The first important event in the history of English Freemasonry which seriously affected the harmony of the Fraternity, was the schism which occurred in the year 1753. The interposition of a new and rival authority in the north of England by the self-constitution of a Grand Lodge at the city of York in the year 1725, seems to have created no embarrassment, save in its immediate locality, to the Grand Lodge at London.

The sphere of its operations was limited to its own narrow vicinity, nor, until nearly half a century after its organization, did it seek, by traveling beyond those meager limits, to antagonize, in the south of the kingdom, the jurisdiction of the body at London. But the schism which commenced at London and in the very bosom of the Grand Lodge in the year 1753, and to the history of which this chapter shall be dedicated, was far more important in its effects, not only on the progress of Speculative Masonry in England, but also in other countries.

The Grand Lodge, which in the above-mentioned year was organized as a successful rival and antagonist of the regular Grand Lodge, has received in the course of its career various names. Styling itself officially the "Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions," it was also called, colloquially, the "Grand Lodge of Ancients," both designations being intended to convey the vain-glorious boast that it was the exponent of a more ancient system of Freemasonry than that which was practiced by the regular Grand Lodge, which had been in existence only since 1717. Upon that later system, as it was asserted to be, the Schismatics bestowed the derogatory designation of the "Grand Lodge of Moderns."

And so the schismatic body having been formed by a secession from the regular and constitutional Grand Lodge, its members were often called the "Seceders." Subsequent writers have been accustomed to briefly distinguish the two rival bodies as the "Moderns" and the "Ancients;" without however any admission on the part of the former of the legal fitness of the terms, but simply for the sake of avoiding tedious circumlocutions. Another and a very common title bestowed upon the schismatic body was that of the "Atholl Grand Lodge," because the Dukes of Atholl, father and son, presided over it for many successive years, and it has also been sometimes called the "Dermott Grand Lodge," in allusion to Laurence Dermott, who was once its Deputy Grand Master, and for a long time its Grand Secretary, and who was one of its founders, its most able defender, and the compiler of its Ahizman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions. In the present sketch this body will, for convenience, be distinguished as the AAtholl Grand Lodge," and its members as the "Ancients," without, however, the remotest idea of conceding to them or to their Grand Lodge the correctness of their claim for a greater antiquity than that which rightly belongs to the Constitutional Grand Lodge, established in 1717.

The progress of the schism which culminated in the organization of the Atholl Grand Lodge was not very rapid. As far back as 1739, complaints were made in the Grand Lodge against certain brethren, who, as Entick euphemistically phrases it, were "suspected of being concerned in an irregular making of Masons.*

(* Entick, "Book of Constitutions," p. 228.)

But the inquiry into this matter was postponed. At a subsequent quarterly Communication held in the same year the inquiry was resumed, and the offending brethren having made submission and promised good behavior, they were pardoned, but it was ordered by the Grand Lodge that the laws should be strictly enforced against any brethren who should for the future countenance or assist at any irregular makings. *

(* Ibid., p. 229)

The language of Entick is not explicit, and it authorizes us to suppose either that the pardon granted by the Grand Lodge was consequent on the submission of the offenders which had been made before the pardon was given, or that it was only promissory and depended on their making that submission.

Some may have made the submission and received the pardon, but the reconciliation was by no means complete, for Northouck * tells us that the censure of the Grand Lodge irritated the brethren who had incurred it, and who, instead of returning to their duty and renouncing their error, persisted in their contumacy and openly refused to pay allegiance to the Grand Master or obedience to the mandates of the Grand Lodge.

(* Northouck, "Book of Constitutions," p. 240, note.)

"In contempt of the ancient and established laws of the Order," says Northouck, "they set up a power independent, and taking advantage of the inexperience of their associates, insisted that they had an equal authority with the Grand Lodge to make, pass, and raise Masons."

In the note, whence this passage is taken, and in which Northouck has committed several errors, he has evidently anticipated the course of events and confounded the Airregular makings" by private lodges which began about the year 1739, with the establishment of the Grand Lodge of Ancients, which did not take place until about 1753. This body of disaffected Masons appears, however, to have been the original source whence, in the course of subsequent years, sprang the organized Grand Lodge of the Ancients.

The process of organization was, however, slow. For some time the contumacious brethren continued to hold their lodges independently of any supreme authority. Nor is it possible, from any records now existing, to determine the exact year in which the Grand Lodge of the Ancients assumed a positive existence. Preston tells us that the brethren who had repudiated the authority of the Constitutional Grand Lodge held meetings in various places for the purpose of initiating persons into Masonry contrary to the laws of the Grand Lodge. *

(* Preston, "Illustrations," p. 210, Oliver's edition.)

Preston also says that they took advantage of the breach which had been made between the Grand Lodges of London and York, and assumed the title of AYork Masons." In this statement he is, however, incorrect. There was never any recognition by the London Grand Lodge of the body calling itself the Grand Lodge of York, nor was that Grand Lodge in active existence at the time, having suspended its labors from 1734 to 1761.

The name of "York Masons," adopted by these seceders, was derived from the old tradition contained in the Legend of she Craft, that the first Grand Lodge in England was established by Prince Edwin in 926 at the city of York. Northouck assigns this reason for the title when he says that "under a fictitious sanction of the Ancient York constitutions, which was dropped at the revival of the Grand Lodge in 1717, they presumed to claim the right of constituting Lodges.'' *

(* Northouck, "Constitutions," p. 240, note.)

The Grand Lodge at London now committed an act of folly, the effects of which remain to the present day. Being desirous to exclude the seceding Masons from visiting the regular lodges, it made a few changes in the ritual by transposing certain significant words in the lower degrees, and inventing a new one in the Third. The opportunity of raising the cry of innovation (a phrase that has always been abhorrent to the Masonic mind) was not lost. But availing themselves of it, the seceders began to call themselves AAncient Masons," and stigmatize the members of the regular lodges as AModern Masons," thus proclaiming that they alone had preserved the old usages of the Craft, while the regulars had invented and adopted new ones.

At this day, when the turbulence of passion has long ceased to exist, and when the whole Fraternity of English Masons is united under one system, it is impossible duly to estimate the evil consequences which arose from this measure of innovation adopted by the Grand Lodge. If it had made no change in its ritual, but confined itself to the exercise of discipline according to constitutional methods, provided by its own laws, it is probable that the irregular lodges would have received little countenance from the great body of the Craft, and as they would have had no defense for their contumacy, except their objection to the stringency of the Grand Lodge regulations, that objection could have been easily met by showing that the regulations were stringent only because stringency was necessary to the very existence of the institution. Unsustained by any justification of their rebellion, they would, under the general condemnation of the wiser portion of the Fraternity,

have been compelled in the course of time to abandon their independent and irregular lodges and once more to come under obedience to their lawful superior, the Grand Lodge of England. But the charge that the landmarks had been invaded and that innovations on the ancient usages had been introduced, had a wonderful effect in giving strength to the cause of those who thus seemed in their rebellion to be only defenders of the old ways. "Antiquity," says one who was himself an Ancient York Mason, "is dear to a Mason's heart; innovation is treason, and saps the venerable fabric of the Order." *

(* Dalcho, "Ahiman Rezon of South Carolina." second edition, p. 191.)

