THE ARCANE SCHOOLS - Fort Myers Beach Masonic Lodge No. 362

showing the growth of the Ritual--as much by subtraction as by
addition--and especially the introduction into it of Christian imagery
and interpretation, first by Martin Clare in 1732, and by Duckerley and
Hutchinson later. One need only turn to _The Spirit of Masonry_, by
Hutchinson (1802), to see how far this tendency had gone when at last
checked in 1813. At that time a committee made a careful comparative
study of all rituals in use among Masons, and the ultimate result was
the Preston-Webb lectures now generally in use in this country. (See a
valuable article by Dr. Mackey on "The Lectures of Freemasonry,"
_American Quarterly Review of Freemasonry_, vol. ii, p. 297.) What a
pity that this _Review_ died of too much excellence!
[150] _Military Lodges_, by Gould; also Kipling's poem, _The Mother
Lodge_.
[151] Among the articles of union, it was agreed that Freemasonry
should consist of the three symbolic degrees, "_including the Holy
Royal Arch_." The present study does not contemplate a detailed study
of Capitular Masonry, which has its own history and historians (_Origin
of the English Rite_, Hughan), except to say that it seems to have
begun about 1738-40, the concensus of opinion differing as to whether
it began in England or on the Continent ("Royal Arch Masonry," by C.P.
Noar, _Manchester Lodge of Research_, vol. iii, 1911-12). Lawrence
Dermott, always alert, had it adopted by the Atholl Grand Lodge about
thirty years before the Grand Lodge of England took it up in 1770-76,
when Thomas Duckerley was appointed to arrange and introduce it.
Dermott held it to be "the very essence of Masonry," and he was not
slow in using it as a club with which to belabor the Moderns; but he
did not originate it, as some imagine, having received the degrees
before he came to London, perhaps in an unsystemized form. Duckerley
was accused of shifting the original Grand Masonic word from the Third
Degree to the Royal Arch, and of substituting another in its stead.
Enough to say that Royal Arch Masonry is authentic Masonry, being a
further elaboration in drama, following the Third Degree, of the spirit
and motif of old Craft Masonry (_History of Freemasonry and Concordant
Orders_, by Hughan and Stillson).
[152] It is interesting to note that the writer of the article on
"Masonry" in the Catholic _Encyclopedia_--an article admirable in many
ways, and for the most part fair--makes much of this point, and rightly
so, albeit his interpretation of it is altogether wrong. He imagines
that the objection to Christian imagery in the ritual was due to enmity
to Christianity. Not so. Masonry was not then, and has never at any
time been, opposed to Christianity, or to any other religion. Far from
it. But Christianity in those days--as, alas, too often now--was
another name for a petty and bigoted sectarianism; and Masonry by its
very genius was, and is, _unsectarian_. Many Masons then were devout
Christians, as they are now--not a few clergymen--but the order itself
is open to men of all faiths, Catholic and Protestant, Hebrew and
Hindu, who confess faith in God; and so it will always remain if it is
true to its principles and history.
[153] As for the chronicle, the one indispensable book to the student
of American Masonry is the _History of Freemasonry and Concordant
Orders_, by W.J. Hughan and H.L. Stillson, aided by one of the ablest
board of contributors ever assembled. It includes a history of Masonry
in all its Rites in North, Central, and South America, with accurate