In the articles of union agreed to in 1813 by the two Grand Lodges of England, the "Moderns" and the "Ancients" as they were called, it was declared that "pure Ancient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more." If by Ancient Masonry it was intended to designate the system then existing, and no other and earlier one - if the character of antiquity was to be circumscribed within the one hundred preceding years or thereabouts - then the declaration might be accepted as an historical truth. But if it was designed to refer by these words to the whole period of time, within which included the era of Operative, and of combined Operative and Speculative Freemasonry, as well as that later one when pure Speculative Masonry alone prevailed, then the assertion must be considered as apocryphal and as having no foundation in authentic history.

If our judgment on this subject were to be formed merely on the complete silence of the Old Records, we should be forced to the conclusion that until the close of the second decade of the 18th century, or about the year 1720, when the Speculative element was slowly disintegrating itself from the Operative, there was only one degree known as the word is understood in the present day.

We have evidence that the Operative Freemasons of Scotland in the 15th century adopted, to some extent, the secret ceremonies observed by the medieval builders of the continent.* We may therefore refer to the records of the Scotch lodges for a correct knowledge of what was the degree system practiced, not only in Scotland but on the continent, at that period.

(* See Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 234. This is evident from, the charter granted to the Masons and Wrights of Edinburgh in 1475, copied by Lyon (p. 230) from the Burgh Records of Edinburgh, where reference is made for their government to the customs "in the town of Bruges.")

Now we have abundant evidence by deduction from the records of the old Scottish lodges that there was in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries only one degree known to the brotherhood.

There were, it is true, three classes or ranks of Masons, namely, Masters, men who made contracts and undertook the work of building for employers; Fellow-Crafts or Journeymen employed by these Masters; and Entered Apprentices, who were received that they might be taught the art of building. But this difference of rank involved no difference of esoteric instruction. There was but one ceremony and one set of secrets for all, and common to and known by everyone, from the youngest Apprentice to the oldest Master. This is plainly deducible from all the Old Records.

Thus, in the Schaw statutes, whose date is December 28, 1498, it is enacted as follows:

"Item that na maister or fellow of craft be ressavit nor admittit without the number of sex maisters and twa enterit prenteissis the wardene of that lodge being one of the said sex."

The same regulation, generally, in very nearly the same words, is to be found in subsequent records, constitutions, and minutes of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Now what deduction must be drawn from the oft-repeated language of this statute? Certainly only this, that if two Apprentices were required to be present at the reception of a Fellow-Craft or a Master, there could have been no secrets to be communicated to the candidates as Fellow-Crafts or Masters which were not already known to the Apprentices. In other words, that these three ranks were not separated and distinguished from each other by any ceremonies or instructions which would constitute degrees in the modern acceptation of the term. In fact, there could have been but one degree common to all.

Upon this subject Bro. Lyon says: "It is upon Schaw's regulation anent the reception of Fellows or Masters, that we found our opinion that in primitive times there were no secrets communicated by lodges to either Fellows of Craft or Masters that were not known to Apprentices, seeing that members of the latter grade were necessary to the legal constitution of communications for the admission of Masters or Fellows." *

(* "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 23.)

We are confirmed in this conclusion by what is said in the same Old Records of the "Mason Word."

The Mason Word and what was connected with it appeared to constitute the only secret known to the Masons of the centuries preceding the 18th. It was, however, not simply a word, but had other mysteries connected with it, as is apparent from an expression in the minutes of the Lodge of Dunblane, where it is said that two Apprentices of the Lodge of Kilwinning being examined on their application for affiliation, were found to have " a competent knowlsedge of the secrets of the Mason Word." *

(* "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 417.)

These secrets consisted also probably of a sign and grip. Indeed, the records of Haughfort Lodge in 1707 state the fact that there was a grip, and it is known that as early as the 12th century the German Masons used all these modes of recognition. *

(* The English Masons in the beginning of the 18th century, and I suppose before that period, had two words, the "Jerusalem Word" and the "Universal Word." See the Examination in the last chapter. The German Masons also had two words, at least.)

There was also a Legend or Allegory, nothing, however, like the modern legend of the Third degree, which connected the Craft traditionally with the Tower of Babel and the Temple of Solomon. This Legend was contained in what we now call the Legend of the Craft or the Legend of the Guild. This is contained, with only verbal variations, in all the old manuscript Constitutions. That this Legend was always deemed a part of the secrets of the brotherhood, is very evident from the destruction of many of those manuscripts by scrupulous Masons in 1720, from the fear, as Anderson expresses it, that they might fall into strange hands.

But whatever were the secrets connected with the "Mason Word," there is abundant evidence that they were communicated in full to the Apprentice on his initiation.

