_Of the Initiation of Non-residents._
The subject of this section is naturally divided into two
branches:--First, as to the initiation by a lodge of a candidate, who,
residing in the same State or Grand Lodge jurisdiction, is still not an
inhabitant of the town in which the lodge to which he applies is
situated, but resides nearer to some other lodge; and, secondly, as to the
initiation of a stranger, whose residence is in another State, or under
the jurisdiction of another Grand Lodge.
1. The first of these divisions presents a question which is easily
answered. Although I can find no ancient regulation on this subject,
still, by the concurrent authority of all Grand Lodges in this country, at
least, (for the Grand Lodge of England has no such provision in its
Constitution,) every lodge is forbidden to initiate any person whose
residence is nearer to any other lodge. If, however, such an initiation
should take place, although the lodge would be censurable for its
violation of the regulations of its superior, yet there has never been any
doubt that the initiation would be good and the candidate so admitted
regularly made. The punishment must fall upon the lodge and not upon the
newly-made Brother.
2. The second division presents a more embarrassing inquiry, on account of
the diversity of opinions which have been entertained on the subject. Can
a lodge in one State, or Grand Lodge jurisdiction, initiate the resident
of another State, and would such initiation be lawful, and the person so
initiated a regular Mason, or, to use the technical language of the Order,
a Mason made "in due form," and entitled to all the rights and privileges
of the Order?
The question is one of considerable difficulty; it has given occasion to
much controversy, and has been warmly discussed within the last few years
by several of the Grand Lodges of the United States.
In 1847, the Grand Lodge of Alabama adopted the following regulation,
which had been previously enacted by the Grand Lodge of Tennessee:
"Any person residing within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, who has
already, or shall hereafter, travel into any foreign jurisdiction, and
there receive the degrees of Masonry, such person shall not be entitled to
the rights, benefits, and privileges of Masonry within this jurisdiction,
until he shall have been regularly admitted a member of the subordinate
lodge under this Grand Lodge, nearest which he at the time resides, in the
manner provided by the Constitution of this Grand Lodge for the admission
of members."
The rule adopted by the Grand Lodge of Maryland is still more stringent.
It declares, "that if any individual, from selfish motives, from distrust
of his acceptance, or other causes originating in himself, knowingly and
willfully travel into another jurisdiction, and there receive the masonic
degrees, he shall be considered and held as a clandestine made Mason."
The Grand Lodge of New York, especially, has opposed these regulations,
inflicting a penalty on the initiate, and assigns its reasons for the
opposition in the following language:
"Before a man becomes a Mason, he is subject to no law which any Grand
Lodge can enact. No Grand Lodge has a right to make a law to compel any
citizen, who desires, to be initiated in a particular lodge, or in the
town or State of his residence; neither can any Grand Lodge forbid a
citizen to go where he pleases to seek acceptance into fellowship with the
craft; and where there is no right to compel or to forbid, there can be no
right to punish; but it will be observed, that the laws referred to were
enacted to punish the citizens of Maryland and Alabama, as Masons and
Brethren, for doing something before they were Masons and Brethren, which
they had a perfect right to do as citizens and freemen; and it must
certainly be regarded as an act of deception and treachery by a young
Mason, on returning home, to be told, that he is 'a clandestine Mason,'
that he 'ought to be expelled,' or, that he cannot be recognized as a
Brother till he 'joins a lodge where his residence is,' because he was
initiated in New York, in England, or in France, after having heard all
his life of the universality and oneness of the institution."[77]
It seems to us that the Grand Lodge of New York has taken the proper view
of the subject; although we confess that we are not satisfied with the
whole course of reasoning by which it has arrived at the conclusion.
Whatever we may be inclined to think of the inexpediency of making
transient persons (and we certainly do believe that it would be better
that the character and qualifications of every candidate should be
submitted to the inspection of his neighbors rather than to that of
strangers), however much we may condemn the carelessness and facility of a
lodge which is thus willing to initiate a stranger, without that due
examination of his character, which, of course, in the case of
non-residents, can seldom be obtained, we are obliged to admit that such
makings are legal--the person thus made cannot be called a clandestine
Mason, because he has been made in a legally constituted lodge--and as he
is a regular Mason, we know of no principle by which he can be refused
admission as a visitor into any lodge to which he applies.
Masonry is universal in its character, and knows no distinction of nation
or of religion. Although each state or kingdom has its distinct Grand
Lodge, this is simply for purposes of convenience in carrying out the
principles of uniformity and subordination, which should prevail
throughout the masonic system. The jurisdiction of these bodies is
entirely of a masonic character, and is exercised only over the members of
the Order who have voluntarily contracted their allegiance. It cannot
affect the profane, who are, of course, beyond its pale. It is true, that
as soon as a candidate applies to a lodge for initiation, he begins to
come within the scope of masonic law. He has to submit to a prescribed
formula of application and entrance, long before he becomes a member of
the Order. But as this formula is universal in its operation, affecting
candidates who are to receive it and lodges which are to enforce it in all
places, it must have been derived from some universal authority. The
manner, therefore, in which a candidate is to be admitted, and the
preliminary qualifications which are requisite, are prescribed by the
landmarks, the general usage, and the ancient constitutions of the Order.
And as they have directed the _mode how_, they might also have prescribed
the _place where_, a man should be made a Mason. But they have done no
such thing. We cannot, after the most diligent search, find any
constitutional regulation of the craft, which refers to the initiation of
non-residents. The subject has been left untouched; and as the ancient and
universally acknowledged authorities of Masonry have neglected to
legislate on the subject, it is now too late for any modern and local
authority, like that of a Grand Lodge, to do so.
A Grand Lodge may, it is true, forbid--as Missouri, South Carolina,
Georgia, and several other Grand Lodges have done--the initiation of
non-residents, within its own jurisdiction, because this is a local law
enacted by a local authority; but it cannot travel beyond its own
territory, and prescribe the same rule to another Grand Lodge, which may
not, in fact, be willing to adopt it.
The conclusions, then, at which we arrive no this subject are these: The
ancient constitutions have prescribed no regulation on the subject of the
initiation of non-residents; it is, therefore, optional with every Grand
Lodge, whether it will or will not suffer such candidates to be made
within its own jurisdiction; the making, where it is permitted, is legal,
and the candidate so made becomes a regular Mason, and is entitled to the
right of visitation.
What, then, is the remedy, where a person of bad character, and having, in
the language of the Grand Lodge of Maryland, "a distrust of his
acceptance" at home, goes abroad and receives the degrees of Masonry? No
one will deny that such a state of things is productive of great evil to
the craft. Fortunately, the remedy is simple and easily applied. Let the
lodge, into whose jurisdiction he has returned, exercise its power of
discipline, and if his character and conduct deserve the punishment, let
him be expelled from the Order. If he is unworthy of remaining in the
Order, he should be removed from it at once; but if he is worthy of
continuing in it, there certainly can be no objection to his making use of
his right to visit.
Chapter II.
Of the Rights of Entered Apprentices.
In an inquiry into the rights of Entered Apprentices, we shall not be much
assisted by the Ancient Constitutions, which, leaving the subject in the
position in which usage had established it, are silent in relation to what
is the rule. In all such cases, we must, as I have frequently remarked
before, in settling the law, have recourse to analogy, to the general
principles of equity, and the dictates of common sense, and, with these
three as our guides, we shall find but little difficulty in coming to a
right conclusion.
At present, an Entered Apprentice is not considered a member of the Lodge,
which privilege is only extended to Master Masons. This was not formerly
the case. Then the Master's degree was not as indiscriminately conferred
as it is now. A longer probation and greater mental or moral
qualifications were required to entitle a candidate to this sublime
dignity. None were called Master Masons but such as had presided over
their Lodges, and the office of Wardens was filled by Fellow Crafts.
Entered Apprentices, as well as Fellow Crafts, were permitted to attend
the communications of the Grand Lodge, and express their opinions; and, in
1718, it was enacted that every new regulation, proposed in the Grand
Lodge, should be submitted to the consideration of even the youngest
Entered Apprentice. Brethren of this degree composed, in fact, at that
time, the great body of the craft. But, all these things have, since, by
the gradual improvement of our organization, undergone many alterations;
and Entered Apprentices seem now, by universal consent, to be restricted
to a very few rights. They have the right of sitting in all lodges of
their degree, of receiving all the instructions which appertain to it, but
not of speaking or voting, and, lastly, of offering themselves as
candidates for advancement, without the preparatory necessity of a formal
written petition.
These being admitted to be the rights of an Entered Apprentice, few and
unimportant as they may be, they are as dear to him as those of a Master
Mason are to one who has been advanced to that degree; and he is, and
ought to be, as firmly secured in their possession. Therefore, as no Mason
can be deprived of his rights and privileges, except after a fair and
impartial trial, and the verdict of his peers, it is clear that the
Entered Apprentice cannot be divested of these rights without just such a
trial and verdict.
