton, for example,
suggested something like it. (23)

The paper by Bro. Kelley referred to above was rather severely
criticized by the other members of Quatuor Coronati Lodge; chiefly
on account of his acceptance of the "single initiation" hypothesis,
but partly on other grounds which do not concern us here.

Bro. J. E. S. Tuckett is the next student who calls for some notice
in this connection. His work has dealt more with the origins of the
additional degrees, but among his postulates for these researches
is this:

That before 1717 Freemasonry possessed a Store of Legend, Tradition
and Symbolism of wide extent. That from 1717 the Grand Lodge
selecting a portion only of the Store, gradually evolved a Rite
consisting of E. A., F. C., M. M., and R. A. That the restriction
of the terms "pure," "Ancient," and (in a certain sense) "Craft" to
the degrees included in this Rite is arbitrary, and due solely to
the accident of selection by the Grand Lodge. (24)

We believe that there is a good deal to be said for this, though we
think too much emphasis is laid on the "selection," which gives the
impression that it was a deliberate and conscious process. Our own
feeling is that the Grand Lodge followed, rather than led, in the
matter; and even that it may have been reluctantly dragged into
accepting the evolving expansions of the ritual that took place in
the formative period, 1717 - 1738.

Bro. Tuckett accepts two original degrees under the names of
"Enter'd Mason or Apprentice" and "Enter'd Fellow or Master," and
suggested that they were recast (25), the present third degree
being "a dramatic representation of the older 'Master's Part."'
Which seems to imply that the latter consisted chiefly of the
communication of an item of legendary history. But some years later
(26) he summed up his views as follows:

The old two degrees were substantially the same as our present day
First and Second.

"The Master's Part" was not a degree but a ceremony-with secrets,
conferred upon but few. This was elevated to the status of a
recognized degree our present Third Degree for which all Brethren
in possession of the other two were eligible.

This would seem to be closely allied to the theory that the third
degree was originally for Masters of Lodges (or earlier still, of
employers) although this is not definitely brought out. Otherwise
the theory is like that of Bro. J. Ramsden Riley. (27) But what a
ceremony-with-secrets if not a degree? We are inclined to think
that such a conception as this would only be possible in England,
where the brethren are "teethed" on the eminently practical but
absurdly illogical compromise of 1813. (28)

By this, for the purpose of English Masonic Constitutional Law the
term "Degree" is defined as applicable only to the three
specifically mentioned, and to nothing else. Whatever propriety
this usage may have in its limited legal sphere, it must be said
that from the etymological point of view it is artificially
restricted, and for the historian's purposes highly inconvenient;
and more than that, it tends to misunderstanding and confusion of
thought. It is however useless to quarrel over words. To those who
use the term in this restricted sense we submit the following
schema:

Class: 
Ritual-unit

Sub-class: 
(a) Degree.
(b) Ceremony-with-secrets.

We desire, though, to make it quite clear that we have used, and
intend to continue to use (on the mere ground of convenience) the
word "degree" for the class, amending the classification thus:

Class: 
Degree
Sub-class: 
(a) Degree in English legal sense.
(b) Ceremony-with-secrets.

In short, following the classic example of Humpty Dumpty in Through
the Looking Glass, we will pay the word extra and make it mean what
we like.

It is obvious, as we think, that the Royal Arch and the Installed
(or Past) Master have every characteristic of a degree, there are
in them secrets, communicated to duly qualified persons under a vow
of secrecy, in a ritual that is also secret and which is
accompanied by a legendary history. The special qualifications
demanded are not, for the student's purpose, a relevant mark of
distinction. Historically the R. A. and P. M. are intimately
connected with the first three degrees of our system, and no
attempt to investigate the origin of the last mentioned can be
complete that entirely ignores the additional ceremonies-with-
secrets that in England are denied the name of degrees, though
acknowledged to be part of the "pure Ancient" system.

Bro. Tuckett has collected much evidence to substantiate in some
sense the vague statements of older Masonic authors regarding the
Jacobite influence in early Speculative Masonry. Interesting as
this is, it is yet itself too speculative, in the ordinary, non-
technical sense of the word, to be dealt with here; though if, as
has been frequently suggested, the degree of Master Mason is a
cryptic allegory of the history of the cause of the Stuarts and the
hopes of their supporters, it could hardly be left out of account.
Bro. Tuckett, however, sees the effects of this influence rather in
the formation of those early "additional" grades that were termed
"Scottish," or more properly Ecossois.