First, we have the evidence of the Schaw statutes that two Apprentices were required to be present at the reception of a Mason or a Fellow-Craft. Then the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh for 1601, 1606, and 1637, referred to by Bro. Lyon, * show that Apprentices were present during the making of Fellow-Crafts. Again, we find the following conclusive testimony in the Laws and Statutes of the Lodge of Aberdeen, adopted December 27, 1760:

(* "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 74.)

"Wee Master Masons and Entered Prentises, all of us under. seryvers, doe here protest and vowe as hitherto we ehave done at our entrie when we received the benefit of the Mason Word," &c. *

(* "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 423.)

From all of which we are authorized to entertain the opinion, in the language of Bro. Lyon, who has thoroughly investigated the subject, so far at least as relates to Scotland, "that 'the Word' and other secrets peculiar to Masons were communicated to Apprentices on their admission to the lodge, and that the ceremony of passing was simply a testing of the candidate's fitness for employment as a journeyman." *

(* Ibid., p. 233)

In the English lodges of the same period, that is, up to the beginning of the 18th century, we find no indications of the existence of more than one degree common to the whole Craft. The Apprentices, however, do not occupy in the old English Constitutions so conspicuous a place as they do in the Scotch. We can, for instance, find no regulation like that in the Schaw statutes which requires Apprentices to be present at the making of Fellow-Crafts.

But in the oldest of the English Constitutions which have been unearthed by the labors of Masonic archaeologists - namely, the one known as the Halliwell MS., the date of which is supposed to be not later than the middle of the 15th century - we find indications of the fact that the Apprentices were in possession of all the secret knowledge possessed by the Masters and Fellows, and that they were allowed to be present at meetings of the lodge. Thus, the thirteenth article of that early Constitution says:

" - gef that the mayster a prentes have
Enterlyche thenne that he hym teche,
And meserable poyntes that he hym reche,
That he the crafte abelyche may conne,
Whersever he go undur the sonne." *

(* Halliwell MS., lines 240 - 244.)

That is, if a Master has an Apprentice, he shall give him thorough instruction, and place him in the possession of such points as will enable him to recognize the members of the Craft whosesoever he may go. He was to be invested with the modes of recognition common to all, whereby a mutual intercourse might be held. It was not that he was to know just enough to prove himself to be an Apprentice, but he was to have such knowledge as would enable him to recognize in a stranger a Fellow-Craft or a Master - in other words, he was to have all that they had, in the way of recognition.

But a more important admission, namely, that the Apprentice was permitted to be present at the meetings of a lodge of Masters and Fellows, and to participate in, or at least be a witness of, their private transactions, is found in the third point of this same Constitution, which is in the following words:

"The thrydee poynt must be severele,
With the prentes knowe hyt wele,
Hys mayster cownsel he kepe and close,
And hys fellowes by hys goode purpose;
The prevystye of the chamber telle he no mon,
Ny yn the logge whatsever they done;
Whatsever thon heryst or eyste hem do
Telle hyt no mon, whersever thou go;
The cownsel of halle and yeke of boure,
Kepe hyt lvel to gret honoure,
Lest hyt wolde torne thyself to blame,
And brynge the craft ynto gret schame." *

(* Halliwell MS., lines 275-286.)

That is, the Apprentice was directed to keep the counsel of his Master and Fellows, and to tell to no one the secrets of the chamber nor what he should see or hear done in the lodge.*

(* Similar to this is "The Apprentice Charge" contained in the Lodge of Hope MS., the date of which is 1680. It says that the Apprentice "shall keep counsel in all things spoken in lodge or chamber by fellows or free masons.")

He was to keep the counsel of "hall and bower," a medieval phrase denoting all sorts of secrets, and all this he was to observe lest he should bring the Craft into shame.

Now I do not think we need anything more explicit to prove that Apprentices were admitted to share the secrets of the Fellows and be present at the meetings of the lodge, all of which is conclusive evidence against the existence of separate degrees.

The same reference to Apprentices as being in possession of the secrets of the Craft, which they were not to communicate unlawfully, is found in subsequent Constitutions, as late as 1693. In the York Constitutions, first published by Bro. Hughan in his History of Freemasonry in York, under the title of "The Apprentice Charge," it is said that "he shall keepe councell in all things spoken in Lodg or Chamber by any Masons, Fellowes or Fremasons."

The Masonic student, while carefully perusing the Old Records of the English Masons and comparing them with those of the Scotch, will be struck with one important difference between them. In the Scotch Statutes, Constitutions, and Minutes, the Apprentices assume a prominent position, and are always spoken of as a component and necessary part of the brotherhood.