And so the seceders, instead of returning to their allegiance to the legitimate Grand Lodge, persisted in their irregularities, and making new converts, sometimes of individuals and sometimes of entire lodges, which were attracted by their claim of antiquity, at length resolved to acquire permanent life and authority by the establishment of a Grand Lodge to which they gave the imposing name of "The Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions." But the seceders themselves were not less obnoxious to the charge of innovating on the landmarks. One change in the existing ritual introduced by them was far more important than any mere transposition of passwords.

This innovation having been extended by them into all the foreign countries where the Grand Lodge of the Ancients subsequently established lodges or Provincial Grand Lodges, and afterward compulsorily accepted by the Grand Lodge of the Moderns, at the union of the Grand Lodges at London in 1813, has entirely changed the whole system of Freemasonry from that which existed in the constitutional Grand Lodge of England during the 18th century. This innovation consisted in a mutilation of the Third degree or "Master's Part," and the fabrication of a Fourth degree, now known to the Fraternity as the Royal Arch degree. "The chief feature in the new ritual," says Brother Hughan, "consisted in a division of the Third degree into two sections, the second of which was restricted to a few Master Masons who were approved as candidates and to whom the peculiar secrets were alone communicated." *

(* "Memorials of the Masonic Union," p. 5.)

From the year 1723 and onward throughout the 18th century and the early portion of the 19th the Grand Lodge of Moderns practiced only three degrees. The adoption of a Fourth degree by the Grand Lodge of Ancients gave to that body a popularity which it probably would not otherwise have obtained. "Many gentlemen," says Hughan, in the work just cited, "preferred joining the 'Grand Lodge of Four Degrees,' to associating with the society which worked only three." And hence when, in 1813, the two rival bodies entered into a union which produced the present Grand Lodge of England, the Moderns were forced to abandon their ritual of three degrees, and to accept that of the Ancients. So in the second article of the Compact, it was declared "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."

This was evidently a compromise, and compromises always indicate some previous attempt at compulsion. The constitutional Grand Lodge sought to preserve its consistency by recognizing only three degrees, while it immediately afterward, and in the same sentence, sacrificed that consistency by admitting that there was a Fourth, called the Royal Arch.

The Ancients had clearly gained a victory, but without this victory the union could never have been accomplished. But this subject of the Royal Arch will be more fully discussed when we come to the consideration of the origin and history of that degree. I have already said that it is impossible to determine the precise year in which the Grand Lodge of Ancients was established. Before its actual organization the brethren of the different lodges appear to have combined under the title of the "Grand Committee." This body, it would seem, subsequently became the Grand Lodge. The earliest preserved record of the transactions of this Committee has the date of July 17, 1751. *

(* Cited by Bro. Robert Freke Gould in his work on "The Atholl Lodges" (p. 2))

On that day there was an Assembly of Ancient Masons at the "Turk's Head Tavern," in Greek Street, Soho, when the Masters of the seven lodges which recognized to which work I am also indebted for valuable information in the way of quotations from the "Atholl Records." This is the earliest date cited in the "Atholl Records." the Grand Committee as their head, * namely, lodges Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, "were authorized to grant Dispensations and Warrants and to act as Grand Master." The first result of this unusual and certainly very irregular authority conferred upon all the Masters of private lodges to act as Grand Master was the Constitution in the same year of a lodge at the "Temple and Sun," Shire Lane, Temple Bar, which took the number 8, and this appears to have been the first Warrant issued by the Ancients.

(* Bro. Gould thinks that this "Grand Committee," which subsequently was developed into a Grand Lodge, was no doubt originally the senior private lodge of the Ancients. Ibid., Preface, p. ix.)

The Warrant, which is in favor of James Bradshaw, Master, and Thomas Blower and R.D. Guest, as Wardens, is signed by the Masters of lodges Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. This would imply that the authority and prerogatives of a Grand Master were conferred not upon each Master, individually, but upon the whole of them, collectively, or at least upon a majority of them. These Masters constituted a body which in its exercise of the prerogatives of a Grand Master has since found its analogue in the "Council of the Order" into which the Grand Orient of France has for some years merged its Grand Mastership, though the mode of organization of the latter body materially differs from that of the former.

This "Grand Committee," whose presiding officer was called the "President," exercised the functions of a Grand Lodge without the name until the close of the year 1752. In 1751 it granted Warrants for two other lodges, numbered respectively 9 and 10; in 1752 it constituted five more, respectively numbered as 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. It will be seen that in its legislation the Grand Committee refers only to No. 2 as its oldest lodge. No. 1 must, however, have existed, though not named as such in the records. But in the list of Atholl Lodges given by Bro. Gould, No. 1 is stated to have been called the AGrand Master's Lodge," and its Warrant is dated August 13, 1759.

In 1751 and 1752 it could not, however, have borne this title, because during those years there was no Grand Master recognized by the Ancients. It was probably the senior lodge, the first which seceded from the legitimate Grand Lodge, and with which Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 subsequently united. These were lodges which on account of their irregularities and schismatic proceedings had been stricken from the roll of the Grand Lodge of England, and having assumed the name of Ancient Masons, had enrolled themselves under the lead of the oldest of their companions in secession. This older lodge appears to have been the body known at first as the Grand Committee and which, some time after the organization of a Grand Lodge, received the title of "The Grand Master's Lodge" and the precedence of lodges as No. 1. It is only in this way that we can reasonably explain the apparent anomaly that of the seven lodges which must have been engaged in 1751 in the work of the Ancients, no mention is made of No. 1, but that upon No. 2, with the five other lodges of later numbers, was conferred the functions of a Grand Master and the power of warranting lodges, while no mention is made of No. 1, the oldest of the seven.

The fact was that No. 1 constituted the really governing body, known until a Grand Lodge was established as the Grand Committee. Bro. Gould, who has very carefully investigated the history of the Atholl lodges, entertains the same opinion. He says: "The 'Grand Committee' of the 'Ancients,' which subsequently developed into their 'Grand Lodge,' was, no doubt, originally their senior private lodge, whose growth, in this respect, is akin to that of the Grand Chapter of the >Moderns,' which, commencing in 1765 as a private Chapter, within a few years assumed the general direction of the R. A. Masonry, and issued Warrants of constitution." *

(* "The Atholl Lodges," Preface, p. ix.)

Of this Grand Committee John Morgan was, in 1751, the Secretary. He appears to have been very remiss in the performance of his duties. His successor, Laurence Dermott, who was elected Secretary or Grand Secretary of the Committee February 5, 1752, reported that he had received "no copy or manuscript of the Transactions" from Morgan, and did not believe that that officer had ever kept a book of records. This neglect has thrown much obscurity on the early periods of the history of the Ancients.

