- maintained by Sri Brahadeeswara Lodge Masonic Research Circle - by Sri Brahadeeswara Lodge Masonic Research Circle

About Articles Restricted Archives Register Guest Book Mailing List Awards Links Contact Us
Register  |  Login  [Current Access: General Articles only] Articles
Previous ArticleGo BottomNext Article

Article # 223
The Principles of Masonic Law-Book-3

Author: Bro. Dr.Albert Gallatin Mackey    Posted on: Wednesday, September 6, 2006
General Article | 0 comments  | Post your comment

New Page 1

[ Book Third of The Principles of Masonic Law is posted hereunder]

The Principles of Masonic Law- Book III.

Bro.Albert Gallatin Mackey.

Book Third.
The Law of Individuals

Chapter I. Of the Qualifications of Candidates.

Section I. Of the Moral Qualifications of Candidates.

Section II. Of the Physical Qualifications of Candidates.

Section III. Of the Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates

Section IV. Of the Political Qualifications of Candidates

Section V. Of the Petition of Candidates for Admission and the Action thereon.

Section VI. Of Balloting for Candidates

Section VII. Of the Reconsideration of the Ballot.

Section VIII. Of the Renewal of Applications by Rejected Candidates.

Section IX. Of the Necessary Probation and Due Proficiency of Candidates before Advancement.

Section X. Of Balloting for Candidates in each Degree

Section XI. The Number to be Initiated at one Communication.

Section XII. Of Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge in another.

Section XIII. Of the Initiation of Non-Residents .

Chapter II. Of the Rights of Entered Apprentices

Chapter III. Of the Rights of Fellow Crafts.

Chapter IV. Of the Rights of Master Masons.

Section I. Of the Rights of Membership.

Section II. Of the Rights of Visit.

Section III. Of the Examination of Visitors.

Section IV. Of Vouching for a Brother.

Section V. Of the Right of Claiming Relief.

Section VI. Of the Right of Masonic Burial.

Chapter V. Of the Rights of Past Masters.

Chapter VI. Of Affiliation.

Chapter VII. Of Demitting.

Chapter VIII. Of Unqualified Masons.

Passing from the consideration of the law, which refers to Masons in their congregated masses, as the constituents of Grand and Subordinate Lodges, I next approach the discussion of the law which governs, them in their individual capacity, whether in the inception of their Masonic life, as candidates for initiation, or in their gradual progress through each of the three degrees, for it will be found that a Mason, as he assumes new and additional obligations and is presented with increased light, contracts new duties and is invested with new prerogatives and privileges.

Chapter I. Of the Qualifications of Candidates

The qualifications of a candidate for initiation into the mysteries of Freemasonry, are four-fold in their character—moral, physical, intellectual and political. The moral character is intended to secure the respectability of the Order, because, by the worthiness of its candidates, their virtuous deportment and good reputation, will the character of the institution be judged, while the admission of irreligious libertines and contemners of the moral law would necessarily impair its dignity and honor.

The physical qualifications of a candidate contribute to the utility of the Order, because he who is deficient in any of his limbs or members and who is not in the possession of all his natural senses and endowments, is unable to perform, with pleasure to himself or credit to the fraternity, those peculiar labors in which all should take an equal part. He thus becomes a drone in the hive and so far impairs the usefulness of the lodge, as "a place where Freemasons assemble to work and to instruct and improve themselves in the mysteries of their ancient science."

The intellectual qualifications refer to the security of the Order, because they require that its mysteries shall be confided only to those whose mental developments are such as to enable them properly to appreciate and faithfully to preserve from imposition, the secrets thus entrusted to them. It is evident, for instance, that an idiot could neither understand the hidden doctrines that might be communicated to him, nor could he so secure such portions as he might remember, in the "depositary of his heart," as to prevent the designing knave from worming them out of him, for, as the wise Solomon has said, "a fool's mouth is his destruction and his lips are the snare of his soul."

The political qualifications are intended to maintain the independence of the Order, because its obligations and privileges are thus confided only to those who, from their position in society, are capable of obeying the one and of exercising the other without the danger of let or hindrance from superior authority.

Of the moral, physical and political qualifications of a candidate there can be no doubt, as they are distinctly laid down in the ancient charges and constitutions. The intellectual are not so readily decided.

These four-fold qualifications may be briefly summed up in the following axioms.

Morally, the candidate must be a man of irreproachable conduct, a believer in the existence of God and living "under the tongue of good report."

Physically, he must be a man of at least twenty-one years of age, upright in body, with the senses of a man, not deformed or dismembered, but with hale and entire limbs as a man ought to be.

Intellectually, he must be a man in the full possession of his intellects, not so young that his mind shall not have been formed, nor so old that it shall have fallen into dotage, neither a fool, an idiot, nor a madman, and with so much education as to enable him to avail himself of the teachings of Masonry and to cultivate at his leisure a knowledge of the principles and doctrines of our royal art.

Politically, he must be in the unrestrained enjoyment of his civil and personal liberty and this, too, by the birthright of inheritance and not by its subsequent acquisition, in consequence of his release from hereditary bondage.

The lodge which strictly demands these qualifications of its candidates may have fewer members than one less strict, but it will undoubtedly have better ones. But the importance of the subject demands for each class of the qualifications a separate section and a more extended consideration.

Section I.--Of the Moral Qualifications of Candidates.

The old charges state, that "a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral law." It is scarcely necessary to say, that the phrase, "moral law," is a technical expression of theology and refers to the Ten Commandments, which are so called, because they define the regulations necessary for the government of the morals and manners of men. The habitual violation of any one of these commands would seem, according to the spirit of the Ancient Constitutions, to disqualify a candidate for Masonry.

The same charges go on to say, in relation to the religious character of a Mason, that he should not be "a stupid atheist, nor an irreligious libertine." A denier of the existence of a Supreme Architect of the Universe cannot, of course, be obligated as a Mason and accordingly, there is no landmark more certain than that which excludes every atheist from the Order.

The word "libertine" has, at this day, a meaning very different from what it bore when the old charges were compiled. It then signified what we now call a "free-thinker," or disbeliever in the divine revelation of the Scriptures. This rule would therefore greatly abridge the universality and tolerance of the Institution, were it not for the following qualifying clause in the same instrument, "Though in ancient times Masons were charged in every country to be of the religion of that country or nation, whatever it was, yet it is now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves, that is, to be good men and true, or men of honor and honesty, by whatever denominations or persuasions they may be distinguished."

The construction now given universally to the religious qualification of a candidate, is simply that he shall have a belief in the existence and superintending control of a Supreme Being.

These old charges from which we derive the whole of our doctrine as to the moral qualifications of a candidate, further prescribe as to the political relations of a Mason, that he is to be "a peaceable subject to the civil powers, wherever he resides or works and is never to be concerned in plots and conspiracies against the peace and welfare of the nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior magistrates. He is cheerfully to conform to every lawful authority, to uphold on every occasion the interest of the community and zealously promote the prosperity of his own country."

Such being the characteristics of a true Mason, the candidate who desires to obtain that title, must show his claim to the possession of these virtues, and hence the same charges declare, in reference to these moral qualifications, that "The persons made Masons, or admitted members of a lodge, must be good and true men—no immoral or scandalous men, but of good report."

Section II.-- Of the Physical Qualifications of Candidates.

The physical qualifications of a candidate refer to his sex, his age and the condition of his limbs.

The first and most important requisite of a candidate is, that he shall be "a man." No woman can be made a Mason. This landmark is so indisputable, that it would be wholly superfluous to adduce any arguments or authority in its support.

As to age, the old charges prescribe the rule, that the candidate must be "of mature and discreet age." But what is the precise period when one is supposed to have arrived at this maturity and discretion, cannot be inferred from any uniform practice of the craft in different countries. The provisions of the civil law, which make twenty-one the age of maturity, have, however, been generally followed. In this country the regulation is general, that the candidate must be twenty-one years of age. Such, too, was the regulation adopted by the General Assembly, which met on the 27th Dec., 1663 and which prescribed that "no person shall be accepted unless he be twenty-one years old or more."[Oliver's Preston, p. 163, note (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135)] In Prussia, the candidate is required to be twenty-five, in England, twenty-one, [Such is the provision in the modern constitutions of England, but the 4th of the 39 Regulations required the candidate to be at least twenty-five.] "unless by dispensation from the Grand Master, or Provincial Grand Master," in Ireland, twenty-one, except "by dispensation from the Grand Master, or the Grand Lodge," in France, twenty-one, unless the candidate be the son of a Mason who has rendered important service to the craft, with the consent of his parent or guardian, or a young man who has served six months with his corps in the army—such persons may be initiated at eighteen, in Switzerland, the age of qualification is fixed at twenty-one and in Frankfort-on-Mayn, at twenty. In this country, as I have already observed, the regulation of 1663 is rigidly enforced and no candidate, who has not arrived at the age of twenty-one, can be initiated. Our ritual excludes "an old man in his dotage" equally with a "young man under age." But as dotage signifies imbecility of mind, this subject will be more properly considered under the head of intellectual qualifications.