But, in the next place, we are to inquire whether the privilege of being
passed as a Fellow Craft is to be enumerated among these rights? And, we
clearly answer, No. The Entered Apprentice has the right of making the
application. Herein he differs from a profane, who has no such right of
application until he has qualified himself for making it, by becoming an
Entered Apprentice. But, if the application is granted, it is _ex gratia_,
or, by the favour of the lodge, which may withhold it, if it pleases. If
such were not the case, the lodge would possess no free will on the
subject of advancing candidates; and the rule requiring a probation and an
examination, before passing, would be useless and absurd--because, the
neglect of improvement or the want of competency would be attended with no
penalty.
It seems to me, then, that, when an Apprentice applies for his second
degree, the lodge may, if it thinks proper, refuse to grant it; and that
it may express that refusal by a ballot. No trial is necessary, because no
rights of the candidate are affected. He is, by a rejection of his
request, left in the same position that he formerly occupied. He is still
an Entered Apprentice, in good standing; and the lodge may, at any time it
thinks proper, reverse its decision and proceed to pass him.
If, however, he is specifically charged with any offense against the laws
of Masonry, it would then be necessary to give him a trial. Witnesses
should be heard, both for and against him, and he should be permitted to
make his defense. The opinion of the lodge should be taken, as in all
other cases of trial, and, according to the verdict, he should be
suspended, expelled, or otherwise punished.
The effect of these two methods of proceeding is very different. When, by
a ballot, the lodge refuses to advance an Entered Apprentice, there is
not, necessarily, any stigma on his moral character. It may be, that the
refusal is based on the ground that he has not made sufficient proficiency
to entitle him to pass. Consequently, his standing as an Entered
Apprentice is not at all affected. His rights remain the same. He may
still sit in the lodge when it is opened in his degree; he may still
receive instructions in that degree; converse with Masons on masonic
subjects which are not beyond his standing; and again apply to the lodge
for permission to pass as a Fellow Craft.
But, if he be tried on a specific charge, and be suspended or expelled,
his moral character is affected. His masonic rights are forfeited; and he
can no longer be considered as an Entered Apprentice in good standing. He
will not be permitted to sit in his lodge, to receive masonic instruction,
or to converse with Masons on masonic subjects; nor can he again apply for
advancement until the suspension or expulsion is removed by the
spontaneous action of the lodge.
These two proceedings work differently in another respect. The Grand Lodge
will not interfere with a subordinate lodge in compelling it to pass an
Entered Apprentice; because every lodge is supposed to be competent to
finish, in its own time, and its own way, the work that it has begun. But,
as the old regulations, as well as the general consent of the craft, admit
that the Grand Lodge alone can expel from the rights and privileges of
Masonry, and that an expulsion by a subordinate lodge is inoperative until
it is confirmed by the Grand Lodge, it follows that the expulsion of the
Apprentice must be confirmed by that body; and that, therefore, he has a
right to appeal to it for a reversal of the sentence, if it was unjustly
pronounced.
Let it not be said that this would be placing an Apprentice on too great
an equality with Master Masons. His rights are dear to him; he has paid
for them. No man would become an Apprentice unless he expected, in time,
to be made a Fellow Craft, and then a Master. He is, therefore, morally
and legally wronged when he is deprived, without sufficient cause, of the
capacity of fulfilling that expectation. It is the duty of the Grand Lodge
to see that not even the humblest member of the craft shall have his
rights unjustly invaded; and it is therefore bound, as the conservator of
the rights of all, to inquire into the truth, and administer equity.
Whenever, therefore, even an Entered Apprentice complains that he has met
with injustice and oppression, his complaint should be investigated and
justice administered.
The question next occurs--What number of black balls should prevent an
Apprentice from passing to the second degree? I answer, the same number
that would reject the application of a profane for initiation into the
Order. And why should this not be so? Are the qualifications which would
be required of one applying, for the first time, for admission to the
degree of an Apprentice more than would subsequently be required of the
same person on his applying for a greater favor and a higher honor--that
of being advanced to the second degree? Or do the requisitions, which
exist in the earlier stages of Masonry, become less and less with every
step of the aspirant's progress? Viewing the question in this light--and,
indeed, I know of no other in which to view it--it seems to me to be
perfectly evident that the peculiar constitution and principles of our
Order will require unanimity in the election of a profane for initiation,
of an Apprentice for a Fellow Craft, and of a Fellow Craft for a Master
Mason; and that, while no Entered Apprentice can be expelled from the
Order, except by due course of trial, it is competent for the lodge, at
any time, on a ballot, to refuse to advance him to the second degree. But,
let it be remembered that the lodge which refuses to pass an Apprentice,
on account of any objections to his moral character, or doubts of his
worthiness, is bound to give him the advantage of a trial, and at once to
expel him, if guilty, or, if innocent, to advance him when otherwise
qualified.
Chapter III.
Of the Rights of Fellow Crafts.
In ancient times there were undoubtedly many rights attached to the second
degree which have now become obsolete or been repealed; for formerly the
great body of the fraternity were Fellow Crafts, and according to the old
charges, even the Grand Master might be elected from among them. The
Master and Wardens of Subordinate Lodges always were. Thus we are told
that no Brother can be Grand Master, "unless he has been a Fellow Craft
before his election," and in the ancient manner of constituting a lodge,
contained in the Book of Constitutions,[78] it is said that "the
candidates, or the new Master and Wardens, being yet among the Fellow
Crafts, the Grand Master shall ask his Deputy if he has examined them,"
etc. But now that the great body of the Fraternity consists of Master
Masons, the prerogatives of Fellow Crafts are circumscribed within limits
nearly as narrow as those of Entered Apprentices. While, however,
Apprentices are not permitted to speak or vote, in ancient times, and up,
indeed, to a very late date. Fellow Crafts were entitled to take a part in
any discussion in which the lodge, while open in the first or second
degree, might engage, but not to vote. This privilege is expressly stated
by Preston, as appertaining to a Fellow Craft, in his charge to a
candidate, receiving that degree.
"As a Craftsman, in our private assemblies you may offer your sentiments
and opinions on such subjects as are regularly introduced in the Lecture,
under the superintendence of an experienced Master, who will guard the
landmark against encroachment."[79]
This privilege is not now, however, granted in this country to Fellow
Crafts. All, therefore, that has been said in the preceding chapter, of
the rights of Entered Apprentices, will equally apply, _mutatis mutandis_,
to the rights of Fellow Crafts.
Chapter IV.
Of the Rights of Master Masons.
When a Mason has reached the third degree, he becomes entitled to all the
rights and privileges of Ancient Craft Masonry. These rights are extensive
and complicated; and, like his duties, which are equally as extensive,
require a careful examination, thoroughly to comprehend them. Four of
them, at least, are of so much importance as to demand a distinct
consideration. These are the rights of membership, of visitation, of
relief, and of burial. To each I shall devote a separate section.
Section I.
_Of the Right of Membership._
The whole spirit and tenor of the General Regulations, as well as the
uniform usage of the craft, sustain the doctrine, that when a Mason is
initiated in a lodge, he has the right, by signing the bye-laws, to
become a member without the necessity of submitting to another ballot. In
the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of New York, this principle is
asserted to be one of the ancient landmarks, and is announced in the
following words: "Initiation makes a man a Mason; but he must receive the
Master's degree, and sign the bye-laws before he becomes a member of the
lodge."[80] If the doctrine be not exactly a landmark (which I confess I
am not quite prepared to admit), it comes to us almost clothed with the
authority of one, from the sanction of universal and uninterrupted usage.
How long before he loses this right by a _non-user_, or neglect to avail
himself of it, is, I presume, a question to be settled by local authority.
A lodge, or a Grand Lodge, may affix the period according to its
discretion; but the general custom is, to require a signature of the
bye-laws, and a consequent enrollment in the lodge, within three months
after receiving the third degree. Should a Mason neglect to avail himself
of his privilege, he forfeits it (unless, upon sufficient cause, he is
excused by the lodge), and must submit to a ballot.
The reason for such a law is evident. If a Mason does not at once unite
himself with the lodge in which he was raised, but permits an extended
period of time to elapse, there is no certainty that his character or
habits may not have changed, and that he may not have become, since his
initiation, unworthy of affiliation. Under the general law, it is,
therefore, necessary that he should in such case submit to the usual
probation of one month, and an investigation of his qualifications by a
committee, as well as a ballot by the members.
But there are other privileges also connected with this right of
membership. A profane is required to apply for initiation to the lodge
nearest his place of residence, and, if there rejected, can never in
future apply to any other lodge. But the rule is different with respect to
the application of a Master Mason for membership.
A Master Mason is not restricted in his privilege of application for
membership within any geographical limits. All that is required of him is,
that he should be an affiliated Mason; that is, that he should be a
contributing member of a lodge, without any reference to its peculiar
locality, whether near to or distant from his place of residence. The Old
Charges simply prescribe, that every Mason ought to belong to a lodge. A
Mason, therefore, strictly complies with this regulation, when he unites
himself with any lodge, thus contributing to the support of the
institution, and is then entitled to all the privileges of an affiliated
Mason.
A rejection of the application of a Master Mason for membership by a lodge
does not deprive him of the right of applying to another. A Mason is in
"good standing" until deprived of that character by the action of some
competent masonic authority; and that action can only be by suspension or
expulsion. Rejection does not, therefore, affect the "good standing" of
the applicant; for in a rejection there is no legal form of trial, and
consequently the rejected Brother remains in the same position after as
before his rejection. He possesses the same rights as before, unimpaired
and undiminished; and among these rights is that of applying for
membership to any lodge that he may select.
