Post by Tamrin on Jul 6, 2008 0:59:52 GMT 10
Royal Arch:
After the creation of the third degree and its Hiramic Legend, Freemasonry soon spread to the Continent, with the Grand Orient of France (GOdF) being establish only a couple of years later in 1728. Bearing in mind that Desaguliers and disproportionate number of other members of the premier grand lodge were from France (Huguenots), we note that the proliferation of degrees on the Continent (which exasperated many conservative English Freemasons) in many cases developed the general theme established by Desaguliers. Meanwhile, English Freemasons were diverted from that theme by another, which also purported to repair that which was lost, revealing the genuine secrets of a Master Mason.
In 1751 the grand lodge styling itself (at first) The Most Ancient and Honble Society of Free and Accepted Masons (sic) was established, claiming to have been begun several years earlier and also claiming to perpetuate a more ancient or rather ‘antient’ tradition than that of the premier grand lodge, the Grand Lodge of England, (which they justly accused of introducing many innovations). They claimed to be ‘Antient’ Freemasons and, by default, the premier grand lodge, although established before that of the Antients came to be known as the ‘Moderns.’ According to Bernard Jones:
Most Royal Arch Freemasons today are used to the degree being set in the context of Zerrubabel building the second temple and finding the ‘secrets’ in the ruins of the first. However, there has been a change in the degree every bit as radical as Desaguliers’ change from Noah to Solomon in the Craft degrees. The Royal Arch degree was originally set in the context of King Josiah finding the ‘secrets’ while repairing the first temple and those repairs are still the context in which the degree is set in Ireland.
The context of Josiah’s discovery had the benefit of scripture but the disadvantage of its cult hero having been an intolerant and ruthless king who waged the fiercest pogrom against the devotees of Asherah (his purported ‘discovery’ conveniently endorsed the unpopular but politically expedient revolution he had already begun). In other words, in restoring the lost secrets, the examples used were on opposite sides of the same conflict and the credit given for the restoration represented wholly different values. Josiah’s attitude and actions would have been anathema to those aware of Desaguliers’ Code and its lessons of tolerance and inclusion. Therefore, the contextual change from Josiah to Zerrubabel may appear to have been a drastic move to make the degree more palatable to the ‘Moderns.’
After the creation of the third degree and its Hiramic Legend, Freemasonry soon spread to the Continent, with the Grand Orient of France (GOdF) being establish only a couple of years later in 1728. Bearing in mind that Desaguliers and disproportionate number of other members of the premier grand lodge were from France (Huguenots), we note that the proliferation of degrees on the Continent (which exasperated many conservative English Freemasons) in many cases developed the general theme established by Desaguliers. Meanwhile, English Freemasons were diverted from that theme by another, which also purported to repair that which was lost, revealing the genuine secrets of a Master Mason.