The physical qualifications, which refer to the condition of the candidate's body and limbs, have given rise, within a few years past, to a great amount of discussion and much variety of opinion. The regulation contained in the old charges of 1721, which requires the candidate to be "a perfect youth," has in some jurisdictions been rigidly enforced to the very letter of the law, while in others it has been so completely explained away as to mean anything or nothing. Thus, in South Carolina, where the rule is rigid, the candidate is required to be neither deformed nor dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be, while in Maine, a deformed person may be admitted, provided "the deformity is not such as to prevent him from being instructed in the arts and mysteries of Freemasonry."

The first written law which we find on this subject is that which was enacted by the General Assembly held in 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the Earl of St. Albans and which declares "that no person shall hereafter be accepted a Freemason but such as are of able body."[ See these regulations in Preston, p. 162, Oliver's ed. (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135)] Twenty years after, in the reign of James II., or about the year 1683, it seems to have been found necessary, more exactly to define the meaning of this expression, "of able body," and accordingly we find, among the charges ordered to be read to a Master on his installation, the following regulation, "Thirdly, that he that be made be able in all degrees, that is, free-born, of a good kindred, true and no bondsman and that he have his right limbs as a man ought to have."[Oliver's Preston, p. 72, (U.M.L., vol. iii, 59).] The old charges, published in the original Book of Constitutions in 1723, contain the following regulation, "No Master should take an Apprentice, unless he be a perfect youth having no maim or defect that may render him uncapable of learning the art."

Notwithstanding the positive demand for perfection and the positive and explicit declaration that he must have no maim or defect, the remainder of the sentence has, within a few years past, by some Grand Lodges, been considered as a qualifying clause, which would permit the admission of candidates whose physical defects did not exceed a particular point. But, in perfection, there can be no degrees of comparison and he who is required to be perfect, is required to be so without modification or diminution. That which is perfect is complete in all its parts and, by a deficiency in any portion of its constituent materials, it becomes not less perfect, (which expression would be a solecism in grammar,) but at once by the deficiency ceases to be perfect at all—it then becomes imperfect. In the interpretation of a law, "words," says Blackstone, "are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification," and then "perfect" would mean, "complete, entire, neither defective nor redundant." But another source of interpretation is, the "comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point." [Blackstone, Com. I., Introd., § 2] Applying this law of the jurists, we shall have no difficulty in arriving at the true signification of the word "perfect," if we refer to the regulation of 1683, of which the clause in question appears to have been an exposition. Now, the regulation of 1683 says, in explicit terms, that the candidate must "have his right limbs as a man ought to have." Comparing the one law with the other, there can be no doubt that the requisition of Masonry is and always has been, that admission could only be granted to him who was neither deformed nor dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs as a man should be.

But another and, as Blackstone terms it, "the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law" is, to consider "the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it." Now, we must look for the origin of the law requiring physical perfection, not to the formerly operative character of the institution, (for there never was a time when it was not speculative as well as operative,) but to its symbolic nature. In the ancient temple, every stone was required to be perfect, for a perfect stone was the symbol of truth. In our mystic association, every Mason represents a stone in that spiritual temple, "that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," of which the temple of Solomon was the type. Hence it is required that he should present himself, like the perfect stone in the material temple, a perfect man in the spiritual building. "The symbolic relation of each member of the Order to its mystic temple, forbids the idea," says Bro. W.S. Rockwell, of Georgia, [In an able report on this subject, in the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Georgia for 1852. In accordance with the views there expressed, Bro. Rockwell decided officially, as District Deputy Grand Master, in 1851, that a man who had lost one eye was not admissible] "that its constituent portions, its living stones, should be less perfect or less a type of their great original, than the immaculate material which formed the earthly dwelling place of the God of their adoration." If, then, as I presume it will be readily conceded, by all except those who erroneously suppose the institution to have been once wholly operative and afterwards wholly speculative, perfection is required in a candidate, not for the physical reason that he may be enabled to give the necessary signs of recognition, but because the defect would destroy the symbolism of that perfect stone which every Mason is supposed to represent in the spiritual temple, we thus arrive at a knowledge of the causes which moved the legislators of Masonry to enact the law and we see at once and without doubt, that the words perfect youth are to be taken in an unqualified sense, as signifying one who has "his right limbs as a man ought to have." [Potter, 184.]

It is, however, but fair to state that the remaining clause of the old charge, which asserts that the candidate must have no maim or defect that may render him incapable of learning the art, has been supposed to intend a modification of the word "perfect," and to permit the admission of one whose maim or defect was not of such a nature as to prevent his learning the art of Masonry. But I would respectfully suggest that a criticism of this kind is based upon a mistaken view of the import of the words. The sentence is not that the candidate must have no such maim or defect as might, by possibility, prevent him from learning the art, though this is the interpretation given by those who are in favor of admitting slightly maimed candidates. It is, on the contrary, so worded as to give a consequential meaning to the word "that." He must have no maim or defect that may render him incapable, that is, because, by having such maim or defect, he would be rendered incapable of acquiring our art.

In the Ahiman Rezon published by Laurence Dermott in 1764 and adopted for the government of the Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons in England and many of the Provincial Grand and subordinate lodges of America, the regulation is laid down that candidates must be "men of good report, free-born, of mature age, not deformed nor dismembered at the time of their making and no woman or eunuch." It is true that at the present day this book possesses no legal authority among the craft, but I quote it, to show what was the interpretation given to the ancient law by a large portion, perhaps a majority, of the English and American Masons in the middle of the eighteenth century.

A similar interpretation seems at all times to have been given by the Grand Lodges of the United States, with the exception of some, who, within a few years past, have begun to adopt a more latitudinarian construction.

In Pennsylvania it was declared, in 1783, that candidates are not to be "deformed or dismembered at the time of their making."

In South Carolina the Book of Constitutions, first published in 1807, requires that "every person desiring admission must be upright in body, not deformed or dismembered at the time of making, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be."

In the "Ahiman Rezon and Masonic Ritual," published by order of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee, in the year 1805, candidates are required to be "hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of their making." [Page 18. In December, 1851, the Committee of Correspondence of North Carolina, unregardful of the rigid rule of their predecessors, decided that maimed candidates might be initiated, "provided their loss or infirmity will not prevent them from making full proficiency in Masonry."]

Maryland, in 1826, sanctioned the Ahiman Rezon of Cole, which declares the law in precisely the words of South Carolina, already quoted.

In 1823, the Grand Lodge of Missouri unanimously adopted a report, which declared that all were to be refused admission who were not "sound in mind and all their members," and she adopted a resolution asserting that "the Grand Lodge cannot grant a letter or dispensation to a subordinate lodge working under its jurisdiction, to initiate any person maimed, disabled, or wanting the qualifications establishing by ancient usage." [Proceedings of the G.L. of Mo. for 1823, p. 5. The report and resolution were on the petitions of two candidates to be initiated, one with only one arm and the other much deformed in his legs]

But it is unnecessary to multiply instances. There never seems to have been any deviation from the principle that required absolute physical perfection, until, within a few years, the spirit of expediency [When the spirit of expediency once begins, we know not where it will stop. Thus a blind man has been initiated in Mississippi and a one-armed one in Kentucky; and in France a few years since, the degrees were conferred by sign-language on a deaf mute]has induced some Grand Lodges to propose a modified construction of the law and to admit those whose maims or deformities were not such as to prevent them from complying with the ceremonial of initiation. Still, a large number of the Grand Lodges have stood fast by the ancient landmark and it is yet to be hoped that all will return to their first allegiance. The subject is an important one and, therefore, a few of the more recent authorities, in behalf of the old law may with advantage be cited.

"We have examined carefully the arguments 'pro and con,' that have accompanied the proceedings of the several Grand Lodges, submitted to us and the conviction has been forced upon our minds, even against our wills, that we depart from the ancient landmarks and usages of Masonry, whenever we admit an individual wanting in one of the human senses, or who is in any particular maimed or deformed."-Committee of Correspondence G. Lodge of Georgia, 1848, page 36.

"The rationale of the law, excluding persons physically imperfect and deformed, lies deeper and is more ancient than the source ascribed to it.[ Namely, the incorrectly presumed operative origin of the Order. The whole of this report, which is from the venerable Giles F. Yates, contains an able and unanswerable defense of the ancient law in opposition to any qualification] It is grounded on a principle recognized in the earliest ages of the world, and will be found identical with that which obtained among the ancient Jews. In this respect the Levitical law was the same as the Masonic, which would not allow any 'to go in unto the veil' who had a blemish—a blind man, or a lame, or a man that was broken-footed, or broken-handed, or a dwarf, &c..”..