The Rev. H. G. Rosedale does ascribe the third degree to this
cause, unfortunately without seriously attempting to support it
with evidence. He says for example:

It is clear that the two first Degrees were in existence and fully
recognized though possibly not in separate form before the year
1717. The full "Third" Degree did not appear as an accepted Rite
till 1724, when, according to Bro. Yarker and others, the old
Jacobite Lodges in London owing to the repeated failures of
Jacobite plots were beginning to regain strength and when the
newly-formed Hanoverian Grand Lodge had proved a success. (29)

Earlier in the same paper in which this occurs, Bro. Rosedale had
argued that the division of opinion in the country at large during
the religious and political struggles of the seventeenth century
had been reflected in the Masonic Fraternity, even to the extent of
producing groups or lodges on each side of the dispute. No reason
is given for this but probability. To us it seems highly
improbable. That Masons, as individuals, were divided is certain;
that their political and religious differences were carried into
the lodges to the extent of creating two opposed Masonries there is
no evidence at all. We cannot forget that the lodge at Warrington
initiated on the same occasion the royalist Ashmole and the
parliamentarian, Col. Mainwaring, at the very time the Civil War
was tearing the country in two. That groups of royalist Masons may
have formed lodges and made Masons of other royalists is very
possible, just as a group of good Presbyterian Masons at the siege
of Newcastle initiated Robert Moray, but this is not at all the
same thing that we understand Bro. Rosedale to assert. Still less
can we accept his contention that the schism between the Moderns
and the Ancients had their roots in these political and religious
differences, especially as no evidence is advanced in support of
the hypothesis. In justice to Bro. Rosedale, however, it must be
said that he touched on this matter only as preliminary to an
examination of later ritual development (which of course is outside
our present purpose altogether) and so did not really attempt to
prove his statements.

Bro. Rosedale followed the late John Yarker in this idea of two
opposed Masonries divided on politico-religious grounds, though he
may of course have reached the conclusion quite independently. Bro.
Yarker seemed to be willing to admit the antiquity of the
essentials of our present system, but his theory is complicated by
his acceptance of the modern Operative or Guild Masons. These
claims are so far apart from the main lines of this investigation
that we must ignore them here. (30)

A number of other brethren have addressed themselves to the problem
of the origin of the sublime degree of Master Mason. Two of these
essays call for brief mention. Bro. Moir Dow in discussing "The
Basis of the Third Degree," appears to accept a system of two
grades as inherited by the Grand Lodge of 1717 from the old lodges
which composed it; but seems to suppose that this was a
comparatively recent evolution from a Single initiation. At least
he thinks it

. . . highly probable that by this simple mode Elias Ashmole was
"made a Mason" in 1646 . . .

and he goes on to say that

There is evidence, however, that side by side with the one Degree
mode, the reception ceremony comprised two steps or stages. We know
definitely that a certain point the Entered Apprentice withdrew
from the Lodge Room- when the initiate received further
instruction. This early evidence (based on Scottish records), is of
high importance as manifesting evolution in a ritualistic direction
. . . and it is therefore probable that by the close of the 17th
century influenced by the increasing speculative element that the
two-Degree system developed, became crystallized, and displaced in
England generally the original sole Degree. (31)

The evidence, "based on Scottish records" must be, we presume
(unfortunately no references are given) the "Haughfoot minute,"
interpreted in the light of the Chetwode Crawley MS. The hypothesis
offered by Bro. Dow is a new combination of the elements. Contrary
to the earlier investigators he seems to incline to the belief that
the more complex two degree system arose in Scotland. We could wish
that he had developed his arguments in favor of this view. We can
only guess that it is based on the fact that the lodge at Haughfoot
seems to offer the earliest existing record of two separate grades
which comprised ceremonies with special secrets pertaining thereto.
Not, we think, sufficient to produce conviction. And we might ask
why a single initiation should have been divided or expanded in the
17th century, when Freemasonry was still mainly operative, if there
were no earlier tradition of such division ?

Two years later Bro. G. W. Bullamore defended the "Antiquity of the
Third Degree." In this paper he made some interesting suggestions.
He supposes that the three classes mentioned in the Old Charge,

. . . the "Masons, fellows or freemasons" of the Apprentice Charge
are the accepted Masons, Mark fellows and Master builders. These
three classes would meet in separate lodges. . . . There would be
no regular advance from accepted Mason or layer to mark mason or
hewer and then from hewer to master. The Master's Lodge could no
doubt confer the secrets of all three degrees, and in this sense
might be considered to work the three degrees, but the evidence of
the Old Charges favors the view that the apprentice when he had
finished his time either became a fellow or else a master on
account of his exceptional abilities. (32)

Or we might add, because he had capital enough behind him, or was
the son or relative of a master. Bro. Bullamore further said that
our present ceremonies originated from these three types of lodges,
and that there

. . . are facts which suggest that distinct types of Lodges have
amalgamated to form our present ceremonies. The struggle between
Ancients and Moderns was far too great to have been produced by a
few minor alterations in the ritual. (33)

This last may be true, and we are inclined to think it is, but as
Bro. Bullamore does not tell us what these facts are on which he
bases this rather startling theory of the amalgamation of quite
separate units we can hardly criticize it profitably. As for the
third degree itself, which presumably was that of the "master
builders" in his classification of ranks or kinds of operative
Masons, he apparently would explain its genesis in the light of
foundation sacrifices. Not at all an original idea, of course; and
though he adduces many interesting facts, yet he does not develop
the argument based on them very definitely, probably because of
difficulties that will be apparent to all Freemasons. (34)

