HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASONIC RITUAL

By, John L. Cooper III, Ph.D.

The history of the Masonic Ritual has usually been treated from two directions –
neither of which is very satisfactory. On the one hand, it has been the subject of
myth and fantasy. It has been claimed that the Masonic ritual is derived from ancient
sources – the Knights Templar of the Middle Ages; the Comacine Masters of late
antiquity; the collegia of ancient Rome; the mystery religions of ancient Greece; the
Essenes of ancient Israel; and even ancient Egypt, whose ceremonies were brought
out of Egypt by Moses, and descended to us through the ancient Israelites. That
none of this is supported by a shred of evidence should not be surprising. But much
of the popular literature about Freemasonry, such as Born in Blood, or The Hiram
Key, is sold on the basis that the author has finally “discovered” the true source of
the Masonic Ritual. If you are attracted to such explanations, you may find this paper
a bit disappointing. I am not going to tell you the “true origin” of the Masonic
Ritual. We do not know its true origin – or at least we don’t know the entire story
about its origin. But we do know a lot about it, and I will be sharing some of it with
you in this paper.

The other direction that the history of the Masonic Ritual has taken is the factual
approach. While this sounds like the right approach – letting the facts speak for
themselves – it is deceptive. An example of such an approach is that of Douglas
Knoop and G. P. Jones in a paper published in 1944 by the Manchester Association
for Masonic Research, and as cited in David Stevenson’s The Origins of
Freemasonry, as follows:

“The duty of the historian, masonic or otherwise, is to hunt for facts and
verify conclusions, and not to fill in the gaps by the dangerous argument of
analogy ... or by an equally dangerous exercise of the imagination ... There
are undoubtedly numerous gaps in the history of freemasonry, but to fill
them, not by the successful search for new facts, but by the use of the
imagination, is to revert to the mythical or imaginative treatment of the
subject.” (David Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry, Cambridge
University Press, ©1988, page 2).
Stevenson comments on this passage from Knoop and Jones thus:

This stark creed has been valuable in raising the standards of masonic
history, but in trying to cure the excesses of one extreme it goes too far in
the opposite direction by suggesting that the historian must limit activity to
the collection of facts. These facts, it seems, may then be left virtually to
speak for themselves, and where facts are lacking all the historian can do is
seek new facts. If they cannot be found no attempt should be made to fill
the gap. ..... Imagination is in fact an essential item in the historian’s toolkit,
both in trying to make sense of facts and in speculating when facts are
lacking, though it must of course be intelligent and informed imagination,
and it must be made clear where fact ends and interpretation and
speculation begin (Stevenson, op. cit. page 3).

If neither of these two approaches is satisfactory – the “fantasy” school and the
“factual” school, what approach should we take? I would suggest that a third
approach – an approach that treats the facts with respect, but which also develops
hypotheses based on these facts which can be tested by future scholars and
historians. That is the approach in this paper. In it I will share some facts about the
history of our Masonic ritual as we have discovered them, and then I will leave you
with an interpretation of these facts. I hope that this interpretation is imaginative in
the best sense and not fantasy in the worst sense.

History is a part of the discipline of social science, and shares with it the inability to
“test” hypotheses in the manner common in most of the natural sciences. But its
hypotheses are testable, nonetheless, because they can be challenged by new facts
which are subsequently brought to light, and by new observations and conclusions
from the entire body of facts. The history of the Masonic Ritual is thus subject to
these same laws of rigorous examination. In this paper I present an explanatory
hypothesis on the origin of our ritual, but it is certainly subject to challenge,
confirmation and/or disconfirmation. The facts are “true” insofar as we have all the
facts and truly understand them; the hypothesis is not true, nor is it false, but is a
means of testing the facts to see if they fit the hypothesis. I therefore invite every
reader to do just that. Your own research can begin where I leave off, and you may
have the opportunity to advance the state of our knowledge as a result of
attempting to disprove what I have to say.