Thus, the Schaw statutes prescribe the fee for the admission of Fellow-Crafts, followed immediately by another prescribing the fee for the admission of Apprentices; twice in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh (*706 and 1709) it is recorded that a notary who was appointed for the purpose of acting as "clerk to the brethren masons" was initiated as Jane entered Apprentice and Fellow-Craft," * and lastly, Apprentices were required to be present at the admission of Fellow-Crafts and Masters.

(* Lyon, " History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 43.)

I think, therefore, that the most eminent Masonic historians of the present day have been justified in the conclusion to which they have arrived after a careful examination of old documents, that until a short time after the organization of the Grand Lodge in the year 1717, there is no evidence of the existence of more than one degree; that all the secrets were communicated to the Apprentices, and that the ceremony of passing to a Fellow-Craft was simply a testing of the candidate's fitness for employment as a journeyman. *

(* Such is the opinion of Bro. Lyon. See "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 233)

Bro. Hughan says that "no record prior to the second decade of the last century ever mentions Masonic degrees, and all the MSS. preserved decidedly confirm us in the belief that in the mere Operative (although partly Speculative) career of Freemasonry the ceremony of reception was of a most unpretentious and simple character, mainly for the communication of certain lyrics and secrets, and for the conservation of ancient customs of the Craft." *

(* Voice of Masonry, vol. xii., June, 1874, p. 340.)

In another place the same distinguished writer says: "I have carefully perused all the known Masonic MSS. from the 14th century down to A.D 1717 (of which I have either seen the originals or have certified copies), and have not been able to find any reference to three degrees." *

(* Cited by Lyon in "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 211.)

Bro. Findel says: "Originally it seems there was but one degree of initiation in the year 1717; the degrees or grades of Apprentice, Fellow, and Master were introduced about the year 1720." *

(* "History of Freemasonry," p. 150, Lyon's Translation.)

Bro. Lyon, also, who has thoroughly investigated the customs of the early Scottish lodges, in referring to the Schaw statute, which required two Apprentices to be present at the admission of Fellows, says that in 1693 "the lodge recognized 'passing,' i.e., a promotion to the fellowship, simply as an 'honor and dignity.'" And he adds:

"If the communication by Mason Lodges of secret words or signs constituted a degree - a term of modern application to the esoteric observances of the Masonic body - then there was under the purely Operative regime only one known to Scotch lodges, viz., that in which, under an oath, Apprentices obtained a knowledge of the Mason Word and all that was implied in the expression." *

(* Lyon, "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 23.)

Even Dr. Oliver, who, of all writers, is the least skeptical in respect to Masonic traditions, acknowledges that there is no evidence of the existence of degrees in Freemasonry anterior to the beginning of the 18th century.

The only living Masonic scholar of any eminence who, so far as I am aware, denies or doubts this fact is the Rev. Bro. W. A. Woodford, and he asserts his opinion rather negatively, as if he were unwilling to doubt, than positively as if he were ready to deny the fact, that the old Operative system consisted of but one degree.

As Bro. Woodford is one whose learning and experience entitle his opinion on any point of Masonic history to a deferential consideration, it will be proper to examine the weight of his arguments on this subject.

In the year 1874 Bro. Hughan proposed, in the London Freemason, to defend in future communications three historical statements against anyone who should oppugn them. One of these statements was made in the following words:

"The references to Masonic degrees (as we understand the term now) never occur in the ancient minutes; no rituals of degrees prior to 1720 are in existence, and whatever esoteric customs may have been communicated to Craftsmen before the last century, they do not appear to have necessitated the temporary absence of either class of members from
the Lodge." *

(* London freemason, June 27, 1874.)

To this challenge Bro. Woodford responded in a subsequent number of the same paper. *

(* Ibid., July 27, 1874.)

The gist of our learned Brother's argument in reply appears to be that though, as Vaughan asserts, there may be no ritual evidence of the existence of the three degrees before 1720, yet "such a proposition need not be understood as asserting that they did not exist, but only that, so far, we have no ritual evidence of their distinct existence as now."

As a logical conclusion, it appears to me that such a disposition of the question is wholly untenable. It was an excellent maxim of the schools, which has been adopted in philosophy, in physical science, and in law, that's "of things which do not appear and of things which do not exist, the reasoning is the same." *

(* De non apparentibus et de non existentibus, eadem est ratio.)

We can only arrive at a correct judgment when we are guided by evidence; without it no judgment can be reasonably formed.