The "Grand lodge of England, according to the old Institutions," appears to have been organized as a Grand Lodge on December 5, 1753, for on that day Robert Turner, the Master of Lodge No. 15, was elected the first Grand Master. Laurence Dermott, who was at that time the Secretary of the Grand Committee, became the Grand Secretary of the new Grand Lodge, and continued in that office until the year 1770.

In writing a sketch of the Grand Lodge of "Ancients," it would not be fitting to the prominent position he occupied in its history to give to Dermott only an incidental notice. First as its Grand Secretary, and afterward as Grand Master, he gave to the scheme of organizing a body rivaling that of the Constitutional Masons, a factitious luster which secured it an extraordinary share of popularity. It must be admitted that this was, in great part, accomplished by scandalous statements, devoid of truth; while such a course must detract from his moral character, we can not deny to him the reputation of being the best informed and the most energetic worker of all the disciples and adherents of the so-called "Ancient Masonry." In the early years of the Grand Lodge of a "Ancients" we look in vain for the name of any officer or member distinguished for social rank or literary reputation. We look in vain, among those who were prominent in its history, for such scholars as Anderson or Payne or Desaguliers.

The name of Dermott shows the only star in its firmament, not indeed peculiarly effulgent in itself, but whose brilliance is owing to contrast with the obscurity of those which surround it. In some well written "Studies of Masonic History," published in Mackey's National Freemason, Bro. J.F. Brennan has thus described the successful efforts of Dermott to establish the popularity of his Grand Lodge.

AThe history of that period, so far as concerns Laurence Dermott's strenuous and persistent determination to establish upon a firm foundation his Grand Lodge, has, except in slight degree, never been published, if it has ever been written. Enough to say, that notwithstanding the most earnest antagonism manifested towards him by the 1717 organization, or its then succession, he triumphantly did succeed, and not only divided the profits of Grand Lodgeism with the earlier organization in London, but as well led the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland to believe that the 1717 organization was a spurious body and therefore unworthy of recognition by those Grand Lodges while his Grand Lodge was really and properly the true Grand Lodge of English Freemasons. And not only did he thus succeed, but he also induced Freemasons in the then British American Colonies, which subsequently became the United States, particularly in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Virginia and South Carolina to believe that in his Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons, alone was true Freemasonry extant; and so well did he succeed that while in several of those colonies he established under his Charter lodges assuming to be Grand Lodges, in Pennsylvania, notably, he induced all the lodges there already and for several years established to surrender their Charters and accept from him Charters preferably, and as authority for their practice of what he designated the real Ancient York and only true Masonry recognized or properly recognizable, and his Ahiman Rezon, a plagiaristic adaptation of the 1723 * publication of Anderson, the only correct Book of Masonic Constitutions.' " **

(* Brennan is here in error; the plagiarism, of which there is no doubt, is of the 1738 and not the 1723 edition of Anderson's "Constitutions.")

(** Mackey's "National Freemason," Washington, 1872, vol. i., p. 302.)

Of a man so successful in intrigue we know but little, save what we derive from his connection with the body which he served so faithfully. Unlike Anderson and Desaguliers and Payne and Folkes and other lights of the legitimate Grand Lodge, he wrote nothing and did nothing, outside of Masonry, which could secure his memory from oblivion. Laurence Dermott was born in Ireland in the year 1720.

In 1740 he was initiated into Freemasonry in a Modern lodge at Dublin, and on June 24, 1746, was installed as Master of Lodge No. 26 in that city. It is undeniable that Dermott was a man of some education. Brother Gould says * that "besides English and his native Irish, Dermott seems to have been conversant with the Jewish tongue. All the books kept by him as Grand Secretary are plastered over with Hebrew characters, and the proceedings of the Stewards' lodge record, under date of March 21, 1764, 'Heard the petition of G.J. Strange, an Arabian Mason, with whom the Grand Secretary conversed in the Hebrew language."

(* Cited in the AKeystone." November 6. 1880.)

The Ahiman Rezon, while the title indicates a smattering at least of Hebrew, gives several proofs that Dermott was a man of some reading. He was not a profound scholar, but he was far from being illiterate. In what year he removed to England is not known, but he afterward joined a lodge under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Grand Lodge.

In 1751 he removed his membership to Lodge No. 1, on the registry of the "Ancients," and was a member of it when on February 5, 1752, he was elected Grand Secretary of the seceders' Grand Lodge. From that time he devoted all his energies and what abilities he possessed to the advancement of the cause of the "Ancients," with what success has already been seen. He was appointed Deputy Grand Master on March 2, 1771, by the third Duke of Atholl, who had just been elected Grand Master.

On December 27, 1777, he resigned that position, and at his request W. Dickey was appointed as his successor by the fourth Duke of Atholl. He was again appointed Deputy on December 27, 1783, and was, at his own request, succeeded, on December 27, 1787, by James Perry, who was appointed by the Earl of Antrim, Grand Master at that time. Dermott's last appearance in the Grand Lodge was on June 3, 1789, after which period he is lost sight of. During this long period of thirty-seven years Laurence Dermott was untiring in his devotion to the interests of the "Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions," and to the propagation of what was called "Ancient York Masonry."

Six years after its organization the legitimate Grand Lodge, established in 1717, had prepared and published a Book of Constitutions. Dermott felt it necessary that his own Grand Lodge should also have a code of laws for its government. Accordingly, in 1756 he published the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of which he was the Grand Secretary, under the following title: Ahiman Rezon: or a Help to a Brother, showing the Excellency of Secrecy and the first cause or motive of the Institution of Freemasonry; the Principles of the Craft and the Benefits from a Strict Observance thereof etc., also the Old and New Regulations, etc. To which is added the greatest collection of Masons' Songs, etc. By Laurence Dermott, Secretary.

Other editions, with the title much abbreviated, were published subsequently, the last, by Thomas Harper, in 1813, the year before the union of the two Grand Lodges. The third edition, published in 1778, has a much briefer title. It is the Ahiman Rezon: or a Help to all that are, or would be Free and Accepted Masons, with many Additions. By Lau. Dermott, D.G.M. In this work, partly in an address "To the Reader" (pages i-xxi), and in what he calls AA Phylacterial * for such Gentlemen as may be inclined to become Free-Masons " (pages xxii to xxviii), he gives a confused history of the origin of the Grand Lodge of Moderns and of his own Grand Lodge, claiming, of course, for the latter a priority of date, and decrying the former as a spurious innovation on genuine Freemasonry. His attempted history is, on account of its meager details and its assumptions, unsupported by any authority, utterly without value. As a specimen of its worthlessness as an historical document, the following narrative of the Grand Lodge at London in 1717 affords a fair sample:

(* This is a Greek word, but improperly spelt by Dermott, and signifies a precaution or warning. Dermott appears to have been, like most smatterers, fond of using words borrowed from the dead languages, and incomprehensible or puzzling to plain readers. Witness his "Ahiman Rezon," the name which he gives to his Book of Constitutions the prayer which he calls "Ahabath Olam," and this APhilacteria." "A little learning," says Pope, "is a dangerous thing, and that seems to have been Dermott's infirmity.)