First, a look at the facts as we have them, about the Masonic ritual. A readily
available source for our earliest rituals is a book originally published in 1943 called
The Early Masonic Catechisms, by Douglas Knoop, G.P. Jones, and Douglas Hamer.
The copy I have, and which I will cite, is the 1963 edition, edited by the late Harry
Carr, and published by Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, in London, England. This
is the second edition, and it contains two additional texts which had been
discovered since the original publication in 1943. While it would be useful to use the
originals of the rituals reprinted in The Early Masonic Catechisms, the reprints are
accurate and satisfactory for the purposes of the average researcher.

The earliest “snippets” of Masonic Ritual which we possess – and “snippets” they
are – are from Scotland. Anyone who has read the works of David Stevenson will
understand why this is so. He presents a very strong argument for the origin of
Speculative Freemasonry in the operative masonic lodges of Scotland. There is a
possibility that Speculative Freemasonry could have arisen from operative lodges in
England – but we have no evidence for it. So based on the evidence available to us,
the earliest Masonic Ritual of which we have any knowledge comes from the
operative stonemasons’ lodges in Scotland.

An example of such a “snippet” is the celebrated “Haughfoot Fragment.” It is truly

a “fragment” – the last paragraph of what was once a more complete ritual. It seems
that the ritual was written out in a book which had many more blank pages. The
secretary of the Lodge of Haughfoot in Scotland decided to use the book for the
minutes of the lodge. He tore out the pages containing the ritual, presumably to
preserve its secrecy, but the last page of the ritual was on the right hand page, with
the back side blank. As a thrifty Scot, he didn’t want to waste paper, so he started
his minutes on the back of that page in the book – preserving the last section of the
ritual for posterity. Here is what is says, remembering that it is a fragment:

“.......... Of entrie as the apprentice did Leaving out (The Common

Judge). Then they whisper the word as before – and the Master Mason
grips his hand after the ordinary way.”

From this fragment we learn that something was being done with an apprentice
mason, and that whatever was being done, was done “leaving out the Common
Judge.” We aren’t quite sure what the “Common Judge” was, but some scholars
think that it was the “Twenty-Four Inch Gauge.” You might think of our use of the
term “The Twenty-Four Inch Gauge and the Common Gavel” to better understand
what was being said. It is entirely possible that the ritual had earlier explained these
two instruments of masonry to the Entered Apprentice Mason, and now, at this
point in the ceremony, the explanation was to be omitted. There is also a reference
to whispering the word “as before,” perhaps showing that the Entered Apprentice
had been invested with a word earlier in the ceremony, and is now hearing it again
so that he remembers it. The excerpt then concludes with a grip – “after the
ordinary way.”

It is easier to understand what was going on here when this excerpt is compared
with an excerpt from the Edinburgh Register House Manuscript of 1696. [This
documents is set forth in full in this section of the course.] While the Haughfoot
Fragment is dated 1702, it is probably much older. Listen to the words of the
Edinburgh Register House Manuscript on this same subject:

“...He makes the masters sign, and says the same words of entrie as the
apprentice did only leaving out the common judge then the masons
whisper the word among themselves beginning at the youngest as formerly
..... Then the master gives him the word and gripes his hand after the
masons way.....”

The Edinburgh Register House Manuscript was only discovered in 1930, and is
illustrative of the way that our body of facts is continually growing. Some of the
prominent researchers in the history of the Masonic Ritual at the end of the 19th
Century and the beginning of the 20th Century did not have access to this
document. Their conclusions about the origin of certain ceremonies in the ritual, and
the explanation thereof, were thus based on incomplete knowledge of all the facts
that we now possess. And the same thing is true for future researchers. There may
be more materials yet to be discovered which will elucidate our search for the
history of our Masonic Ritual, and thus our present conclusions may need to be
modified in light of these new discoveries.

Beginning with the Edinburgh Register House Manuscript of 1696, other similar
manuscripts now begin to appear. They are all written in the “catechism” format,
and an explanation of that format is now in order. A “catechism” is a series of
questions and answers used to teach a subject. It comes from the Greek word for
“oral instruction” and originally described the method of instruction of
“catechumens” in the early Christian Church. As Christianity spread around the
Mediterranean basin, it became a custom to receive new members into the church
only after a period of instruction. This method of instruction, patterned on that in
use in the philosophical schools, consisted of a series of questions and answers
which were memorized. The instructor would teach the catechumen the answers to
“set” questions, and then ask him or her those questions as a part of the
examination preparatory to baptism.