Gould's argument on this point depends on the lack of precision in
ascribing any date to the supposed change, either by the Grand
Lodge itself in 1809, when it spoke vaguely of 1736, or by Preston
or Dermott. The unrecorded motion of 1730, earlier than the
publication of Prichard's work, and so unaffected by it, seems to
him the only possible place to be found for it in the record. From
that it would follow, on his premises, that as the things
transposed were still equally component parts of the original first
grade, their order was a matter of no consequence. To that we would
repeat that there may have been a traditional order within the old
"Apprentice Part," and that changing this was one of the "measures
adopted." If a recollection of this was handed down, and it is
precisely the kind of thing that might be thus remembered, it would
be more probable that both its date and the exact circumstances
might be forgotten, while the main fact was remembered that there
had been a transposition for the purpose of excluding unrecognized
Masons or imposters. Our own opinion is that there was such an
original, traditional sequence, and that it had been changed; and
further that this "slogan" of the "Ancients," as it might be termed
in present day parlance, merely represented the differences between
them and the "Moderns"-which were many and important- and which
they supposed (not unnaturally) were all deliberate innovations on
the part of the latter. Though in all probability most of them were
actually inherited from variations antedating 1717, many years
perhaps, possibly centuries.

NOTES
(1) Gould History, Vol. iii, p. 248, cf. Essays, p. 229. 
(2) Gould Concise History, p. 441. Also A. Q. C., Vol. x, p. 138.
(3) Hist., Vol iii, p. 114. 
(4) Ibid., Vol iii, p. 252. 
(5) At least it is plausible that Dr. Desaguliers advocated
something of the kind in 1730. Gould, op. cit., Vol. iii, p. 138.
(6) Hist., Vol. iii, p. 250- Concise Hist., p. 441. 
(7) Ibid., p. 433. 
(8) Ib., pp. 403 and 408. Also Essays, pp. 228 and 232. 
(9) Hist., Vol. iii, pp. 117-119. 
(10) A. Q. C., Vol iii, p. 23; Reprinted in the Essays, p. 141.
(11) Trans. Man. Ass'n, 1909-10, p. 22.
(12) A. Q. C., Vol. xxxi p. 33.
(13) Trans. Man. Ass'n 1910-11.
(14) The point has been touched on in a previous note. BUILDER,
Aug., 1928, p. 248. The reference is to Hughan's Origin of the
English Rite, p. 23.
(15) BUILDER, Oct., 1928, p. 299.
(16) Trans. Humber Installed Masters Lodge, 1912-1916, p. 635. 
(17) A. Q. C., Vol. xxvi, p. 6.
(18) Ibid.; p. 19.
(19) The William Watson MS., Q. C. A., Vol. iii, has the following
passage which succeeds the account of the great Assembly at York
under Edwin. "In England right worshipful masters & fellowes yt
been of divers Semblies and congregations wth ye Lords of this
Realme hath ordained & made charges by their best advise yt all
manner of men yt shall be made & allowed Masons, must be sworne
upon a booke to keep the same in all yt they may to ye uttermost of
their power, & alsoe they have been ordained yt when any ffellow
shall be reeeiued & allowed yt these charges might be read unto
him, & he to take his charges, and these charges haue been seen &
perused by our late Soveraigne Lord King Henry ye sixth & ye Lords
of ye Honourable Couneell, and they have allowed them well & said
they were right good & reasonable to be holden...."
(20) A.Q.C., Vol. xxx. D. 7. "The Advent of Royal Arch Masonry.
(21) Ibid., p. 13.
(22) BUILDER, Oct., 1928, p. 299; A. Q. C., Vol. xi, p. 61.
(23) BUILDER Oct., 1928 p. 301 and others have reverted to it
since. We hope to explore it more fully later on.
(24) A. Q. C., Vol. xxxii, p. 5.
(25) Trans. Man. Ass'n, 1921 1922, p. 78.
(26) Trans. Dorset Masters Lodge, 1926-1927, p. 42.
(27) BUILDER, Oct., 1928, p. 299.
(28) Already quoted, BUILDER May, 1928, p. 132.
(29) Trans. Man. Ass'n, 1919-1920, p. 21.
(30) Bro. Yarker's views are set forth, not very coherently, in his
work The Arcane Schools, in which a mass of interesting material
has been collected. We must confess though that we do not think the
author an entirely safe guide in its interpretation. For the claims
of the modern operatives, see also Carr, The Ritual of the
Operative Freemasons, and Merz, Guild Masonry in the Making. The
articles in the BUILDER for 1926 may also be consulted.
(31) Trans. Man. Ass'n, 1922-1925, p. 28.
(32) A. Q. C., Vol. xxxviii, p. 68.
(33) Ibid., p. 76.
(34) Readers who desire to follow this up may be referred to Bro.
J.S. M. Ward's recent work Who Was Hiram Abiff ? There is much
material of this kind in Frazer's Golden Bough and Tyler's
Primitive Culture.