"About the year 1717," he writes, "some joyous companions who had passed the degree of a craft (though very rusty) resolved to form a lodge for themselves in order (by conversation) to recollect what had been formerly dictated to them, or if that should be found impracticable, to substitute something new, which might for the future pass for masonry amongst themselves. At this meeting the question was asked whether any person in the assembly knew the Master's part, and being answered in the negative, it was resolved, that the deficiency should be made up, with a new composition, and what fragments of the old order found amongst them should be immediately reformed, and made more pliable to the humors of the people." *

(* Dermott's AAhiman Rezon," third edition, p. 35.)

In this absurd way he proceeds to account for the invention of a ritual by the "Moderns," which they adopted as a substitute for the genuine possessed by the "Ancients." Recent researches into the history of the ritual and the formation of the three degrees which, with the addition of the Royal Arch, constitute what is called AAncient Craft Masonry," make it unnecessary to prove by an argument that all of Dermott's statements on this subject are utterly false and the mere figment of his own invention. It is indeed extraordinary that this unscrupulous writer should have had the audacity to assert that he and his followers were in possession of a system of Speculative Freemasonry much older than that which was practiced by the Grand Lodge, organized in 1717, and that they derived their authority to open and hold their lodges from this more ancient system.

The fact is that Dermott himself, like every one of those who before his appearance on the stage had separated from the Constitutional Grand Lodge and established what they called ALodges of Ancient Masons," was originally made in a lodge of Moderns. Whatever he knew of Speculative Freemasonry was derived from a lodge in Ireland which had derived its authority and learned its lessons from the 1717 Grand Lodge at London. The first schism, which took place in 1738, was not pretended to be based on the fact that the seceders were desirous of practicing an older and purer Masonry than that professed by the Grand Lodge at London. It was because they were unwilling to submit to the constitutional regulations which had been established by the Grand Lodge and because their irregular proceedings, in violation of those regulations, had met with necessary censure and deserved punishment.

It is true that after the secession and consequent erasure from the roll of these contumacious lodges, the Constitutional Grand Lodge, to prevent the visits of irregular Masons, had most unwisely made a few alterations in the modes of recognition. These alterations were not adopted by the seceders, but retaining the old methods which had been in use, certainly as far back as 1723, some of them still earlier, they claimed to be "Ancient Masons," because they adhered to the old forms, while they stigmatized the Masons who still maintained their allegiance to the Constitutional Grand Lodge as "Moderns," because they practiced the new methods. And this is in fact all there really is about this dispute concerning "Ancients" and "Moderns," which for so many years distracted the English Craft, and the remembrance of which is to this day preserved and perpetuated in America, where Dermott Masonry at one time prevailed to a very great extent, by the title assumed by several Grand Lodges of "Ancient York Masons."

The hypothesis that there was any Speculative Freemasonry distinct from Operative Freemasonry that can be traced to an earlier origin than that of the Grand Lodge established in 1717, was a fiction invented by its propagators under the influence of interested motives and ignorantly accepted by their successors as an historical fact. We know from documents now extant that Laurence Dermott, who was entered, passed, and raised in a lodge of what he afterward called a lodge of "Moderns," who afterward presided over a lodge of the same character in Ireland, and on his removal to England renewed his connection with a Modern lodge, and so remained until he was elected the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of "Ancients." It is almost impossible to believe, that with the knowledge which he must have had of current events, he could have honestly been of the opinion that there was any Speculative Freemasonry, or any Grand Lodge of Speculative Freemasonry, older than that established in 1717.

He must have known, too, while he was stigmatizing this body as illegal and sarcastically styling the system which it practiced Athe memorable invention of modern masonry," that from it, and from it alone, every lodge of Speculative Masons, his own lodges included, either directly or indirectly had derived the authority for their existence. Nothing more clearly shows the insincerity of Dermott's denunciation of the Grand Lodge of "Moderns" than his conduct in reference to the Regulations.

It is known that in 1721 the Grand Lodge approved the "General Regulations of the Free and Accepted Masons," which had been compiled the year before by Grand Master Payne.

In 1723 these were published by authority of the Grand Lodge, together with the "Old Charges," which had been "collected from the old Records" and "the manner of Constituting a New Lodge" as practiced by Grand Master the Duke of Wharton.

In 1738, by authority of the same Grand Lodge, a second edition of the Book of Constitutions was published under the editorship of Dr. Anderson. In this edition Anderson made some material changes in the language of the "Old Charges," and in Athe manner of Constituting a New Lodge," so as to adapt them to the changes in the Ritual by which the Master Mason superseded the FellowCraft as the crowning degree of Speculative Freemasonry. He also published the AGeneral Regulations" in two columns; in the first were the "Old Regulations," printed without change, and in the other column, opposite to them, were "the New Regulations, or the Alterations, Improvements or Explications of the Old, made by several Grand Lodges since the first edition."

Now this second edition, having after inspection of the manuscript been "approved and recommended" by the Grand Lodge, Aas the only Book of Constitutions for the use of the lodges," * became the law for the government of those whom Dermott had called the "Modern Masons," and the organization of which he had declared to be "defective in number and consequently defective in form and capacity." **

(* Anderson's "Constitutions," edition of 1738, p. 199. In the next edition the editor, Entick, restored the original phraseology of 1723, but the "Charges" and "Regulations" in the edition of 1738 continued to be the law of the Grand Lodge for eighteen years, and were so when Dermott adopted them for the government of his Grand Lodge.)

(** Dermott's "Ahiman Rezon," p. xiv.)

If such were his honest opinion, then he must have believed that the Grand Lodge of 1717, so constituted, was an illegal body, and consequently incapable of enacting any laws or regulations or instituting any ceremonies which could be of binding force upon the Fraternity which derived its existence from an older institution. But we find that so far from repudiating the laws enacted by this illegal and defective organization, he adopted them in full for the government of his own Grand Lodge, which he had claimed to be the only perfect and legal one. Therefore, when he compiled his Ahiman Rezon and bestowed it upon the AAncients" as their Book of Constitutions, Dermott, instead of seeking laws for its government in that older system, whose parentage he claimed, deliberately appropriated from the 1738 Book of Constitutions, without a change, except here and there a brief marginal comment, the whole of the "Old Charges," the "Old and New Regulations," and "the manner of Constituting a New Lodge."

The irresistible conclusion from this is that while pretending to believe that the organization of 1717 was invalid and an innovation on an older system from which he and his adherents denied their existence, Dermott actually knew and felt that the organization was valid and legitimate, that the Grand Lodge then formed was regular and constitutional, and that the laws and regulations adopted by it were the only constitutional authority for the government of the Craft. There can be no doubt that Dermott was insincere in his professions and consciously untruthful in his statements, and that while the Masonic schism was made by him the instrument for advancing his own interests, he was well aware that all his pretensions as to the superior antiquity of his own Grand Lodge, and his denunciations of the Grand Lodge of 1717 as a modern and illegal organization, were false. But the rapid progress made by the Grand Lodge of AAncients@ in the popular regard, which, in the beginning was mainly attributable to the untruthful statements and the specious arguments of Dermott, for many years threw a veil over the defects of his character.