If, then, a Mason may be a member of a lodge distant from his place of
residence, and, perhaps, even situated in a different jurisdiction, the
question then arises whether the lodge within whose precincts he resides,
but of which he is not a member, can exercise its discipline over him
should he commit any offense requiring masonic punishment. On this subject
there is, among masonic writers, a difference of opinion. I, however,
agree with Brother Pike, the able Chairman of the Committee of
Correspondence of Arkansas, that the lodge can exercise such discipline. I
contend that a Mason is amenable for his conduct not only to the lodge of
which he may be a member, but also to any one within whose jurisdiction he
permanently resides. A lodge is the conservator of the purity and the
protector of the integrity of the Order within its precincts. The unworthy
conduct of a Mason, living as it were immediately under its government, is
calculated most injuriously to affect that purity and integrity. A lodge,
therefore, should not be deprived of the power of coercing such unworthy
Mason, and, by salutary punishment, of vindicating the character of the
institution. Let us suppose, by way of example, that a Mason living in San
Francisco, California, but retaining his membership in New York, behaves
in such an immoral and indecorous manner as to bring the greatest
discredit upon the Order, and to materially injure it in the estimation of
the uninitiated community. Will it be, for a moment, contended that a
lodge in San Francisco cannot arrest the evil by bringing the unworthy
Mason under discipline, and even ejecting him from the fraternity, if
severity like that is necessary for the protection of the institution? Or
will it be contended that redress can only be sought through the delay and
uncertainty of an appeal to his lodge in New York? Even if the words of
the ancient laws are silent on this subject, reason and justice would seem
to maintain the propriety and expediency of the doctrine that the lodge at
San Francisco is amply competent to extend its jurisdiction and exercise
its discipline over the culprit.
In respect to the number of votes necessary to admit a Master Mason
applying by petition for membership in a lodge, there can be no doubt that
he must submit to precisely the same conditions as those prescribed to a
profane on his petition for initiation. There is no room for argument
here, for the General Regulations are express on this subject.
"No man can be made or _admitted a member_ of a particular lodge," says
the fifth regulation, "without previous notice one month before given to
the said lodge."
And the sixth regulation adds, that "no man can be entered a Brother in
any particular lodge, or _admitted to be a member_ thereof, without the
unanimous consent of all the members of that lodge then present."
So that it may be considered as settled law, so far as the General
Regulations can settle a law of Masonry, that a Master Mason can only be
admitted a member of a lodge when applying by petition, after a month's
probation, after due inquiry into his character, and after a unanimous
ballot in his favor.
But there are other rights of Master Masons consequent upon membership,
which remain to be considered. In uniting with a lodge, a Master Mason
becomes a participant of all its interests, and is entitled to speak and
vote upon all subjects that come before the lodge for investigation. He is
also entitled, if duly elected by his fellows, to hold any office in the
lodge, except that of Master, for which he must be qualified by previously
having occupied the post of a Warden.
A Master has the right in all cases of an appeal from the decision of the
Master or of the lodge.
A Master Mason, in good standing, has a right at any time to demand from
his lodge a certificate to that effect.
Whatever other rights may appertain to Master Masons will be the subjects
of separate sections.
Section II.
_Of the Right of Visit._
Every Master Mason, who is an affiliated member of a lodge, has the right
to visit any other lodge as often as he may desire to do so. This right is
secured to him by the ancient regulations, and is, therefore,
irreversible. In the "Ancient Charges at the Constitution of a Lodge,"
formerly contained in a MS. of the Lodge of Antiquity in London, and whose
date is not later than 1688,[81]it is directed "that every Mason receive
and cherish strange fellows when they come over the country, and set them
on work, if they will work as the manner is; that is to say, if the Mason
have any mould stone in his place, he shall give him a mould stone, and
set him on work; and if he have none, the Mason shall refresh him with
money unto the next lodge."
This regulation is explicit. It not only infers the right of visit, but
it declares that the strange Brother shall be welcomed, "received, and
cherished," and "set on work," that is, permitted to participate in the
work of your lodge. Its provisions are equally applicable to Brethren
residing in the place where the lodge is situated as to transient
Brethren, provided that they are affiliated Masons.
In the year 1819, the law was in England authoritatively settled by a
decree of the Grand Lodge. A complaint had been preferred against a lodge
in London, for having refused admission to some Brethren who were well
known to them, alleging that as the lodge was about to initiate a
candidate, no visitor could be admitted until that ceremony was concluded.
It was then declared, "that it is the undoubted right of every Mason who
is well known, or properly vouched, to visit any lodge during the time it
is opened for general masonic business, observing the proper forms to be
attended to on such occasions, and so that the Master may not be
interrupted in the performance of his duty."[82]
A lodge, when not opened for "general masonic business," but when engaged
in the consideration of matters which interest the lodge alone, and which
it would be inexpedient or indelicate to make public, may refuse to admit
a visitor. Lodges engaged in this way, in private business, from which
visitors are excluded, are said by the French Masons to be opened "_en
famille_."
To entitle him to this right of visit, a Mason must be affiliated, that
is, he must be a contributing member of some lodge. This doctrine is thus
laid down in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England:
"A Brother who is not a subscribing member to some lodge, shall not be
permitted to visit any one lodge in the town or place in which he resides,
more than once during his secession from the craft."
A non-subscribing or unaffiliated Mason is permitted to visit each lodge
once, and once only, because it is supposed that this visit is made for
the purpose of enabling him to make a selection of the one with which he
may prefer permanently to unite. But, afterwards, he loses this right of
visit, to discountenance those Brethren who wish to continue members of
the Order, and to partake of its pleasures and advantages, without
contributing to its support.
A Master Mason is not entitled to visit a lodge, unless he previously
submits to an examination, or is personally vouched for by a competent
Brother present; but this is a subject of so much importance as to claim
consideration in a distinct section.
Another regulation is, that a strange Brother shall furnish the lodge he
intends to visit with a certificate of his good standing in the lodge from
which he last hailed. This regulation has, in late years, given rise to
much discussion. Many of the Grand Lodges of this country, and several
masonic writers, strenuously contend for its antiquity and necessity,
while others as positively assert that it is a modern innovation upon
ancient usage.
There can, however, I think, be no doubt of the antiquity of certificates.
That the system requiring them was in force nearly two hundred years ago,
at least, will be evident from the third of the Regulations made in
General Assembly, December 27, 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the
Earl of St. Albans,[83] and which is in the following words:
"3. That no person hereafter who shall be accepted a Freemason, shall be
admitted into any lodge or assembly, until he has brought a certificate
of the time and place of his acceptation, from the lodge that accepted
him, unto the Master of that limit or division where such a lodge is
kept." This regulation has been reiterated on several occasions, by the
Grand Lodge of England in 1772, and at subsequent periods by several Grand
Lodges of this and other countries. It is not, however, in force in many
of the American jurisdictions.
Another right connected with the right of visitation is, that of demanding
a sight of the Warrant of Constitution. This instrument it is, indeed, not
only the right but the duty of every strange visitor carefully to inspect,
before he enters a lodge, that he may thus satisfy himself of the legality
and regularity of its character and authority. On such a demand being made
by a visitor for a sight of its Warrant, every lodge is bound to comply
with the requisition, and produce the instrument. The same rule, of
course, applies to lodges under dispensation, whose Warrant of
Dispensation supplies the place of a Warrant of Constitution.
Section III.
_Of the Examination of Visitors._
It has already been stated, in the preceding section, that a Master Mason
is not permitted to visit a lodge unless he previously submits to an
examination, or is personally vouched for by some competent Brother
present. The prerogative of vouching for a Brother is an important one,
and will constitute the subject of the succeeding section. At present let
us confine ourselves to the consideration of the mode of examining a
visitor.
Every visitor, who offers himself to the appointed committee of the lodge
for examination, is expected, as a preliminary step, to submit to the
Tiler's Obligation; so called, because it is administered in the Tiler's
room. As this obligation forms no part of the secret ritual of the Order,
but is administered to every person before any lawful knowledge of his
being a Mason has been received, there can be nothing objectionable in
inserting it here, and in fact, it will be advantageous to have the
precise words of so important a declaration placed beyond the possibility
of change or omission by inexperienced Brethren.
The oath, then, which is administered to the visitor, and which he may, if
he chooses, require every one present to take with him, is in the
following words
"I, A. B., do hereby and hereon solemnly and sincerely swear, that I have
been regularly initiated, passed, and raised, to the sublime degree of a
Master Mason, in a just and legally constituted lodge of such, that I do
not now stand suspended or expelled, and know of no reason why I should
not hold masonic communication with my Brethren.
