{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12186/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12186","id":"gutenberg_12186","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12186","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Freemasons -- Legal status, laws, etc."],"text":"The Principles of Masonic Law:\n\nA Treatise on the Constitutional Laws, Usages And Landmarks of\nFreemasonry,\n\nBy\n\nAlbert G. Mackey, M.D.,\n\nAuthor of\n\n\"The Lexicon of Freemasonry,\" \"The Mystic Tie,\" \"Legends and Traditions of\nFreemasonry,\" Etc., Etc.,\n\nGrand Lecturer and Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of South Carolina;\nSecretary General of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite\nfor the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, Etc., Etc., Etc.\n\n   \"Est enim unum jus, quo devincta est hominum societas, quod lex\n   constituit una; qu\u00e6 lex est recta ratio imperandi atque prohibendi,\n   quam qui ignorat is est injustus.\"\n\n   Cicero de Legibus. c. XV.\n\nNew York:\nJno. W. Leonard & Co., Masonic Publishers,\n383 Broadway.\n\n1856.\n\n\n\nEntered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by Jno. W.\nLeonard & Co.,\n\nIn the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the\nSouthern District of New York.\n\n\n\n\nTo\n\nBrother J.J.J. Gourgas,\n\nSovereign Grand Inspector General in the Supreme Council for the Northern\nJurisdiction of the United States,\n\nI Dedicate This Work,\n\nAs a Slight Testimonial of My Friendship and Esteem for Him\nAs a Man,\nAnd of My Profound Veneration for His Character\nAs a Mason;\nWhose Long and Useful Life Has Been Well Spent in the\nLaborious Prosecution of the Science,\nAnd the Unremitting Conservation of the Principles of Our\nSublime Institution.\n\n\n\nTable of Contents\n\n\n\nPreface\nIntroduction\n\n\nBook First. The Law of Grand Lodges.\n\nChapter I. Historical Sketch.\nChapter II. Of the Mode of Organizing Grand Lodges.\nChapter III. Of the Members of a Grand Lodge.\nChapter IV. Of the Officers of a Grand Lodge.\n    Section I. Of the Grand Master.\n    Section II. The Deputy Grand Master.\n    Section III. Of the Grand Wardens.\n    Section IV. Of the Grand Treasurer.\n    Section V. Of the Grand Secretary.\n    Section VI. Of the Grand Chaplain.\n    Section VII. Of the Grand Deacons.\n    Section VIII. Of the Grand Marshal.\n    Section IX. Of the Grand Stewards.\n    Section X. Of the Grand Sword-Bearer.\n    Section XI. Of the Grand Tiler.\nChapter V. Of the Powers and Prerogatives of a Grand Lodge.\n    Section I. General View.\n    Section II. Of the Legislative Power of a Grand Lodge.\n    Section III. Of the Judicial Power of a Grand Lodge.\n    Section IV. Of the Executive Power of a Grand Lodge.\n\n\nBook Second. Laws of Subordinate Lodges.\n\nChapter I. Of the Nature and Organization of Subordinate Lodges.\nChapter II. Of Lodges under Dispensation.\nChapter III. Of Lodges Working under a Warrant of Constitution.\nChapter IV. Of the Officers of a Subordinate Lodge.\n    Section I. Of the Officers in General.\n    Section II. Of the Worshipful Master.\n    Section III. Of the Wardens.\n    Section IV. Of the Treasurer.\n    Section V. Of the Secretary.\n    Section VI. Of the Deacons.\n    Section VII. Of the Stewards.\n    Section VIII. Of the Tiler.\nChapter V. Of Rules of Order.\n    Section I. Of the Order of Business.\n    Section II. Of Appeals from the Decision of the Chair.\n    Section III. Of the Mode of Taking the Question.\n    Section IV. Of Adjournments.\n    Section V. Of the Appointment of Committees.\n    Section VI. Of the Mode of Keeping the Minutes.\n\n\nBook Third. The Law of Individuals.\n\nChapter I. Of the Qualifications of Candidates.\n    Section I. Of the Moral Qualifications of Candidates.\n    Section II. Of the Physical Qualifications of Candidates.\n    Section III. Of the Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates.\n    Section IV. Of the Political Qualifications of Candidates.\n    Section V. Of the Petition of Candidates for Admission, and the\n                   Action Thereon.\n    Section VI. Of Balloting for Candidates.\n    Section VII. Of the Reconsideration of the Ballot.\n    Section VIII. Of the Renewal of Applications by Rejected Candidates.\n    Section IX. Of the Necessary Probation and Due Proficiency of\n                    Candidates before Advancement\n    Section X. Of Balloting for Candidates in each Degree.\n    Section XI. Of the Number to be Initiated at one Communication.\n    Section XII. Of Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge in another.\n    Section XIII. Of the Initiation of Non-residents.\nChapter II. Of the Rights of Entered Apprentices.\nChapter III. Of the Rights of Fellow Crafts.\nChapter IV. Of the Rights of Master Masons.\n    Section I. Of the Right of Membership.\n    Section II. Of the Right of Visit.\n    Section III. Of the Examination of Visitors.\n    Section IV. Of Vouching for a Brother.\n    Section V. Of the Right of Claiming Relief.\n    Section VI. Of the Right of Masonic Burial.\nChapter V. Of the Rights of Past Masters.\nChapter VI. Of Affiliation.\nChapter VII. Of Demitting.\nChapter VIII. Of Unaffiliated Masons.\n\n\nBook Fourth. Of Masonic Crimes and Punishments.\n\nChapter I. Of What Are Masonic Crimes.\nChapter II. Of Masonic Punishments.\n    Section I. Of Censure.\n    Section II. Of Reprimand.\n    Section III. Of Exclusion from the Lodge.\n    Section IV. Of Definite Suspension.\n    Section V. Of Indefinite Suspension.\n    Section VI. Of Expulsion.\nChapter III. Of Masonic Trials.\n    Section I. Of the Form of Trial.\n    Section II. Of the Evidence in Masonic Trials.\nChapter IV. Of the Penal Jurisdiction of a Lodge.\nChapter V. Of Appeals.\nChapter VI. Of Restoration.\n\n\nIndex.\nFootnotes.\n\n\n\n\nPreface.\n\n\n\nIn presenting to the fraternity a work on the Principles of Masonic Law,\nit is due to those for whom it is intended, that something should be said\nof the design with which it has been written, and of the plan on which it\nhas been composed. It is not pretended to present to the craft an\nencyclopedia of jurisprudence, in which every question that can possibly\narise, in the transactions of a Lodge, is decided with an especial\nreference to its particular circumstances. Were the accomplishment of such\nan herculean task possible, except after years of intense and unremitting\nlabor, the unwieldy size of the book produced, and the heterogeneous\nnature of its contents, so far from inviting, would rather tend to\ndistract attention, and the object of communicating a knowledge of the\nPrinciples of Masonic Law, would be lost in the tedious collation of\nprecedents, arranged without scientific system, and enunciated without\nexplanation.\n\nWhen I first contemplated the composition of a work on this subject, a\ndistinguished friend and Brother, whose opinion I much respect, and with\nwhose advice I am always anxious to comply, unless for the most\nsatisfactory reasons, suggested the expediency of collecting the decisions\nof all Grand Masters, Grand Lodges, and other masonic authorities upon\nevery subject of Masonic Law, and of presenting them, without commentary,\nto the fraternity.\n\nBut a brief examination of this method, led me to perceive that I would be\nthus constructing simply a digest of decrees, many of which would probably\nbe the results of inexperience, of prejudice, or of erroneous views of the\nmasonic system, and from which the authors themselves have, in repeated\ninstances, subsequently receded--for Grand Masters and Grand Lodges,\nalthough entitled to great respect, are not infallible--and I could not,\nconscientiously, have consented to assist, without any qualifying remark,\nin the extension and perpetuation of edicts and opinions, which, however\nhigh the authority from which they emanated, I did not believe to be in\naccordance with the principles of Masonic jurisprudence.\n\nAnother inconvenience which would have attended the adoption of such a\nmethod is, that the decisions of different Grand Lodges and Grand Masters\nare sometimes entirely contradictory on the same points of Masonic Law.\nThe decree of one jurisdiction, on any particular question, will often be\nfound at variance with that of another, while a third will differ from\nboth. The consultor of a work, embracing within its pages such distracting\njudgments, unexplained by commentary, would be in doubt as to which\ndecision he should adopt, so that coming to the inspection with the desire\nof solving a legal question, he would be constrained to close the volume,\nin utter despair of extracting truth or information from so confused a\nmass of contradictions.\n\nThis plan I therefore at once abandoned. But knowing that the\njurisprudence of Masonry is founded, like all legal science, on abstract\nprinciples, which govern and control its entire system, I deemed it to be\na better course to present these principles to my readers in an elementary\nand methodical treatise, and to develop from them those necessary\ndeductions which reason and common sense would justify.\n\nHence it is that I have presumed to call this work \"The Principles of\nMasonic Law.\" It is not a code of enactments, nor a collection of\nstatutes, nor yet a digest of opinions; but simply an elementary treatise,\nintended to enable every one who consults it, with competent judgment, and\nordinary intelligence, to trace for himself the bearings of the law upon\nany question which he seeks to investigate, and to form, for himself, a\ncorrect opinion upon the merits of any particular case.\n\nBlackstone, whose method of teaching I have endeavored, although I confess\n\"ab longo inter-vallo,\" to pursue, in speaking of what an academical\nexpounder of the law should do, says:\n\n\"He should consider his course as a general map of the law, marking out\nthe shape of the country, its connections, and boundaries, its greater\ndivisions, and principal cities; it is not his business to describe\nminutely the subordinate limits, or to fix the longitude and latitude of\nevery inconsiderable hamlet.\"\n\nSuch has been the rule that has governed me in the compilation of this\nwork. But in delineating this \"general map\" of the Masonic Law, I have\nsought, if I may continue the metaphor, so to define boundaries, and to\ndescribe countries, as to give the inspector no difficulty in \"locating\"\n(to use an Americanism) any subordinate point. I have treated, it is true,\nof principles, but I have not altogether lost sight of cases.\n\nThere are certain fundamental laws of the Institution, concerning which\nthere never has been any dispute, and which have come down to us with all\nthe sanctions of antiquity, and universal acceptation. In announcing\nthese, I have not always thought it necessary to defend their justice, or\nto assign a reason for their enactment.\n\nThe weight of unanimous authority has, in these instances, been deemed\nsufficient to entitle them to respect, and to obedience.\n\nBut on all other questions, where authority is divided, or where doubts of\nthe correctness of my decision might arise, I have endeavored, by a course\nof argument as satisfactory as I could command, to assign a reason for my\nopinions, and to defend and enforce my views, by a reference to the\ngeneral principles of jurisprudence, and the peculiar character of the\nmasonic system. I ask, and should receive no deference to my own\nunsupported theories--as a man, I am, of course, fallible--and may often\nhave decided erroneously. But I do claim for my arguments all the weight\nand influence of which they may be deemed worthy, after an attentive and\nunprejudiced examination. To those who may at first be ready--because I do\nnot agree with all their preconceived opinions--to doubt or deny my\nconclusions, I would say, in the language of Themistocles, \"Strike, but\nhear me.\"\n\nWhatever may be the verdict passed upon my labors by my Brethren, I trust\nthat some clemency will be extended to the errors into which I may have\nfallen, for the sake of the object which I have had in view: that, namely,\nof presenting to the Craft an elementary work, that might enable every\nMason to know his rights, and to learn his duties.\n\nThe intention was, undoubtedly, a good one. How it has been executed, it\nis not for me, but for the masonic public to determine.\n\nAlbert G. Mackey.\n\nCharleston, S.C., January 1st., 1856.\n\n\n\n\nIntroduction.\n\nThe Authorities for Masonic Law.\n\n\n\nThe laws which govern the institution of Freemasonry are of two kinds,\n_unwritten_ and _written,_ and may in a manner be compared with the \"lex\nnon scripta,\" or common law, and the \"lex seripta,\" or statute law of\nEnglish and American jurists.\n\nThe \"lex non scripta,\" or _unwritten law_ of Freemasonry is derived from\nthe traditions, usages and customs of the fraternity as they have existed\nfrom the remotest antiquity, and as they are universally admitted by the\ngeneral consent of the members of the Order. In fact, we may apply to\nthese unwritten laws of Masonry the definition given by Blackstone of the\n\"leges non script\u00e6\" of the English constitution--that \"their original\ninstitution and authority are not set down in writing, as acts of\nparliament are, but they receive their binding power, and the force of\nlaws, by long and immemorial usage and by their universal reception\nthroughout the kingdom.\" When, in the course of this work, I refer to\nthese unwritten laws as authority upon any point, I shall do so under the\nappropriate designation of \"ancient usage.\"\n\nThe \"lex scripta,\" or written law of Masonry, is derived from a variety of\nsources, and was framed at different periods. The following documents I\ndeem of sufficient authority to substantiate any principle, or to\ndetermine any disputed question in masonic law.\n\n1. The \"Ancient Masonic charges, from a manuscript of the Lodge of\nAntiquity,\" and said to have been written in the reign of James II.[1]\n\n2. The regulations adopted at the General Assembly held in 1663, of which\nthe Earl of St. Albans was Grand Master.[2]\n\n3. The interrogatories propounded to the Master of a lodge at the time of\nhis installation, and which, from their universal adoption, without\nalteration, by the whole fraternity, are undoubtedly to be considered as\na part of the fundamental law of Masonry.\n\n4. \"The Charges of a Freemason, extracted from the Ancient Records of\nLodges beyond sea, and of those in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for the\nuse of the Lodges in London,\" printed in the first edition of the Book of\nConstitutions, and to be found from p. 49 to p. 56 of that work.[3]\n\n5. The thirty-nine \"General Regulations,\" adopted \"at the annual assembly\nand feast held at Stationers' hall on St. John the Baptist's day, 1721,\"\nand which were published in the first edition of the Book of\nConstitutions, p. 58 to p.\n\n6. The subsequent regulations adopted at various annual communications by\nthe Grand Lodge of England, up to the year 1769, and published in\ndifferent editions of the Book of Constitutions. These, although not of\nsuch paramount importance and universal acceptation as the Old Charges\nand the Thirty-nine Regulations, are, nevertheless, of great value as the\nmeans of settling many disputed questions, by showing what was the law and\nusage of the fraternity at the times in which they were adopted.\n\nSoon after the publication of the edition of 1769 of the Book of\nConstitutions, the Grand Lodges of America began to separate from their\nEnglish parent and to organize independent jurisdictions. From that\nperiod, the regulations adopted by the Grand Lodge of England ceased to\nhave any binding efficacy over the craft in this country, while the laws\npassed by the American Grand Lodges lost the character of general\nregulations, and were invested only with local authority in their several\njurisdictions.\n\nBefore concluding this introductory section, it may be deemed necessary\nthat something should be said of the \"Ancient Landmarks of the Order,\" to\nwhich reference is so often made.\n\nVarious definitions have been given of the landmarks. Some suppose them to\nbe constituted of all the rules and regulations which were in existence\nanterior to the revival of Masonry in 1717, and which were confirmed and\nadopted by the Grand Lodge of England at that time. Others, more\nstringent in their definition, restrict them to the modes of recognition\nin use among the fraternity. I am disposed to adopt a middle course, and\nto define the Landmarks of Masonry to be, all those usages and customs of\nthe craft--whether ritual or legislative--whether they relate to forms and\nceremonies, or to the organization of the society--which have existed from\ntime immemorial, and the alteration or abolition of which would materially\naffect the distinctive character of the institution or destroy its\nidentity. Thus, for example, among the legislative landmarks, I would\nenumerate the office of Grand Master as the presiding officer over the\ncraft, and among the ritual landmarks, the legend of the third degree. But\nthe laws, enacted from time to time by Grand Lodges for their local\ngovernment, no matter how old they may be, do not constitute landmarks,\nand may, at any time, be altered or expunged, since the 39th regulation\ndeclares expressly that \"every annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power\nand authority to make new regulations or to alter these (viz., the\nthirty-nine articles) for the real benefit of this ancient fraternity,\nprovided always that the old landmarks be carefully preserved.\"\n\n\n\n\n\nBook First\n\nThe Law of Grand Lodges.\n\n\n\nIt is proposed in this Book, first to present the reader with a brief\nhistorical sketch of the rise and progress of the system of Grand Lodges;\nand then to explain, in the subsequent sections, the mode in which such\nbodies are originally organized, who constitute their officers and\nmembers, and what are their acknowledged prerogatives.