AThroughout his eventful career," says Hughan, Ahe always managed to secure a good working majority in his favor, and the extraordinary success of the schism was an argument in confirmation of his views, which the most of his followers acknowledged." *

(* Hughan, "Memorials of the Masonic Union," p. 8.)

Success, says Seneca, makes some crimes honorable, and Dermott, the falsifier of history, had for a long time an honorable name in England and America among the adherents of the Grand Lodge of which he was, if not the founder, certainly the chief supporter. It is here proper to say a few words in relation to Dermott's connection with the fabrication of the Royal Arch degree. This degree, which Dermott enthusiastically calls "the root, heart, and marrow of masonry," * was, undoubtedly, one of the most efficient elements in giving popularity to the lodges of the "Ancients," because it presented as an additional and much extolled degree, an incentive to candidates which was wanting in the lodges of the " Moderns."

(* Dermott, "Ahiman Rezon," second edition, 1764, p. 46.)

It is, however, incorrect to credit Dermott (as has been done by many writers) with its invention or even its introduction into the system of the "Ancients." It was known to and practiced by the schismatic lodges, who were censured for their "irregular makings" as early as 1738, by the Constitutional Grand Lodge. Dermott, as we have seen, was made in a AModern" lodge in Ireland, became affiliated with a Modern lodge in London when he removed to England, and could have known nothing of the Royal Arch degree until he joined No. 9, an "Ancient," in 1751.

That he afterward cultivated and perhaps enlarged or improved the degree, and gave to it a prominence which it did not at first possess, is not improbable. But it is an error to attribute to him its invention. But this subject will be more appropriately and more fully treated in the Chapter to be devoted to the History of the Origin of the Royal Arch degree. The third and fourth Dukes of Atholl played so prominent a part in the history of the Grand Lodge of "Ancients" as to give to that body, as has already been said, the distinctive title of the AAtholl Grand Lodge."

It is indeed to the social influence of these noblemen, combined with the shrewdness and indomitable energy of Laurence Dermott, that the Grand Lodge was indebted for the remarkable success which it achieved. The Grand Lodge at the date of its organization out of the AGrand Committee" had elected, on December 5, 1753, Robert Turner, who was the Worshipful Master of Lodge No. 15, as Grand Master.

In 1754 Edward Vaughan was elected to that office.

In 1756 the Earl of Blessington received the Grand Mastership, and was succeeded in 1760 by the Earl of Kelly, who, after five years of service, was followed in 1766 by the Hon. Thomas Mathew, who served until 1771.

In 1771 John, the third Duke of Atholl, was elected Grand Master. The Duke was a member of the Scottish Craft, and in the following year was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, so that, as he continued in his English office until his death, in 1774, he was at the same time Grand Master both of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and of the AAncient" Grand Lodge of England. The effect of this unusual concurrence of two offices, whereby the leader ship of the Craft in two countries was vested in the same person, was seen in a close union which about that time was cemented between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and that of the AAncients" in England. In 1782 the Earl of Antrim was elected Grand Master, and served until 1790.

From 1773 to 1779 the Earl had been Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. This shrewd policy of electing leading Masons in the two sister kingdoms to the highest position in the "Ancient " Grand Lodge of England, very soon displayed the effect which Dermott had wisely expected to be produced.

On September 2, 1771, the Grand Lodge of AAncients," meeting at the "Half Moon Tavern" in Cheapside, * Laurence Dermott being in the chair as Deputy Grand Master, adopted the following resolution, which the Grand Secretary was ordered to transmit to the Grand Lodge of Ireland:

* The Half Moon in Cheapside was, during the 17th and 18th centuries, a tavern of some notoriety. Ashmole records in his Diary, under date of March 11, 1682, that he was at "a noble dinner given at the Half Moon Tavern in 'Cheapside. A The Grand Lodge of Ancients met there, but subsequently removed to the Crown and Anchor.)

AIt is the opinion of this Grand Lodge that a brotherly connection and correspondence with the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ireland has been and will always be found productive of honor and advantage to the Craft in both kingdoms." At the same time it was ordered that the Grand Secretary should annually transmit to the Grand Lodge of Ireland the names of officers elected and any other information that might be of interest to the Craft. It was further ordered that no Mason made under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of Ireland should be admitted as a member nor partake of the General Charity of the Grand Lodge of England unless he produced a certificate from the Irish Grand Secretary. *

(* Dermott had previously opened a correspondence with Thomas Corker, the Deputy Grand Secretary of Ireland, to prepare the way for this action. See "Ahiman Rezon," edition of 1778, p. lvi.)

At the same meeting, on the proposition of Dermott, a correspondence was ordered to be opened with the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The response from both the Grand Lodges of Ireland and of Scotland was very satisfactory to the "Ancients." On November 5, 1772, the Grand Lodge of Ireland, Viscount Dunluce being Grand Master, adopted a resolution which declared that it entirely agreed with the Grand Lodge of England that a brotherly connection and correspondence between the two Grand Lodges had been and always would be found of honor and advantage to the Craft in both kingdoms. *

(* The use of the word "continued" and the phraseology in the resolution of both bodies that a brotherly connection and correspondence "have been and always will be" would indicate that such a connection and correspondence had previously existed between the two Grand Lodges. This phraseology is not used by the Grand Lodge of England in the resolution sent to the Grand Lodge of Scotland, nor is it employed by that body in its responsive resolution. In both, the reference is only to a future correspondence.)

It was also ordered that the particular occurrences of the Grand Lodge of Ireland should from time to time be continued to be transmitted to the Grand Secretary of England, and that "hereafter no English Mason shall be considered worthy of their charity without producing a certificate from the Grand Lodge of England." The letter suggested by Dermott was sent to the Grand Lodge of Scotland. It was of the same purport and almost in the same language as that transmitted to Ireland, except that the Grand Lodge of England expressed the opinion that a brotherly connection and correspondence with the Grand Lodge of Scotland "will be found productive of honor and advantage to the fraternity in general." There is no reference, as I have stated in the preceding note, to any former correspondence, but only the proposal for a future one.

On November 30, 1772, the Earl of Dumfries being Grand Master, and the Duke of Atholl being present as Grand Master elect, the letter and resolution of the "Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions" being read (so says the record), "the Grand Lodge were of opinion that the brotherly love and intercourse which the Right Worshipful Grand Lodge of England were desirous to establish would be serviceable to both Grand Lodges and productive of honor and advantage to the fraternity." *

(* Laurie, "History of Freemasonry," p. 208. Dermott, "Ahiman Rezon," p. Ix.)