"The learned and studious Free Masonic antiquary can satisfactorily explain the metaphysics of this requisition in our Book of Constitutions. For the true and faithful Brother it sufficeth to know that such a requisition exists. He will prize it the more because of its antiquity.... No man can in perfection be 'made a Brother,' no man can truly 'learn our mysteries,' and practice them, or 'do the work of a Freemason,' if he is not a man with body free from maim, defect and deformity." (Report of a Special Committee of the Grand Lodge of New York, in 1848.) [See proceedings of New York, 1848, pp. 36, 37]

"The records of this Grand Lodge may be confidently appealed to, for proofs of her repeated refusal to permit maimed persons to be initiated and not simply on the ground that ancient usage forbids it, but because the fundamental constitution of the Order—the ancient charges—forbid it."—Committee of Correspondence of New York, for 1848, p. 70.

"The lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge are hereby required, in the initiation of applicants for Masonry, to adhere to the ancient law (as laid down in our printed books), which says he shall be of entire limbs"—Resolution of the G.L. of Maryland, November, 1848.

"I received from the lodge at Ashley a petition to initiate into our Order a gentleman of high respectability, who, unfortunately, has been maimed. I refused my assent.... I have also refused a similar request from the lodge of which I am a member. The fact that the most distinguished Masonic body on earth has recently removed one of the landmarks, should teach us to be careful how we touch those ancient boundaries."—Address of the Grand Master of New Jersey in 1849.

"The Grand Lodge of Florida adopted such a provision in her constitution, [the qualifying clause permitting the initiation of a maimed person, if his deformity was not such as to prevent his instruction], but more mature reflection and more light reflected from our sister Grand Lodges, caused it to be stricken from our constitution."—Address of Gov. Tho. Brown, Grand Master of Florida in 1849.

"As to the physical qualifications, the Ahiman Rezon leaves no doubt on the subject, but expressly declares, that every applicant for initiation must be a man, free-born, of lawful age, in the perfect enjoyment of his senses, hale and sound and not deformed or dismembered, this is one of the ancient landmarks of the Order, which it is in the power of no body of men to change. A man having but one arm, or one leg, or who is in anyway deprived of his due proportion of limbs and members, is as incapable of initiation as a woman."—Encyclical Letter of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina to its subordinates in 1849.

Impressed, then, by the weight of these authorities, which it would be easy, but is unnecessary, to multiply—guided by a reference to the symbolic and speculative (not operative) reason of the law—and governed by the express words of the regulation of 1683—I am constrained to believe that the spirit as well as the letter of our ancient landmarks require that a candidate for admission should be perfect in all his parts, that is, neither redundant nor deficient, neither deformed nor dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be.

Section III.--Of the Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates.

The Old Charges and Ancient Constitutions are not as explicit in relation to the intellectual as to the moral and physical qualifications of candidates and, therefore, in coming to a decision on this subject, we are compelled to draw our conclusions from analogy, from common sense and from the peculiar character of the institution. The question that here suggests itself on this subject is, what particular amount of human learning is required as a constitutional qualification for initiation?

During a careful examination of every ancient document to which I have had access, I have met with no positive enactment forbidding the admission of uneducated persons, even of those who can neither read nor write. The unwritten, as well as the written laws of the Order, require that the candidate shall be neither a fool nor an idiot, but that he shall possess a discreet judgment and be in the enjoyment of all the senses of a man. But one who is unable to subscribe his name, or to read it when written, might still very easily prove himself to be within the requirements of this regulation. The Constitutions of England, formed since the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, are certainly explicit enough on this subject. They require even more than a bare knowledge of reading and writing, for, in describing the qualifications of a candidate, they say, "He should be a lover of the liberal arts and sciences and have made some progress in one or other of them, and he must, previous to his initiation, subscribe his name at full length, to a declaration of the following import," etc. And in a note to this regulation, it is said, "Any individual who cannot write is, consequently, ineligible to be admitted into the Order." If this authority were universal in its character, there would be no necessity for a further discussion of the subject. But the modern constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England are only of force within its own jurisdiction and we are therefore again compelled to resort to a mode of reasoning for the proper deduction of our conclusions on this subject.

It is undoubtedly true that in the early period of the world, when Freemasonry took its origin, the arts of reading and writing were not so generally disseminated among all classes of the community as they now are, when the blessings of a common education can be readily and cheaply obtained. And it may, therefore, be supposed that among our ancient Brethren there were many who could neither read nor write. But after all, this is a mere assumption, which, although it may be based on probability, has no direct evidence for its support. And, on the other hand, we see throughout all our ancient regulations, that a marked distinction was made by our rulers between the Freemason and the Mason who was not free, as, for instance, in the conclusion of the fifth chapter of the Ancient Charges, where it is said: "No laborer shall be employed in the common work of Masonry, nor shall Freemasons work with those who are not free, without an urgent necessity." And this would seem to indicate a higher estimation by the fraternity of their own character, which might be derived from their greater attainments in knowledge. That in those days the ordinary operative masons could neither read nor write, is a fact established by history. But it does not follow that the Freemasons, who were a separate society of craftsmen, were in the same unhappy category, it is even probable, that the fact that they were not so, but that they were, in comparison with the unaccepted masons, educated men, may have been the reason of the distinction made between these two classes of workmen.

But further, all the teachings of Freemasonry are delivered on the assumption that the recipients are men of some education, with the means of improving their minds and increasing their knowledge. Even the Entered Apprentice is reminded, by the rough and perfect ashlars, of the importance and necessity of a virtuous education, in fitting him for the discharge of his duties. To the Fellow Craft, the study of the liberal arts and sciences is earnestly recommended, and indeed, that sacred hieroglyphic, the knowledge of whose occult signification constitutes the most solemn part of his instruction, presupposes an acquaintance at least with the art of reading. And the Master Mason is expressly told in the explanation of the forty-seventh problem of Euclid, as one of the symbols of the third degree, that it was introduced into Masonry to teach the Brethren the value of the arts and sciences and that the Mason, like the discoverer of the problem, our ancient Brother Pythagoras, should be a diligent cultivator of learning. Our lectures, too, abound in allusions which none but a person of some cultivation of mind could understand or appreciate and to address them, or any portion of our charges which refer to the improvement of the intellect and the augmentation of knowledge, to persons who can neither read nor write, would be, it seems to us, a mockery unworthy of the sacred character of our institution.

From these facts and this method of reasoning, I deduce the conclusion that the framers of Masonry, in its present organization as a speculative institution, must have intended to admit none into its fraternity whose minds had not received some preliminary cultivation and I am, therefore, clearly of opinion, that a person who cannot read and write is not legally qualified for admission.

As to the inexpediency of receiving such candidates, there can be no question or doubt. If Masonry be, as its disciples claim for it, a scientific institution, whose great object is to improve the understanding and to enlarge and adorn the mind, whose character cannot be appreciated and whose lessons of symbolic wisdom cannot be acquired, without much studious application, how preposterous would it be to place, among its disciples, one who had lived to adult years, without having known the necessity or felt the ambition for a knowledge of the alphabet of his mother tongue? Such a man could make no advancement in the art of Masonry, and while he would confer no substantial advantage on the institution, he would, by his manifest incapacity and ignorance, detract, in the eyes of strangers, from its honor and dignity as an intellectual society.

Idiots and madmen are excluded from admission into the Order, for the evident reason that the former from an absence and the latter from a perversion of the intellectual faculties, are incapable of comprehending the objects, or of assuming the responsibilities and obligations of the institution.

A question here suggests itself whether a person of present sound mind, but who had formerly been deranged, can legally be initiated. The answer to this question turns on the fact of his having perfectly recovered. If the present sanity of the applicant is merely a lucid interval, which physicians know to be sometimes vouched to lunatics, with the absolute certainty, or at best, the strong probability, of an eventual return to a state of mental derangement, he is not, of course, qualified for initiation. But if there has been a real and durable recovery (of which a physician will be a competent judge), then there can be no possible objection to his admission, if otherwise eligible. We are not to look to what the candidate once was, but to what he now is.

Dotage, or the mental imbecility produced by excessive old age, is also a disqualification for admission. Distinguished as it is by puerile desires and pursuits, by a failure of the memory, a deficiency of the judgment and a general obliteration of the mental powers, its external signs are easily appreciated and furnish at once abundant reason why, like idiots and madmen, the superannuated dotard is unfit to be the recipient of our mystic instructions.

Section IV.--Of the Political Qualifications of Candidates.