This declaration having been given in the most solemn manner, the
examination must then be conducted with the necessary forms. The good old
rule of "commencing at the beginning" should be observed. Every question
is to be asked and every answer demanded which is necessary to convince
the examiner that the party examined is acquainted with what he ought to
know, to entitle him to the appellation of a Brother. Nothing is to be
taken for granted--categorical answers must be required to all that it is
deemed important to be asked. No forgetfulness is to be excused, nor is
the want of memory to be accepted as a valid excuse for the want of
knowledge. The Mason, who is so unmindful of his duties as to have
forgotten the instructions he has received, must pay the penalty of his
carelessness, and be deprived of his contemplated visit to that society
whose secret modes of recognition he has so little valued as not to have
treasured them in his memory. While there are some things which may be
safely passed over in the examination of one who confesses himself to be
"rusty," or but recently initiated, because they are details which require
much study to acquire, and constant practice to retain, there are still
other things of great importance which must be rigidly demanded, and with
the knowledge of which the examiner cannot, under any circumstances,
dispense.
Should suspicions of imposture arise, let no expression of these
suspicions be made until the final decree for rejection is pronounced. And
let that decree be uttered in general terms, such as: "I am not
satisfied," or, "I do not recognize you," and not in more specific terms,
such as, "You did not answer this inquiry," or, "You are ignorant on that
point." The visitor is only entitled to know, generally, that he has not
complied with the requisitions of his examiner. To descend to particulars
is always improper and often dangerous.
Above all, the examiner should never ask what are called "leading
questions," or such as include in themselves an indication of what the
answer is to be; nor should he in any manner aid the memory of the party
examined by the slightest hint. If he has it in him, it will come out
without assistance, and if he has it not, he is clearly entitled to no
aid.
Lastly, never should an unjustifiable delicacy weaken the rigor of these
rules. Let it be remembered, that for the wisest and most evident reasons,
the merciful maxim of the law, which says, that it is better that
ninety-nine guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be
punished, is with us reversed, and that in Masonry _it is better that
ninety and nine true men should be turned away from the door of a lodge
than that one cowan should be admitted_.
Section IV.
_Of Vouching for a Brother._
An examination may sometimes be omitted when any competent Brother present
will vouch for the visitor's masonic standing and qualifications. This
prerogative of vouching is an important one which every Master Mason is
entitled, under certain restrictions, to exercise; but it is also one
which may so materially affect the well-being of the whole
fraternity--since by its injudicious use impostors might be introduced
among the faithful--that it should be controlled by the most stringent
regulations.
To vouch for one, is to bear witness for him; and, in witnessing to truth,
every caution should be observed, lest falsehood should cunningly assume
its garb. The Brother who vouches should, therefore, know to a certainty
that the one for whom he vouches is really what he claims to be. He should
know this not from a casual conversation, nor a loose and careless
inquiry, but, as the unwritten law of the Order expresses it, from
"_strict trial, due examination, or lawful information_."
Of strict trial and due examination I have already treated in the
preceding section; and it only remains to say, that when the vouching is
founded on the knowledge obtained in this way, it is absolutely necessary
that the Brother so vouching shall be _competent_ to conduct such an
examination, and that his general intelligence and shrewdness and his
knowledge of Masonry shall be such as to place him above the probability
of being imposed upon. The important and indispensable qualification of a
voucher is, therefore, that he shall be competent. The Master of a lodge
has no right to accept, without further inquiry, the avouchment of a
young and inexperienced, or even of an old, if ignorant, Mason.
Lawful information, which is the remaining ground for an avouchment, may
be derived either from the declaration of another Brother, or from having
met the party vouched for in a lodge on some previous occasion.
If the information is derived from another Brother, who states that he has
examined the party, then all that has already been said of the competency
of the one giving the information is equally applicable. The Brother,
giving the original information, must be competent to make a rigid
examination. Again, the person giving the information, the one receiving
it, and the one of whom it is given, should be all present at the time;
for otherwise there would be no certainty of identity. Information,
therefore, given by letter or through a third party, is highly irregular.
The information must also be positive, not founded on belief or opinion,
but derived from a legitimate source. And, lastly, it must not have been
received casually, but for the very purpose of being used for masonic
purposes. For one to say to another in the course of a desultory
conversation: "A.B. is a Mason," is not sufficient. He may not be
speaking with due caution, under the expectation that his words will be
considered of weight. He must say something to this effect: "I know this
man to be a Master Mason," for such or such reasons, and you may safely
recognize him as such. This alone will insure the necessary care and
proper observance of prudence.
If the information given is on the ground that the person, vouched has
been seen sitting in a lodge by the voucher, care must be taken to inquire
if it was a "Lodge of Master Masons." A person may forget, from the lapse
of time, and vouch for a stranger as a Master Mason, when the lodge in
which he saw him was only opened in the first or second degree.
Section V.
_Of the Right of Claiming Relief._
One of the great objects of our institution is, to afford relief to a
worthy, distressed Brother. In his want and destitution, the claim of a
Mason upon his Brethren is much greater than that of a profane. This is a
Christian as well as a masonic doctrine. "As we have therefore
opportunity," says St. Paul, "let us do good unto all men, especially
unto them who are of the household of faith."
This claim for relief he may present either to a lodge or to a Brother
Mason. The rule, as well as the principles by which it is to be regulated,
is laid down in that fundamental law of Masonry, the Old Charges, in the
following explicit words, under the head of "Behavior towards a strange
Brother:"
"You are cautiously to examine him, in such a method as prudence shall
direct you, that you may not be imposed upon by an ignorant, false
pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and derision, and beware
of giving him any hints of knowledge.
"But if you discover him to be a true and genuine Brother, you are to
respect him accordingly; and if he is in want, you must relieve him if you
can, or else direct him how he may be relieved. You must employ him some
days, or else recommend him to be employed. But you are not charged to do
beyond your ability, only to prefer a poor Brother, that is a good man and
true, before any other people in the same circumstances."
This law thus laid down, includes, it will be perceived, as two important
prerequisites, on which to found a claim for relief, that the person
applying shall be in distress, and that he shall be worthy of assistance.
He must be in distress. Ours is not an insurance company, a joint stock
association, in which, for a certain premium paid, an equivalent may be
demanded. No Mason, or no lodge, is bound to give pecuniary or other aid
to a Brother, unless he really needs. The word " benefit," as usually used
in the modern friendly societies, has no place in the vocabulary of
Freemasonry. If a wealthy Brother is afflicted with sorrow or sickness, we
are to strive to comfort him with our sympathy, our kindness, and our
attention, but we are to bestow our eleemosynary aid only on the indigent
or the destitute.
He must also be worthy. There is no obligation on a Mason to relieve the
distresses, however real they may be, of an unworthy Brother. The claimant
must be, in the language of the Charge, "true and genuine." True here is
used in its good old Saxon meaning, of "faithful" or "trusty." A true
Mason is one who is mindful of his obligations, and who faithfully
observes and practices all his duties. Such a man, alone, can rightfully
claim the assistance of his Brethren.
But a third provision is made in the fundamental law; namely, that the
assistance is not to be beyond the ability of the giver. One of the most
important landmarks, contained in our unwritten law, more definitely
announces this provision, by the words, that the aid and assistance shall
be without injury to oneself or his family. Masonry does not require that
we shall sacrifice our own welfare to that of a Brother; but that with
prudent liberality, and a just regard to our own worldly means, we shall
give of the means with which Providence may have blessed us for the relief
of our distressed Brethren.
It is hardly necessary to say, that the claim for relief of a worthy
distressed Mason extends also to his immediate family.
Section VI.
_Of the Right of Masonic Burial._
After a very careful examination, I can find nothing in the old charges or
General Regulations, nor in any other part of the fundamental law, in
relation to masonic burial of deceased Brethren. It is probable that, at
an early period, when the great body of the craft consisted of Entered
Apprentices, the usage permitted the burial of members, of the first or
second degree, with the honors of Masonry. As far back as 1754,
processions for the purpose of burying Masons seemed to have been
conducted by some of the lodges with either too much frequency, or some
other irregularity; for, in November of that year, the Grand Lodge adopted
a regulation, forbidding them, under a heavy penalty, unless by permission
of the Grand Master, or his Deputy.[84] As there were, comparatively
speaking, few Master Masons at that period, it seems a natural inference
that most of the funeral processions were for the burial of Apprentices,
or, at least, of Fellow Crafts.
But the usage since then, has been greatly changed; and by universal
consent, the law, as first committed to writing, by Preston, who was the
author of our present funeral service, is now adopted.
The Regulation, as laid down by Preston, is so explicit, that I prefer
giving it in his own words.[85]
"No Mason can be interred with the formalities of the Order, unless it be
at his own special request, communicated to the Master of the Lodge of
which he died a member--foreigners and sojourners excepted; nor unless he
has been advanced to the third degree of Masonry, from which restriction
there can be no exception. Fellow Crafts or Apprentices are not entitled
to the funeral obsequies."
This rule has been embodied in the modern Constitutions of the Grand Lodge
of England; and, as I have already observed, appears by universal consent
to have been adopted as the general usage.
The necessity for a dispensation, which is also required by the modern
English Constitutions, does not seem to have met with the same general
approval, and in this country, dispensations for funeral processions are
not usually, if at all, required. Indeed, Preston himself, in explaining
the law, says that it was not intended to restrict the privileges of the
regular lodges, but that, "by the universal practice of Masons, every
regular lodge is authorized by the Constitution to act on such occasions
when limited to its own members."[86] It is only when members of other
lodges, not under the control of the Master, are convened, that a
dispensation is required. But in America, Grand Lodges or Grand Masters
have not generally interfered with the rights of the lodges to bury the
dead; the Master being of course amenable to the constituted authorities
for any indecorum or impropriety.