The Grand Lodge of Scotland accordingly commenced the correspondence by transmitting the names of the officers that day elected, and ordered the same to be done yearly, together with any other information that might be of honor and advantage to the Craft. It also ordered "that no Mason, made under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions,' shall be admitted a member of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, nor partake of the general charity without having first produced a certificate of his good behavior from the Secretary of the Grand Lodge of England." *

(* Laurie, "History of Freemasonry," p. 208. Dermott, "Ahiman Rezon," p. lx.)

The reader will notice a very important difference in the phraseology of the orders of the two Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, which if intentionally made would indicate the feelings of each to the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England. The Grand Lodge of Ireland, addressing the Grand Lodge of AAncients," calls it the Grand Lodge of England," and refuses recognition to any "English Mason" who does not produce a certificate from it. The necessary effect of this order would be to repudiate the Grand Lodge of "Moderns" and to place all its members under the ban as illegal Masons.

It is very evident that no member of a lodge of "Moderns" would seek or obtain a certificate from the Grand Lodge of "Ancients," and without this, if he visited Ireland, he would be debarred by the terms of the Order from all his Masonic rights and privileges. Such an order would, according to the views of the present day, be considered as recognition of the Grand Lodge of "Ancients" as the only regular Masonic authority in England.

The Grand Lodge of Scotland was more prudent in its choice of language. It specifically designated the body in England with which it was about to establish a brotherly correspondence as "the Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions," and required only Masons made under its sanction to present its certificates. Thus we may justly infer that Masons made under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of "Moderns" were not excluded from Masonic visitation if they had the certificate of their own Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland, however, subsequently reconsidered their action and eventually assumed the position of neutrality or indifference in the contest, but, says Hughan, Aduring the period that they especially countenanced the refractory brethren, the latter made considerable out of the fact, and proclaimed their alliance with these two Grand Lodges far and near." *

(* Hughan, "Masonic Memorials," p. 14.)

Looking at the subject from the legal stand-point of the present day, one can not but be greatly surprised at the action taken by the Irish and Scottish Masons. Here are two Grand Lodges, the former of which was indebted to the legitimate Grand Lodge of England for its organization and the latter for its ritual, deliberately ignoring that body and acknowledging as legitimate a schismatic association which their ancient ally had declared to be irregular.

Evidently Masonic jurisprudence had not then assumed those formal principles by which it is now distinguished and by which it governs the institution. Scarcely less surprising is it that the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England appears to have taken no notice of these proceedings, nor entered any protest against their want of comity. Neither Preston nor Northouck, in their chronicle of the times, make any reference to this manifest invasion of legitimate authority. It is passed over by both in silence as something which they either deemed inexplicable or not worthy of mention. The Grand Lodge itself, when four or five years after it repeated its denunciation of the "Ancients," treated the two Grand Lodges which had sustained its rival with a courtesy which under similar circumstances at this day it would hardly repeat.

On April 7, 1777, the Constitutional Grand Lodge held an Aextraordinary" communication to take into consideration "the proper means of discouraging the irregular assemblies of persons calling themselves ancient masons," when the following resolution was passed: AIt is the opinion of this Grand Lodge, that the persons calling themselves ancient masons, and now assembling in England or elsewhere, under the patronage of the Duke of Atholl are not to be considered as masons, nor are their meetings to be countenanced or acknowledged by any lodge or mason acting under our authority. But this censure shall not extend to any mason who shall produce a certificate or give other satisfactory proof of his having been made a mason in a regular lodge under the Constitution of Scotland, Ireland, or any foreign Grand Lodge in alliance with the Grand Lodge of England." *

(* Northouck. "Constitutions." p. 323.)

So the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland were recognized by the Constitutional Grand Lodge as in friendly alliance with it, notwithstanding that the one had repudiated all English Masons who were not AAncients," and the other had acknowledged the Grand Lodge of "Ancients" as a regular and legally constituted organization. The comparison which is thus afforded of the energy of the "Ancients" and the apathy of the "Moderns" would alone sufficiently account for the rapid success and growing popularity of the former body, were there no other causes existing to produce the same result. It was very natural that the "Ancient" Grand Lodge, elated by this success and popularity, should in an official document issued in 1802 have declared that its members "can not and must not receive into the body of a just and perfect lodge, nor treat as a Brother any person who has not received the obligations of Masonry according to the " Ancient" Constitutions as practiced by the United Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the regular branches that have sprung from their sanction." *

(* See the edition of the "Ahiman Rezon," 1804, p. 130.)

The schismatics had now claimed to be regular, and the regular Masons were relegated by them to the realms of schism. It is the nature of men, says the Italian historian Guicciardini, when they leave one extreme in which they have been forcibly held to rush speedily to the opposite. Just before the middle of the 18th century the AAncient" Masons, who were embraced in only a few lodges, were accepting the censures of the Constitutional Grand Lodge for their irregularities, and were humbly but not sincerely make promises of reformation. At its close they were denouncing their old masters as irregular and proclaiming themselves to be the only true Masons in England. Mention has been frequently made of the successful progress of the "Ancients" in the propagation of their system. The authentic records of the time afford the most satisfactory evidence of this fact. Commencing its organized opposition to the regular Grand Lodge in 1751, under a superintending head styled the "Grand Committee," which was in fact the premier lodge, and six others, it constituted in 1751 and 1752 seven others.

In 1753 these lodges organized the "Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions." In the course of the next four years it constituted thirty additional lodges in London and ten more in various parts of the kingdom, namely, two at Bristol, three at Liverpool, and one each at Manchester, Warrington, Coventry, Worcester, and Deptford, so that at the end of the year 1757 there were or had been fifty-four lodges in England acknowledging allegiance to the "Ancient" Grand Lodge. But its operations were not confined to the narrow limits of the kingdom. Lodges and a Provincial Grand Lodge were established in Nova Scotia as early as 1757, and in a few years there were lodges and Provincial Grand Lodges in Canada, in the American colonies, in the West, at Minorca in the Mediterranean, in the distant island of St. Helena, and in the East Indies.

In 1774 the third Duke of Atholl died, being at the time, as he had been since 1771, the Grand Master of the "Ancients."

His son and the successor to his title, John the fourth Duke, was not a Mason at the time of his father's death. On February 25, 1775, as we learn from the Minutes of the Grand Committee, * he received the first three degrees in the Grand Master's Lodge of Ancient Masons, and was immediately chosen as Master of that lodge. On March 1st, in the same year, only four days after his initiation, he was unanimously elected to succeed his father as Grand Master. The object of Dermott and his companions in thus elevating a mere tyro to the magistral chair was simply to retain for their Grand Lodge the great influence and patronage of the Scottish House of Atholl. In 1782 the Duke was succeeded by the Earl, afterward the Marquis, of Antrim, an Irish nobleman, who held the office of Grand Master until 1791.