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nHistorical Sketch.\n\n\nGrand Lodges under their present organization, are, in respect to the\nantiquity of the Order, of a comparatively modern date. We hear of no such\nbodies in the earlier ages of the institution. Tradition informs us, that\noriginally it was governed by the despotic authority of a few chiefs. At\nthe building of the temple, we have reason to believe that King Solomon\nexercised an unlimited and irresponsible control over the craft, although\na tradition (not, however, of undoubted authority) says that he was\nassisted in his government by the counsel of twelve superintendants,\nselected from the twelve tribes of Israel. But we know too little, from\nauthentic materials, of the precise system adopted at that remote period,\nto enable us to make any historical deductions on the subject.\n\nThe first historical notice that we have of the formation of a supreme\ncontrolling body of the fraternity, is in the \"Gothic Constitutions\"[4]\nwhich assert that, in the year 287, St. Alban, the protomartyr of England,\nwho was a zealous patron of the craft, obtained from Carausius, the\nBritish Emperor, \"a charter for the Masons to hold a general council, and\ngave it the name of assembly.\" The record further states, that St. Alban\nattended the meeting and assisted in making Masons, giving them \"good\ncharges and regulations.\" We know not, however, whether this assembly ever\nmet again; and if it did, for how many years it continued to exist. The\nsubsequent history of Freemasonry is entirely silent on the subject.\n\nThe next general assemblage of the craft, of which the records of\nFreemasonry inform us, was that convened in 926, at the city of York, in\nEngland, by Prince Edwin, the brother of King Athelstane, and the grandson\nof Alfred the Great. This, we say, was the next general assemblage,\nbecause the Ashmole manuscript, which was destroyed at the revival of\nFreemasonry in 1717, is said to have stated that, at that time, the Prince\nobtained from his brother, the king, a permission for the craft \"to hold a\nyearly communication and a general assembly.\" The fact that such a power\nof meeting was then granted, is conclusive that it did not before exist:\nand would seem to prove that the assemblies of the craft, authorised by\nthe charter of Carausius, had long since ceased to be held. This yearly\ncommunication did not, however, constitute, at least in the sense we now\nunderstand it, a Grand Lodge. The name given to it was that of the\n\"General Assembly of Masons.\" It was not restricted, as now, to the\nMasters and Wardens of the subordinate lodges, acting in the capacity of\ndelegates or representatives, but was composed, as Preston has observed,\nof as many of the fraternity at large as, being within a convenient\ndistance, could attend once or twice a year, under the auspices of one\ngeneral head, who was elected and installed at one of these meetings, and\nwho, for the time being, received homage as the governor of the whole\nbody. Any Brethren who were competent to discharge the duty, were allowed,\nby the regulations of the Order, to open and hold lodges at their\ndiscretion, at such times and places as were most convenient to them, and\nwithout the necessity of what we now call a Warrant of Constitution, and\nthen and there to initiate members into the Order.[5] To the General\nAssembly, however, all the craft, without distinction, were permitted to\nrepair; each Mason present was entitled to take part in the deliberations,\nand the rules and regulations enacted were the result of the votes of the\nwhole body. The General Assembly was, in fact, precisely similar to those\npolitical congregations which, in our modern phraseology, we term \"mass\nmeetings.\"\n\nThese annual mass meetings or General Assemblies continued to be held, for\nmany centuries after their first establishment, at the city of York, and\nwere, during all that period, the supreme judicatory of the fraternity.\nThere are frequent references to the annual assemblies of Freemasons in\npublic documents. The preamble to an act passed in 1425, during the reign\nof Henry VI., just five centuries after the meeting at York, states that,\n\"by the _yearly congregations_ and confederacies made by the Masons in\ntheir _general assemblies, _ the good course and effect of the statute of\nlaborers were openly violated and broken.\" This act which forbade such\nmeetings, was, however, never put in force; for an old record, quoted in\nthe Book of Constitutions, speaks of the Brotherhood having frequented\nthis \"mutual assembly,\" in 1434, in the reign of the same king. We have\nanother record of the General Assembly, which was held in York on the 27th\nDecember, 1561, when Queen Elizabeth, who was suspicious of their secrecy,\nsent an armed force to dissolve the meeting. A copy is still preserved of\nthe regulations which were adopted by a similar assembly held in 1663, on\nthe festival of St. John the Evangelist; and in these regulations it is\ndeclared that the private lodges shall give an account of all their\nacceptations made during the year to the General Assembly. Another\nregulation, however, adopted at the same time, still more explicitly\nacknowledges the existence of a General Assembly as the governing body of\nthe fraternity. It is there provided, \"that for the future, the said\nfraternity of Freemasons shall be regulated and governed by one Grand\nMaster and as many Wardens as the said society shall think fit to appoint\nat every Annual General Assembly.\"\n\nAnd thus the interests of the institution continued, until the beginning\nof the eighteenth century, or for nearly eight hundred years, to be\nentrusted to those General Assemblies of the fraternity, who, without\ndistinction of rank or office, annually met at York to legislate for the\ngovernment of the craft.\n\nBut in 1717, a new organization of the governing head was adopted, which\ngave birth to the establishment of a Grand Lodge, in the form in which\nthese bodies now exist. So important a period in the history of Masonry\ndemands our special attention.\n\nAfter the death, in 1702, of King William, who was himself a Mason, and a\ngreat patron of the craft, the institution began to languish, the lodges\ndecreased in number, and the General Assembly was entirely neglected for\nmany years. A few old lodges continued, it is true, to meet regularly, but\nthey consisted of only a few members.\n\nAt length, on the accession of George I., the Masons of London and its\nvicinity determined to revive the annual communications of the society.\nThere were at that time only four lodges in the south of England, and the\nmembers of these, with several old Brethren, met in February, 1717, at the\nApple Tree Tavern, in Charles street, Covent Garden, and organized by\nputting the oldest Master Mason, who was the Master of a lodge, in the\nchair; they then constituted themselves into what Anderson calls, \"a Grand\nLodge _pro tempore;\"_ resolved to hold the annual assembly and feast, and\nthen to choose a Grand Master.\n\nAccordingly, on the 24th of June, 1717, the assembly and feast were held;\nand the oldest Master of a lodge being in the chair, a list of candidates\nwas presented, out of which Mr. Anthony Sayer was elected Grand Master,\nand Capt. Joseph Elliott and Mr. Jacob Lamball, Grand Wardens.\n\nThe Grand Master then commanded the Masters and Wardens of lodges to meet\nthe Grand Officers every quarter, in communication, at the place he should\nappoint in his summons sent by the Tiler.\n\nThis was, then, undoubtedly, the commencement of that organization of the\nMasters and Wardens of lodges into a Grand Lodge, which has ever since\ncontinued to exist.\n\nThe fraternity at large, however, still continued to claim the right of\nbeing present at the annual assembly; and, in fact, at that meeting, their\npunctual attendance at the next annual assembly and feast was recommended.\n\nAt the same meeting, it was resolved \"that the privilege of assembling as\nMasons, which had been hitherto unlimited, should be vested in certain\nlodges or assemblies of Masons convened in certain places; and that every\nlodge to be hereafter convened, except the four old lodges at this time\nexisting, should be legally authorized to act by a warrant from the Grand\nMaster for the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition,\nwith the consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and\nthat, without such warrant, no lodge should be hereafter deemed regular or\nconstitutional.\"\n\nIn consequence of this regulation, several new lodges received Warrants of\nConstitution, and their Masters and Wardens were ordered to attend the\ncommunications of the Grand Lodge. The Brethren at large vested all their\nprivileges in the four old lodges, in trust that they would never suffer\nthe old charges and landmarks to be infringed; and the old lodges, in\nreturn, agreed that the Masters and Wardens of every new lodge that might\nbe constituted, should be permitted to share with them all the privileges\nof the Grand Lodge, except precedence of rank. The Brethren, says Preston,\nconsidered their further attendance at the meetings of the society\nunnecessary after these regulations were adopted; and therefore trusted\nimplicitly to their Masters and Wardens for the government of the craft;\nand thenceforward the Grand Lodge has been composed of all the Masters and\nWardens of the subordinate lodges which constitute the jurisdiction.\n\nThe ancient right of the craft, however, to take a part in the proceedings\nof the Grand Lodge or Annual Assembly, was fully acknowledged by a new\nregulation, adopted about the same time, in which it is declared that all\nalterations of the Constitutions must be proposed and agreed to, at the\nthird quarterly communication preceding the annual feast, and be offered\nalso to the perusal of _all_ the Brethren before dinner, _even of the\nyoungest Entered Apprentice_[6]\n\nThis regulation has, however, (I know not by what right,) become obsolete,\nand the Annual Assembly of Masons has long ceased to be held; the Grand\nLodges having, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, assumed the\nform and organization which they still preserve, as strictly\nrepresentative bodies.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nOf the Mode of Organizing Grand Lodges.\n\n\n\nThe topic to be discussed in this section is, the answer to the question,\nHow shall a Grand Lodge be established in any state or country where such\na body has not previously existed, but where there are subordinate lodges\nworking under Warrants derived from Grand Lodges in other states? In\nanswering this question, it seems proper that I should advert to the\ncourse pursued by the original Grand Lodge of England, at its\nestablishment in 1717, as from that body nearly all the Grand Lodges of\nthe York rite now in existence derive their authority, either directly or\nindirectly, and the mode of its organization has, therefore, universally\nbeen admitted to have been regular and legitimate.\n\nIn the first place, it is essentially requisite that the active existence\nof subordinate lodges in a state should precede the formation of a Grand\nLodge; for the former are the only legitimate sources of the latter. A\nmass meeting of Masons cannot assemble and organize a Grand Lodge. A\ncertain number of lodges, holding legal warrants from a Grand Lodge or\nfrom different Grand Lodges, must meet by their representatives and\nproceed to the formation of a Grand Lodge. When that process has been\naccomplished, the subordinate lodges return the warrants, under which they\nhad theretofore worked, to the Grand Lodges from which they had originally\nreceived them, and take new ones from the body which they have formed.\n\nThat a mass meeting of the fraternity of any state is incompetent to\norganize a Grand Lodge has been definitively settled--not only by general\nusage, but by the express action of the Grand Lodges of the United States\nwhich refused to recognize, in 1842, the Grand Lodge of Michigan which had\nbeen thus irregularly established in the preceding year. That unrecognized\nbody was then dissolved by the Brethren of Michigan, who proceeded to\nestablish four subordinate lodges under Warrants granted by the Grand\nLodge of New York. These four lodges subsequently met in convention and\norganized the present Grand Lodge of Michigan in a regular manner.\n\nIt seems, however, to have been settled in the case of Vermont, that where\na Grand Lodge has been dormant for many years, and all of its subordinates\nextinct, yet if any of the Grand Officers, last elected, survive and are\npresent, they may revive the Grand Lodge and proceed constitutionally to\nthe exercise of its prerogatives.\n\nThe next inquiry is, as to the number of lodges required to organize a new\nGrand Lodge. Dalcho says that _five_ lodges are necessary; and in this\nopinion he is supported by the Ahiman Rezon of Pennsylvania, published in\n1783 by William Smith, D.D., at that time the Grand Secretary of that\njurisdiction, and also by some other authorities. But no such regulation\nis to be found in the Book of Constitutions, which is now admitted to\ncontain the fundamental law of the institution. Indeed, its adoption would\nhave been a condemnation of the legality of the Mother Grand Lodge of\nEngland, which was formed in 1717 by the union of only _four_ lodges. The\nrule, however, is to be found in the Ahiman Rezon of Laurence Dermott,\nwhich was adopted by the \"Grand Lodge of Ancient Freemasons,\" that seceded\nfrom the lawful Grand Lodge in 1738. But as that body was undoubtedly,\nunder our present views of masonic law, schismatic and illegal, its\nregulations have never been considered by masonic writers as being\npossessed of any authority.\n\nIn the absence of any written law upon the subject, we are compelled to\nlook to precedent for authority; and, although the Grand Lodges in the\nUnited States have seldom been established with a representation of less\nthan four lodges, the fact that that of Texas was organized in 1837 by the\nrepresentatives of only _three_ lodges, and that the Grand Lodge thus\ninstituted was at once recognized as legal and regular by all its sister\nGrand Lodges, seems to settle the question that three subordinates are\nsufficient to institute a Grand Lodge.\n\nThree lodges, therefore, in any territory where a Grand Lodge does not\nalready exist, may unite in convention and organize a Grand Lodge. It will\nthen be necessary, that these lodges should surrender the warrants under\nwhich they had been previously working, and take out new warrants from the\nGrand Lodge which they have constituted; and, from that time forth, all\nmasonic authority is vested in the Grand Lodge thus formed.\n\nThe Grand Lodge having been thus constituted, the next inquiries that\nsuggest themselves are as to its members and its officers, each of which\nquestions will occupy a distinct discussion.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nOf the Members of a Grand Lodge.\n\n\n\nIt is an indisputable fact that the \"General Assembly\" which met at York\nin 926 was composed of all the members of the fraternity who chose to\nrepair to it; and it is equally certain that, at the first Grand Lodge,\nheld in 1717, after the revival of Masonry, all the craft who were present\nexercised the right of membership in voting for Grand Officers,[7] and\nmust, therefore, have been considered members of the Grand Lodge. The\nright does not, however, appear to have been afterwards claimed. At this\nvery assembly, the Grand Master who had been elected, summoned only the\nMaster and Wardens of the lodges to meet him in the quarterly\ncommunications; and Preston distinctly states, that soon after, the\nBrethren of the four old lodges, which had constituted the Grand Lodge,\nconsidered their attendance on the future communications of the society\nunnecessary, and therefore concurred with the lodges which had been\nsubsequently warranted in delegating the power of representation to their\nMasters and Wardens, \"resting satisfied that no measure of importance\nwould be adopted without their approbation.\"\n\nAny doubts upon the subject were, however, soon put at rest by the\nenactment of a positive law. In 1721, thirty-nine articles for the future\ngovernment of the craft were approved and confirmed, the twelfth of which\nwas in the following words:\n\n\"The Grand Lodge consists of, and is formed by, the Masters and Wardens of\nall the regular particular lodges upon record, with the Grand Master at\ntheir head, and his Deputy on his left hand, and the Grand Wardens in\ntheir proper places.\"\n\nFrom time to time, the number of these constituents of a Grand Lodge were\nincreased by the extension of the qualifications for membership. Thus, in\n1724, Past Grand Masters, and in 1725, Past Deputy Grand Masters, were\nadmitted as members of the Grand Lodge. Finally it was decreed that the\nGrand Lodge should consist of the four present and all past grand\nofficers; the Grand Treasurer, Secretary, and Sword-Bearer; the Master,\nWardens, and nine assistants of the Grand Stewards' lodge, and the Masters\nand Wardens of all the regular lodges.\n\nPast Masters were not at first admitted as members of the Grand Lodge.\nThere is no recognition of them in the old Constitutions. Walworth thinks\nit must have been after 1772 that they were introduced.[8] I have extended\nmy researches to some years beyond that period, without any success in\nfinding their recognition as members under the Constitution of England. It\nis true that, in 1772, Dermott prefixed a note to his edition of the\nAhiman Rezon, in which he asserts that \"Past Masters of warranted lodges\non record are allowed this privilege (of membership) whilst they continue\nto be members of any regular lodge.