The Constitutions of Masonry require, as the only qualification referring to the political condition of the candidate, or his position in society, that he shall be free-born. The slave, or even the man born in servitude, though he may, subsequently, have obtained his liberty, is excluded by the ancient regulations from initiation. The non-admission of a slave seems to have been founded upon the best of reasons, because, as Freemasonry involves a solemn contract, no one can legally bind himself to its performance who is not a free agent and the master of his own actions. That the restriction is extended to those who were originally in a servile condition, but who may have since acquired their liberty, seems to depend on the principle that birth, in a servile condition, is accompanied by a degradation of mind and abasement of spirit, which no subsequent disenthralment can so completely efface as to render the party qualified to perform his duties, as a Mason, with that "freedom, fervency and zeal," which are said to have distinguished our ancient Brethren. "Children," says Oliver, "cannot inherit a free and noble spirit except they be born of a free woman."

The same usage existed in the spurious Freemasonry or the Mysteries of the ancient world. There, no slave, or men born in slavery, could be initiated, because, the prerequisites imperatively demanded that the candidate should not only be a man of irreproachable manners, but also a free-born denizen of the country in which the mysteries were celebrated.

Some Masonic writers have thought that, in this regulation in relation to free birth, some allusion is intended, both in the Mysteries and in Freemasonry, to the relative conditions and characters of Isaac and Ishmael. The former, the accepted one, to whom the promise was given, was the son of a free woman and the latter, who was cast forth to have "his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," was the child of a slave. Wherefore, we read that Sarah demanded of Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son." Dr. Oliver, in speaking of the grand festival with which Abraham celebrated the weaning of Isaac, says, that he "had not paid the same compliment at the weaning of Ishmael, because he was the son of a bondwoman and, consequently, could not be admitted to participate in the Freemasonry of his father, which could only be conferred on free men born of free women." The ancient Greeks were of the same opinion, for they used the word δουλοπρεπεια or, "slave manners," to designate any very great impropriety of manners.

The Grand Lodge of England extends this doctrine, that Masons should be free in all their thoughts and actions, so far, that it will not permit the initiation of a candidate who is only temporarily deprived of his liberty, or even in a place of confinement. In the year 1782, the Master of the Royal Military Lodge, at Woolwich, being confined, most probably for debt, in the King's Bench prison, at London, the lodge, which was itinerant in its character and allowed to move from place to place with its regiment, adjourned, with its warrant of constitution, to the Master in prison, where several Masons were made. The Grand Lodge, being informed of the circumstances, immediately summoned the Master and Wardens of the lodge "to answer for their conduct in making Masons in the King's Bench prison," and, at the same time, adopted a resolution, affirming that "it is inconsistent with the principles of Freemasonry for any Freemason's lodge to be held, for the purposes of making, passing, or raising Masons, in any prison or place of confinement."

Section V.--Of the Petition of Candidates for Admission and the Action Thereon.

The application of a candidate to a lodge, for initiation, is called a "petition." This petition should always be in writing and generally contains a statement of the petitioner's age, occupation and place of residence and a declaration of the motives, which have prompted the application, which ought to be "a favorable opinion conceived of the institution and a desire of knowledge."[ Such is the formula prescribed by the Constitutions of England as well as all the Monitors in this country] This petition must be recommended by at least two members of the lodge.

The petition must be read at a stated or regular communication of the lodge and referred to a committee of three members for an investigation of the qualifications and character of the candidate. The committee having made the necessary inquiries, will report the result at the next regular communication and not sooner. The authority for this deliberate mode of proceeding is to be found in the fifth of the 39 General Regulations, which is in these words, "No man can be made or admitted a member of a particular lodge, without previous notice one month before given to the said lodge, in order to make due inquiry into the reputation and capacity of the candidate, unless by dispensation aforesaid."

The last clause in this article provides for the only way in which this probation of a month can be avoided and that is when the Grand Master, for reasons satisfactory to himself, being such as will constitute what is called (sometimes improperly) a case of emergency, shall issue a dispensation permitting the lodge to proceed forthwith to the election.

But where this dispensation has not been issued, the committee should proceed diligently and faithfully to the discharge of their responsible duty. They must inquire into the moral, physical, intellectual and political qualifications of the candidate and make their report in accordance with the result of their investigations. The report cannot be made at a special communication, but must always be presented at a regular one. The necessity of such a rule is obvious. As the Master can at any time within his discretion convene a special meeting of his lodge, it is evident that a presiding officer, if actuated by an improper desire to intrude an unworthy and unpopular applicant upon the craft, might easily avail himself for that purpose of an occasion when the lodge being called for some other purpose, the attendance of the members was small and causing a ballot to be taken, succeed in electing a candidate, who would, at a regular meeting, have been blackballed by some of those who were absent from the special communication. This regulation is promulgated by the Grand Lodge of England, in the following words, "No person shall be made a Mason without a regular proposition at one lodge and a ballot at the next regular stated lodge," it appears to have been almost universally adopted in similar language by the Grand Lodges of this country, and, if the exact words of the law are wanting in any of the Constitutions, the general usage of the craft has furnished an equivalent authority for the regulation.

If the report of the committee is unfavorable, the candidate should be considered as rejected, without any reference to a ballot. This rule is also founded in reason. If the committee, after a due inquiry into the character of the applicant, find the result so disadvantageous to him as to induce them to make an unfavorable report on his application, it is to be presumed that on a ballot they would vote against his admission and as their votes alone would be sufficient to reject him, it is held unnecessary to resort in such a case to the supererogatory ordeal of the ballot. It would, indeed, be an anomalous proceeding and one which would reflect great discredit on the motives and conduct of a committee of inquiry, were its members first to report against the reception of a candidate and then, immediately afterwards, to vote in favor of his petition. The lodges will not suppose, for the honor of their committees, that such a proceeding will take place and accordingly the unfavorable report of the committee is always to be considered as a rejection.

Another reason for this regulation seems to be this. The fifth General Regulation declares that no Lodge should ever make a Mason without "due inquiry" into his character and as the duty of making this inquiry is entrusted to a competent committee, when that committee has reported that the applicant is unworthy to be made a Mason, it would certainly appear to militate against the spirit, if not the letter, of the regulation, for the lodge, notwithstanding this report, to enter into a ballot on the petition.

But should the committee of investigation report favorably, the lodge will then proceed to a ballot for the candidate, but, as this forms a separate and important step in the process of "making Masons," I shall make it the subject of a distinct section.

Section VI.-- Of Balloting for Candidates.

The Thirty-nine Regulations do not explicitly prescribe the ballot-box as the proper mode of testing the opinion of the lodge on the merits of a petition for initiation. The sixth regulation simply says that the consent of the members is to be "formally asked by the Master, and they are to signify their assent or dissent in their own prudent way either virtually or in form, but with unanimity." Almost universal usage has, however, sanctioned the ballot box and the use of black and white balls as the proper mode of obtaining the opinion of the members.

From the responsibility of expressing this opinion and of admitting a candidate into the fraternity or of repulsing him from it, no Mason is permitted to shrink. In balloting on a petition, therefore, every member of the Lodge is expected to vote, nor can he be excused from the discharge of this important duty, except by the unanimous consent of his Brethren. All the members must, therefore, come up to the performance of this trust with firmness, candor and a full determination to do what is right—to allow no personal timidity to forbid the deposit of a black ball, if the applicant is unworthy and no illiberal prejudices to prevent the deposition of a white one, if the character and qualifications of the candidate are unobjectionable. And in all cases where a member himself has no personal or acquired knowledge of these qualifications, he should rely upon and be governed by the recommendation of his Brethren of the Committee of Investigation, who he has no right to suppose would make a favorable report on the petition of an unworthy applicant.[ . See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art, Ballot.]

The great object of the ballot is, to secure the independence of the voter, and, for this purpose, its secrecy should be inviolate. And this secrecy of the ballot gives rise to a particular rule, which necessarily flows out of it. No Mason can be called to an account for the vote, which he has deposited. The very secrecy of the ballot is intended to secure the independence and irresponsibility to the lodge of the voter. And, although it is undoubtedly a crime for a member to vote against the petition of an applicant on account of private pique or personal prejudice, still the lodge has no right to judge that such motives alone actuated him. The motives of men, unless divulged by themselves, can be known only to God, "and if," as Wayland says, "from any circumstances we are led to entertain any doubts of the motives of men, we are bound to retain these doubts within our own bosoms." Hence, no judicial notice can be or ought to be taken by a lodge of a vote cast by a member, on the ground of his having been influenced by improper motives, because it is impossible for the lodge legally to arrive at the knowledge, in the first place, of the vote that he has given and secondly, of the motives by which he has been controlled.

And even if a member voluntarily should divulge the nature of his vote and of his motives, it is still exceedingly questionable whether the lodge should take any notice of the act, because by so doing the independence of the ballot might be impaired. It is through a similar mode of reasoning that the Constitution of the United States provides, that the members of Congress shall not be questioned, in any other place, for any speech or debate in either House. As in this way the freedom of debate is preserved in legislative bodies, so in like manner should the freedom of the ballot be insured in lodges.