(* Cited by Bro. Gould in his "Atholl Lodges," p. i.)
The Duke of Atholl was then re-elected, and continued to preside over the Grand Lodge until the year 1813, when he resigned and was succeeded by the Duke of Kent, who assumed the office as a preliminary step toward the union of the two Grand Lodges, which was consummated in that year. The following is a correct list of the Grand Masters of the "Grand Lodge of England according to the Old Institutions," or more familiarly speaking, the "Grand Lodge of Ancients," or the AAtholl Grand Lodge," from its birth to its death. It was first compiled by Bro. W. J. Hughan, and published in his Masonic Memorials. I have verified it (though verification was hardly necessary of so accurate an historian) by collation with other authorities.

1753, Robert Turner
1754-55, Edward Vaughan
1756-59, Earl of Blessington
1760-65, Earl of Kellie
1766-70, Hon. Thomas Mathew
1771-74, John, third Duke of Atholl
1775-81, John, fourth Duke of Atholl
1782-90, Earl of Antrim
1791-1813, John, fourth Duke of Atholl
1813, Duke of Kent

The following is a list of the Grand Secretaries who served during the same period:
1752, John Morgan
1752-70, Laurence Dermott
1771-76, William Dickey
1777-78, James Jones
1779-82, Charles Bearblock
1783-84, Robert Leslie
1785-89, John McCormick
1790-1813, Robert Leslie

It is inconceivable how Preston could have committed so grave an historical error as to say, "the fact is, that the 'Ancients' after their secession continued to hold their meetings without acknowledging a superior till 1772, when they chose for their grand master the Duke of Atholl."*

(* AIllustrations of Masonry," p. 358.)

He was apparently utterly ignorant of the fact, here shown, that their first Grand Master was elected in 1753, and that from that time until the dissolution of their Grand Lodge in 1813 the office was filled by an uninterrupted succession of Grand Masters. Voila justement comme on ecrit l'histoire. *

(* Voltaire, "Chariot," I. p. 7.)

In conclusion it is necessary to say something of the character and pretensions of the Grand Lodge which created a Masonic schism that lasted in an organized form for sixty years, and which extended its influence into every part of the civilized world where the English language was spoken. The Freemasons, who about 1738 seceded from the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England, and soon after began to call themselves "Ancient Masons," and who stigmatized the regular members of the Craft as "Moderns," were not incited to the secession in consequence of any innovations that had been made upon the ritual by the Grand Lodge from which they separated.

Those innovations were the consequence and not the cause of their secession. They were made by the Grand Lodge, so as to produce a change in the working that would exclude the visits of the seceders to the regular lodges. They were indeed not very important and did not at all affect the traditional history or the symbolic system of Speculative Freemasonry.

The adoption of them was certainly, however, a very great error, and the seceders were not slow to avail themselves of the charge of innovation, so distasteful to the Masonic mind, to produce a feeling of sympathy in their behalf. But the truth is that the first innovation, and this, too, a very important one, was made by the "Ancients" themselves, and the practice of it was the cause of the censures passed by the regular Grand Lodge, which was the first step that led to the final separation. It is important to settle the nature of this innovation, because it is really the "chief corner-stone" on which the schism of the "Ancients" was founded, and because one of the almost contemporary historians of the Regular Grand Lodge has committed a grave error in respect to it. Northouck, who in 1784 gave us the best edited edition of the Book of Constitutions, in speaking of the conduct of the Masons engaged in the "irregular makings " which in 1739 elicited the censures of the Grand Lodge, has the following passage:

"In contempt of the ancient and established laws of the Order, they set up a power independent, and taking advantage of the inexperience of their associates, insisted that they had an equal authority with the Grand Lodge to make, pass, and raise masons. At this time no private lodge had the power of passing or raising masons; nor could any brother be advanced to either of these degrees but in the Grand Lodge, with the unanimous consent and approbation of all the brethren in communication assembled." *

(* Northouck's edition of "Book of Constitutions." note on p. 240.)

It is unaccountable that Northouck should ignorantly or designedly have made an assertion so entirely untruthful as that which is contained in the last clause of the above-cited paragraph. It is true that in 1723, at about the time of the fabrication of the Second and Third degrees a clause was inserted in the 13th of the Thirty-nine Regulations which declared that "Apprentices must be admitted Masters and Fellow Crafts only here (in the Grand Lodge) unless by dispensation." This was done, in all probability, to secure the proper conferring of the newly fabricated degrees in the hands of their inventors and of experienced Masons, instead of entrusting them to Masters of lodges who might be incompetent to preserve the purity of the ritual. But this objection was soon obviated as the degrees became more common, and the inconvenience of the Regulation being recognized, it was repealed in 1725.

On November 22, 1725, they adopted a new regulation that AThe Master of a lodge with its Wardens and a competent number of the lodge assembled in due form can make Masters and Fellows at discretion." *

(* See Anderson, edition of 1738, p. 160, and Entick, edition of 1756, p. 280, where this new Regulation will be found.)

Seeing that this new regulation was published both by Anderson in 1738 and by Entick in 1756 in their respective editions of the Book of Constitutions, with which Northouck must have been familiar, especially with the latter, and seeing also that there is no provision restraining the passing and raising of Candidates by private lodges contained in the code of Regulations published by Northouck in his edition, but on the contrary, one which expressly recognizes that right, * it is, as I have said, unaccountable that he should have ignorantly committed the error of which he has been guilty, nor is it to be believed that he would have done so designedly.

(* ANor shall any Lodge be permitted to make and raise a brother at the same meeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy, on very particular occasions. "Regulations published by Northouck in his editions of the "Constitutions," p. 392.)

The truth is that the act which called down upon certain Masons the censures of the Grand Lodge, and which finally produced the separation, was not the conferring of the Second and Third degrees in their lodges, for this was a prerogative that had long before been conceded to them, but it was the conferring of the Master's degree in a form unknown to the existing ritual of the Grand Lodge, and the supplementing it with an entirely new and Fourth degree.

The "irregular making of Masons," which according to Entick * was complained of in 1739, was the mutilation of the Third degree and the transferring of its concluding part to another degree called the "Royal Arch." The Chevalier Ramsey, a Freemason of much learning, was the inventor of a series of degrees supplementary to the system of Craft Masonry, which have furnished the substratum for most if not all of the Modern Rites. Among these was one now known to ritualists as the "Royal Arch of Solomon." Ramsey went to England in the year 1728, where he received from the University of Oxford the degree of Doctor of the Laws.

(* Entick, "Constitutions," p. 228.)

He sought; it is said, to induce the Grand Lodge to adopt his system of high degrees. But the leading members of that body were extremely conservative and refused to make any change in the ritual. But there were some of the Fraternity with whom he was more successful. It is not by any means intended to affirm that the Royal Arch degree of Ramsey was accepted in the form or even with the legend which he had invented. This would not be true. But the theory advanced by Ramsey doubtless awakened in their minds new views and suggested ideas which were novel, but which were believed to be essential to the perfection of Masonic symbolism. From the earliest times of Speculative Masonry the "Word," or, as it was called by the Masons of Scotland, the AMason Word," had always held a prominent place in the Masonic ritual, and was, we have every reason to believe, one of the few symbols retained by the Speculative out of the Operative system. The triangle, it will be remembered, always in Christian Iconography an emblem of the Godhead, was a favorite architectural ornament used by the Stonemasons of the Middle Ages.