\" And it is, doubtless, on this\nimperfect authority, that the Grand Lodges of America began at so early a\nperiod to admit their Past Masters to seats in the Grand Lodge. In the\nauthorized Book of Constitutions, we find no such provision. Indeed,\nPreston records that in 1808, at the laying of the foundation-stone of the\nCovent Garden Theatre, by the Prince of Wales, as Grand Master, \"the Grand\nLodge was opened by Charles Marsh, Esq., attended by the _Masters and\nWardens_ of all the regular lodges;\" and, throughout the description of\nthe ceremonies, no notice is taken of Past Masters as forming any part of\nthe Grand Lodge. The first notice that we have been enabled to obtain of\nPast Masters, as forming any part of the Grand Lodge of England, is in the\n\"Articles of Union between the two Grand Lodges of England,\" adopted in\n1813, which declare that the Grand Lodge shall consist of the Grand and\nPast Grand Officers, of the actual Masters and Wardens of all the\nwarranted lodges, and of the \"Past Masters of Lodges who have regularly\nserved and passed the chair before the day of Union, and who continued,\nwithout secession, regular contributing members of a warranted lodge.\" But\nit is provided, that after the decease of all these ancient Past Masters,\nthe representation of every lodge shall consist of its Master and Wardens,\nand one Past Master only. There is, I presume, no doubt that, from 1772,\nPast Masters had held a seat in the Athol Grand Lodge of Ancient Masons,\nand that they did not in the original Grand Lodge, is, I believe, a fact\nequally indisputable. By the present constitutions of the United Grand\nLodge of England, Past Masters are members of the Grand Lodge, while they\ncontinue subscribing members of a private lodge. In some of the Grand\nLodges of the United States, Past Masters have been permitted to retain\ntheir membership, while in others, they have been disfranchised.\n\nOn the whole, the result of this inquiry seems to be, that Past Masters\nhave no inherent right, derived from the ancient landmarks, to a seat in\nthe Grand Lodge; but as every Grand Lodge has the power, within certain\nlimits, to make regulations for its own government, it may or may not\nadmit them to membership, according to its own notion of expediency.\n\nSome of the Grand Lodges have not only disfranchised Past Masters but\nWardens also, and restricted membership only to acting Masters. This\ninnovation has arisen from the fact that the payment of mileage and\nexpenses to three representative would entail a heavy burden on the\nrevenue of the Grand Lodge. The reason may have been imperative; but in\nthe practice, pecuniary expediency has been made to override an ancient\nusage.\n\nIn determining, then, who are the constitutional members of a Grand Lodge,\nderiving their membership from inherent right, I should say that they are\nthe Masters and Wardens of all regular lodges in the jurisdiction, with\nthe Grand Officers chosen by them. All others, who by local regulations\nare made members, are so only by courtesy, and not by prescription or\nancient law.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nOf the Officers of a Grand Lodge.\n\n\n\nThe officers of a Grand Lodge may be divided into two classes, _essential_\nand _accidental_, or, as they are more usually called, _Grand_ and\n_Subordinate_. The former of these classes are, as the name imports,\nessential to the composition of a Grand Lodge, and are to be found in\nevery jurisdiction, having existed from the earliest times. They are the\nGrand and Deputy Grand Masters, the Grand Wardens, Grand Treasurer, and\nGrand Secretary. The Grand Chaplain is also enumerated among the Grand\nOfficers, but the office is of comparatively modern date.\n\nThe subordinate officers of a Grand Lodge consist of the Deacons, Marshal,\nPursuivant, or Sword-Bearer, Stewards, and others, whose titles and duties\nvary in different jurisdictions. I shall devote a separate section to the\nconsideration of the duties of each and prerogatives of these officers.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of the Grand Master._\n\n\nThe office of Grand Master of Masons has existed from the very origin of\nthe institution; for it has always been necessary that the fraternity\nshould have a presiding head. There have been periods in the history of\nthe institution when neither Deputies nor Grand Wardens are mentioned, but\nthere is no time in its existence when it was without a Grand Master; and\nhence Preston, while speaking of that remote era in which the fraternity\nwas governed by a General Assembly, says that this General Assembly or\nGrand Lodge \"was not then restricted, as it is now understood to be, to\nthe Masters and Wardens of private lodges, with the Grand Master and his\nWardens at their head; it consisted of as many of the Fraternity _at\nlarge_ as, being within a convenient distance, could attend, once or twice\nin a year, under the auspices of one general head, who was elected and\ninstalled at one of these meetings; and who for the time being received\nhomage as the sole governor of the whole body.\"[9] The office is one of\ngreat honour as well as power, and has generally been conferred upon some\nindividual distinguished by an influential position in society; so that\nhis rank and character might reflect credit upon the craft.[10]\n\nThe Grand Mastership is an elective office, the election being annual and\naccompanied with impressive ceremonies of proclamation and homage made to\nhim by the whole craft. Uniform usage, as well as the explicit declaration\nof the General Regulations,[11] seems to require that he should be\ninstalled by the last Grand Master. But in his absence the Deputy or some\nPast Grand Master may exercise the functions of installation or\ninvestiture. In the organization of a new Grand Lodge, ancient precedent\nand the necessity of the thing will authorize the performance of the\ninstallation by the Master of the oldest lodge present, who, however,\nexercises, _pro hac vice_, the prerogatives and assumes the place of a\nGrand Master.\n\nThe Grand Master possesses a great variety of prerogatives, some of which\nare derived from the \"lex non scripta,\" or ancient usage; and others from\nthe written or statute law of Masonry.[12]\n\nI. He has the right to convene the Grand Lodge whenever he pleases, and to\npreside over its deliberation. In the decision of all questions by the\nGrand Lodge he is entitled to two votes. This is a privilege secured to\nhim by Article XII. of the General Regulations.\n\nIt seems now to be settled, by ancient usage as well as the expressed\nopinion of the generality of Grand Lodges and of masonic writers, that\nthere is no appeal from his decision. In June, 1849, the Grand Master of\nNew York, Bro. Williard, declared an appeal to be out of order and refused\nto submit it to the Grand Lodge. The proceedings on that eventful occasion\nhave been freely discussed by the Grand Lodges of the United States, and\nnone of them have condemned the act of the Grand Master, while several\nhave sustained it in express terms. \"An appeal,\" say the Committee of\nCorrespondence of Maryland, \"from the decision of the Grand Master is an\nanomaly at war with every principle of Freemasonry, and as such, not for\na moment to be tolerated or countenanced.\"[13] This opinion is also\nsustained by the Committee of the Grand Lodge of Florida in the year 1851,\nand at various times by other Grand Lodges. On the other hand, several\nGrand Lodges have made decisions adverse to this prerogative, and the\npresent regulations of the Grand Lodge of England seem, by a fair\ninterpretation of their phraseology, to admit of an appeal from the Grand\nMaster. Still the general opinion of the craft in this country appears to\nsustain the doctrine, that no appeal can be made from the decision of that\nofficer. And this doctrine has derived much support in the way of analogy\nfrom the report adopted by the General Grand Chapter of the United States,\ndeclaring that no appeal could lie from the decision of the presiding\nofficer of any Royal Arch body.\n\nSince we have enunciated this doctrine as masonic law, the question next\narises, in what manner shall the Grand Master be punished, should he abuse\nhis great prerogative? The answer to this question admits of no doubt. It\nis to be found in a regulation, adopted in 1721, by the Grand Lodge of\nEngland, and is in these words:--\"If the Grand Master should abuse his\ngreat power, and render himself unworthy of the obedience and submission\nof the Lodges, he shall be treated in a way and manner to be agreed upon\nin a new regulation.\" But the same series of regulations very explicitly\nprescribe, how this new regulation is to be made; namely, it is to be\n\"proposed and agreed to at the third quarterly communication preceding the\nannual Grand Feast, and offered to the perusal of all the Brethren before\ndinner, in writing, even of the youngest entered apprentice; the\napprobation and consent of the majority of all the Brethren present being\nabsolutely necessary, to make the same binding and obligatory.\"[14] This\nmode of making a new regulation is explicitly and positively\nprescribed--it can be done in no other way--and those who accept the old\nregulations as the law of Masonry, must accept this provision with them.\nThis will, in the present organization of many Grand Lodges, render it\nalmost impracticable to make such a new regulation, in which case the\nGrand Master must remain exempt from other punishment for his misdeeds,\nthan that which arises from his own conscience, and the loss of his\nBrethren's regard and esteem.\n\nII. The power of granting dispensations is one of the most important\nprerogatives of the Grand Master. A dispensation may be defined to be an\nexemption from the observance of some law or the performance of some duty.\nIn Masonry, no one has the authority to grant this exemption, except the\nGrand Master; and, although the exercise of it is limited within the\nobservance of the ancient landmarks, the operation of the prerogative is\nstill very extensive. The dispensing power may be exercised under the\nfollowing circumstances:\n\n1. The fourth old Regulation prescribes that \"no lodge shall make more\nthan five new Brothers at one and the same time without an urgent\nnecessity.\"[15] But of this necessity the Grand Master may judge, and, on\ngood and sufficient reason being shown, he may grant a dispensation\nenabling any lodge to suspend this regulation and make more than five new\nBrothers.\n\n2. The next regulation prescribes \"that no one can be accepted a member of\na particular lodge without previous notice, one month before given to the\nlodge, in order to make due inquiry into the reputation and capacity of\nthe candidate.\" But here, also, it is held that, in a suitable case of\nemergency, the Grand Master may exercise his prerogative and dispense with\nthis probation of one month, permitting the candidate to be made on the\nnight of his application.\n\n3. If a lodge should have omitted for any causes to elect its officers or\nany of them on the constitutional night of election, or if any officer so\nelected shall have died, been deposed or removed from the jurisdiction\nsubsequent to his election, the Grand Master may issue a dispensation\nempowering the lodge to proceed to an election or to fill the vacancy at\nany other specified communication; but he cannot grant a dispensation to\nelect a new master in consequence of the death or removal of the old one,\nwhile the two Wardens or either of them remain--because the Wardens\nsucceed by inherent right and in order of seniority to the vacant\nmastership. And, indeed, it is held that while one of the three officers\nremains, no election can be held, even by dispensation, to fill the other\ntwo places, though vacancies in them may have occurred by death or\nremoval.\n\n4. The Grand Master may grant a dispensation empowering a lodge to elect\na Master from among the members on the floor; but this must be done only\nwhen every Past Master, Warden, and Past Warden of the lodge has refused\nto serve,[16] because ordinarily a requisite qualification for the\nMastership is, that the candidate shall, previously, have served in the\noffice of Warden.\n\n5. In the year 1723 a regulation was adopted, prescribing \"that no Brother\nshould belong to more than one lodge within the bills of mortality.\"\nInterpreting the last expression to mean three miles--which is now\nsupposed to be the geographical limit of a lodge's jurisdiction, this\nregulation may still be considered as a part of the law of Masonry; but in\nsome Grand Lodges, as that of South Carolina, for instance, the Grand\nMaster will sometimes exercise his prerogative, and, dispensing with this\nregulation, permit a Brother to belong to two lodges, although they may be\nwithin three miles of each other.\n\n6. But the most important power of the Grand Master connected with his\ndispensing prerogative is, that of constituting new lodges. It has\nalready been remarked that, anciently, a warrant was not required for the\nformation of a lodge, but that a sufficient number of Masons, met together\nwithin a certain limit, were empowered, with the consent of the sheriff or\nchief magistrate of the place, to make Masons and practice the rites of\nMasonry, without such warrant of Constitution. But, in the year 1717, it\nwas adopted as a regulation, that every lodge, to be thereafter convened,\nshould be authorised to act by a warrant from the Grand Master for the\ntime being, granted to certain persons by petition, with the consent and\napprobation of the Grand Lodge in communication. Ever since that time, no\nlodge has been considered as legally established, unless it has been\nconstituted by the authority of the Grand Master. In the English\nConstitutions, the instrument thus empowering a lodge to meet, is called,\nwhen granted by the Grand Master, a Warrant of Constitution. It is granted\nby the Grand Master and not by the Grand Lodge. It appears to be a final\ninstrument, notwithstanding the provision enacted in 1717, requiring the\nconsent and approbation of the Grand Lodge; for in the Constitution of the\nUnited Grand Lodge of England, there is no allusion whatever to this\nconsent and approbation.\n\nBut in this country, the process is somewhat different, and the Grand\nMaster is deprived of a portion of his prerogative. Here, the instrument\ngranted by the Grand Master is called a Dispensation. The lodge receiving\nit is not admitted into the register of lodges, nor is it considered as\npossessing any of the rights and privileges of a lodge, except that of\nmaking Masons, until a Warrant of Constitution is granted by the Grand\nLodge. The ancient prerogative of the Grand Master is, however, preserved\nin the fact, that after a lodge has been thus warranted by the Grand\nLodge, the ceremony of constituting it, which embraces its consecration\nand the installation of its officers, can only be performed by the Grand\nMaster in person, or by his special Deputy appointed for that purpose.[17]\n\nIII. The third prerogative of the Grand Master is that of visitation. He\nhas a right to visit any lodge within his jurisdiction at such times as he\npleases, and when there to preside; and it is the duty of the Master to\noffer him the chair and his gavel, which the Grand Master may decline or\naccept at his pleasure. This prerogative admits of no question, as it is\ndistinctly declared in the first of the Thirty-nine Regulations, adopted\nin 1721, in the following words:--\n\n\"The Grand Master or Deputy has full authority and right, not only to be\npresent, but to preside in every lodge, with the Master of the lodge on\nhis left hand, and to order his Grand Wardens to attend him, who are not\nto act as Wardens of particular lodges, but in his presence and at his\ncommand; for the Grand Master, while in a particular lodge, may command\nthe Wardens of that lodge, or any other Master Masons, to act as his\nWardens, _pro tempore_.\"\n\nBut in a subsequent regulation it was provided, that as the Grand Master\ncannot deprive the Grand Wardens of that office without the consent of the\nGrand Lodge, he should appoint no other persons to act as Wardens in his\nvisitation to a private lodge, unless the Grand Wardens were absent. This\nwhole regulation is still in existence.\n\nThe question has been lately mooted, whether, if the Grand Master declines\nto preside, he does not thereby place himself in the position of a\nprivate Brother, and become subject, as all the others present, to the\ncontrol of the Worshipful Master. I answer, that of course he becomes\nsubject to and must of necessity respect those rules of order and decorum\nwhich are obligatory on all good men and Masons; but that he cannot, by\nthe exercise of an act of courtesy in declining to preside, divest himself\nof his prerogative, which, moreover, he may at any time during the evening\nassume, and demand the gavel. The Grand Master of Masons can, under no\ncircumstances, become subject to the decrees and orders of the Master of a\nparticular lodge.\n\nIV. Another prerogative of the Grand Master is that of appointment; which,\nhowever, in this country, has been much diminished. According to the old\nregulations, and the custom is still continued in the Constitutions of the\nGrand Lodge of England, the Grand Master has the right of appointing his\nDeputy and Wardens. In the United States, the office has been shorn of\nthis high prerogative, and these Officers are elected by the Grand Lodge.\nThe Deputy, however, is still appointed by the Grand Master, in some of\nthe States, as Massachusetts, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas. The\nappointment of the principal subordinate officers, is also given to the\nGrand Master by the American Grand Lodges.\n\nV. The last and most extraordinary power of the Grand Master, is that of\n_making Masons at sight_.\n\nThe power to \"make Masons at sight\" is a technical term, which may be\ndefined to be the power to initiate, pass, and raise candidates by the\nGrand Master, in a lodge of emergency, or as it is called in the Book of\nConstitutions, \"an occasional lodge,\" especially convened by him, and\nconsisting of such Master Masons as he may call together for that purpose\nonly--the lodge ceasing to exist as soon as the initiation, passing, or\nraising, has been accomplished and the Brethren have been dismissed by the\nGrand Master.