An Analysis Of Ancient And Modern Freemasonry.

However , he carried on his scheme for several months , when his fallacious art was discovered by a brother of probity and wisdom , who had some small space before attained that excellent part of Masonry in London , and proved that his doctrine was false ;

whereupon the brethren justly despised him and ordered him . to be excluded from all benefits of the Craft , and although some of the fraternity have expressed an uneasiness at this matter being kept a secret from them { since they had already passed

through the usual degrees of probation ) , I cannot help being of the same opinion that they have no right to any such benefit until they make a proper

application , and are received with due formality , and as it is an organised body of men who have passed the chair , and given undeniable proof of their skill in architecture , it cannot be treated with too much reverence , and more especially since the

characters of the present members of that particular lodge are untainted , and their behaviour judicious and unexceptionable ; so that there cannot be the least hinge to hang a doubt on , but that they are most excellent Masons . " It will be

seen that in the earliest work referring to the English Royal Arch there is nothing to prove that the date of about A . D . 1740 , is too late for the introduction of the Royal Arch .

At page 16 Dr . Dassingy states thus : "I am informed in that city ( i . e . York ) is held an assembly of Master Masons , under the title of Royal Arch Masons , ivho as their qualifications and excellencies are superior to others , they receive a

larger pay than working Masons . " Whatever this learned author may have been told , we know that at present there is not a single warrant , record , or other document respecting the Royal Arch degree in connection with the Grand Lodge of York

before A . D . 1760 , and that so far as we are aware , there is not a single charter in existence under the authority of the regular York Masons authorising any lodge to confer the Royal Arch degree for some time after that date , if at all .

The foregoing quotations are the only allusions to the degree I can find in the book : We have never been able to find that any notice was taken of the Royal Arch degree by Bro . Preston or Hutchinson , although Dr . Charles

Mackay in his well known Lexicon , says the latter spoke hig hly of it , but on examining the "Spirit of Masonry" from the first editor of A .. D . 1775 , to the last edited by the Rev . Dr . Oliver , I cannot find auy such recommendation , but ou the

contrary , actually discovered that the part supposed to refer to the Royal Arch , is a deserved tribute to the grandeur and sublimity of the third degree . Dr . Mackay however states " That before the year A . D . 1740 , the essential element of the Royal Arch

constituted a part of the third degree , and about that year it ivas severed from that degree , and transferred to another by the schismatic body . " ( Page 560 Lexicon A . D . 1861 . ) The learned Dr . Rob Morris , the voluminous Masonic author , says

its origin must be set at about the year A . D . 1740 » This we take to be the real truth of the matter . That some such alteration existed among the ancients is still more palpable ivhen we consider of the 7 th Query by Lawrence Desmott , their

Grand Secretary , and subsequently Deputy Grand Master , viz ., " Whether it is possible to initiate or introduce modern Masons into the Royal Arch lodge ( the very essence of Masonry ) without making him go through the ancient

ceremoniesanswer , no . " The reason of which we take to be that the modern Mason ( so called , but really the ancient had received the secret of the Royal Arch in

the-Master Masons degree , or else why should the ceremonies of the degree be repeated ? Strange to sayin the 1 st ed . of Ahiman Rezon , A . D . 1756 , the Royal Arch degree is not mentioned , although in the 2 nd ed . A . D . 1764 ( p . 46 ) , the author says ,

" he firmly believes it to be the root , heart and marrow of Masonry . " It ivill be well to guard against supposing the Royal Arch oi England to be the same as that of the noted Chevalier Ramsay ' s of an earlier date , and now incorporated ivith

the Ancient and Accepted Rite . Although the Knight of the Ninth Arch , is considered to be several years older than the English Royal Arch ,, it has never been so generally accepted , as an

illustration of ancient Masonry , as the latter . Dr . John Pearson Bell in his admirable chart of Freemasonry , records A . D . 1740 , as the date when the Royal Arch degree was instituted , and several other noted Masons , like D . M . Lyon , Anthony

Oneal Haye , incline to the same opinion . It is said that Ramsay visited London A . D . 1740 , and submitted the various innovations of which he was the author to the Grand Lodge of England . These ivere declined ; and therefore what more

natural than , to suppose , from the fact of his novelties being rejected by this body , he went to the schismatics , and gave them such an " inkling " of the " Knight of the Ninth Arch" that induced them to alter the Master ' s degree , and declare that