The use of this form of instruction long survived the early church, and is still found
today in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican churches. Used as a way of
demonstrating approved knowledge of Christianity, it was also a way of summarizing
the essential teachings of the church – ensuring adherence to orthodoxy.
Freemasonry inherited this form of teaching – how we are not yet sure – but the
“question and answer” method of teaching is our oldest source of information on
the early Masonic Ritual. Here is an example [from the Edinburgh Register House
Manuscript]:

Q:4 Where was you entered? An: At the honourable lodge.

Q:5 What makes a true and perfect lodge? An: seven master, five entered
apprentices, A days Journey from a burroughs town, without bark of
dog or crow of cock.
Q:6 Does no les make a true and perfect lodge, An: yes five masons and
three entered apprentices etc.
Q:7 Does no less? An: The more the merrier the fewer the better chear.
Q:11 Are there any lights in your lodge An: yes three the nor east. S w, and
eastern passage The one denotes the master mason, the other the
warden, the third the setter croft.
Q:12 Are there any jewells in your lodge An Yes three, Perpend Esler a
Square pavement and broad oval.

You can see from this excerpt that the content of the ritual is being taught by means
of questions and answers. This format is still familiar to us because that is the format
of the candidate’s lecture for each of the three degrees in our California Ritual.
These lectures were originally delivered in lodge by the officers and only at a later
time relegated to private instruction for the candidate who was required to
memorize them and deliver them in lodge in order to advance.

The content of this excerpt is also familiar to us in certain respects, although our
ritual today has different answers to the questions. Note the interest in a definition
of a “true and perfect lodge,” with the answer being “five masons and three
entered apprentices.” It must be remembered that at this early stage the three
degrees of Masonry were not yet developed. In the early catechisms we find
symbolism from what became the three degrees at a later date. However, there is
evidence that the three levels that would become our three degrees were already
evolving. Here is Question 15 from the Edinburgh Register House Manuscript:

Q:15 After the masons have examined you by all or some of these Questions
and that you have answered them exactly and mad the signes, they will
acknowledge you, but no a master mason or fellow croft but only as as [? = an]
apprentice, soe they will say I see you have been in the Kitchine but I know not
if you have been in the hall, Ans I have been in the hall as weel as in the
kitchine.

Quest 1 Are you a fellow craft Ans yes.

Quest 2 How many points of the fellowship are ther Ans five viz foot to foot
Knee to Kn[ee] Heart to Heart, Hand to Hand and ear to ear. Then make the
sign of fellowship and shake hand and you will be acknowledged a true Mason.

You will recognize from this excerpt material that appears in the second and third
degrees, although it is not at all clear at this point in the manuscript that this
material was given to an Entered Apprentice Mason. In fact it is at this point in the
manuscript that we first get an idea of why it was written. At first it might seem that
this manuscript is an “aide memoire” – an “aide to the memory” for those who were
either learning the catechism for use in the lodge, or were using it with candidates.
But with Question 15 we learn that this manuscript is probably an exposé, designed
to allow a non-mason to work his way into a lodge, or at the very least, to prove to
another mason that he is one of them.

From 1696 to 1730 Early Masonic Catechisms records no fewer than sixteen
manuscripts and printed versions of what I may term “proto-rituals.” They are not
complete rituals (that is, not a complete ceremony), because they are intended to
represent the question-and-answer format used in the lodge itself by the officers, or
in private instruction with the candidate. If you were to visit a lodge during this time
period, this is what you would be likely to find:

• The lodge would be meeting in a private room in a tavern or inn – probably

on the second floor, if available, for privacy.
• In the center of the room would be a large table – not a permanent piece of
furniture, but rather made of planks laid on trestles. These “trestle boards”
would be used at a later date to draw designs upon for the instruction of
 candidates, but not in the earliest years. In the earliest times the tiler would
draw designs on the floor of the lodge for the instruction of the candidates in
chalk (“the slightest touch of which will leave a trace behind”), with designs
picked out in charcoal, and often in powdered clay as well. At the end of the
evening the newest Entered Apprentice was required to wash out the
designs with a bucket of water and a mop so that no one not a mason could
“..... behold the form thereof.”
• The officers and members would meet around the table. Sometimes the
table would be in the shape of a “U”, but more often not. The master sat on
the east side of the table in the center, and the two wardens sat on the
opposite side – the west – near the corner of the table. The Senior Warden
was in the northwest corner and the Junior Warden in the southwest corner.
• The meeting was formally called to order by a rehearsal of some of the
questions and answers that were also used to instruct a candidate. These are
not “lectures” so much as an echo of the lectures used to set the tone for
the meeting and to remind the members present of the time when they were
first made a mason. An excerpt from the Trinity College manuscript of 1711
will illustrate how this was done (with the spelling modernized for clarity):

Q: What manner of man are you? Answer: I am a mason.

Q: How shall I know that? Answer: By the signs, tokens, & points of my entry.
Q: What makes a full, & perfect lodge? Answer: Three masters, three fellow
craftsmen, and three Entered Apprentices.
Q: How stands your lodge? Answer: East & west, like the Temple of
Jerusalem
Q: Where sits the master? Answer: In a chair of bone in the middle of a four
square pavement. [NB – this is probably an allusion to the “instructive
tongue” as well as to the master of the lodge.]
Q: What sits he there for? Answer: To observe the sun’s rising to set his men
to work.
Q: How high is your lodge? Answer: as high as the stars – inches and feet
innumerable.
Q: Where do you keep the key of the lodge? Answer: In a box of bone within
a foot & 1⁄2 of the door of the lodge.
Q: How far is it from the cable to the anchor? Answer: As far as from the
tongue to the heart.
 Q: Which way blows the wind? Answer: East & west & out of the south.

It does not take much imagination to understand how these questions and answers
evolved over the centuries into something more familiar to us. There is a question as
to how many make up a lodge – the question of a quorum – because the concept of
a quorum is essential to the validity of any meeting. The question about the height
of the lodge finds it familiar echo in our monitorial work today, where we learn that
“The form of a lodge is oblong. It extends from East to West, and from North to
South, and it is said to be thus extensive to denote the universality of Masonry and
to teach us that a Mason’s charity should be equally extensive, for in every country
and in every clime are Masons to be found.” This excerpt from our monitorial
lecture of the First Degree of Masonry shows how the question and answer format
was probably used. In the opening of the lodge it would occur as a question and
answer between the Master and the Senior Warden. Later in the evening there
would be an explanation based on this earlier question and answer, along the lines
of our current ritual. Then, when the lecture was rehearsed at the end of the evening
– again in question and answer format – the format used at the opening of the
lodge would be repeated.

Let us continue with a typical meeting of a lodge at the beginning of the 18th
century:

• The candidate would be introduced into the lodge by his sponsor. His sponsor
was a “friend and brother on whose fidelity” the candidate could “with the
utmost confidence rely.” There were no deacons at this stage of development,
and the candidate was conducted through the ceremonies by his sponsor.
• The suitability of the candidate to become a mason was ceremonially
ascertained as he was conducted around the table. Obviously he had passed
some sort of ballot in the first place, or he would not be present. But the lodge
now wanted to confirm some things about him as a lodge. Each of the
wardens, and the master, asked him certain questions about his suitability to
be made a mason – some of which questions were answered for him by his
sponsor because, of course, he could not be expected to know the proper
“masonic” responses to the questions.
• An obligation was then administered. The oldest of our manuscript rituals
almost always include the obligation. The Edinburgh Register House
Manuscript has it thus:
 They give him the oath as follows (with the spelling modernized for clarity): By
God Himself, and you shall answer to God when you shall stand naked before
Him, at the Great Day, you shall not reveal any part of what you shall hear or see
at this time whether by word, nor write, nor put it in writing at any time, nor draw
it with the point of a sword, or any other instrument, upon the snow or sand, nor
shall you speak of it, but with an Entered [Apprentice] Mason, so help you God.”

Reference to the other rituals over the next twenty years or so will show the
curious student how this simple obligation was elaborated – with characteristics
that will be quite familiar to the knowledgeable mason of today.