\n\nWhether such a power is vested in the Grand Master, is a question that,\nwithin the last few years, has been agitated with much warmth, by some of\nthe Grand Lodges of this country; but I am not aware that, until very\nlately, the prerogative was ever disputed.[18]\n\nIn the Book of Constitutions, however, several instances are furnished of\nthe exercise of this right by various Grand Masters.\n\nIn 1731, Lord Lovel being Grand Master, he \"formed an occasional lodge at\nHoughton Hall, Sir Robert Walpole's House in Norfolk,\" and there made the\nDuke of Lorraine, afterwards Emperor of Germany, and the Duke of\nNewcastle, Master Masons.[19]\n\nI do not quote the case of the initiation, passing, and raising of\nFrederick, Prince of Wales, in 1737, which was done in \"an occasional\nlodge,\" over which Dr. Desaguliers presided,[20] because as Desaguliers\nwas not the Grand Master, nor even, as has been incorrectly stated by the\nNew York Committee of Correspondence, Deputy Grand Master, but only a Past\nGrand Master, it cannot be called _a making at sight_. He most probably\nacted under the dispensation of the Grand Master, who at that time was the\nEarl of Darnley.\n\nBut in 1766, Lord Blaney, who was then Grand Master, convened \"an\noccasional lodge\" and initiated, passed, and raised the Duke of\nGloucester.[21]\n\nAgain in 1767, John Salter, the Deputy, then acting as Grand Master,\nconvened \"an occasional lodge,\" and conferred the three degrees on the\nDuke of Cumberland.[22]\n\nIn 1787, the Prince of Wales was made a Mason \"at an occasional lodge,\nconvened,\" says Preston, \"for the purpose, at the Star and Garter, Pall\nMall, over which the Duke of Cumberland, (Grand Master) presided in\nperson.\"[23]\n\nBut it is unnecessary to multiply instances of the right, exercised by\nformer Grand Masters, of congregating occasional lodges, and making Masons\nat sight. It has been said, however, by the oppugners of this prerogative,\nthat these \"occasional lodges\" were only special communications of the\nGrand Lodge, and the \"makings\" are thus supposed to have taken place under\nthe authority of that body, and not of the Grand Master. The facts,\nhowever, do not sustain this position. Throughout the Book of\nConstitutions, other meetings, whether regular or special, are distinctly\nrecorded as meetings of the Grand Lodge, while these \"occasional lodges\"\nappear only to have been convened by the Grand Master, for the purpose of\nmaking Masons. Besides, in many instances, the lodge was held at a\ndifferent place from that of the Grand Lodge, and the officers were not,\nwith the exception of the Grand Master, the officers of the Grand Lodge.\nThus the occasional lodge, which initiated the Duke of Lorraine, was held\nat the residence of Sir Robert Walpole, in Norfolk, while the Grand Lodge\nalways met in London. In 1766, the Grand Lodge held its communications at\nthe Crown and Anchor; but the occasional lodge, which, in the same year,\nconferred the degrees on the Duke of Gloucester, was convened at the Horn\nTavern. In the following year, the lodge which initiated the Duke of\nCumberland was convened at the Thatched House Tavern, the Grand Lodge\ncontinuing to meet at the Crown and Anchor.\n\nThis may be considered very conclusive evidence of the existence of the\nprerogative of the Grand Master, which we are now discussing, but the\nargument _\u00e0 fortiori_, drawn from his dispensing power, will tend to\nconfirm the doctrine.\n\nNo one doubts or denies the power of the Grand Master to constitute new\nlodges by dispensation. In 1741, the Grand Lodge of England forgot it for\na moment, and adopted a new regulation, that no new lodge should be\nconstituted until the consent of the Grand Lodge had been first obtained,\n\"But this order, afterwards appearing,\" says the Book of\nConstitutions,[24] \"to be an infringement on the prerogative of the Grand\nMaster, and to be attended with many inconveniences and with damage to the\ncraft, was repealed.\"\n\nIt is, then, an undoubted prerogative of the Grand Master to constitute\nlodges by dispensation, and in these lodges, so constituted, Masons may be\nlegally entered, passed, and raised. This is done every day. Seven Master\nMasons, applying to the Grand Master, he grants them a dispensation, under\nauthority of which they proceed to open and hold a lodge, and to make\nMasons. This lodge is, however, admitted to be the mere creature of the\nGrand Master, for it is in his power, at any time, to revoke the\ndispensation he had granted, and thus to dissolve the lodge.\n\nBut, if the Grand Master has the power thus to enable others to confer the\ndegrees and make Masons by his individual authority out of his presence,\nare we not permitted to argue _\u00e0 fortiori_ that he has also the right of\ncongregating seven Brethren and causing a Mason, to be made in his sight?\nCan he delegate a power to others which he does not himself possess? And\nis his calling together \"an occasional lodge,\" and making, with the\nassistance of the Brethren thus assembled, a Mason \"at sight,\" that is to\nsay, in his presence, anything more or less than the exercise of his\ndispensing power, for the establishment of a lodge under dispensation, for\na temporary period, and for a special purpose. The purpose having been\neffected, and the Mason having been made, he revokes his dispensation, and\nthe lodge is dismissed. If we assumed any other ground than this, we\nshould be compelled to say, that though the Grand Master might authorise\nothers to make Masons, when he was absent, as in the usual case of lodges\nunder dispensation yet the instant that he attempted to convey the same\npowers to be exercised in his presence, and under his personal\nsupervision, his authority would cease. This course of reasoning would\nnecessarily lead to a contradiction in terms, if not to an actual\nabsurdity.\n\nIt is proper to state, in conclusion, that the views here set forth are\nnot entertained by the very able Committee of Foreign Correspondence of\nthe Grand Lodge of Florida, who only admit the power of the Grand Master\nto make Masons in the Grand Lodge. On the other hand, the Grand Lodge of\nWisconsin, at its last communication, adopted a report, asserting \"that\nthe Grand Master has the right to make Masons at sight, in cases which he\nmay deem proper\"--and the Committee of Correspondence of New York\ndeclares, that \"since the time when the memory of man runneth not to the\ncontrary, Grand Masters have enjoyed the privilege of making Masons at\nsight, without any preliminaries, and at any suitable time or place.\"\n\nThe opinions of the two last quoted Grand Lodges embody the general\nsentiment of the Craft on this subject.[25] But although the prerogative\nis thus almost universally ceded to Grand Masters, there are many very\nreasonable doubts as to the expediency of its exercise, except under\nextraordinary circumstances of emergency.\n\nIn England, the practice has generally been confined to the making of\nPrinces of the Royal Family, who, for reasons of state, were unwilling to\nreduce themselves to the level of ordinary candidates and receive their\ninitiation publicly in a subordinate lodge.\n\nBut in the exercise of this prerogative, the Grand Master cannot dispense\nwith any of the requisite forms of initiation, prescribed by the oral laws\nof the Order. He cannot communicate the degrees, but must adhere to all\nthe established ceremonies--the conferring of degrees by \"communication\"\nbeing a form unknown to the York rite. He must be assisted by the number\nof Brethren necessary to open and hold a lodge. Due inquiry must be made\ninto the candidate's character, (though the Grand Master may, as in a case\nof emergency, dispense with the usual probation of a month). He cannot\ninterfere with the business of a regular lodge, by making one whom it had\nrejected, nor finishing one which it had commenced. Nor can he confer the\nthree degrees, at one and the same communication. In short, he must, in\nmaking Masons at sight, conform to the ancient usages and landmarks of the\nOrder.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_The Deputy Grand Master._\n\n\nThe office of Deputy Grand Master is one of great dignity, but not of much\npractical importance, except in case of the absence of the Grand Master,\nwhen he assumes all the prerogatives of that officer. Neither is the\noffice, comparatively speaking, of a very ancient date. At the first\nreorganization of the Grand Lodge in 1717, and for two or three years\nafterwards, no Deputy was appointed, and it was not until 1721 that the\nDuke of Montagu conferred the dignity on Dr. Beal. Originally the Deputy\nwas intended to relieve the Grand Master of all the burden and pressure of\nbusiness, and the 36th of the Regulations, adopted in 1721, states that \"a\nDeputy is said to have been always needful when the Grand Master was nobly\nborn,\" because it was considered as a derogation from the dignity of a\nnobleman to enter upon the ordinary business of the craft. Hence we find,\namong the General Regulations, one which sets forth this principle in the\nfollowing words:\n\n\"The Grand Master should not receive any private intimations of business,\nconcerning Masons and Masonry, but from his Deputy first, except in such\ncases as his worship can easily judge of; and if the application to the\nGrand Master be irregular, his worship can order the Grand Wardens, or any\nother so applying, to wait upon the Deputy, who is immediately to prepare\nthe business, and to lay it orderly before his worship.\"\n\nThe Deputy Grand Master exercises, in the absence of the Grand Master, all\nthe prerogatives and performs all the duties of that officer. But he does\nso, not by virtue of any new office that he has acquired by such absence,\nbut simply in the name of and as the representative of the Grand Master,\nfrom whom alone he derives all his authority. Such is the doctrine\nsustained in all the precedents recorded in the Book of Constitutions.\n\nIn the presence of the Grand Master, the office of Deputy is merely one of\nhonour, without the necessity of performing any duties, and without the\npower of exercising any prerogatives.\n\nThere cannot be more than one Deputy Grand Master in a jurisdiction; so\nthat the appointment of a greater number, as is the case in some of the\nStates, is a manifest innovation on the ancient usages. District Deputy\nGrand Masters, which officers are also a modern invention of this\ncountry, seem to take the place in some degree of the Provincial Grand\nMasters of England, but they are not invested with the same prerogatives.\nThe office is one of local origin, and its powers and duties are\nprescribed by the local regulations of the Grand Lodge which may have\nestablished it.\n\n\n\nSection III.\n\n_Of the Grand Wardens._\n\n\nThe Senior and Junior Grand Wardens were originally appointed, like the\nDeputy, by the Grand Master, and are still so appointed in England; but in\nthis country they are universally elected by the Grand Lodge. Their duties\ndo not materially differ from those performed by the corresponding\nofficers in a subordinate lodge. They accompany the Grand Master in his\nvisitations, and assume the stations of the Wardens of the lodge visited.\n\nAccording to the regulations of 1721, the Master of the oldest lodge\npresent was directed to take the chair of the Grand Lodge in the absence\nof both the Grand Master and Deputy; but this was found to be an\ninterference with the rights of the Grand Wardens, and it was therefore\nsubsequently declared that, in the absence of the Grand Master and Deputy,\nthe last former Grand Master or Deputy should preside. But if no Past\nGrand or Past Deputy Grand Master should be present, then the Senior Grand\nWarden was to fill the chair, and, in his absence, the Junior Grand\nWarden, and lastly, in absence of both these, then the oldest\nFreemason[26] who is the present Master of a lodge. In this country,\nhowever, most of the Grand Lodges have altered this regulation, and the\nWardens succeed according to seniority to the chair of the absent Grand\nMaster and Deputy, in preference to any Past Grand Officer.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\n\n_Of the Grand Treasurer._\n\n\nThe office of Grand Treasurer was first established in 1724, in\nconsequence of a report of the Committee of Charity of the Grand Lodge of\nEngland. But no one was found to hold the trust until the 24th of June,\n1727, when, at the request of the Grand Master, the appointment was\naccepted by Nathaniel Blackerby, Deputy Grand Master. The duties of the\noffice do not at all differ from those of a corresponding one in every\nother society; but as the trust is an important one in a pecuniary view,\nit has generally been deemed prudent that it should only be committed to\n\"a brother of good worldly substance,\" whose ample means would place him\nbeyond the chances of temptation.\n\nThe office of Grand Treasurer has this peculiarity, that while all the\nother officers below the Grand Master were originally, and still are in\nEngland, appointed, that alone was always elective.\n\n\n\nSection V.\n\n_Of the Grand Secretary._\n\n\nThis is one of the most important offices in the Grand Lodge, and should\nalways be occupied by a Brother of intelligence and education, whose\nabilities may reflect honor on the institution of which he is the\naccredited public organ. The office was established in the year 1723,\nduring the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Wharton, previous to which\ntime the duties appear to have been discharged by the Grand Wardens.\n\nThe Grand Secretary not only records the proceedings of the Grand Lodge,\nbut conducts its correspondence, and is the medium through whom all\napplications on masonic subjects are to be made to the Grand Master, or\nthe Grand Lodge.\n\nAccording to the regulations of the Grand Lodges of England, New York and\nSouth Carolina, the Grand Secretary may appoint an assistant, who is not,\nhowever, by virtue of such appointment, a member of the Grand Lodge. The\nsame privilege is also extended in South Carolina to the Grand Treasurer.\n\n\n\nSection VI.\n\n_Of the Grand Chaplain._\n\n\nThis is the last of the Grand Offices that was established, having been\ninstituted on the 1st of May, in the year 1775. The duties are confined to\nthe reading of prayers, and other sacred portions of the ritual, in\nconsecrations, dedications, funeral services, etc. The office confers no\nmasonic authority at all, except that of a seat and a vote in the Grand\nLodge.\n\n\n\nSection VII.\n\n_Of the Grand Deacons._\n\n\nBut little need be said of the Grand Deacons. Their duties correspond to\nthose of the same officers in subordinate lodges. The office of the\nDeacons, even in a subordinate lodge, is of comparatively modern\ninstitution. Dr. Oliver remarks that they are not mentioned in any of the\nearly Constitutions of Masonry, nor even so late as 1797, when Stephen\nJones wrote his \"Masonic Miscellanies,\" and he thinks it \"satisfactorily\nproved that Deacons were not considered necessary, in working the business\nof a lodge, before the very latter end of the eighteenth century.\"[27]\n\nBut although the Deacons are not mentioned in the various works published\nprevious to that period, which are quoted by Dr. Oliver, it is\nnevertheless certain that the office existed at a time much earlier than\nthat which he supposes. In a work in my possession, and which is now lying\nbefore me, entitled \"Every Young Man's Companion, etc., by W. Gordon,\nTeacher of the Mathematics,\" sixth edition printed at London, in 1777,\nthere is a section, extending from page 413 to page 426, which is\ndedicated to the subject of Freemasonry and to a description of the\nworking of a subordinate lodge. Here the Senior and Junior Deacons are\nenumerated among the officers, their exact positions described and their\nduties detailed, differing in no respect from the explanations of our own\nritual at the present day. The positive testimony of this book must of\ncourse outweigh the negative testimony of the authorities quoted by\nOliver, and shows the existence in England of Deacons in the year 1777 at\nleast.\n\nIt is also certain that the office of Deacon claims an earlier origin in\nAmerica than the \"very latter end of the eighteenth century;\" and, as an\nevidence of this, it may be stated that, in the \"Ahiman Rezon\" of\nPennsylvania, published in 1783, the Grand Deacons are named among the\nofficers of the Grand Lodge, \"as particular assistants to the Grand\nMaster and Senior Warden, in conducting the business of the Lodge.\" They\nare to be found in all Grand Lodges of the York Rite, and are usually\nappointed, the Senior by the Grand Master, and the Junior by the Senior\nGrand Warden.\n\n\n\nSection VIII.\n\n_Of the Grand Marshal._\n\n\nThe _Grand Marshal_, as an officer of convenience, existed from an early\nperiod. We find him mentioned in the procession of the Grand Lodge, made\nin 1731, where he is described as carrying \"a truncheon, blue, tipped with\ngold,\" insignia which he still retains. He takes no part in the usual work\nof the Lodge; but his duties are confined to the proclamation of the Grand\nOfficers at their installation, and to the arrangement and superintendence\nof public processions.\n\nThe Grand Marshal is usually appointed by the Grand Master.\n\n\n\nSection IX.\n\n_Of the Grand Stewards._\n\n\nThe first mention that is made of Stewards is in the Old Regulations,\nadopted in 1721. Previous to that time, the arrangements of the Grand\nFeast were placed in the hands of the Grand Wardens; and it was to relieve\nthem of this labor that the regulation was adopted, authorizing the Grand\nMaster, or his Deputy, to appoint a certain number of Stewards, who were\nto act in concert with the Grand Wardens. In 1728, it was ordered that the\nnumber of Stewards to be appointed should be twelve. In 1731, a regulation\nwas adopted, permitting the Grand Stewards to appoint their successors.