Then follows a list of thirty-three Councils, the date when "established," and the names of the three first officers. At least five of them existed only on paper, and seven were established by John H. Cotton, claiming to be "Acting D. G. P.," and spoken of by Cross in this pamphlet as his "proxy." He does not give a copy of his authority in this pamphlet, as he naturally would have done if he really had any written authorization.

It has been assumed by one author that these thirty-three were all that Cross established; but the assumption is erroneous. Cross continued to establish councils personally and by his "proxies," James Cushman, Walter Janes, and others. John Barker received the degrees in New Haven Council. Whether he was the same John Barker who, as the agent of the Southern Supreme Council, afterwards formed Councils of Royal and Select Masters in Ohio, Kentucky and other States, I cannot tell, but as the form of the warrant, which he gave, follows the language almost exactly of those of Cross, substituting Supreme Council, etc., for Grand Council of Maryland, I feel very sure that he studied under Cross, and it is very probable that he is the one who received the degrees in the Council of which Cross was a member.

When the Grand Chapter of Maryland assumed jurisdiction over the Select Degree, in 1824, there were in existence. Grand Councils in Connecticut, New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and probably Vermont, as one was organized in 1821. Under the jurisdiction of these Grand Councils were over sixty subordinates; the degrees were being disseminated under the anthority of these bodies, as well as under the authority of the Southern Supreme Council. Within three years after 1824, Grand Councils were formed in Georgia, Kentucky, and Massachusetts; but four of those organized before 1828 went down in the antiMasonic storm that swept over the United States, and yet the Council system was firmly established. Cross was the author of this system beyond question. He took two side degrees which from their very nature cannot be under the exclusive control of any one, and organized them into a system as regular as the lodge or chapter system.

Barker, adopting the system of Cross, but hailing under the Southern Supreme Council, disseminated the degrees in the South and West nearly as extensively as did Cross in the North and East. Barker signed his warrants, adding to his name "K. H., S. P. R. S., Sovereign Grand Inspector-General 33°, and agent for the Supreme Council of the United States

of America." That he had any specific authority from that Supreme Council, I have never seen any evidence, and I do not believe. While Cross signed as "Deputy Grand Puissant" of the Grand Council of Maryland, and Barker as agent of the Supreme Council, neither of them had any authority to form Councils other than that inherent in themselves as possessors of the degrees; but that was amply sufficient. As I have already said, a "side degree" is a degree not under the control of any governing body, and any one possessor of it has as much control over it as any other possessor, and until its possessors organize it, a discussion of whether a possessor of it has received authority to confer it seems to me to be absurd. In 1824 the vast body of the possessors of it had assented to and adopted the Council system proposed by Cross; a very small fraction of them in Maryland desired to turn the Select Degree over to the Chapter; the former insisted that the degrees should be conferred only on Royal Arch Masons; the latter insisted that they should precede the Royal Arch; this difference was a grave one, so grave as to prevent the recognition by the former of those made by the latter; it was a case in which the small minority must yield to the great majority or go to the wall.

In 1827, when the question was first raised as to the system to be adopted, the predominance in favour of the Council system was still more decisive, and the decision of every jurisdiction which acted upon the matter, was against the Maryland proposition. Fourteen years later, the Grand Council of Virginia, relying upon the statement of the Grand Chapter of Maryland, and evidently in utter ignorance of the true history of the degrees, surrendered them to the chapters. In 1864 Texas surrendered the degrees, not to the chapters to be a part of the chapter system, but to councils appurtenant to the chapters. Within a few years Mississippi undertook to do the same thing: the result of that effort was the combination of the Grand Councils in a General Grand Council. It is manifest to me that if the national organization had been organized in 1820, so that the Cryptic Masons throughout the country would have had communication with each other, and learned the real history of the degrees, the attempt to turn them over to the chapters would never have been made. As it is, the Council system is more firmly established than ever before in the history of the Rite.

CHAPTER VII.

THE ORIGIN AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE CRYPTIC DEGREES DISCUSSED BY ALBERT PIKE-AN EXHAUSTIVE REPORT TO CHAPTER OF ARKANSAS.

THE GRAND

N the year 1852 the Grand Chapter of Arkansas, at its annual convocation, had its attention drawn in the address of the Grand High Priest, to the conflicting statements in connection with the ori

gin of the Royal and Select Degrees, the power of Chapters to confer, and the claim made by Grand Chapters over these degrees. The subject being a complex one requiring research and study, was placed in the hands of Most Excellent Companion Albert Pike, the Chairman of the Committee on Masonic Law and Usage. His efforts are contained in a most exhaustive report, which was presented in 1853 to the Grand Chapter of Arkansas, printed as an appendix to the proceedings of that body in the year named. The document itself is rare and has long since passed out of print. Through, however, the courtesy of Most Excellent Companion S. Stacker Williams, of Newark, Ohio, I am favoured with a copy, and as it is a valuable addition to Masonic literature, especially to those interested in not only Cryptic work but also to the Capitular student, I have reproduced it as given in the original, confident that its publication will be received with pleasure.

"To the Most Excellent Grand High Priest, King and Scribe of the Most Excellent Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Arkansas,

"At the last annual Convocation of the Most Excellent Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Arkansas it was ordered that so much of the communication of the Most Excellent Grand High Priest to that Convocation, as suggested action on the part of the Grand Chapter, should be referred to the Committee on Masonic Law and Usage, with instructions to report at the next annual Convocation.

“Three questions only seem to the committee to be suggested by the communication referred to for the action of the Grand Chapter; and unfortunately each is of importance, and owing to the conflicting authorities of doubtful solution.