Note that I have described the conferral of the Entered Apprentice Degree. At this
time there was only one ceremony of admission, although the exposés clearly show
that they were aware of the advanced ranks of fellow and master, even though these
are not clearly represented in the ritual itself. The 1925 Prestonian Lecture, delivered
by Bro. Lionel Vibert, was entitled “The Development of the Trigradal System.”
Vibert states that “In, or just before 1725 the Acceptance was divided up to form
the E.A. and F.C. degrees, and by 1730 the trigradal system was definitely
established.”

The date of 1730 is an important one, because it was in that year that Samuel
Prichard published Masonry Dissected. For the first time the three degrees of
Masonry as we know them appear in print. The material is still in “catechal” format –
a series of questions and answers – and there is no doubt that the previous pattern
of the use of this kind of ritual continued in the 1730’s, and beyond. Listen to the
opening dialogue. You may find something familiar:

Q: From whence came you? A: From the Holy Lodge of St. John’s.
Q: What recommendations brought you from thence? A: The
Recommendations which I brought from the Right Worshipful Brothers and
Fellows of the Right Worshipful and Holy Lodge of St. John’s, from whence I
came, and Greet you thrice heartily well.
Q: What came you here to do? A:
Not to do my own proper Will,
But to subdue my Passion still;
The Rules of Masonry in hand to take,
And daily Progress therein make.
The answer is in primitive rhyme, and we know from other extant rituals of this
period that rhyme was sometimes used. The ritual of the Royal Order of Scotland is
in rhyme (dated 1736), and the ritual of the Ark Mariner Degree is also in rhyme.

Vibert goes on to note: “In the Second Degree there appears originally to have
been no distinct obligation and when it does come in it includes some provisions
that now form part of that in the Third.” That is not surprising, because a key
element in the Third Degree was included in the passage of an Entered Apprentice
to that of a Fellow Craft in the Edinburgh Register House Manuscript, as noted
above. A masonic lodge consisted of “brothers and fellows” at this period – that is
to say, Entered Apprentice Masons and Fellow Craft Masons. The operative craft
had had master masons, but the term had more the meaning of those who were full
members of the guild than that of a separate degree. By the early 18th Century
Speculative Masonry was evolving in different ways from the older system, but kept
the earlier terminology to describe what was actually a new system.

To summarize what we have said so far, masonic lodges in the years before the
formation of the first grand lodge in 1717 met regularly to enjoy masonic fellowship,
to rehearse the teachings and ceremonies of masonry through question and answer
style lectures, and to “make mason” – “accepted masons” was the actual term –
through a single ceremony of induction. There is a strong possibility that as the
material used in these ceremonies grew more elaborate it was necessary to break
the ceremony apart and confer it on two different occasions. From such a simple but
practical necessity what we know of as the Fellow Craft degree arose. An example of
the additional ceremony for the Fellow Craft, as described by Vibert, is as follows:
“.....there was an addition to the ceremony in that the newly made F.C. re-entered
the Lodge to receive his wages, which he did from the Senior Warden between the
Pillars after having passed a test.” That particular ritual never made it into our
version of the Fellow Craft Degree – but it survives today as a part of the Mark
Master Degree. All our new Fellow Craft is told is that fellow crafts received their
wages in the Middle Chamber of King Solomon’s Temple. This is an example of how
ritual develops alternative ceremonies which may never completely disappear from
Freemasonry, but instead migrate to other rites and degrees.

As mentioned before, Prichard is the first one to clearly show that Freemasonry
consisted of three degrees by 1730. We know that the substance of our Third
Degree – the Hiramic Legend – existed earlier, but we are unsure as to its use. There
is a clue, however, in the later development of the ritual under the Ancients. Some
lodges that had not accepted the governance of the premier grand lodge formed
their own grand lodge in 1751. These lodges had the three degrees of masonry, but
they used the Third Degree as a qualifying degree for those who wished to become
master of the lodge. There is evidence that the lodges which later formed the
Ancients’ Grand Lodge conferred the first two degrees on a regular basis, but felt
that the Master Mason Degree was so important that it should only be conferred on
those who were interested in being the leader of the lodge. The term for our
Second Section of the Third Degree was “The Master’s Part,” and it was conferred
in a lodge of master masons – a separate organization which frequently met on
Sunday afternoons. Today masonic lodges in this country are Master’s Lodges which
confer the first and second degrees as preparation for the Master Mason Degree. In
the middle part of the 18th Century it was just the opposite. Lodges were “masonic
lodges” that conferred the first and second degrees of Masonry to admit candidates
as masons, and then – at a later time – conferred the Third Degree through a
separate organization – “masters’ lodges.”