\nAnd, in 1735, the Grand Lodge ordered, that, \"in consideration of their\npast service and future usefulness,\" they should be constituted a Lodge of\nMasters, to be called the Stewards' Lodge, which should have a registry in\nthe Grand Lodge list, and exercise the privilege of sending twelve\nrepresentatives. This was the origin of that body now known in the\nConstitutions of the Grand Lodges of England and New York,[28] as the\nGrand Stewards' Lodge, although it has been very extensively modified in\nits organization. In New York, it is now no more than a Standing Committee\nof the Grand Lodge; and in England, although it is regularly constituted,\nas a Lodge of Master Masons, it is by a special regulation deprived of all\npower of entering, passing, or raising Masons. In other jurisdictions, the\noffice of Grand Stewards is still preserved, but their functions are\nconfined to their original purpose of preparing and superintending the\nGrand Feast.\n\nThe appointment of the Grand Stewards should be most appropriately vested\nin the Junior Grand Warden.\n\n\n\nSection X.\n\n_Of the Grand Sword-Bearer._\n\n\n_Grand Sword-Bearer._--It was an ancient feudal custom, that all great\ndignitaries should have a sword of state borne before them, as the\ninsignia of their dignity. This usage has to this day been preserved in\nthe Masonic Institution, and the Grand Master's sword of state is still\nborne in all public processions by an officer specially appointed for that\npurpose. Some years after the reorganization of the Grand Lodge of\nEngland, the sword was borne by the Master of the Lodge to which it\nbelonged; but, in 1730, the Duke of Norfolk, being then Grand Master,\npresented to the Grand Lodge the sword of Gustavus Adolphus, King of\nSweden, which had afterwards been used in war by Bernard, Duke of Saxe\nWeimar, and which the Grand Master directed should thereafter be adopted\nas his sword of state. In consequence of this donation, the office of\nGrand Sword-Bearer was instituted in the following year. The office is\nstill retained; but some Grand Lodges have changed the name to that of\n_Grand Pursuivant_.\n\n\n\nSection XI.\n\n_Of the Grand Tiler._\n\n\nIt is evident from the Constitutions of Masonry, as well as from the\npeculiar character of the institution, that the office of Grand Tiler must\nhave existed from the very first organization of a Grand Lodge. As, from\nthe nature of the duties that he has to perform, the Grand Tiler is\nnecessarily excluded from partaking of the discussions, or witnessing the\nproceedings of the Grand Lodge, it has very generally been determined,\nfrom a principle of expediency, that he shall not be a member of the Grand\nLodge during the term of his office.\n\nThe Grand Tiler is sometimes elected by the Grand Lodge, and sometimes\nappointed by the Grand Master.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nOf the Powers and Prerogatives of a Grand Lodge.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_General View._\n\n\nThe necessary and usual officers of a Grand Lodge having been described,\nthe rights, powers, and prerogatives of such a body is the next subject of\nour inquiry.\n\nThe foundation-stone, upon which the whole superstructure of masonic\nauthority in the Grand Lodge is built, is to be found in that conditional\nclause annexed to the thirty-eight articles, adopted in 1721 by the Masons\nof England, and which is in these words:\n\n\"Every annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and authority to make new\nregulations, or to alter these for the real benefit of this ancient\nfraternity; PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT THE OLD LANDMARKS BE CAREFULLY\nPRESERVED; and that such alterations and new regulations be proposed and\nagreed to at the third quarterly communication preceding the annual Grand\nFeast; and that they be offered also to the perusal of all the Brethren\nbefore dinner, in writing, even of the youngest Entered Apprentice: the\napprobation and consent of the majority of all the Brethren present being\nabsolutely necessary, to make the same binding and obligatory.\"\n\nThe expression which is put in capitals--\"provided always that the old\nlandmarks be carefully preserved\"--is the limiting clause which must be\nsteadily borne in mind, whenever we attempt to enumerate the powers of a\nGrand Lodge. It must never be forgotten (in the words of another\nregulation, adopted in 1723, and incorporated in the ritual of\ninstallation), that \"it is not in the power of any man, or body of men, to\nmake any alteration or innovation in the body of Masonry.\"\n\n\"With these views to limit us, the powers of a Grand Lodge may be\nenumerated in the language which has been adopted in the modern\nconstitutions of England, and which seem to us, after a careful\ncomparison, to be as comprehensive and correct as any that we have been\nable to examine. This enumeration is in the following language:\n\n\"In the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of enacting laws and\nregulations for the permanent government of the craft, and of altering,\nrepealing, and abrogating them, always taking care that the ancient\nlandmarks of the order are preserved. The Grand Lodge has also the\ninherent power of investigating, regulating, and deciding all matters\nrelative to the craft, or to particular lodges, or to individual Brothers,\nwhich it may exercise either of itself, or by such delegated authority, as\nin its wisdom and discretion it may appoint; but in the Grand Lodge alone\nresides the power of erasing lodges, and expelling Brethren from the\ncraft, a power which it ought not to delegate to any subordinate authority\nin England.\"\n\nIn this enumeration we discover the existence of three distinct classes of\npowers:--1, a legislative power; 2, a judicial power; and 3, an executive\npower. Each of these will occupy a separate section.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of the Legislative Power of a Grand Lodge._\n\n\nIn the passage already quoted from the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of\nEngland it is said, \"in the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of\nenacting laws and regulations for the government of the craft, and of\naltering, repealing, and abrogating them.\" General regulations for the\ngovernment of the whole craft throughout the world can no longer be\nenacted by a Grand Lodge. The multiplication of these bodies, since the\nyear 1717, has so divided the supremacy that no regulation now enacted can\nhave the force and authority of those adopted by the Grand Lodge of\nEngland in 1721, and which now constitute a part of the fundamental law of\nMasonry, and as such are unchangeable by any modern Grand Lodge.\n\nAny Grand Lodge may, however, enact local laws for the direction of its\nown special affairs, and has also the prerogative of enacting the\nregulations which are to govern all its subordinates and the craft\ngenerally in its own jurisdiction. From this legislative power, which\nbelongs exclusively to the Grand Lodge, it follows that no subordinate\nlodge can make any new bye-laws, nor alter its old ones, without the\napproval and confirmation of the Grand Lodge. Hence, the rules and\nregulations of every lodge are inoperative until they are submitted to and\napproved by the Grand Lodge. The confirmation of that body is the enacting\nclause; and, therefore, strictly speaking, it may be said that the\nsubordinates only propose the bye-laws, and the Grand Lodge enacts them.\n\n\n\nSection III.\n\n_Of the Judicial Power of a Grand Lodge._\n\n\nThe passage already quoted from the English Constitutions continues to\nsay, that \"the Grand Lodge has the inherent power of investigating,\nregulating and deciding all matters relative to the craft, or to\nparticular lodges, or to individual Brothers, which it may exercise,\neither of itself, or by such delegated authority as in its wisdom and\ndiscretion it may appoint.\" Under the first clause of this section, the\nGrand Lodge is constituted as the Supreme Masonic Tribunal of its\njurisdiction. But as it would be impossible for that body to investigate\nevery masonic offense that occurs within its territorial limits, with that\nfull and considerate attention that the principles of justice require, it\nhas, under the latter clause of the section, delegated this duty, in\ngeneral, to the subordinate lodges, who are to act as its committees, and\nto report the results of their inquiry for its final disposition. From\nthis course of action has risen the erroneous opinion of some persons,\nthat the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge is only appellate in its\ncharacter. Such is not the case. The Grand Lodge possesses an original\njurisdiction over all causes occurring within its limits. It is only for\nexpediency that it remits the examination of the merits of any case to a\nsubordinate lodge as a _quasi_ committee. It may, if it thinks proper,\ncommence the investigation of any matter concerning either a lodge, or an\nindividual brother within its own bosom, and whenever an appeal from the\ndecision of a lodge is made, which, in reality, is only a dissent from the\nreport of the lodge, the Grand Lodge does actually recommence the\ninvestigation _de novo_, and, taking the matter out of the lodge, to whom\nby its general usage it had been primarily referred, it places it in the\nhands of another committee of its own body for a new report. The course of\naction is, it is true, similar to that in law, of an appeal from an\ninferior to a superior tribunal. But the principle is different. The Grand\nLodge simply confirms or rejects the report that has been made to it, and\nit may do that without any appeal having been entered. It may, in fact,\ndispense with the necessity of an investigation by and report from a\nsubordinate lodge altogether, and undertake the trial itself from the\nvery inception. But this, though a constitutional, is an unusual course.\nThe subordinate lodge is the instrument which the Grand Lodge employs in\nconsidering the investigation. It may or it may not make use of the\ninstrument, as it pleases.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\n\n_Of the Executive Power of a Grand Lodge._\n\n\nThe English Constitutions conclude, in the passage that has formed the\nbasis of our previous remarks, by asserting that \"in the Grand Lodge,\nalone, resides the power of erasing lodges and expelling Brethren from the\ncraft, a power which it ought not to delegate to any subordinate\nauthority.\" The power of the Grand Lodge to erase lodges is accompanied\nwith a coincident power of constituting new lodges. This power it\noriginally shared with the Grand Master, and still does in England; but in\nthis country the power of the Grand Lodge is paramount to that of the\nGrand Master. The latter can only constitute lodges temporarily, by\ndispensation, and his act must be confirmed, or may be annulled by the\nGrand Lodge. It is not until a lodge has received its Warrant of\nConstitution from the Grand Lodge, that it can assume the rank and\nexercise the prerogatives of a regular and legal lodge.\n\nThe expelling power is one that is very properly intrusted to the Grand\nLodge, which is the only tribunal that should impose a penalty affecting\nthe relations of the punished party with the whole fraternity. Some of the\nlodges in this country have claimed the right to expel independently of\nthe action of the Grand Lodge. But the claim is founded on an erroneous\nassumption of powers that have never existed, and which are not recognized\nby the ancient constitutions, nor the general usages of the fraternity. A\nsubordinate lodge tries its delinquent member, under the provisions which\nhave already been stated, and, according to the general usage of lodges in\nthe United States, declares him expelled. But the sentence is of no force\nnor effect until it has been confirmed by the Grand Lodge, which may, or\nmay not, give the required confirmation, and which, indeed, often refuses\nto do so, but actually reverses the sentence. It is apparent, from the\nviews already expressed on the judicial powers of the Grand Lodge, that\nthe sentence of expulsion uttered by the subordinate is to be taken in\nthe sense of a recommendatory report, and that it is the confirmation and\nadoption of that report by the Grand Lodge that alone gives it vitality\nand effect.\n\nThe expelling power presumes, of course, coincidently, the reinstating\npower. As the Grand Lodge alone can expel, it also alone can reinstate.\n\nThese constitute the general powers and prerogatives of a Grand Lodge. Of\ncourse there are other local powers, assumed by various Grand Lodges, and\ndiffering in the several jurisdictions, but they are all derived from some\none of the three classes that we have enumerated. From these views, it\nwill appear that a Grand Lodge is the supreme legislative, judicial, and\nexecutive authority of the Masonic jurisdiction in which it is situated.\nIt is, to use a feudal term, \"the lord paramount\" in Masonry. It is a\nrepresentative body, in which, however, it constituents have delegated\neverything and reserved no rights to themselves. Its authority is almost\nunlimited, for it is restrained by but a single check:--_It cannot alter\nor remove the ancient landmarks_.\n\n\n\n\n\nBook Second\n\nLaws of Subordinate Lodges.\n\n\n\nHaving thus succinctly treated of the law in relation to Grand Lodges, I\ncome next in order to consider the law as it respects the organization,\nrights, powers, and privileges of subordinate Lodges; and the first\nquestion that will engage our attention will be, as to the proper method\nof organizing a Lodge.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nOf the Nature and Organization of Subordinate Lodges.\n\n\n\nThe old charges define a Lodge to be \"a place where Masons assemble and\nwork;\" and also \"that assembly, or duly organized society of Masons.\" The\nlecture on the first degree gives a still more precise definition. It says\nthat \"a lodge is an assemblage of Masons, duly congregated, having the\nHoly Bible, square, and compasses, and a charter, or warrant of\nconstitution, empowering them to work.\"\n\nEvery lodge of Masons requires for its proper organization, that it should\nhave been congregated by the permission of some superior authority, which\nmay be either a Grand Master or a Grand Lodge. When a lodge is organized\nby the authority of a Grand Master, it is said to work under a\nDispensation, and when by the authority of a Grand Lodge, it is said to\nwork under a warrant of constitution. In the history of a lodge, the\nformer authority generally precedes the latter, the lodge usually working\nfor some time under the dispensation of the Grand Master, before it is\nregularly warranted by the Grand Lodge. But this is not necessarily the\ncase. A Grand Lodge will sometimes grant a warrant of constitution at\nonce, without the previous exercise, on the part of the Grand Master, of\nhis dispensing power. As it is, however, more usually the practice for the\ndispensation to precede the warrant of constitution, I shall explain the\nformation of a lodge according to that method.\n\nAny number of Master Masons, not under seven, being desirous of uniting\nthemselves into a lodge, apply by petition to the Grand Master for the\nnecessary authority. This petition must set forth that they now are, or\nhave been, members of a regularly constituted lodge, and must assign, as a\nreason for their application, that they desire to form the lodge \"for the\nconveniency of their respective dwellings,\" or some other sufficient\nreason. The petition must also name the brethren whom they desire to act\nas their Master and Wardens, and the place where they intend to meet; and\nit must be recommended by the nearest lodge.\n\nDalcho says that not less than three Master Masons should sign the\npetition; but in this he differs from all the other authorities, which\nrequire not less than seven. This rule, too, seems to be founded in\nreason; for, as it requires seven Masons to constitute a quorum for\nopening and holding a lodge of Entered Apprentices, it would be absurd to\nauthorize a smaller number to organize a lodge which, after its\norganization, could not be opened, nor make Masons in that degree.\n\nPreston says that the petition must be recommended \"by the Masters of\nthree regular lodges adjacent to the place where the new lodge is to be\nheld.\" Dalcho says it must be recommended \"by three other known and\napproved Master Masons,\" but does not make any allusion to any adjacent\nlodge. The laws and regulations of the Grand Lodge of Scotland require the\nrecommendation to be signed \"by the Masters and officers of two of the\nnearest lodges.\" The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England require\nthat it must be recommended \"by the officers of some regular lodge.\" The\nrecommendation of a neighboring lodge is the general usage of the craft,\nand is intended to certify to the superior authority, on the very best\nevidence that can be obtained, that, namely, of an adjacent lodge, that\nthe new lodge will be productive of no injury to the Order.\n\nIf this petition be granted, the Grand Secretary prepares a document\ncalled a _dispensation_, which authorizes the officers named in the\npetition to open and hold a lodge, and to \"enter, pass, and raise\nFreemasons.\" The duration of this dispensasation is generally expressed on\nits face to be, \"until it shall be revoked by the Grand Master or the\nGrand Lodge, or until a warrant of constitution is granted by the Grand\nLodge.\" Preston says, that the Brethren named in it are authorized \"to\nassemble as Masons for forty days, and until such time as a warrant of\nconstitution can be obtained by command of the Grand Lodge, or that\nauthority be recalled.\" But generally, usage continues the dispensation\nonly until the next meeting of the Grand Lodge, when it is either revoked,\nor a warrant of constitution granted.