Chapter V.
Of the Rights of Past Masters.
I have already discussed the right of Past Masters to become members of a
Grand Lodge, in a preceding part of this work,[87] and have there arrived
at the conclusion that no such inherent right exists, and that a Grand
Lodge may or may not admit them to membership, according to its own notion
of expediency. Still the fact, that they are competent by their masonic
rank of accepting such a courtesy when extended, in itself constitutes a
prerogative; for none but Masters, Wardens, or Past Masters, can under any
circumstances become members of a Grand Lodge.
Past Masters possess a few other positive rights.
In the first place they have a right to install their successors, and at
all times subsequent to their installation to be present at the ceremony
of installing Masters of lodges. I should scarcely have deemed it
necessary to dwell upon so self-evident a proposition, were it not that it
involves the discussion of a question which has of late years been warmly
mooted in some jurisdictions, namely, whether this right of being present
at an installation should, or should not, be extended to Past Masters,
made in Royal Arch Chapters.
In view of the fact, that there are two very different kinds of possessors
of the same degree, the Grand Lodge of England has long since
distinguished them as "virtual" and as "actual" Past Masters. The terms
are sufficiently explicit, and have the advantage of enabling us to avoid
circumlocution, and I shall, therefore, adopt them.
An _actual Past Master_ is one who has been regularly installed to preside
over a symbolic lodge under the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge. A _virtual
Past Master_ is one who has received the degree in a chapter, for the
purpose of qualifying him for exaltation to the Royal Arch.
Now the question to be considered is this. Can a virtual Past Master be
permitted to be present at the installation of an actual Past Master?
The Committee of Correspondence of New York, in 1851, announced the
doctrine, that a Chapter, or virtual Past Master, cannot legally install
the Master of a Symbolic Lodge; but that there is no rule forbidding his
being present at the ceremony. This doctrine has been accepted by several
Grand Lodges, while others again refuse to admit the presence of a virtual
Past Master at the installation-service.
In South Carolina, for instance, by uninterrupted usage, virtual Past
Masters are excluded from the ceremony of installation.
In Louisiana, under the high authority of the late Brother Gedge, it is
asserted, that "it is the bounden duty of all Grand Lodges to prevent the
possessors of the (chapter) degree from the exercise of any function
appertaining to the office and attributes of an installed Master of a
lodge of Symbolic Masonry, and refuse to recognize them as belonging to
the order of Past Masters."[88]
Brother Albert Pike, whose opinion on masonic jurisprudence is entitled to
the most respectful consideration, has announced a similar doctrine in one
of his elaborate reports to the Grand Chapter of Arkansas. He does not
consider "that the Past Master's degree, conferred in a chapter, invests
the recipient with any rank or authority, except within the chapter
itself; that it no ways qualifies or authorizes him to preside in the
chair of a lodge: that a lodge has no legal means of knowing that he has
received the degree in a chapter: for it is not supposed to know anything
that takes place there any more than it knows what takes place in a Lodge
of Perfection, or a Chapter of Knights of the Rose Croix;" and, of course,
if the Past Masters of a lodge have no such "legal means" of recognition
of Chapter Masters, they cannot permit them to be present at an
installation.
This is, in fact, no new doctrine. Preston, in his description of the
installation ceremony, says: "The new Master is then conducted to an
adjacent room, where he is regularly installed, and bound to his trust in
ancient form, in the presence of at least _three installed Masters_"[89]
And Dr. Oliver, in commenting on this passage, says, "this part of the
ceremony can only be orally communicated, nor can any but _installed_
Masters be present."[90]
And this rule appears to be founded on the principles of reason. There can
be no doubt, if we carefully examine the history of Masonry in this
country and in England, that the degree of Past Master was originally
conferred by Symbolic Lodges as an honorarium or reward bestowed upon
those Brethren who had been found worthy to occupy the Oriental Chair. In
so far it was only a degree of office, and could be obtained only from the
Lodge in which the office had been conferred. At a later period it was
deemed an essential prerequisite to exaltation in the degree of Royal
Arch, and was, for that purpose, conferred on candidates for that
position, while the Royal Arch degree was under the control of the
symbolic Lodges, but still only conferred by the Past Masters of the
Lodge. But subsequently, when the system of Royal Arch Masonry was greatly
enlarged and extended in this country, and chapters were organized
independent of the Grand and symbolic Lodges, these Chapters took with
them the Past Master's degree, and assumed the right of conferring it on
their candidates. Hence arose the anomaly which now exists in American
Masonry, of two degrees bearing the same name, and said to be almost
identical in character, conferred by two different bodies under entirely
different qualifications and for totally different purposes. As was to be
expected, when time had in some degree obliterated the details of history,
each party began to claim for itself the sovereign virtue of legitimacy.
The Past Masters of the Chapters denied the right of the Symbolic Lodges
to confer the degree, and the latter, in their turn, asserted that the
degree, as conferred in the Chapter, was an innovation.
The prevalence of the former doctrine would, of course, tend to deprive
the Symbolic Lodges of a vested right held by them from the most ancient
times--that, namely, of conferring an honorarium on their Masters elect.
On the whole, then, from this view of the surreptitious character of the
Chapter Degree, and supported by the high authority whom I have cited, as
well as by the best usage, I am constrained to believe that the true rule
is, to deny the Chapter, or Virtual Past Masters, the right to install, or
to be present at the installation of the Master of a Symbolic Lodge. A
Past Master may preside over a lodge in the absence of the Master,
provided he is invited to do so by the Senior Warden present. The Second
General Regulation gave the power of presiding, during the absence of the
Master, to the last Past Master present, after the lodge had been
congregated by the Senior Warden; but two years afterwards, the rule was
repealed, and the power of presiding in such cases was vested in the
Senior Warden. And accordingly, in this country, it has always been held,
that in the absence of the Master, his authority descends to the Senior
Warden, who may, however, by courtesy, offer the chair to a Past Master
present, after the lodge has been congregated. Some jurisdictions have
permitted a Past Master to preside in the absence of the Master and both
Wardens, provided he was a member of that lodge. But I confess that I can
find no warrant for this rule in any portion of our fundamental laws. The
power of congregating the lodge in the absence of the Master has always
been confined to the Wardens; and it therefore seems to me, that when both
the Master and Wardens are absent, although a Past Master may be present,
the lodge cannot be opened.
A Past Master is eligible for election to the chair, without again passing
through the office of a Warden.
He is also entitled to a seat in the East, and to wear a jewel and collar
peculiar to his dignity.
By an ancient regulation, contained in the Old Charges, Past Masters alone
were eligible to the office of Grand Warden. The Deputy Grand Master was
also to be selected from among the Masters, or Past Masters of Lodges. No
such regulation was in existence as to the office of Grand Master, who
might be selected from the mass of the fraternity. At the present time, in
this country, it is usual to select the Grand officers from among the Past
Masters of the jurisdiction, though I know of no ancient law making such a
regulation obligatory, except in respect to the affairs of Grand Wardens
and Deputy Grand Master.
Chapter VI.
Of Affiliation.
Affiliation is defined to be the act by which a lodge receives a Mason
among its members. A profane is said to be "initiated," but a Mason is
"affiliated."[91]
Now the mode in which a Mason becomes affiliated with a lodge, in some
respects differs from, and in others resembles, the mode in which a
profane is initiated.
A Mason, desiring to be affiliated with a lodge, must apply by petition;
this petition must be referred to a committee for investigation of
character, he must remain in a state of probation for one month, and must
then submit to a ballot, in which unanimity will be required for his
admission. In all these respects, there is no difference in the modes of
regulating applications for initiation and affiliation. The Fifth and
Sixth General Regulations, upon which these usages are founded, draw no
distinction between the act of making a Mason and admitting a member. The
two processes are disjunctively connected in the language of both
regulations. "No man can be made, _or admitted a member_ * * * * without
previous notice one month before;" are the words of the Fifth Regulation.
And in a similar spirit the Sixth adds: "But no man can be entered a
Brother in any particular lodge, _or admitted to be a member_ thereof,
without the unanimous consent of all the members of that lodge."
None but Master Masons are permitted to apply for affiliation; and every
Brother so applying must bring to the lodge to which he applies a
certificate of his regular dismission from the lodge of which he was last
a member. This document is now usually styled a "demit," and should
specify the good standing of the bearer at the time of his resignation or
demission.
Under the regulations of the various Grand Lodges of this country, a
profane cannot, as has been already observed, apply for initiation in any
other lodge than the one nearest to his residence. No such regulation,
however, exists in relation to the application of a Mason for
affiliation. Having once been admitted into the Order, he has a right to
select the lodge with which he may desire to unite himself. He is not even
bound to affiliate with the lodge in which he was initiated, but after
being raised, may leave it, without signing the bye-laws, and attach
himself to another.
A profane, having been rejected by a lodge, can never apply to any other
for initiation. But a Mason, having been rejected, on his application for
affiliation, by a lodge, is not thereby debarred from subsequently making
a similar application to any other.