The Ancients actually practiced the “trigradal” system of their own, which was not
the same trigradal system described by Lionel Vibert. This “three –degree” system
consisted of the old “Master’s Part” which was conferred on those who wished to
become the master of the lodge, followed by a secret ceremony of installation
conferred by past masters of the lodge, and then – at the end of the twelve-month
term of office – the Royal Arch Degree. In the beginning ordinary members did not
take the “Master Mason Degree,” although it is clear from Prichard that some
lodges regularly conferred “The Master’s Part” on their candidates. We also know
that by the middle of the century eager Master Masons who wished to experience
the Royal Arch Degree, but who could not take the time to become Master of the
Lodge, would be put through abrief ceremony of being “installed” as Master,
following which the Royal Arch Degree was then conferred. All this is to show that
degrees in the 18th Century were in the process of development, and our present
system only became the standard by the last half of the century.

The story of the development of our Masonic Ritual does not stop here. Time will
not permit me to explain all the changes and permutations that took place in the
last half of the 18th Century, and then on into the 19th Century. I can only give you a
brief glimpse of how our early ritual evolved into what is practiced today around the
world. Today there are distinct families of ritual, known as “rites.” The term “rite”
comes from church nomenclature, where it describes different versions of the liturgy
of the church. For example, there is the Roman Rite, practiced by the Roman
Catholic Church; the Byzantine Rite, practiced by a branch of the Roman Catholic
Church in Eastern Europe and Russia; and other similar “rites” of national churches
and branches of both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Freemasonry,
too, has its rites.

The rite practiced by American Masons is called the York Rite. It is the oldest of the
rites in use today, and got its name from the old lodge at York, England, and
possibly through the legend of Prince Edwin of York – a legend preserved in many
of the Old Charges which were read at the admission of a mason before the
development of our present ritual. The York Rite family of rituals is characterized by
its austere character, by the use of questions and answers as a means of delivering
the ritual, and by the use of a lecture at the end of a degree to explain the
ceremonies. The American variant of the York Ritual is more properly called the
Preston-Webb working, after the great Masonic ritualist, William Preston, whose
lectures are the source of our own lectures today, and Thomas Smith Webb, who
propagated these lectures in America. The ritual used in England – or more properly
the rituals, because they have several different workings, are also York Rite rituals.

When Freemasonry spread to France in the 1730’s, it experienced a great

elaboration of the basic rituals received from England. This elaboration resulted, in
part, in the creation of new degrees to supplement the three basic degrees of
Ancient Craft Masonry. One of these degrees was called the “Scots Master
Degree”, and from this degree then entire type of degrees conferred in France
derived their name – the Scottish Rite. Today, of course, we tend to think of the York
Rite and the Scottish Rite as system of additional degrees beyond those of the Craft,
and so they are. But before the name was used for additional degrees and
organizations, the names referred to the type of ritual in use. The Scottish Rite
rituals, for example, were more dramatic, and incorporated symbolism not found in
the older York Rite rituals. Today you can see a Scottish Rite ritual for the Entered
Apprentice Degree if you visit one of California’s French lodges. They use the
Scottish Rite ritual for their first degree instead of the York Rite ritual. If you have
seen the degree, you will readily understand the difference.

But there are other rites in use around the world which are infrequently seen in this
country, if at all. The Swedish Rite of 1761 is one example. The Schroeder Rite – a
German rite – is another. You will also find the Rectified Scottish Rite in use in
Europe, a rite which is characterized by the incorporation of Martinism into its
symbolism. (Martinism is a system of mystical Christianity which developed in the
18th Century in France.) You will also find the rites of Mizraim and of Memphis in
existence – craft degrees which are a part of two systems developed in the first half
of the 19th Century, and which are dependent upon Egyptian symbolism for their
illustrations.