\n\nIf the dispensation be revoked by either the Grand Master or the Grand\nLodge (for either has the power to do so), the lodge of course at once\nceases to exist. Whatever funds or property it has accumulated revert, as\nin the case of all extinct lodges, to the Grand Lodge, which may be called\nthe natural heir of its subordinates; but all the work done in the lodge,\nunder the dispensation, is regular and legal, and all the Masons made by\nit are, in every sense of the term, \"true and lawful Brethren.\"\n\nLet it be supposed, however, that the dispensation is confirmed or\napproved by the Grand Lodge, and we thus arrive at another step in the\nhistory of the new lodge. At the next sitting of the Grand Lodge, after\nthe dispensation has been issued by the Grand Master, he states that fact\nto the Grand Lodge, when, either at his request, or on motion of some\nBrother, the vote is taken on the question of constituting the new lodge,\nand, if a majority are in favor of it, the Grand Secretary is ordered to\ngrant a warrant of constitution.\n\nThis instrument differs from a dispensation in many important particulars.\nIt is signed by all the Grand Officers, and emanates from the Grand Lodge,\nwhile the dispensation emanates from the office of the Grand Master, and\nis signed by him alone. The authority of the dispensation is temporary,\nthat of the warrant permanent; the one can be revoked at pleasure by the\nGrand Master, who granted it; the other only for cause shown, and by the\nGrand Lodge; the one bestows only a name, the other both a name and a\nnumber; the one confers only the power of holding a lodge and making\nMasons, the other not only confers these powers, but also those of\ninstallation and of succession in office. From these differences in the\ncharacters of the two documents, arise important differences in the powers\nand privileges of a lodge under dispensation and of one that has been\nregularly constituted. These differences shall hereafter be considered.\n\nThe warrant having been granted, there still remain certain forms and\nceremonies to be observed, before the lodge can take its place among the\nlegal and registered lodges of the jurisdiction in which it is situated.\nThese are its consecration, its dedication, its constitution, and the\ninstallation of its officers. We shall not fully enter into a description\nof these various ceremonies, because they are laid down at length in all\nthe Monitors, and are readily accessible to our readers. It will be\nsufficient if we barely allude to their character.\n\nThe ceremony of constitution is so called, because by it the lodge becomes\nconstituted or established. Orthoepists define the verb to constitute, as\nsignifying \"to give a formal existence to anything.\" Hence, to constitute\na lodge is to give it existence, character, and standing as such; and the\ninstrument that warrants the person so constituting or establishing it, in\nthis act, is very properly called the \"warrant of constitution.\"\n\nThe consecration, dedication, and constitution of a lodge must be\nperformed by the Grand Master in person; or, if he cannot conveniently\nattend, by some Past Master appointed by him as his special proxy or\nrepresentative for that purpose. On the appointed evening, the Grand\nMaster, accompanied by his Grand Officers, repairs to the place where the\nnew lodge is to hold its meetings, the lodge[29] having been placed in the\ncentre of the room and decently covered with a piece of white linen or\nsatin. Having taken the chair, he examines the records of the lodge and\nthe warrant of constitution; the officers who have been chosen are\npresented before him, when he inquires of the Brethren if they continue\nsatisfied with the choice they have made. The ceremony of consecration is\nthen performed. The Lodge is uncovered; and corn, wine, and oil--the\nmasonic elements of consecration--are poured upon it, accompanied by\nappropriate prayers and invocations, and the lodge is finally declared to\nbe consecrated to the honor and glory of God.\n\nThis ceremony of consecration has been handed down from the remotest\nantiquity. A consecrating--a separating from profane things, and making\nholy or devoting to sacred purposes--was practiced by both the Jews and\nthe Pagans in relation to their temples, their altars, and all their\nsacred utensils. The tabernacle, as soon as it was completed, was\nconsecrated to God by the unction of oil. Among the Pagan nations, the\nconsecration of their temples was often performed with the most sumptuous\nofferings and ceremonies; but oil was, on all occasions, made use of as an\nelement of the consecration. The lodge is, therefore, consecrated to\ndenote that henceforth it is to be set apart as an asylum sacred to the\ncultivation of the great masonic principles of Friendship, Morality, and\nBrotherly Love. Thenceforth it becomes to the conscientious Mason a place\nworthy of his reverence; and he is tempted, as he passes over its\nthreshold, to repeat the command given to Moses: \"Put off thy shoes from\noff thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.\"\n\nThe corn, wine, and oil are appropriately adopted as the Masonic elements\nof consecration, because of the symbolic signification which they present\nto the mind of the Mason. They are enumerated by David as among the\ngreatest blessings which we receive from the bounty of Divine Providence.\nThey were annually offered by the ancients as the first fruits, in a\nthank-offering for the gifts of the earth; and as representatives of \"the\ncorn of nourishment, the wine of refreshment, and the oil of joy,\" they\nsymbolically instruct the Mason that to the Grand Master of the Universe\nhe is indebted for the \"health, peace, and plenty\" that he enjoys.\n\nAfter the consecration of the lodge, follows its dedication. This is a\nsimple ceremony, and principally consists in the pronunciation of a\nformula of words by which the lodge is declared to be dedicated to the\nholy Saints John, followed by an invocation that \"every Brother may revere\ntheir character and imitate their virtues.\"\n\nMasonic tradition tells us that our ancient Brethren dedicated their\nlodges to King Solomon, because he was their first Most Excellent Grand\nMaster; but that modern Masons dedicate theirs to St. John the Baptist and\nSt. John the Evangelist, because they were two eminent patrons of Masonry.\nA more appropriate selection of patrons to whom to dedicate the lodge,\ncould not easily have been made; since St. John the Baptist, by\nannouncing the approach of Christ, and by the mystical ablution to which\nhe subjected his proselytes, and which was afterwards adopted in the\nceremony of initiation into Christianity, might well be considered as the\nGrand Hierophant of the Church; while the mysterious and emblematic nature\nof the Apocalypse assimilated the mode of teaching adopted by St. John the\nEvangelist to that practiced by the fraternity. Our Jewish Brethren\nusually dedicate their lodges to King Solomon, thus retaining their\nancient patron, although they thereby lose the benefit of that portion of\nthe Lectures which refers to the \"lines parallel.\" The Grand Lodge of\nEngland, at the union in 1813, agreed to dedicate to Solomon and Moses,\napplying the parallels to the framer of the tabernacle and the builder of\nthe temple; but they have no warranty for this in ancient usage, and it is\nunfortunately not the only innovation on the ancient landmarks that that\nGrand Lodge has lately permitted.\n\nThe ceremony of dedication, like that of consecration, finds its archetype\nin the remotest antiquity. The Hebrews made no use of any new thing until\nthey had first solemnly dedicated it. This ceremony was performed in\nrelation even to private houses, as we may learn from the book of\nDeuteronomy.[30] The 30th Psalm is a song said to have been made by David\non the dedication of the altar which he erected on the threshing-floor of\nOrnan the Jebusite, after the grievous plague which had nearly devastated\nthe kingdom. Solomon, it will be recollected, dedicated the temple with\nsolemn ceremonies, prayers, and thank-offerings. The ceremony of\ndedication is, indeed, alluded to in various portions of the Scriptures.\n\nSelden[31] says that among the Jews sacred things were both dedicated and\nconsecrated; but that profane things, such as private houses, etc., were\nsimply dedicated, without consecration. The same writer informs us that\nthe Pagans borrowed the custom of consecrating and dedicating their sacred\nedifices, altars, and images, from the Hebrews.\n\nThe Lodge having been thus consecrated to the solemn objects of\nFreemasonry, and dedicated to the patrons of the institution, it is at\nlength prepared to be constituted. The ceremony of constitution is then\nperformed by the Grand Master, who, rising from his seat, pronounces the\nfollowing formulary of constitution:\n\n\"In the name of the most Worshipful Grand Lodge, I now constitute and form\nyou, my beloved Brethren, into a regular lodge of Free and Accepted\nMasons. From this time forth, I empower you to meet as a regular lodge,\nconstituted in conformity to the rites of our Order, and the charges of\nour ancient and honorable fraternity;--and may the Supreme Architect of\nthe Universe prosper, direct, and counsel you, in all your doings.\"\n\nThis ceremony places the lodge among the registered lodges of the\njurisdiction in which it is situated, and gives it a rank and standing and\npermanent existence that it did not have before. In one word, it has, by\nthe consecration, dedication, and constitution, become what we technically\nterm \"a just and legally constituted lodge,\" and, as such, is entitled to\ncertain rights and privileges, of which we shall hereafter speak. Still,\nhowever, although the lodge has been thus fully and completely organized,\nits officers have as yet no legal existence. To give them this, it is\nnecessary that they be inducted into their respective offices, and each\nofficer solemnly bound to the faithful performance of the duties he has\nundertaken to discharge. This constitutes the ceremony of installation.\nThe Worshipful Master of the new lodge is required publicly to submit to\nthe ancient charges; and then all, except Past Masters, having retired, he\nis invested with the Past Master's degree, and inducted into the oriental\nchair of King Solomon. The Brethren are then introduced, and due homage is\npaid to their new Master, after which the other officers are obligated to\nthe faithful discharge of their respective trusts, invested with their\ninsignia of office, and receive the appropriate charge. This ceremony must\nbe repeated at every annual election and change of officers.\n\nThe ancient rule was, that when the Grand Master and his officers attended\nto constitute a new lodge, the Deputy Grand Master invested the new\nMaster, the Grand Wardens invested the new Wardens, and the Grand\nTreasurer and Grand Secretary invested the Treasurer and Secretary. But\nthis regulation has become obsolete, and the whole installation and\ninvestiture are now performed by the Grand Master. On the occasion of\nsubsequent installations, the retiring Master installs his successor; and\nthe latter installs his subordinate officers.\n\nThe ceremony of installation is derived from the ancient custom of\ninauguration, of which we find repeated instances in the sacred as well as\nprofane writings. Aaron was inaugurated, or installed, by the unction of\noil, and placing on him the vestments of the High Priest; and every\nsucceeding High Priest was in like manner installed, before he was\nconsidered competent to discharge the duties of his office. Among the\nRomans, augurs, priests, kings, and, in the times of the republic, consuls\nwere always inaugurated or installed. And hence, Cicero, who was an augur,\nspeaking of Hortensius, says, \"it was he who installed me as a member of\nthe college of augurs, so that I was bound by the constitution of the\norder to respect and honour him as a parent.\"[32] The object and intention\nof the ancient inauguration and the Masonic installation are precisely the\nsame, namely, that of setting apart and consecrating a person to the\nduties of a certain office.\n\nThe ceremonies, thus briefly described, were not always necessary to\nlegalize a congregation of Masons. Until the year 1717, the custom of\nconfining the privileges of Masonry, by a warrant of constitution, to\ncertain individuals, was wholly unknown. Previous to that time, a\nrequisite number of Master Masons were authorized by the ancient charges\nto congregate together, temporarily, at their own discretion, and as best\nsuited their convenience, and then and there to open and hold lodges and\nmake Masons; making, however, their return, and paying their tribute to\nthe General Assembly, to which all the fraternity annually repaired, and\nby whose awards the craft were governed.\n\nPreston, speaking of this ancient privilege, says: \"A sufficient number of\nMasons met together within a certain district, with the consent of the\nsheriff or chief magistrate of the place, were empowered at this time to\nmake Masons and practice the rights of Masonry, without a warrant of\nconstitution.\" This privilege, Preston says, was inherent in them as\nindividuals, and continued to be enjoyed by the old lodges, which formed\nthe Grand Lodge in 1717, as long as they were in existence.\n\nBut on the 24th June, 1717, the Grand Lodge of England adopted the\nfollowing regulation: \"That the privilege of assembling as Masons, which\nhad hitherto been unlimited, should be vested in certain lodges or\nassemblies of Masons, convened in certain places; and that every lodge to\nbe hereafter convened, except the four old lodges at this time existing,\nshould be legally authorized to act by a warrant from the Grand Master for\nthe time being, granted to certain individuals by petition, with the\nconsent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and that,\nwithout such warrant, no lodge should be hereafter deemed regular or\nconstitutional.\"\n\nThis regulation has ever since continued in force, and it is the original\nlaw under which warrants of constitution are now granted by Grand Lodges\nfor the organization of their subordinates.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nOf Lodges under Dispensation.\n\n\n\nIt is evident, from what has already been said, that there are two kinds\nof lodges, each regular in itself, but each peculiar and distinct in its\ncharacter. There are lodges working under a dispensation, and lodges\nworking under a warrant of constitution. Each of these will require a\nseparate consideration. The former will be the subject of the present\nchapter.\n\nA lodge working under a dispensation is a merely temporary body,\noriginated for a special purpose, and is therefore possessed of very\ncircumscribed powers. The dispensation, or authority under which it acts,\nexpressly specifies that the persons to whom it is given are allowed to\ncongregate that they may \"admit, enter, pass, and raise Freemasons;\" no\nother powers are conferred either by words or implication, and, indeed,\nsometimes the dispensation states, that that congregation is to be \"with\nthe sole intent and view, that the Brethren so congregated, admitted,\nentered, and made, when they become a sufficient number, may be duly\nwarranted and constituted for being and holding a regular lodge.\"[33]\n\nA lodge under dispensation is simply the creature of the Grand Master. To\nhim it is indebted for its existence, and on his will depends the duration\nof that existence. He may at any time revoke the dispensation, and the\ndissolution of the lodge would be the instant result. Hence a lodge\nworking under a dispensation can scarcely, with strict technical\npropriety, be called a lodge; it is, more properly speaking, a\ncongregation of Masons, acting as the proxy of the Grand Master.\n\nWith these views of the origin and character of lodges under dispensation,\nwe will be better prepared to understand the nature and extent of the\npowers which they possess.\n\nA lodge under dispensation can make no bye-laws. It is governed, during\nits temporary existence, by the general Constitutions of the Order and the\nrules and regulations of the Grand Lodge in whose jurisdiction it is\nsituated. In fact, as the bye-laws of no lodge are operative until they\nare confirmed by the Grand Lodge, and as a lodge working under a\ndispensation ceases to exist as such as soon as the Grand Lodge meets, it\nis evident that it would be absurd to frame a code of laws which would\nhave no efficacy, for want of proper confirmation, and which, when the\ntime and opportunity for confirmation had arrived, would be needless, as\nthe society for which they were framed would then have no legal\nexistence--a new body (the warranted lodge) having taken its place.\n\nA lodge under dispensation cannot elect officers. The Master and Wardens\nare nominated by the Brethren, and, if this nomination is approved, they\nare appointed by the Grand Master. In giving them permission to meet and\nmake Masons, he gave them no power to do anything else. A dispensation is\nitself a setting aside of the law, and an exception to a general\nprinciple; it must, therefore, be construed literally. What is not granted\nin express terms, is not granted at all. And, therefore, as nothing is\nsaid of the election of officers, no such election can be held. The Master\nmay, however, and always does for convenience, appoint a competent\nBrother to keep a record of the proceedings; but this is a temporary\nappointment, at the pleasure of the Master, whose deputy or assistant he\nis; for the Grand Lodge looks only to the Master for the records, and the\noffice is not legally recognized. In like manner, he may depute a trusty\nBrother to take charge of the funds, and must, of course, from time to\ntime, appoint the deacons and tiler for the necessary working of the\nlodge.\n\nAs there can be no election, neither can there be any installation, which,\nof course, always presumes a previous election for a determinate period.