In some few jurisdictions a local regulation has of late years been
enacted, that no Mason shall belong to more than one lodge. It is, I
presume, competent for a Grand Lodge to enact such a regulation; but where
such enactment has not taken place, we must be governed by the ancient and
general principle.
The General Regulations, adopted in 1721, contain no reference to this
case; but in a new regulation, adopted on the 19th February, 1723, it was
declared that "no Brother shall belong to more than one lodge within the
bills of mortality." This rule was, therefore, confined to the lodges in
the city of London, and did not affect the country lodges. Still,
restricted as it was in its operation, Anderson remarks, "this regulation
is neglected for several reasons, and now obsolete."[92] Custom now in
England and in other parts of Europe, as well as in some few portions of
this country, is adverse to the regulation; and where no local law exists
in a particular jurisdiction, I know of no principle of masonic
jurisprudence which forbids a Mason to affiliate himself with more than
one lodge.
The only objection to it is one which must be urged, not by the Order, but
by the individual. It is, that his duties and his responsibilities are
thus multiplied, as well as his expenses. If he is willing to incur all
this additional weight in running his race of Masonry, it is not for
others to resist this exuberance of zeal. The Mason, however, who is
affiliated with more than one lodge, must remember that he is subject to
the independent jurisdiction of each; may for the same offense be tried in
each, and, although acquitted by all except one, that, if convicted by
that one, his conviction will, if he be suspended or expelled, work his
suspension or expulsion in all the others.
Chapter VII.
Of Demitting.
To demit from a lodge is to resign one's membership, on which occasion a
certificate of good standing and a release from all dues is given to the
applicant, which is technically called a _demit_.
The right to demit or resign never has, until within a few years, been
denied. In 1853, the Grand Lodge of Connecticut adopted a regulation "that
no lodge should grant a demit to any of its members, except for the
purpose of joining some other lodge; and that no member shall be
considered as having withdrawn from one lodge until he has actually become
a member of another." Similar regulations have been either adopted or
proposed by a few other Grand Lodges, but I much doubt both their
expediency and their legality. This compulsory method of keeping Masons,
after they have once been made, seems to me to be as repugnant to the
voluntary character of our institution as would be a compulsory mode of
making them in the beginning. The expediency of such a regulation is also
highly questionable. Every candidate is required to come to our doors "of
his own free will and accord," and surely we should desire to keep none
among us after that free will is no longer felt. We are all familiar with
the Hudibrastic adage, that
"A man convinced against his will,
Is of the same opinion still,"
and he who is no longer actuated by that ardent esteem for the institution
which would generate a wish to continue his membership, could scarcely
have his slumbering zeal awakened, or his coldness warmed by the bolts and
bars of a regulation that should keep him a reluctant prisoner within the
walls from which he would gladly escape. Masons with such dispositions we
can gladly spare from our ranks.
The Ancient Charges, while they assert that every Mason should belong to a
lodge, affix no penalty for disobedience. No man can be compelled to
continue his union with a society, whether it be religious, political, or
social, any longer than will suit his own inclinations or sense of duty.
To interfere with this inalienable prerogative of a freeman would be an
infringement on private rights. A Mason's initiation was voluntary, and
his continuance in the Order must be equally so.
But no man is entitled to a demit, unless at the time of demanding it he
be in good standing and free from all charges. If under charges for crime,
he must remain and abide his trial, or if in arrears, must pay up his
dues.
There is, however, one case of demission for which a special law has been
enacted. That is, when several Brethren at the same time request demits
from a lodge. As this action is sometimes the result of pique or anger,
and as the withdrawal of several members at once might seriously impair
the prosperity, or perhaps even endanger the very existence of the lodge,
it has been expressly forbidden by the General Regulations, unless the
lodge has become too numerous for convenient working; and not even then is
permitted except by a Dispensation. The words of this law are to be found
in the Eighth General Regulation, as follows:
"No set or number of Brethren shall withdraw or separate themselves from
the lodge in which they were made Brethren, or were afterwards admitted
members, unless the lodge becomes too numerous; nor even then, without a
dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy; and when they are thus
separated, they must either immediately join themselves to such other
lodge as they shall like best, with the unanimous consent of that other
lodge to which they go, or else they must obtain the Grand Master's
warrant to join in forming a new lodge."
It seems, therefore, that, although a lodge cannot deny the right of a
single member to demit, when a sort of conspiracy may be supposed to be
formed, and several Brethren present their petitions for demits at one and
the same time, the lodge may not only refuse, but is bound to do so,
unless under a dispensation, which dispensation can only be given in the
case of an over-populous lodge.
With these restrictions and qualifications, it cannot be doubted that
every Master Mason has a right to demit from his lodge at his own
pleasure. What will be the result upon himself, in his future relations to
the Order, of such demission, will constitute the subject of the
succeeding chapter.
Chapter VIII.
Of Unaffiliated Masons.
An unaffiliated Mason is one who is not connected by membership with any
lodge. There can be no doubt that such a position is contrary to the
spirit of our institution, and that affiliation is a duty obligatory on
every Mason. The Old Charges, which have been so often cited as the
fundamental law of Masonry, say on this subject: "every Brother ought to
belong to a lodge and to be subject to its bye-laws and the General
Regulations."
Explicitly as this doctrine has been announced, it has been too little
observed, in consequence of no precise penalty having been annexed to its
violation. In all times, unaffiliated Masons have existed--Masons who have
withdrawn from all active participation in the duties and responsibilities
of the Order, and who, when in the hour of danger or distress, have not
hesitated to claim its protection or assistance, while they have refused
in the day of their prosperity to add anything to its wealth, its power,
or its influence. In this country, the anti-masonic persecutions of 1828,
and a few years subsequently, by causing the cessation of many lodges,
threw a vast number of Brethren out of all direct connection with the
institution; on the restoration of peace, and the renewal of labor by the
lodges, too many of these Brethren neglected to reunite themselves with
the craft, and thus remained unaffiliated. The habit, thus introduced, was
followed by others, until the sin of unaffiliation has at length arrived
at such a point of excess, as to have become a serious evil, and to have
attracted the attention and received the condemnation of almost every
Grand Lodge.
A few Grand Lodges have denied the right of a Mason permanently to demit
from the Order. Texas, for instance, has declared that "it does not
recognize the right of a Mason to demit or separate himself from the lodge
in which he was made, or may afterwards be admitted, except for the
purpose of joining another lodge, or when he may be about to remove
without the jurisdiction of the lodge of which he may be a member."[93] A
few other Grand Lodges have adopted a similar regulation; but the
prevailing opinion of the authorities appears to be, that it is competent
to interfere with the right to demit, certain rights and prerogatives
being, however, lost by such demission.
Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and one or two other Grand Lodges, while not
positively denying the right of demission, have at various times levied a
tax or contribution on the demitted or unaffiliated Masons within their
respective jurisdictions. This principle, however, has also failed to
obtain the general concurrence of other Grand Lodges, and some of them, as
Maryland, have openly denounced it. After a careful examination of the
authorities, I cannot deny to any man the _right_ of withdrawing,
whensoever he pleases, from a voluntary association--the laws of the land
would not sustain us in the enforcement of such a regulation; and our own
self-respect should prevent us from attempting it. If, then, he has a
right to withdraw, it clearly follows that we have no right to tax him,
which is only one mode of inflicting a fine or penalty for an act, the
right to do which we have acceded. In the strong language of the Committee
of Correspondence of Maryland:[94] "The object of Masonry never was to
extort, _nolens volens,_ money from its votaries. Such are not its
principles or teaching. The advocating such doctrines cannot advance the
interest or reputation of the institution; but will, as your committee
fear, do much to destroy its usefulness. Compulsive membership deprives it
of the title, _Free_ and Accepted."
But as it is an undoubted precept of the Order that every Mason should
belong to a lodge, and contribute, so far as his means will allow, to the
support of the institution, and as, by his demission, for other than
temporary purposes, he violates the principles and disobeys the precepts
of the Order, it naturally follows that his withdrawal must place him in a
different position from that which he would occupy as an affiliated Mason.
It is now time for us to inquire what that new position is.
We may say, then, that, whenever a Mason permanently withdraws his
membership, he at once, and while he continues unaffiliated, dissevers all
connection between himself and the _Lodge organization_ of the Order. He,
by this act, divests himself of all the rights and privileges which belong
to him as a member of that organization. Among these rights and privileges
are those of visitation, of pecuniary aid, and of masonic burial.
Whenever he approaches the door of a lodge, asking to enter or seeking for
assistance, he is to be met in the light of a profane. He may knock, but
the door must not be opened--he may ask, but he is not to receive. The
work of the lodge is not to be shared by those who have thrown aside their
aprons and their implements, and abandoned the labors of the Temple--the
funds of the lodge are to be distributed only among these who are aiding,
by their individual contributions, to the formation of similar funds in
other lodges.