In 1751 the grand lodge styling itself (at first) The Most Ancient and Honble Society of Free and Accepted Masons (sic) was established, claiming to have been begun several years earlier and also claiming to perpetuate a more ancient or rather ‘antient’ tradition than that of the premier grand lodge, the Grand Lodge of England, (which they justly accused of introducing many innovations). They claimed to be ‘Antient’ Freemasons and, by default, the premier grand lodge, although established before that of the Antients came to be known as the ‘Moderns.’ According to Bernard Jones:
For upward of a century the formation of the rival Grand Lodge was referred to as a schism, and the men who formed it as seceders. ‘Schism’ is literally a splitting,’ or ‘cleavage’; a ‘seceder’ is one who formally withdraws from membership of a body. We have plenty of evidence now to prove that the event was not a schism, for while there may have been, and probably were, a number of Brethren who went over to the rival body, for the main part that body came into existence as the result of the determined efforts of Irish and Scottish masons residing in England, helped by English masons, who for the most part had never owed allegiance to the first Grand Lodge.Their rivalry continued until 1813 when they merged, establishing the United Grand Lodge of England. A major difference between the two had been the standing of the Royal Arch degree. The 'Moderns' had no place and indeed no patience for it, whereas for the 'Antients' it was the crux, core and completion of Freemasonry. Jones tells us:
In the early years of the conflict between the ‘Moderns’ and ‘Antients’ no one thing more clearly differentiated one side from the other than the former’s official ignorance of Royal Arch Masonry and the latter’s eager adoption and encouragement of it. Whereas the ‘Antients’ regarded it as the “Root, Heart and Marrow of Free Masonry,: the Grand Secretary of the ‘Moderns’ in 1759, in answer to an ‘Antient’ Brother who had requested his charity, said, “we are neither Arch, Royal Arch, nor Antient.” In course of time, it is true, the ‘Moderns’ founded the Grand Chapter, the first Grand Chapter in the world, but this was an official move on the part of the Grand Master, and did not kill their natural hostility to Royal Arch masonry. Even as late as 1792 an official utterance of the Grand Lodge of England was to the effect that it had “nothing to do with proceedings of the Society of Royal Arch Masons.” It is a curious anomaly that, while the ‘Antients’ claimed to practice only the ancient rites but encouraged the Royal Arch, the ‘Moderns,’ whom the Masonic world at home and abroad accused of ‘innovation,’ officially frowned on the Royal Arch, which, so far as the consensus of opinion goes, was itself an innovation wholly or in part.Elsewhere, Jones described how the ‘Moderns’’ innovation of the third degree prepared the way for the ‘Antients’’ innovation of the Royal Arch degree, saying:
The general adoption of the Hiramic Degree throughout English freemasonry by the middle of the eighteenth century should be emphasized because it means much to the R.A. mason. Failing its introduction, the R.A. might never have become a part of the Masonic Order. Let it be remembered that the mason of the early lodges was in general a religious and relatively simple soul. The story unfolded by the Hiramic legend prepared his mind for yet another story, this one serving to make good two things that were absent from the earlier degrees. The three-degree system, ending in what may appear to be disappointment and anticlimax, prepared the way for the introduction of a degree which new or otherwise, was accepted particularly by the opponents of the Premier Grand Lodge as part of an ancient system.The hostility between the ‘Moderns’ and ‘Antients’ over the Royal Arch degree may be quite significant regarding our study. Some hostility towards the degree was to be expected, partly because any major difference between their respective customs would inevitably have been latched on to as proof of the irregularity of the other; partly because in purporting to restore the ‘genuine secrets of a Master Mason,’ the degree diverted attention from Desaguliers’ Code; moreover, they suggested the ‘secrets’ were only to be found beyond the three Craft degrees (wherein Desaguliers had left his clues). Even more significantly, the ‘Moderns’ would have objected to the original context of the Royal Arch degree.
Most Royal Arch Freemasons today are used to the degree being set in the context of Zerrubabel building the second temple and finding the ‘secrets’ in the ruins of the first. However, there has been a change in the degree every bit as radical as Desaguliers’ change from Noah to Solomon in the Craft degrees. The Royal Arch degree was originally set in the context of King Josiah finding the ‘secrets’ while repairing the first temple and those repairs are still the context in which the degree is set in Ireland.
The context of Josiah’s discovery had the benefit of scripture but the disadvantage of its cult hero having been an intolerant and ruthless king who waged the fiercest pogrom against the devotees of Asherah (his purported ‘discovery’ conveniently endorsed the unpopular but politically expedient revolution he had already begun). In other words, in restoring the lost secrets, the examples used were on opposite sides of the same conflict and the credit given for the restoration represented wholly different values. Josiah’s attitude and actions would have been anathema to those aware of Desaguliers’ Code and its lessons of tolerance and inclusion. Therefore, the contextual change from Josiah to Zerrubabel may appear to have been a drastic move to make the degree more palatable to the ‘Moderns.’