\nBesides, the installation of officers is a part of the ceremony of\nconstitution, and therefore not even the Master and Wardens of a lodge\nunder dispensation are entitled to be thus solemnly inducted into office.\n\nA lodge under dispensation can elect no members. The Master and Wardens,\nwho are named in the dispensation, are, in point of fact, the only persons\nrecognized as constituting the lodge. To them is granted the privilege, as\nproxies of the Grand Master, of making Masons; and for this purpose they\nare authorized to congregate a sufficient number of Brethren to assist\nthem in the ceremonies. But neither the Master and Wardens, nor the\nBrethren, thus congregated have received any power of electing members.\nNor are the persons made in a lodge under dispensation, to be considered\nas members of the lodge; for, as has already been shown, they have none of\nthe rights and privileges which attach to membership--they can neither\nmake bye-laws nor elect officers. They, however, become members of the\nlodge as soon as it receives its warrant of constitution.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\n\nOf Lodges Working under a Warrant of Constitution.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of the Powers and Rights of a Lodge._\n\n\nIn respect to the powers and privileges possessed by a lodge working under\na warrant of constitution, we may say, as a general principle, that\nwhatever it does possess is inherent in it--nothing has been delegated by\neither the Grand Master or the Grand Lodge--but that all its rights and\npowers are derived originally from the ancient regulations, made before\nthe existence of Grand Lodges, and that what it does not possess, are the\npowers which were conceded by its predecessors to the Grand Lodge. This is\nevident from the history of warrants of constitution, the authority under\nwhich subordinate lodges act. The practice of applying by petition to the\nGrand Master or the Grand Lodge, for a warrant to meet as a regular\nlodge, commenced in the year 1718. Previous to that time, Freemasons were\nempowered by inherent privileges, vested, from time immemorial, in the\nwhole fraternity, to meet as occasion might require, under the direction\nof some able architect; and the proceedings of these meetings, being\napproved by a majority of the Brethren convened at another lodge in the\nsame district, were deemed constitutional.[34] But in 1718, a year after\nthe formation of the Grand Lodge of England, this power of meeting _ad\nlibitum_ was resigned into the hands of that body, and it was then agreed\nthat no lodges should thereafter meet, unless authorized so to do by a\nwarrant from the Grand Master, and with the consent of the Grand Lodge.\nBut as a memorial that this abandonment of the ancient right was entirely\nvoluntary, it was at the same time resolved that this inherent privilege\nshould continue to be enjoyed by the four old lodges who formed the Grand\nLodge. And, still more effectually to secure the reserved rights of the\nlodges, it was also solemnly determined, that while the Grand Lodge\npossesses the inherent right of making new regulations for the good of the\nfraternity, provided that the _old landmarks be carefully preserved_, yet\nthat these regulations, to be of force, must be proposed and agreed to at\nthe third quarterly communication preceding the annual grand feast, and\nsubmitted to the perusal of all the Brethren, in writing, even of the\nyoungest entered apprentice; \"_the approbation and consent of the majority\nof all the Brethren present being absolutely necessary, to make the same\nbinding and obligatory_.\"[35]\n\nThe corollary from all this is clear. All the rights, powers, and\nprivileges, not conceded, by express enactment of the fraternity, to the\nGrand Lodge, have been reserved to themselves. Subordinate lodges are the\nassemblies of the craft in their primary capacity, and the Grand Lodge is\nthe Supreme Masonic Tribunal, only because it consists of and is\nconstituted by a representation of these primary assemblies. And,\ntherefore, as every act of the Grand Lodge is an act of the whole\nfraternity thus represented, each new regulation that may be made is not\nan assumption of authority on the part of the Grand Lodge, but a new\nconcession on the part of the subordinate lodges.\n\nThis doctrine of the reserved rights of the lodges is very important, and\nshould never be forgotten, because it affords much aid in the decision of\nmany obscure points of masonic jurisprudence. The rule is, that any\ndoubtful power exists and is inherent in the subordinate lodges, unless\nthere is an express regulation conferring it on the Grand Lodge. With this\npreliminary view, we may proceed to investigate the nature and extent of\nthese reserved powers of the subordinate lodges.\n\nA lodge has the right of selecting its own members, with which the Grand\nLodge cannot interfere. This is a right that the lodges have expressly\nreserved to themselves, and the stipulation is inserted in the \"general\nregulations\" in the following words:\n\n\"No man can be entered a Brother in any particular lodge, or admitted a\nmember thereof, without the unanimous consent of all the members of that\nlodge then present, when the candidate is proposed, and when their consent\nis formally asked by the Master. They are to give their consent in their\nown prudent way, either virtually or in form, but with unanimity. Nor is\nthis inherent privilege subject to a dispensation, because the members of\na particular lodge are the best judges of it; and because, if a turbulent\nmember should be imposed upon them, it might spoil their harmony, or\nhinder the freedom of their communication; or even break and disperse the\nlodge, which ought to be avoided by all true and faithful.\"[36]\n\nBut although a lodge has the inherent right to require unanimity in the\nelection of a candidate, it is not necessarily restricted to such a degree\nof rigor.\n\nA lodge has the right to elect its own officers. This right is guaranteed\nto it by the words of the Warrant of Constitution. Still the right is\nsubject to certain restraining regulations. The election must be held at\nthe proper time, which, according to the usage of Masonry, in most parts\nof the world, is on or immediately before the festival of St. John the\nEvangelist. The proper qualifications must be regarded. A member cannot be\nelected as Master, unless he has previously served as a Warden, except in\nthe instance of a new lodge, or other case of emergency. Where both of the\nWardens refuse promotion, where the presiding Master will not permit\nhimself to be reelected, and where there is no Past Master who will\nconsent to take the office, then, and then only, can a member be elected\nfrom the floor to preside over the lodge.\n\nBy the Constitutions of England, only the Master and Treasurer are elected\nofficers.[37] The Wardens and all the other officers are appointed by the\nMaster, who has not, however, the power of removal after appointment,\nexcept by consent of the lodge;[38] but American usage gives the election\nof all the officers, except the deacons, stewards, and, in some instances,\nthe tiler, to the lodge.\n\nAs a consequence of the right of election, every lodge has the power of\ninstalling its officers, subject to the same regulations, in relation to\ntime and qualifications, as given in the case of elections.\n\nThe Master must be installed by a Past Master,[39] but after his own\ninstallation he has the power to install the rest of the officers. The\nceremony of installation is not a mere vain and idle one, but is\nproductive of important results. Until the Master and Wardens of a lodge\nare installed, they cannot represent the lodge in the Grand Lodge, nor, if\nit be a new lodge, can it be recorded and recognized on the register of\nthe Grand Lodge. No officer can permanently take possession of the office\nto which he has been elected, until he has been duly installed.[40] The\nrule of the craft is, that the old officer holds on until his successor is\ninstalled, and this rule is of universal application to officers of every\ngrade, from the Tiler of a subordinate lodge, to the Grand Master of\nMasons.\n\nEvery lodge that has been duly constituted, and its officers installed, is\nentitled to be represented in the Grand Lodge, and to form, indeed, a\nconstituent part of that body.[41] The representatives of a lodge are its\nMaster and two Wardens.[42] This character of representation was\nestablished in 1718, when the four old lodges, which organized the Grand\nLodge of England, agreed \"to extend their patronage to every lodge which\nshould hereafter be constituted by the Grand Lodge, according to the new\nregulations of the society; and while such lodges acted in conformity to\nthe ancient constitutions of the Order, to admit their Masters and Wardens\nto share with them all the privileges of the Grand Lodge, excepting\nprecedence of rank.\"[43] Formerly all Master Masons were permitted to sit\nin the Grand Lodge, or, as it was then called, the General Assembly, and\nrepresent their lodge; and therefore this restricting the representation\nto the three superior officers was, in fact, a concession of the craft.\nThis regulation is still generally observed; but I regret to see a few\nGrand Lodges in this country innovating on the usage, and still further\nconfining the representation to the Masters alone.\n\nThe Master and Wardens are not merely in name the representatives of the\nlodge, but are bound, on all questions that come before the Grand Lodge,\ntruly to represent their lodge, and vote according to its instructions.\nThis doctrine is expressly laid down in the General Regulations, in the\nfollowing words: \"The majority of every particular lodge, when\ncongregated, not else, shall have the privilege of giving instructions to\ntheir Master and Wardens, before the meeting of the Grand Chapter, or\nQuarterly Communication; because the said officers are their\nrepresentatives, and are supposed to speak the sentiments of their\nBrethren at the said Grand Lodge.\"[44]\n\nEvery lodge has the power to frame bye-laws for its own government,\nprovided they are not contrary to, nor inconsistent with, the general\nregulations of the Grand Lodge; nor the landmarks of the order.[45] But\nthese bye-laws will not be valid, until they are submitted to and approved\nby the Grand Lodge. And this is the case, also, with every subsequent\nalteration of them, which must in like manner be submitted to the Grand\nLodge for its approval.\n\nA lodge has the right of suspending or excluding a member from his\nmembership in the lodge; but it has no power to expel him from the rights\nand privileges of Masonry, except with the consent of the Grand Lodge. A\nsubordinate lodge tries its delinquent member, and, if guilty, declares\nhim expelled; but the sentence is of no force until the Grand Lodge, under\nwhose jurisdiction it is working, has confirmed it. And it is optional\nwith the Grand Lodge to do so, or, as is frequently done, to reverse the\ndecision and reinstate the Brother. Some of the lodges in this country\nclaim the right to expel, independently of the action of the Grand Lodge;\nbut the claim is not valid. The very fact that an expulsion is a penalty,\naffecting the general relations of the punished party with the whole\nfraternity, proves that its exercise never could, with propriety, be\nintrusted to a body so circumscribed in its authority as a subordinate\nlodge. Accordingly, the general practice of the fraternity is opposed to\nit; and therefore all expulsions are reported to the Grand Lodge, not\nmerely as matters of information, but that they may be confirmed by that\nbody. The English Constitutions are explicit on this subject. \"In the\nGrand Lodge alone,\" they declare, \"resides the power of erasing lodges and\nexpelling Brethren from the craft, a power which it ought not to delegate\nto any subordinate authority in England.\" They allow, however, a\nsubordinate lodge to _exclude_ a member from the lodge; in which case he\nis furnished with a certificate of the circumstances of his exclusion, and\nthen may join any other lodge that will accept him, after being made\nacquainted with the fact of his exclusion, and its cause. This usage has\nnot been adopted in this country.\n\nA lodge has a right to levy such annual contribution for membership as the\nmajority of the Brethren see fit. This is entirely a matter of contract,\nwith which the Grand Lodge, or the craft in general, have nothing to do.\nIt is, indeed, a modern usage, unknown to the fraternity of former times,\nand was instituted for the convenience and support of the private lodges.\n\nA lodge is entitled to select a name for itself, to be, however, approved\nby the Grand Lodge.[46] But the Grand Lodge alone has the power of\ndesignating the number by which the lodge shall be distinguished. By its\nnumber alone is every lodge recognized in the register of the Grand Lodge,\nand according to their numbers is the precedence of the lodges regulated.\n\nFinally, a lodge has certain rights in relation to its Warrant of\nConstitution. This instrument having been granted by the Grand Lodge, can\nbe revoked by no other authority. The Grand Master, therefore, has no\npower, as he has in the case of a lodge under dispensation, to withdraw\nits Warrant, except temporarily, until the next meeting of the Grand\nLodge. Nor is it in the power of even the majority of the lodge, by any\nact of their own, to resign the Warrant. For it has been laid down as a\nlaw, that if the majority of the lodge should determine to quit the lodge,\nor to resign their warrant, such action would be of no efficacy, because\nthe Warrant of Constitution, and the power of assembling, would remain\nwith the rest of the members, who adhere to their allegiance.[47] But if\nall the members withdraw themselves, their Warrant ceases and becomes\nextinct. If the conduct of a lodge has been such as clearly to forfeit its\ncharter, the Grand Lodge alone can decide that question and pronounce the\nforfeiture.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of the Duties of a Lodge._\n\n\nSo far in relation to the rights and privileges of subordinate lodges. But\nthere are certain duties and obligations equally binding upon these\nbodies, and certain powers, in the exercise of which they are restricted.\nThese will next engage our attention.\n\nThe first great duty, not only of every lodge, but of every Mason, is to\nsee that the landmarks of the Order shall never be impaired. The General\nRegulations of Masonry--to which every Master, at his installation, is\nbound to acknowledge his submission--declare that \"it is not in the power\nof any man, or body of men, to make innovations in the body of Masonry.\"\nAnd, hence, no lodge, without violating all the implied and express\nobligations into which it has entered, can, in any manner, alter or amend\nthe work, lectures, and ceremonies of the institution. As its members\nhave received the ritual from their predecessors, so are they bound to\ntransmit it, unchanged, in the slightest degree, to their successors. In\nthe Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of enacting new regulations;\nbut, even _it_ must be careful that, in every such regulation, the\nlandmarks are preserved. When, therefore, we hear young and inexperienced\nMasters speak of making improvements (as they arrogantly call them) upon\nthe old lectures or ceremonies, we may be sure that such Masters either\nknow nothing of the duties they owe to the craft, or are willfully\nforgetful of the solemn obligation which they have contracted. Some may\nsuppose that the ancient ritual of the Order is imperfect, and requires\namendment. One may think that the ceremonies are too simple, and wish to\nincrease them; another, that they are too complicated, and desire to\nsimplify them; one may be displeased with the antiquated language;\nanother, with the character of the traditions; a third, with something\nelse. But, the rule is imperative and absolute, that no change can or must\nbe made to gratify individual taste. As the Barons of England, once, with\nunanimous voice, exclaimed, \"Nolumus leges Angli\u00e6 mutare!\" so do all good\nMasons respond to every attempt at innovation, \"We are unwilling to alter\nthe customs of Freemasonry.\"\n\nIn relation to the election of officers, a subordinate lodge is allowed to\nexercise no discretion. The names and duties of these officers are\nprescribed, partly by the landmarks or the ancient constitutions, and\npartly by the regulations of various Grand Lodges. While the landmarks are\npreserved, a Grand Lodge may add to the list of officers as it pleases;\nand whatever may be its regulation, the subordinate lodges are bound to\nobey it; nor can any such lodge create new offices nor abolish old ones\nwithout the consent of the Grand Lodge.\n\nLodges are also bound to elect their officers at a time which is always\ndetermined; not by the subordinate, but by the Grand Lodge. Nor can a\nlodge anticipate or postpone it unless by a dispensation from the Grand\nMaster.\n\nNo lodge can, at an extra meeting, alter or amend the proceedings of a\nregular meeting. If such were not the rule, an unworthy Master might, by\nstealth, convoke an extra meeting of a part of his lodge, and, by\nexpunging or altering the proceedings of the previous regular meeting, or\nany particular part of them, annul any measures or resolutions that were\nnot consonant with his peculiar views.\n\nNo lodge can interfere with the work or business of any other lodge,\nwithout its permission. This is an old regulation, founded on those\nprinciples of comity and brotherly love that should exist among all\nMasons. It is declared in the manuscript charges, written in the reign of\nJames II., and in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity, at London,\nthat \"no Master or Fellow shall supplant others of their work; that is to\nsay, that, if he hath taken a work, or else stand Master of any work, that\nhe shall not put him out, unless he be unable of cunning to make an end of\nhis work.