The sixth General Regulation requires unanimity in the ballot. Its language is: "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 then present when the candidate is proposed." This regulation, it will be remembered, was adopted in 1721. But in the "New Regulations," adopted in 1754 and which are declared to have been enacted "only for amending or explaining the Old Regulations for the good of Masonry, without breaking in upon the ancient rules of the fraternity, still preserving the old landmarks," it is said: "but it was found inconvenient to insist upon unanimity in several cases, and, therefore, the Grand Masters have allowed the lodges to admit a member, if not above three black balls are against him, though some lodges desire no such allowance."[ Book of Constitutions. Edit. 1755, p. 312]

The Grand Lodge of England still acts under this new regulation and extends the number of black balls which will reject to three, though it permits its subordinates, if they desire it, to require unanimity. But nearly all the Grand Lodges of this country have adhered to the old regulation, which is undoubtedly the better one and by special enactment have made the unanimous consent of all the Brethren present necessary to the election of a candidate.

Another question here suggests itself. Can a member, who by the bye-laws of his lodge is disqualified from the exercise of his other franchises as a member, in consequence of being in arrears beyond a certain amount, be prevented from depositing his ballot on the application of a candidate? That by such a bye-law he may be disfranchised of his vote in electing officers, or of the right to hold office, will be freely admitted. But the words of the old regulation seem expressly and without equivocation, to require that every member present shall vote. The candidate shall only be admitted "by the unanimous consent of all the members of that lodge then present when the candidate is proposed." This right of the members to elect or reject their candidates is subsequently called "an inherent privilege," which is not subject to a dispensation. The words are explicit and the right appears to be one guaranteed to every member so long as he continues a member and of which no bye-law can divest him as long as the paramount authority of the Thirty-nine General Regulations is admitted. I should say, then, that every member of a lodge present at balloting for a candidate has a right to deposit his vote, and not only a right, but a duty which he is to be compelled to perform, since, without the unanimous consent of all present, there can be no election.

Our written laws are altogether silent as to the peculiar ceremonies, which are to accompany the act of balloting, which has therefore been generally directed by the local usage of different jurisdictions. Uniformity, however, in this, as in all other ritual observances, is to be commended and I shall accordingly here describe the method which I have myself preferred and practiced in balloting for candidates and which is the custom adopted in the jurisdiction of South Carolina.[ See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art. Ballot]

The committee of investigation having reported favorably, the Master of the lodge directs the Senior Deacon to prepare the ballot box. The mode in which this is accomplished is as follows:—The Senior Deacon takes the ballot box and, opening it, places all the white and black balls indiscriminately in one compartment, leaving the other entirely empty. He then proceeds with the box to the Junior and Senior Wardens, who satisfy themselves by an inspection that no ball has been left in the compartment in which the votes are to be deposited. I remark here, in passing, that the box, in this and the other instance to be referred to hereafter, is presented to the inferior officer first and then to his superior, that the examination and decision of the former may be substantiated and confirmed by the higher authority of the latter. Let it, indeed, be remembered, that in all such cases the usage of Masonic circumambulation is to be observed and that, therefore, we must first pass the Junior's station before we can get to that of the Senior Warden.

These officers having thus satisfied themselves that the box is in a proper condition for the reception of the ballots, it is then placed upon the altar by the Senior Deacon, who retires to his seat. The Master then directs the Secretary to call the roll, which is done by commencing with the Worshipful Master and proceeding through all the officers down to the youngest member. As a matter of convenience, the Secretary generally votes the last of those in the room and then, if the Tiler is a member of the lodge, he is called in, while the Junior Deacon tiles for him and the name of the applicant having been told him, he is directed to deposit his ballot, which he does and then retires.

As the name of each officer and member is called he approaches the altar and having made the proper Masonic salutation to the Chair, he deposits his ballot and retires to his seat. The roll should be called slowly, so that at no time should there be more than one person present at the box, for, the great object of the ballot being secrecy, no Brother should be permitted so near the member voting as to distinguish the color of the ball he deposits.

The box is placed on the altar and the ballot is deposited with the solemnity of a Masonic salutation, that the voters may be duly impressed with the sacred and responsible nature of the duty they are called on to discharge. The system of voting thus described, is, therefore, far better on this account than the one sometimes adopted in lodges, of handing round the box for the members to deposit their ballots from their seats

The Master having inquired of the Wardens if all have voted, then orders the Senior Deacon to "take charge of the ballot box." That officer accordingly repairs to the altar and taking possession of the box, carries it, as before, to the Junior Warden, who examines the ballot and reports, if all the balls are white, that "the box is clear in the South," or, if there is one or more black balls, that "the box is foul in the South." The Deacon then carries it to the Senior Warden and afterwards to the Master, who, of course, make the same report, according to the circumstances, with the necessary verbal variation of "West" and "East." If the box is clear—that is, if all the ballots are white—the Master then announces that the applicant has been duly elected and the Secretary makes a record of the fact.

But if the box is declared to be foul, the Master inspects the number of black balls, if he finds two, he declares the candidate to be rejected, if only one, he so states the fact to the lodge and orders the Senior Deacon again to prepare the ballot box and a second ballot is taken in the same way. This is done lest a black ball might have been inadvertently voted on the first ballot. If, on the second scrutiny, one black ball is again found, the fact is announced by the Master, who orders the election to lie over until the next stated meeting and requests the Brother who deposited the black ball to call upon him and state his reasons. At the next stated meeting the Master announces these reasons to the lodge, if any have been made known to him, concealing, of course, the name of the objecting Brother. At this time the validity or truth of the objections may be discussed and the friends of the applicant will have an opportunity of offering any defense or explanation. The ballot is then taken a third time and the result, whatever it may be, is final. As I have already observed, in most of the lodges of this country, a reappearance of the one black ball will amount to a rejection. In those lodges, which do not require unanimity, it will, of course, be necessary that the requisite number of black balls must be deposited on this third ballot to insure a rejection. But if, on inspection, the box is found to be "clear," or without a black ball, the candidate is, of course, declared to be elected. In any case, the result of the third ballot is final, nor can it be set aside or reversed by the action of the Grand Master or Grand Lodge, because, by the sixth General Regulation, already so frequently cited, the members of every particular lodge are the best judges of the qualifications of their candidates, and, to use the language of the Regulation, "if a fractious member should be imposed on them, it might spoil their harmony, or hinder their freedom, or even break and disperse the lodge."

Section VII.--Of the Reconsideration of the Ballot.

There are, unfortunately, some men in our Order, governed, not by essentially bad motives, but by frail judgments and by total ignorance of the true object and design of Freemasonry, who never, under any circumstances, have recourse to the black ball, that great bulwark of Masonry and are always more or less incensed when any more judicious Brother exercises his privilege of excluding those whom he thinks unworthy of participation in our mysteries.

I have said, that these men are not governed by motives essentially bad. This is the fact. They honestly desire the prosperity of the institution and they would not willfully do one act ,which would impede that prosperity. But their judgments are weak and their zeal is without knowledge. They do not at all understand in what the true prosperity of the Order consists, but really and conscientiously believing that its actual strength will be promoted by the increase of the number of its disciples, they look rather to the quantity than to the quality of the applicants who knock at the doors of our lodges. Now a great difference in respect to the mode in which the ballot is conducted, will be found in those lodges which are free from the presence of such injudicious brethren and others into which they have gained admittance.

In a lodge in which every member has a correct notion of the proper moral qualifications of the candidates for Masonry and where there is a general disposition to work well with a few, rather than to work badly with many, when a ballot is ordered, each Brother, having deposited his vote, quietly and calmly waits to hear the decision of the ballot box announced by the Chair. If it is "clear," all are pleased that another citizen has been found worthy to receive a portion of the illuminating rays of Masonry. If it is "foul," each one is satisfied with the adjudication and rejoices that, although knowing nothing himself against the candidate, some one has been present whom a more intimate acquaintance with the character of the applicant has enabled to interpose his veto and prevent the purity of the Order from being sullied by the admission of an unworthy candidate. Here the matter ends and the lodge proceeds to other business.

But in a lodge where one of these injudicious and over-zealous Brethren is present, how different is the scene. If the candidate is elected, he, too, rejoices, but his joy is, that the lodge has gained one more member whose annual dues and whose initiation fee will augment the amount of its revenues. If he is rejected, he is indignant that the lodge has been deprived of this pecuniary accession and forthwith he sets to work to reverse, if possible, the decision of the ballot box and by a volunteer defense of the rejected candidate and violent denunciations of those who opposed him, he seeks to alarm the timid and disgust the intelligent, so that, on a reconsideration, they may be induced to withdraw their opposition.