Dr. Hedge, in his excellent manual of logic, says: "The proof that the Romans once possessed Great Britain is made up of a rarity of independent arguments: as immemorial tradition; the testimony of historians; the ruins of Roman buildings, camps, and walls; Roman coins, inscriptions, and the like. These are independent arguments; but they all conspire to establish the fact." *

(* "Elements of Logic," by Levi Hedge, LL.D., Boston, 1827, p. 74)

Now, if we apply this method of reasoning to the question of the existence of Masonic degrees prior to the year 1720, we shall see clearly how completely the affirmative proposition is without support. We have no immemorial tradition, no historical testimony, no allusion in old documents, such as the manuscript Constitutions, the minutes of the Scottish or of the very few English lodges that are extant, nor in the English or German Freemasons, which tend to prove the existence of degrees in the old system of Operative Freemasonry. On the contrary, we have abundant evidence in these Constitutions and minutes that the secrets of the Craft were common to the three classes, and that Apprentices were required to he present at the admission of Masters.

The other argument of Bro. Woodford is, that, "notwithstanding the Scotch lodges had an open court for their members that does not preclude the possibility of the existence of other secrets and separate degrees."

It is possible, but it does not thence follow that it is true. In this investigation we seek not possibilities but facts, and, as Bro. Woodford, usually so careful and so accurate in his historical and archaeological inquiries, has supplied no proof of the hypothesis which he has advanced, it must be accepted as a mere assumption, and may be fairly met with a contrary one.

But the remarks of Bro. Hughan himself, in reply to the argument of Bro. Woodford, are so conclusive and throw so much light upon this interesting subject that I can not refrain from enriching the pages of this work with the very words of this eminent authority in Masonic archaeology. *

(* Contained in article in the London Masonic Magazine for August, 1874.)

"Now what do the old lodge minutes say on this subject? We have had authorized excerpts from these valuable books published (with few exceptions). The whole of the volumes have been most diligently and carefully searched, the result made known, and every Masonic student furnished with the testimony of these important witnesses, all of which, from the 16th century to the first half of the second decade of the 18th century, unite in proving that there is no register of any assembly of Masons working ceremonies or communicating 'secrets' from which any portion of the Fraternity was excluded or denied participation; neither can there be found a single reference in these lodge minutes to justify one in assuming 'three degrees' to be even known to the brethren prior to A.D. 1716-1717. * Of course, there can be no doubt as to what may be termed grades in Ancient Masonry, Apprentices had to serve their 'regular time' before being accounted Fellow-Crafts, and then subsequently the office or position of Master Mason was conferred upon a select few; but no word is ever said about 'degrees.' All the members were evidently eligible to attend at the introduction of Fellow-Crafts and Master Masons, as well as at the admission of Apprentices; and so far as the records throw light on the customs of our early brethren, the Apprentices were as welcome at the election and reception of Masters - as the latter were required to participate in the initiation of the former.

(* The learned Brother makes here a rather too liberal admission. I have found no evidence of the existence of three degrees in the year 1717, and it will be hereafter seen that their fabrication is assigned to a later date.)

"We are quite willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that a word may have been whispered in the ear of the Master of the lodge (or of Master Masons) on their introduction or constitution in the lodge; but supposing that such were the case (and we think the position is at least probable), the 'three degrees' are as far from being proved as before, especially as we have never yet traced any intimation, ever so slight, of a special ceremony at the 'passing' of Fellow-Crafts, peculiar to that grade, and from which Apprentices were excluded.

"If we have overlooked such a minute, we shall be only too glad to acknowledge the fact; but at present we must reiterate our conviction, that whatever the ceremonies may have been at the introduction of Fellow-Crafts and Master Masons anterior to the last century, they were not such as to require the exclusion of Apprentices from the lodge meetings; and in the absence of any positive information on the subject, we are not justified in assuming the existence of 'three degrees of Masonry' at that period; or, in other words, we can only fairly advocate that two have existed of which we have evidence, and whatever else we may fancy was known, should only be advocated on the grounds of probability. If the proof of 'three degrees' before 1717 is to rest on the authority of the Sloane MS. 3329, we shall be glad to give our opinion on the subject.

"With all respect, then, for our worthy Brother, the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, whose exertions and contributions to Masonic literature have been continuous and most valuable for many years, we feel bound to state we do not believe according to the evidences accumulated that the 'three degrees were distinct grades in the Operative Order; but that the term Apprentice, Fellow-Craft, and Master Mason simply denoted Masonic, relative, or official positions.'"

If, then, there was originally but one degree, the one into which Freemasons of every class or rank were initiated, according to a very simple form, upon their admission to the Craft, it follows that the degree Fellow-Craft and Master Mason must be of comparatively recent origin. This is legitimately a logical conclusion that can not, I believe, be avoided.

And if so, then the next question that we have to meet and discuss is as to the time and the circumstances of the fabrication of these degrees.

Back to The History of Freemasonry [ Next ] [ Previous ]