Adopted by the Speculative Freemasons, it was placed by them, when they fabricated their ritual, as a prominent symbol in the Master's degree, to which it had been transferred from the original degree or ritual common to all the Craft. *

(* In primitive lodges of Scotland, and the practice prevailed in England and elsewhere, the Mason Word was communicated to Apprentices. Lyon says "this was the germ whence has sprung Symbolical Masonry". "History of the Lodge of Edinburgh," p. 23)

But the Master's degree as it was constructed by Dr. Desaguliers and his collaborators was as to the history of this "Word" imperfect. The legend detailing the method by which it had been lost to the Craft was preserved, but no provision had been made to account for its recovery. The legend was not carried out to its denouement.

The story was left unfinished, and although the "Word" was there and was communicated to the Master, no one could tell, for he was not informed, how it got there. Now Ramsey, who was a thinker and a man of much learning, had seen this defect in the Masonic scheme and had supplied the deficiency by the invention of his "Royal Arch of Solomon." He thus perfected what he had found unfinished, and gave completeness and connection to all the details of the allegory. Some of the English Masons had doubtless seen the fault in the system of Desaguliers which had been adopted and sanctioned by the Grand Lodge.

When Ramsey arrived in England and proposed his new arrangement by which that fault was to be amended, though the Grand Lodge, as the representative of the Fraternity, refused to accept his system, and preferred to "stand on the old ways," imperfect as they were, there were brethren not so strictly conservative in their views who were impressed with the advantage of accepting the suggestions of Ramsey. These brethren were the seceders who, about the year 1738, were concerned in "irregular makings," that is, who undertook to confer the Master's degree in a form different from that which was sanctioned by the Grand Lodge.

At this distance of time it is impossible to know, with anything like precision, what were the precise changes made by the "Ancients" in the old and accepted ritual of the "Moderns." It is, however, very satisfactorily evident, from the course of contemporaneous history and from the succession of events, that that change, whatever it was, finally led to the development of the Royal Arch degree, such as it is now practiced, as a necessary completion of the Master's part, and therefore as a recognized section of Ancient Craft Masonry. In so far, then, the secession of the "Ancients," however unjustifiable it was in its inception as a violation of Masonic law, was in its subsequent results of great advantage to the system of Speculative Freemasonry. It gave to Masonic symbolism a completeness and perfection that was altogether wanting under the old arrangement of only three degrees, and supplied a break in the history of the "Word" which it is strange that the ritualists of the earlier period of the 18th century had not perceived nor appreciated. The introduction of this degree was for a long time vehemently opposed by the regular Grand Lodge as an innovation on the landmarks. They even treated it with contempt. To a petitioner from Ireland applying for relief the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of "Moderns" replied: "Our Society is neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Ancient, so that you have no right to partake of our charity." *

(* I give this anecdote on the authority of Dermott ("Ahiman Rezon," p. xvi.), but there is no reason to doubt its truth.)

But the innovation was advocated with such ability and became so popular that the regular Grand Lodge was compelled to succumb to what was evidently the wish of the Fraternity, and at length to adopt what they had so persistently condemned. *

(* "Masonic Memorials," p. 8, note.)

On June 12, 1765, a Royal Arch Chapter was formed in connection with the " Moderns," which was in the subsequent year converted into a Grand Chapter. Hughan says it "was virtually, though not actually, countenanced by the Grand Lodge. It was purely a defensive organization to meet the wants of the regular brethren, and prevent their joining the Ancients for exaltation." *

(* Ibid)

In 1813, at the union of the Grand Lodges, the "Holy Royal Arch" was legally recognized as a constituent part of Ancient Craft Masonry. A doubt is, however, cast over the accuracy of Bro. Hughan's assertion that in 1766 the Grand Chapter was even virtually countenanced by the Grand Lodge of "Moderns" by two contemporaneous records. The first is the declaration already given of the Grand Secretary of the "Modern" Grand Lodge, made about that time, that they were "neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Ancients;" and the other a letter written on June 7, 1766, by the same Grand Secretary to the Provincial Lodge of Frankfort- on-the-Main, in which he declares that the Royal Arch is "a Society which we do not acknowledge and which we regard as an invention designed for the purpose of introducing innovations amongst the Brotherhood and diverting them from the fundamental rules which our ancestors laid down for us." *

(* Findel cites this in his "History of Freemasonry," p. 184.)

In this conflict of authority there appears to be but one reasonable explanation. It is probable that some of the "Modern" Masons, tempted by the success and popularity of the Arch degree among the "Ancients," had independently formed a chapter of their own, and soon converted it into a self-created Grand Chapter, just as the lodge at York, forty years before, had resolved itself into a Grand Lodge. Although this was done without the sanction of the Grand Lodge, and though it was precisely the same innovation which in 1738 had met with the severe censure of that body, it is to be presumed that no notice was taken of the act, because experience had taught the Grand Lodge that the best policy would be not to endanger by opposition a second rebellion from its authority. So Royal Arch Masonry was permitted to exist by sufferance. But the victory of the "Ancients" was fully accomplished in 1813, when the Grand Lodge of "Moderns" was compelled to recognize that which they had at first styled an innovation and to acknowledge the Royal Arch to be a component part of Ancient Craft Masonry. Thus the two Grand Lodges continued to move in parallel but not amicable lines, both indulging at times in mutual recriminations and each denouncing the other as irregular.

The "Ancients," as well as the "Moderns," extended their jurisdiction beyond the limits of England into foreign countries. They exercised this power, however, in a different manner. The Grand Lodge of "Moderns" usually appointed Deputations or Provincial Grand Masters in various countries, by whom lodges were organized, and afterward Provincial Grand Lodges. The AAncients" never practiced this method.

It was their usage to grant Warrants, directly, for the establishment of lodges, and these, as soon as there were a sufficient number, proceeded to organize Grand Lodges, under the incorrect title of "Ancient York Masons." Such was the universal practice on the American Continent, where the Grand Lodges established under the obedience of the Grand Lodge of a "Moderns" and those organized by the York or Ancient Lodges preserved the distinctive principles of their parents and inherited their angry passions. But such a condition of things was too alien to the benign and fraternal sentiments of Freemasonry to be perpetuated. Movements toward a reconciliation were inaugurated toward the close of the 18th century, and finally, in 1813, the Atholl Grand Lodge was forever dissolved by a fusion of the two contending bodies in England into the now existing body under the title of the "United Grand Lodge of England."

This excellent example was speedily followed by similar amalgamations in all the States where the rivalry had prevailed. But the fusion in England, which closes the history of the Atholl Grand Lodge, is too important an event to be treated otherwise than in a separate chapter.

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