The motion for reconsideration is, then, the means generally adopted, by such seekers after quantity, to insure the success of their efforts to bring all into our fold who seek admission, irrespective of worth or qualification. In other words, we may say, that the motion for reconsideration is the great antagonist of the purity and security of the ballot box. The importance, then, of the position, which it thus assumes, demands a brief discussion of the time and mode in which a ballot may be reconsidered.

In the beginning of the discussion, it may be asserted, that it is competent for any brother to move a reconsideration of a ballot, or for a lodge to vote on such a motion. The ballot is a part of the work of initiating a candidate. It is the preparatory step and is just as necessary to his legal making as the obligation or the investiture. As such, then, it is clearly entirely under the control of the Master. The Constitutions of Masonry and the Rules and Regulations of every Grand and Subordinate lodge prescribe the mode in which the ballot shall be conducted, so that the sense of the members may be taken. The Grand Lodge also requires that the Master of the lodge shall see that that exact mode of ballot shall be pursued and no other and it will hold him responsible that there shall be no violation of the rule. If, then, the Master is satisfied that the ballot has been regularly and correctly conducted and that no possible good, but some probable evil, would arise from its reconsideration, it is not only competent for him, but it is his solemn duty to refuse to permit any such reconsideration. A motion to that effect, it may be observed, will always be out of order, although any Brother may respectfully request the Worshipful Master to order such a reconsideration, or suggest to him its propriety or expediency.

If, however, the Master is not satisfied that the ballot is a true indication of the sense of the lodge, he may, in his own discretion, order a reconsideration. Thus there may be but one black ball, now a single black ball may sometimes be inadvertently cast, the member voting it may have been favorably disposed towards the candidate and yet, from the hurry and confusion of voting, or from the dimness of the light or the infirmity of his own eyes, or from some other equally natural cause, he may have selected a black ball, when he intended to have taken a white one. It is, therefore, a matter of prudence and necessary caution, that, when only one black ball appears, the Master should order a new ballot. On this second ballot, it is to be presumed that more care and vigilance will be used and the reappearance of the black ball will then show that it was deposited designedly.

But where two or three or more black balls appear on the first ballot, such a course of reasoning is not authorized and the Master will then be right to refuse a reconsideration. The ballot has then been regularly taken—the lodge has emphatically decided for a rejection and any order to renew the ballot would only be an insult to those who opposed the admission of the applicant and an indirect attempt to thrust an unwelcome intruder upon the lodge.

But although it is in the power of the Master, under the circumstances which we have described, to order a reconsideration, yet this prerogative is accompanied with certain restrictions, which it may be well to notice.

In the first place, the Master cannot order a reconsideration on any other night than that on which the original ballot was taken.[ Except when there is but one black ball, in which case the matter lies over until the next stated meeting. See preceding Section] After the lodge is closed, the decision of the ballot is final and there is no human authority that can reverse it. The reason of this rule is evident. If it were otherwise, an unworthy Master (for, unfortunately, all Masters are not worthy) might on any subsequent evening avail himself of the absence of those who had voted black balls, to order a reconsideration and thus succeed in introducing an unfit and rejected candidate into the lodge, contrary to the wishes of a portion of its members.

Neither can he order a reconsideration on the same night, if any of the Brethren who voted have retired. All who expressed their opinion on the first ballot, must be present to express it on the second. The reasons for this restriction are as evident as for the former and are of the same character.

It must be understood, that I do not here refer to those reconsiderations of the ballot which are necessary to a full understanding of the opinion of the lodge and which have been detailed in the ceremonial of the mode of balloting, as it was described in the preceding Section.

It may be asked whether the Grand Master cannot, by his dispensations, permit a reconsideration. I answer emphatically, NO. The Grand Master possesses no such prerogative. There is no law in the whole jurisprudence of the institution clearer than this, that neither the Grand Lodge nor the Grand Master can interfere with the decision of the ballot box. In Anderson's Constitutions, the law is laid down, under the head of "Duty of Members" (edition of 1755, p. 312), that in the election of candidates the Brethren "are to give their consent in their own prudent way, either virtually or in form, but with unanimity." And the regulation goes on to say: "Nor is this inherent privilege subject to a dispensation, because the members of a lodge are the best judges of it, and because, if a turbulent member should be imposed upon them, it might spoil their harmony, or hinder the freedom of their communications, or even break and disperse the lodge." This settles the question. A dispensation to reconsider a ballot would be an interference with the right of the members "to give their consent in their own prudent way," it would be an infringement of an "inherent privilege," and neither the Grand Lodge nor the Grand Master can issue a dispensation for such a purpose. Every lodge must be left to manage its own elections of candidates in its own prudent way.

I conclude this section by a summary of the principles which have been discussed and which I have endeavored to enforce by a process of reasoning which I trust may be deemed sufficiently convincing. They are briefly these:

1. It is never in order for a member to move for the reconsideration of a ballot on the petition of a candidate for initiation, nor for a lodge to entertain such a motion.

2. The Master alone can, for reasons satisfactory to himself, order such a reconsideration.

3. The Master cannot order a reconsideration on any subsequent night, nor on the same night, after any member, who was present and voted, has departed.

4. The Grand Master cannot grant a dispensation for a reconsideration, nor in any other way interfere with the ballot. The same restriction applies to the Grand Lodge.

Section VIII.--Of the Renewal of Applications by Rejected Candidates.

As it is apparent from the last section that there can be no reconsideration by a lodge of a rejected petition, the question will naturally arise, how an error committed by a lodge, in the rejection of a worthy applicant, is to be corrected, or how such a candidate, when once rejected, is ever to make a second trial, for it is, of course, admitted, that circumstances may occur in which a candidate who had been once blackballed might, on a renewal of his petition, be found worthy of admission. He may have since reformed and abandoned the vicious habits, which caused his first rejection, or it may have been since discovered that that rejection was unjust. How, then, is such a candidate to make a new application?

It is a rule of universal application in Masonry, that no candidate, having been once rejected, can apply to any other lodge for admission, except to the one, which rejected him. Under this regulation the course of a second application is as follows. Some Grand Lodges have prescribed that, when a candidate has been rejected, it shall not be competent for him to apply within a year, six months, or some other definite period. This is altogether a local regulation, there is no such law in the Ancient Constitutions and therefore, where the regulations of the Grand Lodge of the jurisdiction are silent upon the subject, general principles direct the following as the proper course for a rejected candidate to pursue on a second application. He must send in a new letter, recommended and vouched for as before, either by the same or other Brethren—it must be again referred to a committee—lie over for a month—and the ballot be then taken as is usual in other cases. It must be treated in all respects as an entirely new petition, altogether irrespective of the fact that the same person had ever before made an application. In this way due notice will be given to the Brethren and all possibility of an unfair election will be avoided.

If the local regulations are silent upon the subject, the second application may be made at any time after the rejection of the first, all that is necessary being, that the second application should pass through the same ordeal and be governed by the same rules that prevail in relation to an original application.

Section IX.-- Of the Necessary Probation and Due Proficiency of Candidates before Advancement.

There is, perhaps, no part of the jurisprudence of Masonry, which it is more necessary strictly to observe than that which relates to the advancement of candidates through the several degrees. The method which is adopted in passing Apprentices and raising Fellow Crafts, the probation which they are required to serve in each degree before advancing to a higher and the instructions which they receive in their progress, often materially affect the estimation which is entertained of the institution by its initiates. The candidate who long remains at the porch of the temple and lingers in the middle chamber, noting everything worthy of observation in his passage to the holy of holies, while he better understands the nature of the profession upon which he has entered, will have a more exalted opinion of its beauties and excellencies than he who has advanced, with all the rapidity that dispensations can furnish, from the lowest to the highest grades of the Order. In the former case, the design, the symbolism, the history and the moral and philosophical bearing of each degree will be indelibly impressed upon the mind and the appositeness of what has gone before to what is to succeed will be readily appreciated, but, in the latter, the lessons of one hour will be obliterated by those of the succeeding one, that which has been learned in one degree, will be forgotten in the next, and when all is completed and the last instructions have been imparted, the dissatisfied neophyte will find his mind, in all that relates to Masonry, in a state of chaotic confusion. Like Cassio, he will remember "a mass of things, but nothing distinctly."

An hundred years ago it was said that "Masonry was a progressive science and not to be attained in any degree of perfection, but by time, patience and a considerable degree of application and industry."

[ Masonry founded on Scripture, a Sermon preached in 1752, by the Rev. W. Williams] And it is because that due proportion of time, patience and application, has not been observed, that we so often see Masons indifferent to the claims of the institution and totally unable to discern its true character. The arcana of the craft, as Dr. Harris remarks, should be gradually imparted to its members, according to their improvement.