"The first is as to the jurisdiction and power of Chapters and Grand Chapters to confer the degrees of Royal and Select Master. It is true

that the late Most Excellent Grand High Priest suggests the question as to the existence of this power in Grand Chapters, and that only in States where Grand Councils do not exist. But the claim to jurisdiction is by far more extensive. It is, as put forward by high authority elsewhere, that all the Chapters have the right to confer these degrees as preparatory to the degree of the Royal Arch without regard to the existence of Councils and Grand Councils within their jurisdiction.

"Since the last annual Convocation of this Grand Chapter two Councils of Royal and Select Masters have been established in this State by direct authority from the Supreme Council of the 33rd degree, for the Southern jurisdiction of the United States, sitting at Charleston; and those Councils and their members do and will refuse to recognize as regular Royal and Select Masters such as have received these degrees in a Chapter only. This question, therefore, has now become of practical importance within this jurisdiction; and according as the right may be, the jurisdiction to confer these degrees should at once and explicitly be claimed or disclaimed by this Grand Chapter for itself or its subordinates.

'Your committee think it much to be regretted that jurisdiction to confer these degrees is still claimed by Chapter Masonry. There is not the slightest probability that the Grand Councils of Royal and Select Masters, existing in several of the States, or the Supreme Councils of the 33rd Degree at Charleston and Boston, will ever relinquish these degrees to the Chapters or Grand Chapters; and even if the jurisdiction did more properly belong to the Chapters, and was usurped on the part of the other bodies, union and harmony are so important that it would be far better for the Chapters to yield up and concede the power than to create continued dispute and dissension by irritating claims to a jurisdiction which never can be exclusive in them, and ought not to be concurrent for obvious considerations. The Scotch Rite, numbering the degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason as the three first of its 33rd degree, and undoubtedly entitled to confer them, has, for the sake of harmony, relinquished them altogether to the York Rite; and though it does not confer them it requires them to be obtained in a York Lodge before a candidate can receive any of the degrees which it still confers.

"But your committee are perfectly satisfied that the Chapters have no valid claim to the jurisdiction. There is really little doubt as to the true origin of the Royal Arch Degree. Dr. Oliver, in a work of profound research, though containing many extravagant claims and absurd pretensions, says that there exists sufficient evidence to disapprove all conjectures as to an early origin of this degree, and to fix the era of its introduction to a period which is coeval with the memorable schism among the English Masons about the middle of the last century.' He means, as others have alleged, that it was invented by Dermott. And Companion Mackey, of South Carolina, the fulness and accuracy of whose Masonic learning is well known, says in his Lexicon, 'It seems to me, as the result of a careful examination of the evidence adduced, that before the year 1740 the essential element of the Royal Arch constituted a part of the third degree, and that about that year it was severed from that degree and tranferred to another by the schismatic body calling itself the Grand Lodge of England according to the old constitutions.' (Mackey's Lexicon, p. 433.)

"Dr. Oliver altogether denies that the Royal Arch is a separate degree at all. He says that he is persuaded that the Lodge of Recon

ciliation, which was formed of the Most Eminent Masons from both the ancient and modern parties at the union, assisted by experienced Scotch and Irish brethren, decided right when they pronounced that pure ancient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more, viz., those of the entered apprentice, the Fellow Craft and Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. 2. Landm., 467, 468. Articles of union 11. The union took place in 1813. "And he adds in a note: The Royal Arch is evidently, therefore, to be considered a completion of the third degree, which indeed appears broken and imperfect without it, and originally was conferred complete at one time, in the Grand Lodge only; for private lodges previous to the year 1725 were not authorized to raise a Master Mason." In the ancient rules of the Grand Lodge we find in Article X. that Apprentices must be admitted Fellow Crafts and Masters only here (Grand Lodge), unless by a dispensation from the Grand Master.' It is uncertain when this division of this degree took place; but there is presumptive evidence to prove that the Royal Arch was instituted after the revival in 1717, and that it was in existence in the year 1730. When the French imported Freemasonry from this country in 1725, the Master Mason's Degree was evidently perfect; for I have before me a French floor cloth or tracing-board, which contains the true Master's Word, as it was used by the French of that period.❜ (I. D. 468, N. 13.)

66

"Our brethren of the eighteenth century seldom advanced beyond the first degree. Few were passed, and fewer still were raised to the third. (2 Oliver's Landmarks, 236, N. 75.)

"The Master's Degree was then far less comprehensive than it is at present. The third lecture consisted of only seven questions. (I. D. N. 75-77.) The truth is considered by high authority to be that the whole second or Elu part of degree was borrowed afterwards from the Scottish Rite.

"Lawrence Dermott claims to have proved the existence of the Royal Arch Degree prior to 1744. There is certainly no authentic proof of its existence much before that time. It was then conferred only on actual Past Masters. Dermott, after some remarks on the conduct of certain brothers who were dissatisfied at not having been admitted to the Royal Arch, says, 'To this I will add the opinion of our Worshipful Drother, Dr. Fitfield D'Assigney, printed in the year 1744: Some of the fraternity,' says he, have expressed an uneasiness at the Royal Arch being kept a secret from them, since they have already passed through the usual degrees of probation; but I cannot help being of opinion that they have no right to any such benefit until they make a proper application, and are received with due formality as having passed the chair, and given undeniable proofs of their skill.' (2 Oliver's Landmarks, 246, N. 3.)

"The Royal Order of Scotch Masonry takes no notice of the Scotch Royal Arch Degrees, which are a mere sequel to the Master Mason's Degree, and hence it is concluded that they were not in existence when the Royal Order was established. (I. D., 14, N. 37.)

"The Master's Degree in the early part of the last century was not conferred indiscriminately as it is now. By the old charges it was only necessary that a brother should be a Fellow Craft to be eligible to the office of Warden or Master, and this degree qualified a