But from the well-known and universally-admitted maxim of "once a Mason,
and always a Mason," it follows that a demitted Brother cannot by such
demission divest himself of all his masonic responsibilities to his
Brethren, nor be deprived of their correlative responsibility to him. An
unaffiliated Mason is still bound by certain obligations, of which he
cannot, under any circumstances, divest himself, and by similar
obligations are the fraternity bound to him. These relate to the duties of
secrecy and of aid in the imminent hour of peril. Of the first of these
there can be no doubt; and as to the last, the words of the precept
directing it leaves us no option; nor is it a time when the G.H.S. of D.
is thrown out to inquire into the condition of the party.
Speaking on this subject, Brother Albert Pike, in his report to the Grand
Lodge of Arkansas, says "if a person appeals to us as a Mason in imminent
peril, or such pressing need that we have not time to inquire into his
worthiness, then, lest we might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy
Brother, we must not stop to inquire _as to anything_." But I do not think
that the learned Brother has put the case in the strongest light. It is
not alone "lest we might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy Brother," that
we are in cases of "imminent peril" to make no pause for deliberation. But
it is because we are bound by our highest obligations at all times, and to
all Masons, to give that aid when _duly_ called for.
I may, then, after this somewhat protracted discussion, briefly
recapitulate the position, the rights and the responsibilities of an
unaffiliated Mason as follows:
1. An unaffiliated Mason is still bound by all his masonic duties and
obligations, excepting those connected with the organization of the lodge.
2. He has a right to aid in imminent peril when _he asks for that aid in
the_ proper _and conventional way_.
3. He loses the right to receive pecuniary relief.
4. He loses the general right to visit[95] lodges, or to walk in masonic
processions.
5. He loses the right of masonic burial.
6. He still remains subject to the government of the Order, and may be
tried and punished for any offense as an affiliated Mason would be, by the
lodge within whose geographical jurisdiction he resides.
Book Fourth.
Of Masonic Crimes and Punishments.
Chapter I.
Of What Are Masonic Crimes.
The division of wrongs, by the writers on municipal law, into private and
public, or civil injuries and crimes and misdemeanors, does not apply to
the jurisprudence of Freemasonry. Here all wrongs are crimes, because they
are a violation of the precepts of the institution; and an offense against
an individual is punished, not so much because it is a breach of his
private rights, as because it affects the well-being of the whole masonic
community.
In replying to the question, "what are masonic crimes?" by which is meant
what crimes are punishable by the constituted authorities, our safest
guide will be that fundamental law which is contained in the Old Charges.
These give a concise, but succinct summary of the duties of a Mason, and,
of course, whatever is a violation of any one of these duties will
constitute a masonic crime, and the perpetrator will be amenable to
masonic punishment.
But before entering on the consideration of these penal offenses, it will
be well that we should relieve the labor of the task, by inquiring what
crimes or offenses are not supposed to come within the purview of masonic
jurisprudence.
Religion and politics are subjects which it is well known are stringently
forbidden to be introduced into Masonry. And hence arises the doctrine,
that Masonry will not take congnizance of religious or political offenses.
Heresy, for instance, is not a masonic crime. Masons are obliged to use
the words of the Old Charges, "to that religion in which all men agree,
leaving their particular opinions to themselves;" and, therefore, as long
as a Mason acknowledges his belief in the existence of one God, a lodge
can take no action on his peculiar opinions, however heterodox they may
be.
In like manner, although all the most ancient and universally-received
precepts of the institution inculcate obedience to the civil powers, and
strictly forbid any mingling in plots or conspiracies against the peace
and welfare of the nation, yet no offense against the state, which is
simply political in its character, can be noticed by a lodge. On this
important subject, the Old Charges are remarkably explicit. They say,
putting perhaps the strongest case by way of exemplifying the principle,
"that if a Brother should be a rebel against the State, he is not to be
countenanced in his rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy man;
and, if convicted of no other crime, though the loyal Brotherhood must and
ought to disown his rebellion, and give no umbrage or ground of political
jealousy to the government for the time being, _they cannot expel him from
the lodge, and his relation to it remains indefeasible_"
The lodge can, therefore, take no cognizance of religious or political
offenses.
The first charge says: "a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral
law." Now, although, in a theological sense, the ten commandments are said
to embrace and constitute the moral law, because they are its best
exponent, yet jurists have given to the term a more general latitude, in
defining the moral laws to be "the eternal, immutable laws of good and
evil, to which the Creator himself, in all dispensations, conforms, and
which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are
necessary for the conduct of human actions."[96] Perhaps the well known
summary of Justinian will give the best idea of what this law is, namely,
that we "should live honestly, (that is to say, without reproach,)[97]
should injure nobody, and render to every one his just due."
If such, then, be the meaning of the moral law, and if every Mason is by
his tenure obliged to obey it, it follows, that all such crimes as profane
swearing or great impiety in any form, neglect of social and domestic
duties, murder and its concomitant vices of cruelty and hatred, adultery,
dishonesty in any shape, perjury or malevolence, and habitual falsehood,
inordinate covetousness, and in short, all those ramifications of these
leading vices which injuriously affect the relations of man to God, his
neighbor, and himself, are proper subjects of lodge jurisdiction. Whatever
moral defects constitute the bad man, make also the bad Mason, and
consequently come under the category of masonic offenses. The principle is
so plain and comprehensible as to need no further exemplification. It is
sufficient to say that, whenever an act done by a Mason is contrary to or
subsersive of the three great duties which he owes to God, his neighbor,
and himself, it becomes at once a subject of masonic investigation, and of
masonic punishment.
But besides these offenses against the universal moral law, there are many
others arising from the peculiar nature of our institution. Among these we
may mention, and in their order, those that are enumerated in the several
sections of the Sixth Chapter of the Old Charges. These are, unseemly and
irreverent conduct in the lodge, all excesses of every kind, private
piques or quarrels brought into the lodge; imprudent conversation in
relation to Masonry in the presence of uninitiated strangers; refusal to
relieve a worthy distressed Brother, if in your power; and all "wrangling,
quarreling, back-biting, and slander."
The lectures in the various degrees, and the Ancient Charges read on the
installation of the Master of a lodge, furnish us with other criteria for
deciding what are peculiarly masonic offenses. All of them need not be
detailed; but among them may be particularly mentioned the following: All
improper revelations, undue solicitations for candidates, angry and
over-zealous arguments in favor of Masonry with its enemies, every act
which tends to impair the unsullied purity of the Order, want of
reverence for and obedience to masonic superiors, the expression of a
contemptuous opinion of the original rulers and patrons of Masonry, or of
the institution itself; all countenance of impostors; and lastly, holding
masonic communion with clandestine Masons, or visiting irregular lodges.
From this list, which, extended as it is, might easily have been enlarged,
it will be readily seen, that the sphere of masonic penal jurisdiction is
by no means limited. It should, therefore, be the object of every Mason,
to avoid the censure or reproach of his Brethren, by strictly confining
himself as a point within that circle of duty which, at his first
initiation, was presented to him as an object worthy of his consideration.
Chapter II.
Of Masonic Punishments.
Having occupied the last chapter in a consideration of what constitute
masonic crimes, it is next in order to inquire how these offenses are to
be punished; and accordingly I propose in the following sections to treat
of the various modes in which masonic law is vindicated, commencing with
the slightest mode of punishment, which is censure, and proceeding to the
highest, or expulsion from all the rights and privileges of the Order.
Section I.
_Of Censure._
A censure is the mildest form of punishment that can be inflicted by a
lodge; and as it is simply the expression of an opinion by the members of
the lodge, that they do not approve of the conduct of the person
implicated, in a particular point of view, and as it does not in any
degree affect the masonic standing of the one censured, nor for a moment
suspend or abridge his rights and benefits, I have no doubt that it may be
done on a mere motion, without previous notice, and adopted, as any other
resolution, by a bare majority of the members present.
Masonic courtesy would, however, dictate that notice should be given to
the Brother, if absent, that such a motion of censure is about to be
proposed or considered, to enable him to show cause, if any he have, why
he should not be censured. But such notice is not, as I have said,
necessary to the legality of the vote of censure.
A vote of censure will sometimes, however, be the result of a trial, and
in that case its adoption must be governed by the rules of masonic trials,
which are hereafter to be laid down.
Section II.
_Of Reprimand._
A reprimand is the next mildest form of masonic punishment. It should
never be adopted on a mere motion, but should always be the result of a
regular trial, in which the party may have the opportunity of defense.
A reprimand may be either private or public. If to be given in private,
none should be present but the Master and the offender; or, if given by
letter, no copy of that letter should be preserved.
If given in public, the lodge is the proper place, and the reprimand
should be given by the Master from his appropriate station.
The Master is always the executive officer of the lodge, and in carrying
out the sentence he must exercise his own prudent discretion as to the
mode of delivery and form of words.
A reprimand, whether private or public, does not affect the masonic
standing of the offender.
Section III.
_Of Exclusion from the Lodge._
Exclusion from a lodge may be of various degrees.
1. A member may for indecorous or unmasonic conduct be excluded from a
single meeting of the lodge. This may be done by the Master, under a
provision of the bye-laws giving him the authority, or on his own
responsibility, in which case he is amenable to the Grand Lodge for the
correctness of his decision. Exclusion in this way does not affect the
masonic standing of the person excluded, and does not require a previous
trial.