There is no regulation of our Order more frequently repeated in our constitutions, nor one which should be more rigidly observed, than that which requires of every candidate a "suitable proficiency" in one degree, before he is permitted to pass to another. But as this regulation is too often neglected, to the manifest injury of the whole Order, as well as of the particular lodge which violates it, by the introduction of ignorant and unskillful workmen into the temple, it may be worth the labor we shall spend upon the subject, to investigate some of the authorities which support us in the declaration, that no candidate should be promoted, until, by a due probation, he has made "suitable proficiency in the preceding degree."

In one of the earliest series of regulations that have been preserved, made in the reign of Edward III., it was ordained, "that such as were to be admitted Master Masons, or Masters of work, should be examined whether they be able of cunning to serve their respective Lords, as well the lowest as the highest, to the honor and worship of the aforesaid art and to the profit of their Lords."

Here, then, we may see the origin of that usage, which is still practiced in every well governed lodge, not only of demanding a proper degree of proficiency in the candidate, but also of testing that proficiency by an examination.

This cautious and honest fear of the fraternity, lest any Brother should assume the duties of a position which he could not faithfully discharge and which is, in our time, tantamount to a candidate's advancing to a degree for which he is not prepared, is again exhibited in the charges enacted in the reign of James II., the manuscript of which was preserved in the archives of the Lodge of Antiquity in London. In these charges it is required, "that no Mason take on no lord's worke, nor any other man's, unless he know himselfe well able to perform the worke, so that the craft have no slander." In the same charges, it is prescribed that "no master, or fellow, shall take no apprentice for less than seven years."

In another series of charges, whose exact date is not ascertained, but whose language and orthography indicate their antiquity, it is said: "Ye shall ordain the wisest to be Master of the work, and neither for love nor lineage, riches nor favor, set one over the work, who hath but little knowledge, whereby the Master would be evil served and ye ashamed." [ That is, advance him, from the subordinate position of a serving man or Apprentice, to that of a Fellow Craft or journeyman.] These charges clearly show the great stress that was placed by our ancient Brethren upon the necessity of skill and proficiency and they have furnished the precedents upon which are based all the similar regulations that have been subsequently applied to Speculative Masonry.

In the year 1722, the Grand Lodge of England ordered the "Old Charges of the Free and Accepted Masons" to be collected from the ancient records and, having approved of them, they became a part of the Constitutions of Speculative Freemasonry. In these Charges, it is ordained that "a younger Brother shall be instructed in working, to prevent spoiling the materials for want of judgment and for increasing and continuing of brotherly love."

Subsequently, in 1767, it was declared by the Grand Lodge, that "no lodge shall be permitted to make and raise the same Brother, at one and the same meeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master, or his Deputy," and lest too frequent advantage should be taken of this power of dispensation, to hurry candidates through the degrees, it is added that the dispensation, "on very particular occasions only, may be requested."

The Grand Lodge of England afterwards found it necessary to be more explicit on this subject and the regulation of that body is now contained in the following language, "No candidate shall be permitted to receive more than one degree on the same day, nor shall a higher degree in Masonry be conferred on any Brother at a less interval than four weeks from his receiving a previous degree, nor until he has passed an examination in open lodge in that degree." [This is also the regulation of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina.]

This seems to be the recognized principle on which the fraternity are, at this day, acting in this country. The rule is, perhaps, sometimes and in some places, in abeyance. A few lodges, from an impolitic desire to increase their numerical strength, or rapidly to advance men of worldly wealth or influence to high stations in the Order, may infringe it and neglect to demand of their candidates that suitable proficiency which ought to be, in Masonry, an essential recommendation to promotion, but the great doctrine that each degree should be well studied and the candidate prove his proficiency in it by an examination, has been uniformly set forth by the Grand Lodge of the United States, whenever they have expressed an opinion on the subject.

Thus, for instance, in 1845, the late Bro. A.A. Robertson, Grand Master of New York, gave utterance to the following opinion, in his annual address to the intelligent body over which he presided, "The practice of examining candidates in the prior degrees, before admission to the higher, in order to ascertain their proficiency, is gaining the favorable notice of Masters of lodges and cannot be too highly valued, nor too strongly recommended to all lodges in this jurisdiction. It necessarily requires the novitiate to reflect upon the bearing of all that has been so far taught him and consequently to impress upon his mind the beauty and utility of those sublime truths, which have been illustrated in the course of the ceremonies he has witnessed in his progress in the mystic art. In a word, it will be the means of making competent overseers of the work and no candidate should be advanced, until he has satisfied the lodge, by such examination, that he has made the necessary proficiency in the lower degrees." [Proceedings of Grand Lodge of New York, for 1845. He excepts, of course, from the operation of the rule, those made by dispensation; but this exception does not affect the strength of the principle.]

In 1845, the Grand Lodge of Iowa issued a circular to her subordinates, in which she gave the following admonition, "To guard against hasty and improper work, she prohibits a candidate from being advanced till he has made satisfactory proficiency in the preceding degrees, by informing himself of the lectures pertaining thereto, and to suffer a candidate to proceed who is ignorant in this essential particular, is calculated in a high degree to injure the institution and retard its usefulness."

The Grand Lodge of Illinois has practically declared its adhesion to the ancient regulation, for, in the year 1843, the dispensation of Nauvoo Lodge, one of its subordinates, was revoked principally on the ground that she was guilty "of pushing the candidate through the second and third degrees, before he could possibly be skilled in the preceding degree." And the committee who recommended the revocation, very justly remarked that they were not sure that any length of probation would in all cases insure skill, but they were certain that the ancient landmarks of the Order required that the lodge should know that the candidate is well skilled in one degree before being admitted to another.

The Grand Lodges of Massachusetts and South Carolina have adopted, almost in the precise words, the regulation of the Grand Lodge of England, already cited, which requires an interval of one month to elapse between the conferring of degrees. The Grand Lodge of New Hampshire requires a greater probation for its candidates, its constitution prescribes the following regulation, "All Entered Apprentices must work five months as such, before they can be admitted to the degree of Fellow Craft. All Fellow Crafts must work in a lodge of Fellow Crafts three months, before they can be raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason. Provided, nevertheless, that if any Entered Apprentice, or Fellow Craft, shall make himself thoroughly acquainted with all the information belonging to his degree, he may be advanced at an earlier period, at the discretion of the lodge."

But, perhaps, the most stringent rule upon this subject, is that which exists in the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Hanover, which is in the following words, "No Brother can be elected an officer of a lodge until he has been three years a Master Mason. A Fellow Craft must work at least one year in that degree, before he can be admitted to the third degree. An Entered Apprentice must remain at least two years in that degree."

It seems unnecessary to extend these citations. The existence of the regulation, which requires a necessary probation in candidates, until due proficiency is obtained, is universally admitted. The ancient constitutions repeatedly assert it and it has received the subsequent sanction of innumerable Masonic authorities. But, unfortunately, the practice is not always in accordance with the rule. And, hence, the object of this article is not so much to demonstrate the existence of the law, as to urge upon our readers the necessity of a strict adherence to it. There is no greater injury, which can be inflicted on the Masonic Order (the admission of immoral persons excepted), than that of hurrying candidates through the several degrees. Injustice is done to the institution, whose peculiar principles and excellencies are never properly presented and irreparable injury to the candidate, who, acquiring no fair appreciation of the ceremonies through which he rapidly passes, or of the instructions which he scarcely hears, is filled either with an indifference that never afterwards can be warmed into zeal, or with a disgust that can never be changed into esteem. Masonry is betrayed in such an instance by its friends and often loses the influence of an intelligent member, who, if he had been properly instructed, might have become one of its warmest and most steadfast advocates.

This subject is so important, that I will not hesitate to add to the influence of these opinions the great sanction of Preston's authority. "Many persons," says that able philosopher of Masonry, "are deluded by the vague supposition that our mysteries are merely nominal, that the practices established among us are frivolous and that our ceremonies may be adopted, or waived at pleasure. On this false foundation, we find them hurrying through all the degrees of the Order, without adverting to the propriety of one step they pursue, or possessing a single qualification requisite for advancement. Passing through the usual formalities, they consider themselves entitled to rank as masters of the art, solicit and accept offices and assume the government of the lodge, equally unacquainted with the rules of the institution they pretend to support, or the nature of the trust they engage to perform. The consequence is obvious, anarchy and confusion ensue and the substance is lost in the shadow. Hence, men eminent for ability, rank and fortune, are often led to view the honors of Masonry with such indifference, that when their patronage is solicited, they either accept offices with reluctance, or reject them with disdain." [Proceedings of Grand Lodge of New York, for 1845. He excepts, of course, from the operation of the rule, those made by dispensation; but this exception does not affect the strength of the principle.]

Let, then, no lodge which values its own usefulness, or the character of our institution, admit any candidate to a higher degree, until he has made suitable proficiency in the preceding one, to be always tested by a strict examination in open lodge. Nor can it do so, without a palpable violation of the laws of Masonry.

Section X.--Of Balloting for Candidates in each Degree.

Although there is no law, in the Ancient Constitutions, which in express words requires a ballot for candidates in each degree, yet the whole tenor and spirit of these constitutions seem to indicate that there should be recourse to such a ballot. The constant reference, in the numerous passages, which were cited in the preceding Section, to the necessity of an examination into the proficiency of those who sought advancement, would necessarily appear to imply that a vote of the lodge must be taken on the question of this proficiency. Accordingly, modern Grand Lodges have generally, by special enactment, required a ballot to be taken on the application of an Apprentice or Fellow Craft for advancement and where no such regulation has been explicitly laid down, the almost constant usage of the craft has been in favor of such ballot.

The Ancient Constitutions having been silent on the subject of the letter of the law, local usage or regulations must necessarily supply the specific rule.

Where not otherwise provided by the Constitutions of a Grand Lodge or the bye-laws of a subordinate lodge, analogy would instruct us that the ballot, on the application of Apprentices or Fellow Crafts for advancement, should be governed by the same principles that regulate the ballot on petitions for initiation.

Of course, then, the vote should be unanimous: for I see no reason why a lodge of Fellow Crafts should be less guarded in its admission of Apprentices, than a lodge of Apprentices is in its admission of profanes.

Again, the ballot should take place at a stated meeting, so that every member may have "due and timely notice," and be prepared to exercise his "inherent privilege" of granting or withholding his consent, for it must be remembered that the man who was worthy or supposed to be so, when initiated as an Entered Apprentice, may prove to be unworthy when he applies to pass as a Fellow Craft and every member should, therefore, have the means and opportunity of passing his judgment on that worthiness or unworthiness.

If the candidate for advancement has been rejected once, he may again apply, if there is no local regulation to the contrary. But, in such a case, due notice should be given to all the members, which is best done by making the application at one regular meeting and voting for it on the next. This, however, I suppose to be only necessary in the case of a renewed application after a rejection. An Entered Apprentice or a Fellow Craft is entitled after due probation to make his application for advancement, and his first application may be balloted for on the same evening, provided it be a regular meeting of the lodge. The members are supposed to know what work is before them to do and should be there to do it.

But the case is otherwise whenever a candidate for advancement has been rejected. He has now been set aside by the lodge and no time is laid down in the regulations or usages of the craft for his making a second application. He may never do so, or he may in three months, in a year, or in five years. The members are, therefore, no more prepared to expect this renewed application at any particular meeting of the lodge, than they are to anticipate any entirely new petition of a profane. If, therefore, the second application is not made at one regular meeting and laid over to the next, the possibility is that the lodge may be taken by surprise and in the words of the old Regulation, "a turbulent member may be imposed on it."

The inexpediency of any other course may be readily seen, from a suppositions case. We will assume that in a certain lodge, A, who is a Fellow Craft, applies regularly for advancement to the third degree. On this occasion, for good and sufficient reasons, two of the members, B and C, express their dissent by depositing black balls. His application to be raised is consequently rejected and he remains a Fellow Graft. Two or three meetings of the lodge pass over and at each, B and C are present, but, at the fourth meeting, circumstances compel their absence and the friends of A, taking advantage of that occurrence, again propose him for advancement, the ballot is forthwith taken and he is elected and raised on the same evening. The injustice of this course to B and C and the evil to the lodge and the whole fraternity, in this imposition of one who is probably an unworthy person, will be apparent to every intelligent and right-minded Mason.

I do not, however, believe that a candidate should be rejected, on his application for advancement, in consequence of objections to his moral worth and character. In such a case, the proper course would be to prefer charges, to try him as an Apprentice or Fellow Craft, and, if found guilty, to suspend, expel, or otherwise appropriately punish him. The applicant as well as the Order is, in such a case, entitled to a fair trial. Want of proficiency, or a mental or physical disqualification acquired since the reception of the preceding degree, is alone a legitimate cause for an estoppal of advancement by the ballot. But this subject will be treated of further in the chapter on the rights of Entered Apprentices.

Section XI. --Of the Number to be Initiated at one Communication.

The fourth General Regulation decrees that "no Lodge shall make more than five new Brothers at one time." This regulation has been universally interpreted (and with great propriety) to mean that not more than five degrees can be conferred at the same communication.

This regulation is, however, subject to dispensation by the Grand Master, or Presiding Grand Officer, in which case the number to be initiated, passed, or raised, will be restricted only by the words of the dispensation.

The following, or fifth General Regulation, says that "no man can be made or admitted a member of a particular lodge, without previous notice, one month before, given to the same lodge."

Now, as a profane cannot be admitted an Entered Apprentice, or in other words, a member of an Entered Apprentices' lodge, unless after one month's notice, so it follows that an Apprentice cannot be admitted a member of a Fellow Crafts' lodge, nor a Fellow Craft of a Masters', without the like probation. For the words of the regulation which apply to one, will equally apply to the others. And hence we derive the law, that a month at least must always intervene between the reception of one degree and the advancement to another. But this rule is also subject to a dispensation.

Section XI---Of Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge in another.

It is an ancient and universal regulation, that no lodge shall interfere with the work of another by initiating its candidates, or passing or raising its Apprentices and Fellow Crafts. Every lodge is supposed to be competent to manage its own business and ought to be the best judge of the qualifications of its own members and hence it would be highly improper in any lodge to confer a degree on a Brother who is not of its household.

This regulation is derived from a provision in the Ancient Charges, which have very properly been supposed to contain the fundamental law of Masonry and which prescribes the principle of the rule in the following symbolical language, "None shall discover envy at the prosperity of a Brother, nor supplant him or put him out of his work, if he be capable to finish the same, for no man can finish another's work, so much to the Lord's profit, unless he be thoroughly acquainted with the designs and draughts of him that began it."

There is, however, a case in which one lodge may, by consent, legally finish the work of another. Let us suppose that a candidate has been initiated in a lodge at A..and, before he receives his second degree, removes to B…and that being, by the urgency of his business, unable either to postpone his departure from A . ., until he has been passed and raised, or to return for the purpose of his receiving his second and third degrees, then it is competent for the lodge at A. .. to grant permission to the lodge at B. . to confer them on the candidate.

But how shall this permission be given, by a unanimous vote, or merely by a vote of the majority of the members at A. . .? Here it seems to me that, so far as regards the lodge at A. ., the reasons for unanimity no longer exist. There is here no danger that a "fractious member will be imposed on them," as the candidate, when finished, will become a member of the lodge at B. . . The question of consent is simply in the nature of a resolution and may be determined by the assenting votes of a majority of the members at A. . . It is, however, to be understood, that if any Brother believes that the candidate is unworthy, from character, of further advancement, he may suspend the question of consent, by preferring charges against him. If this is not done and the consent of the lodge is obtained, that the candidate may apply to the lodge at B. . , then when his petition is read in that lodge, it must, of course, pass through the usual ordeal of a month's probation and a unanimous vote, for here the old reasons for unanimity once more prevail. I know of no ancient written law upon this subject, but it seems to me that the course I have described is the only one that could be suggested by analogy and common sense.

Section XIII.-- 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." [Transactions of the G.L. of New York, anno 1848, p. 73.]

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,[ Edition of 1723, page 71 (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 71).] 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." [Preston, p. 48 (U.M.L., vol, iii., p. 40).] 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." [Const. New York, 1854, p. 13. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England (p. 64) have a similar provision; but they require the Brother to express his wish for membership on the day of his initiation]. 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, 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."[ Preston, Oliver's Ed., p. 71, note (U.L.M., vol. iii., p. 60)]

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." [See Oliver, note in Preston, p. 75 (U.M.L., vol. iii, p. 61)] 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, 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." [Oliver's Preston, p. 162 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135.)]

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.[ See Anderson's Const., 3d Edit., 1755, page 303.] 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, "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."

[ Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 89 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 72).]

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." [Preston, Oliver's Edit" p. 90 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 73).]

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, [ Preston, Oliver's Edit" p. 90 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 73).] 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." [Proceedings of Louisiana, an. 1852.]

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" [Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 76 (U.M.L., vol. iii, p. 62).]

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."[Ibid]

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." [See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, in voce.]

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." [Constitutions, Second Edition of 1738, p. 154.] 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 1828and 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."[Proceedings for 1853].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 [Proceedings for 1847], "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 lodges, or to walk in Masonic processions.[ The right to visit is restricted to once, by many Grand Lodges to enable him to become acquainted with the character of the lodge before he applies for membership.]

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.

- - - - -

Write up about the author can be read in Article 222.

Click Here To Post Your Comment

Previous ArticleGo TopNext Article

© 2002-2017. All Rights Reserved
Site designed by NetGross