I cannot entertain any doubt that the Master of a lodge has the right to
exclude temporarily any member or Mason, when he thinks that either his
admission, if outside, or his continuance within, if present, will impair
the peace and harmony of the lodge. It is a prerogative necessary to the
faithful performance of his duties, and inalienable from his great
responsibility to the Grand Lodge for the proper government of the Craft
intrusted to his care. If, as it is described in the ancient manner of
constituting a lodge, the Master is charged "to preserve the cement of the
Lodge," it would be folly to give him such a charge, unless he were
invested with the power to exclude an unruly or disorderly member. But as
Masters are enjoined not to rule their lodges in an unjust or arbitrary
manner, and as every Mason is clearly entitled to redress for any wrong
that has been done to him, it follows that the Master is responsible to
the Grand Lodge for the manner in which he has executed the vast power
intrusted to him, and he may be tried and punished by that body, for
excluding a member, when the motives of the act and the other
circumstances of the exclusion were not such as to warrant the exercise of
his prerogative.
2. A member may be excluded from his lodge for a definite or indefinite
period, on account of the non-payment of arrears. This punishment may be
inflicted in different modes, and under different names. It is sometimes
called, _suspension from the lodge,_ and sometimes _erasure from the
roll_. Both of these punishments, though differing in their effect, are
pronounced, not after a trial, but by a provision of the bye-laws of the
lodge. For this reason alone, if there were no other, I should contend,
that they do not affect the standing of the member suspended, or erased,
with relation to the craft in general. No Mason can be deprived of his
masonic rights, except after a trial, with the opportunity of defense, and
a verdict of his peers.
But before coming to a definite conclusion on this subject, it is
necessary that we should view the subject in another point of view, in
which it will be seen that a suspension from the rights and benefits of
Masonry, for the non-payment of dues, is entirely at variance with the
true principles of the Order.
The system of payment of lodge-dues does not by any means belong to the
ancient usages of the fraternity. It is a modern custom, established for
purposes of convenience, and arising out of other modifications, in the
organization of the Order. It is not an obligation on the part of a Mason,
to the institution at large, but is in reality a special contract, in
which the only parties are a particular lodge and its members, of which
the fraternity, as a mass, are to know nothing. It is not presented by any
general masonic law, nor any universal masonic precept. No Grand Lodge has
ever yet attempted to control or regulate it, and it is thus tacitly
admitted to form no part of the general regulations of the Order. Even in
that Old Charge in which a lodge is described, and the necessity of
membership in is enforced, not a word is said of the payment of arrears to
it, or of the duty of contributing to its support. Hence the non-payment
of arrears is a violation of a special and voluntary contract with a
lodge, and not of any general duty to the craft at large. The corollary
from all this is, evidently, that the punishment inflicted in such a case
should be one affecting the relations of the delinquent with the
particular lodge whose bye-laws he has infringed, and not a general one,
affecting his relations with the whole Order. After a consideration of
all these circumstances, I am constrained to think that suspension from
alodge, for non-payment of arrears, should only suspend the rights of the
member as to his own lodge, but should not affect his right of visiting
other lodges, nor any of the other privileges inherent in him as a Mason.
Such is not, I confess, the general opinion, or usage of the craft in this
country, but yet I cannot but believe that it is the doctrine most
consonant with the true spirit of the institution. It is the practice
pursued by the Grand Lodge of England, from which most of our Grand Lodges
derive, directly or indirectly, their existence. It is also the regulation
of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. The Grand Lodge of South Carolina
expressly forbids suspension from the rights and benefits of Masonry for
non-payment of dues, and the Grand Lodge of New York has a similar
provision in its Constitution.
Of the two modes of exclusion from a lodge for non-payment of dues,
namely, suspension and erasure, the effects are very different. Suspension
does not abrogate the connection between the member and his lodge, and
places his rights in abeyance only. Upon the payment of the debt, he is
at once restored without other action of the lodge. But erasure from the
roll terminates all connection between the delinquent and the lodge, and
he ceases to be a member of it. Payment of the dues, simply, will not
restore him; for it is necessary that he should again be elected by the
Brethren, upon formal application.
The word exclusion has a meaning in England differing from that in which
it has been used in the present section. There the prerogative of
expulsion is, as I think very rightly, exercised only by the Grand Lodge.
The term "expelled" is therefore used only when a Brother is removed from
the craft, by the Grand Lodge. The removal by a District Grand Lodge, or a
subordinate lodge, is called "exclusion." The effect, however, of the
punishment of exclusion, is similar to that which has been here advocated.
Section IV.
_Of Definite Suspension._
Suspension is a punishment by which a party is temporarily deprived of his
rights and privileges as a Mason. It does not terminate his connection
with the craft, but only places it in abeyance, and it may again be
resumed in a mode hereafter to be indicated.
Suspension may be, in relation to time, either definite or indefinite. And
as the effects produced upon the delinquent, especially in reference to
the manner of his restoration, are different, it is proper that each
should be separately considered.
In a case of definite suspension, the time for which the delinquent is to
be suspended, whether for one month, for three, or six months, or for a
longer or shorter period, is always mentioned in the sentence.
At its termination, the party suspended is at once restored without
further action of the lodge. But as this is a point upon which there has
been some difference of opinion, the argument will be fully discussed in
the chapter on the subject of _Restoration._
By a definite suspension, the delinquent is for a time placed beyond the
pale of Masonry. He is deprived of all his rights as a Master Mason--is
not permitted to visit any lodge, or hold masonic communication with his
Brethren--is not entitled to masonic relief, and should he die during his
suspension, is not entitled to masonic burial. In short, the amount of
punishment differs from that of indefinite suspension or expulsion only
in the period of time for which it is inflicted.
The punishment of definite suspension is the lightest that can be
inflicted of those which affect the relations of a Mason with the
fraternity at large. It must always be preceded by a trial, and the
prevalent opinion is, that it may be inflicted by a two-thirds vote of the
lodge.
Section V.
_Of Indefinite Suspension._
Indefinite suspension is a punishment by which the person suspended is
deprived of all his rights and privileges as a Mason, until such time as
the lodge which has suspended him shall see fit, by a special action, to
restore him.
All that has been said of definite suspension in the preceding section,
will equally apply to indefinite suspension, except that in the former
case the suspended person is at once restored by the termination of the
period for which he was suspended; while in the latter, as no period of
termination had been affixed, a special resolution of the lodge will be
necessary to effect a restoration.
By suspension the connection of the party with his lodge and with the
institution is not severed; he still remains a member of his lodge,
although his rights as such are placed in abeyance. In this respect it
materially differs from expulsion, and, as an inferior grade of
punishment, is inflicted for offenses of a lighter character than those
for which expulsion is prescribed.
The question here arises, whether the dues of a suspended member to his
lodge continue to accrue during his suspension? I think they do not. Dues
or arrears are payments made to a lodge for certain rights and
benefits--the exercise and enjoyment of which are guaranteed to the
member, in consideration of the dues thus paid. But as by suspension,
whether definite or indefinite, he is for the time deprived of these
rights and benefits, it would seem unjust to require from him a payment
for that which he does not enjoy. I hold, therefore, that suspension from
the rights and benefits of Masonry, includes also a suspension from the
payment of arrears.
No one can be indefinitely suspended, unless after a due form of trial,
and upon the vote of at least two-thirds of the members present.
Section VI.
_Of Expulsion._[98]
Expulsion is the very highest penalty that can be inflicted upon a
delinquent Mason. It deprives the party expelled of all the masonic rights
and privileges that he ever enjoyed, not only as a member of the lodge
from which he has been ejected, but also of all those which were inherent
in him as a member of the fraternity at large. He is at once as completely
divested of his masonic character as though he had never been admitted
into the institution. He can no longer demand the aid of his Brethren, nor
require from them the performance of any of the duties to which he was
formerly entitled, nor visit any lodge, nor unite in any of the public or
private ceremonies of the Order. No conversation on masonic subjects can
be held with him, and he is to be considered as being completely without
the pale of the institution, and to be looked upon in the same light as a
profane, in relation to the communication of any masonic information.
It is a custom too generally adopted in this country, for subordinate
lodges to inflict this punishment, and hence it is supposed by many, that
the power of inflicting it is vested in the subordinate lodges. But the
fact is, that the only proper tribunal to impose this heavy penalty is a
Grand Lodge. A subordinate may, indeed, try its delinquent member, and if
guilty declare him expelled. But the sentence is of no force until the
Grand Lodge, under whose jurisdiction it is working, has confirmed it. And
it is optional with the Grand Lodge to do so, or, as is frequently done,
to reverse the decision and reinstate the Brother. Some of the lodges in
this country claim the right to expel independently of the action of the
Grand Lodge, but the claim is not valid. The very fact that an expulsion
is a penalty, affecting the general relations of the punished party with
the whole fraternity, proves that its exercise never could, with
propriety, be intrusted to a body so circumscribed in its authority as a
subordinate lodge. Besides, the general practice of the fraternity is
against it. The English Constitutions vest the power to expel exclusively
in the Grand Lodge.[99]
The severity of the punishment will at once indicate the propriety of
inflicting it only for the most serious offenses, such, for instance, as
immoral conduct, that would subject a candidate for initiation to
rejection.