\" And, hence, no lodge can pass or raise a candidate who was\ninitiated, or initiate one who was rejected, in another lodge. \"It would\nbe highly improper,\" says the Ahiman Rezon, \"in any lodge, to confer a\ndegree on a Brother who is not of their house-hold; for, every lodge\nought to be competent to manage their own business, and are the best\njudges of the qualifications of their own members.\"\n\nI do not intend, at the present time, to investigate the qualifications of\ncandidates--as that subject will, in itself, afford ample materials for a\nfuture investigation; but, it is necessary that I should say something of\nthe restrictions under which every lodge labors in respect to the\nadmission of persons applying for degrees.\n\nIn the first place, no lodge can initiate a candidate, \"without previous\nnotice, and due examination into his character; and not unless his\npetition has been read at one regular meeting and acted on at another.\"\nThis is in accordance with the ancient regulations; but, an exception to\nit is allowed in the case of an emergency, when the lodge may read the\npetition for admission, and, if the applicant is well recommended, may\nproceed at once to elect and initiate him. In some jurisdictions, the\nnature of the emergency must be stated to the Grand Master, who, if he\napproves, will grant a dispensation; but, in others, the Master, or Master\nand Wardens, are permitted to be competent judges, and may proceed to\nelect and initiate, without such dispensation. The Grand Lodge of South\nCarolina adheres to the former custom, and that of England to the latter.\n\nAnother regulation is, that no lodge can confer more than two degrees, at\none communication, on the same candidate. The Grand Lodge of England is\nstill more stringent on this subject, and declares that \"no candidate\nshall be permitted to receive more than one degree, on the same day; nor\nshall a higher degree in Masonry be conferred on any Brother at a less\ninterval than four weeks from his receiving a previous degree, nor until\nhe has passed an examination, in open lodge, in that degree.\" This rule is\nalso in force in South Carolina and several other of the American\njurisdictions. But, the law which forbids the whole three degrees of\nAncient Craft Masonry to be conferred, at the same communication, on one\ncandidate, is universal in its application, and, as such, may be deemed\none of the ancient landmarks of the Order.\n\nThere is another rule, which seems to be of universal extent, and is,\nindeed, contained in the General Regulations of 1767, to the following\neffect: \"No lodge shall make more than five new Brothers at one and the\nsame time, without an urgent necessity.\"\n\nAll lodges are bound to hold their meetings at least once in every\ncalendar month; and every lodge neglecting so to do for one year, thereby\nforfeits its warrant of constitution.\n\nThe subject of the removal of lodges is the last thing that shall engage\nour attention. Here the ancient regulations of the craft have adopted many\nguards to prevent the capricious or improper removal of a lodge from its\nregular place of meeting. In the first place, no lodge can be removed from\nthe town in which it is situated, to any other place, without the consent\nof the Grand Lodge. But, a lodge may remove from one part of the town to\nanother, with the consent of the members, under the following\nrestrictions: The removal cannot be made without the Master's knowledge;\nnor can any motion, for that purpose, be presented in his absence. When\nsuch a motion is made, and properly seconded, the Master will order\nsummonses to every member, specifying the business, and appointing a day\nfor considering and determining the affair. And if then a majority of the\nlodge, with the Master, or two-thirds, without him, consent to the\nremoval, it shall take place; but notice thereof must be sent, at once, to\nthe Grand Lodge. The General Regulations of 1767 further declare, that\nsuch removal must be approved by the Grand Master. I suppose that where\nthe removal of the lodge was only a matter of convenience to the members,\nthe Grand Lodge would hardly interfere, but leave the whole subject to\ntheir discretion; but, where the removal would be calculated to affect the\ninterests of the lodge, or of the fraternity--as in the case of a removal\nto a house of bad reputation, or to a place of evident insecurity--I have\nno doubt that the Grand Lodge, as the conservator of the character and\nsafety of the institution, would have a right to interpose its authority,\nand prevent the improper removal.\n\nI have thus treated, as concisely as the important nature of the subjects\nwould permit, of the powers, privileges, duties, and obligations of\nlodges, and have endeavored to embrace, within the limits of the\ndiscussion, all those prominent principles of the Order, which, as they\naffect the character and operations of the craft in their primary\nassemblies, may properly be referred to the Law of Subordinate Lodges.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nOf the Officers of a Subordinate Lodge.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of the Officers in General._\n\n\nFour officers, at least, the ancient customs of the craft require in every\nlodge; and they are consequently found throughout the globe. These are the\nMaster, the two Wardens, and the Tiler. Almost equally universal are the\noffices of Treasurer, Secretary, and two Deacons. But, besides these,\nthere may be additional officers appointed by different Grand Lodges. The\nGrand Lodge of England, for instance, requires the appointment of an\nofficer, called the \"Inner Guard.\" The Grand Orient of France has\nprescribed a variety of officers, which are unknown to English and\nAmerican Masonry. The Grand Lodges of England and South Carolina direct\nthat two Stewards shall be appointed, while some other Grand Lodges make\nno such requisition. Ancient usage seems to have recognized the following\nofficers of a subordinate lodge: the Master, two Wardens, Treasurer,\nSecretary, two Deacons, two Stewards, and Tiler; and I shall therefore\ntreat of the duties and powers of these officers only, in the course of\nthe present chapter.\n\nThe officers of a lodge are elected annually. In this country, the\nelection takes place on the festival of St. John the Evangelist, or at the\nmeeting immediately previous; but, in this latter case, the duties of the\noffices do not commence until St. John's day, which may, therefore, be\nconsidered as the beginning of the masonic year.\n\nDalcho lays down the rule, that \"no Freemason chosen into any office can\nrefuse to serve (unless he has before filled the same office), without\nincurring the penalties established by the bye-laws.\" Undoubtedly a lodge\nmay enact such a regulation, and affix any reasonable penalty; but I am\nnot aware of any ancient regulation which makes it incumbent on\nsubordinate lodges to do so.\n\nIf any of the subordinate officers, except the Master and Wardens, die, or\nbe removed from office, during the year, the lodge may, under the\nauthority of a dispensation from the Grand Master, enter into an election\nto supply the vacancy. But in the case of the death or removal of the\nMaster or either of the Wardens, no election can be held to supply the\nvacancy, even by dispensation, for reasons which will appear when I come\nto treat of those offices.\n\nNo officer can resign his office after he has been installed. Every\nofficer is elected for twelve months, and at his installation solemnly\npromises to perform the duties of that office until the next regular day\nof election; and hence the lodge cannot permit him, by a resignation, to\nviolate his obligation of office.\n\nAnother rule is, that every officer holds on to his office until his\nsuccessor has been installed. It is the installation, and not the\nelection, which puts an officer into possession; and the faithful\nmanagement of the affairs of Masonry requires, that between the election\nand installation of his successor, the predecessor shall not vacate the\noffice, but continue to discharge its duties.\n\nAn office can be vacated only by death, permanent removal from the\njurisdiction, or expulsion. Suspension does not vacate, but only suspends\nthe performance of the duties of the office, which must then be\ntemporarily discharged by some other person, to be appointed from time to\ntime; for, as soon as the suspended officer is restored, he resumes the\ndignities and duties of his office.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of the Worshipful Master._\n\n\nThis is probably the most important office in the whole system of Masonry,\nas, upon the intelligence, skill, and fidelity of the Masters of our\nlodges, the entire institution is dependent for its prosperity. It is an\noffice which is charged with heavy responsibilities, and, as a just\nconsequence, is accompanied by the investiture of many important powers.\n\nA necessary qualification of the Master of a lodge is, that he must have\npreviously served in the office of a Warden.[48] This qualification is\nsometimes dispensed with in the case of new lodges, or where no member of\nan old lodge, who has served as a Warden, will accept the office of\nMaster. But it is not necessary that he should have served as a Warden in\nthe lodge of which he is proposed to be elected Master. The discharge of\nthe duties of a Warden, by regular election and installation in any other\nlodge, and at any former period, will be a sufficient qualification.\n\nOne of the most important duties of the Master of a lodge is, to see that\nthe edicts and regulations of the Grand Lodge are obeyed by his Brethren,\nand that his officers faithfully discharge their duties.\n\nThe Master has particularly in charge the warrant of Constitution, which\nmust always be present in his lodge, when opened.\n\nThe Master has a right to call a special meeting of his lodge whenever he\npleases, and is the sole judge of any emergency which may require such\nspecial communication.\n\nHe has, also, the right of closing his lodge at any hour that he may deem\nexpedient, notwithstanding the whole business of the evening may not have\nbeen transacted. This regulation arises from the unwritten law of Masonry.\nAs the Master is responsible to the Grand Lodge for the fidelity of the\nwork done in his lodge, and as the whole of the labor is, therefore,\nperformed under his superintendence, it follows that, to enable him to\ndischarge this responsibility, he must be invested with the power of\ncommencing, of continuing, or of suspending labor at such time as he may,\nin his wisdom, deem to be the most advantageous to the edifice of Masonry.\n\nIt follows from this rule that a question of adjournment cannot be\nentertained in a lodge. The adoption of a resolution to adjourn, would\ninvolve the necessity of the Master to obey it. The power, therefore, of\ncontrolling the work, would be taken out of his hands and placed in those\nof the members, which would be in direct conflict with the duties imposed\nupon him by the ritual. The doctrine that a lodge cannot adjourn, but must\nbe closed or called off at the pleasure of the Master, appears now to me\nto be very generally admitted.\n\nThe Master and his two Wardens constitute the representatives of the lodge\nin the Grand Lodge, and it is his duty to attend the communications of\nthat body \"on all convenient occasions.\"[49] When there, he is faithfully\nto represent his lodge, and on all questions discussed, to obey its\ninstructions, voting in every case rather against his own convictions than\nagainst the expressed wish of his lodge.\n\nThe Master presides not only over the symbolic work of the lodge, but\nalso over its business deliberations, and in either case his decisions are\nreversible only by the Grand Lodge. There can be no appeal from his\ndecision, on any question, to the lodge. He is supreme in his lodge, so\nfar as the lodge is concerned, being amenable for his conduct in the\ngovernment of it, not to its members, but to the Grrand Lodge alone. If an\nappeal were proposed, it would be his duty, for the preservation of\ndiscipline, to refuse to put the question. If a member is aggrieved by the\nconduct or decisions of the Master, he has his redress by an appeal to the\nGrrand Lodge, which will, of course, see that the Master does not rule his\nlodge \"in an unjust or arbitrary manner.\" But such a thing as an appeal\nfrom the Master of the lodge to its members is unknown in Masonry.\n\nThis may, at first sight, appear to be giving too despotic power to the\nMaster. But a slight reflection will convince any one that there can be\nbut little danger of oppression from one so guarded and controlled as a\nMaster is, by the sacred obligations of his office, and the supervision of\nthe Grand Lodge, while the placing in the hands of the craft so powerful,\nand at times, and with bad spirits, so annoying a privilege as that of\nimmediate appeal, would necessarily tend to impair the energies and\nlessen the dignity of the Master, while it would be subversive of that\nspirit of discipline which pervades every part of the institution, and to\nwhich it is mainly indebted for its prosperity and perpetuity.\n\nThe ancient charges rehearsed at the installation of a Master, prescribe\nthe various moral qualifications which are required in the aspirant for\nthat elevated and responsible office. He is to be a good man, and\npeaceable citizen or subject, a respecter of the laws, and a lover of his\nBrethren--cultivating the social virtues and promoting the general good of\nsociety as well as of his own Order.\n\nWithin the last few years, the standard of intellectual qualifications has\nbeen greatly elevated. And it is now admitted that the Master of a lodge,\nto do justice to the exalted office which he holds, to the craft over whom\nhe presides, and to the candidates whom he is to instruct, should be not\nonly a man of irreproachable moral character, but also of expanded\nintellect and liberal education. Still, as there is no express law upon\nthis subject, the selection of a Master and the determination of his\nqualifications must be left to the judgment and good sense of the\nmembers.\n\n\n\nSection III.\n\n_Of the Wardens._\n\n\nThe Senior and Junior Warden are the assistants of the Master in the\ngovernment of the lodge. They are selected from among the members on the\nfloor, the possession of a previous office not being, as in the case of\nthe Master, a necessary qualification for election. In England they are\nappointed by the Master, but in this country they are universally elected\nby the lodge.\n\nDuring the temporary absence of the Master the Senior Warden has the right\nof presiding, though he may, and often does by courtesy, invite a Past\nMaster to assume the chair. In like manner, in the absence of both Master\nand Senior Warden, the Junior Warden will preside, and competent Brethren\nwill by him be appointed to fill the vacant seats of the Wardens. But if\nthe Master and Junior Warden be present, and the Senior Warden be absent,\nthe Junior Warden does not occupy the West, but retains his own station,\nthe Master appointing some Brother to occupy the station of the Senior\nWarden. For the Junior Warden succeeds by law only to the office of\nMaster, and, unless that office be vacant, he is bound to fulfill the\nduties of the office to which he has been obligated.\n\nIn case of the death, removal from the jurisdiction, or expulsion of the\nMaster, by the Grand Lodge, no election can be held until the\nconstitutional period. The Senior Warden will take the Master's place and\npreside over the lodge, while his seat will be temporarily filled from\ntime to time by appointment. The Senior Warden being in fact still in\nexistence, and only discharging one of the highest duties of his office,\nthat of presiding in the absence of the Master, his office cannot be\ndeclared vacant and there can be no election for it. In such case, the\nJunior Warden, for the reason already assigned, will continue at his own\nstation in the South.\n\nIn case of the death, removal, or expulsion of both Master and Senior\nWarden, the Junior Warden will discharge the duties of the Mastership and\nmake temporary appointments of both Wardens. It must always be remembered\nthat the Wardens succeed according to seniority to the office of Master\nwhen vacant, but that neither can legally discharge the duties of the\nother. It must also be remembered that when a Warden succeeds to the\ngovernment of the lodge, he does not become the Master; he is still only\na Warden discharging the functions of a higher vacated station, as one of\nthe expressed duties of his own office. A recollection of these\ndistinctions will enable us to avoid much embarrassment in the\nconsideration of all the questions incident to this subject. If the Master\nbe present, the Wardens assist him in the government of the lodge. The\nSenior Warden presides over the craft while at labor, and the Junior when\nthey are in refreshment. Formerly the examination of visitors was\nintrusted to the Junior Warden, but this duty is now more appropriately\nperformed by the Stewards or a special committee appointed for that\npurpose.\n\nThe Senior Warden has the appointment of the Senior Deacon, and the Junior\nWarden that of the Stewards.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\n\n_Of the Treasurer._\n\n\nOf so much importance is this office deemed, that in English Lodges, while\nall the other officers are appointed by the Master, the Treasurer alone is\nelected by the lodge. It is, however, singular, that in the ritual of\ninstallation, Preston furnishes no address to the Treasurer on his\ninvestiture. Webb, however, has supplied the omission, and the charge\ngiven in his work to this officer, on the night of his installation,\nhaving been universally acknowledged and adopted by the craft in this\ncountry, will furnish us with the most important points of the law in\nrelation to his duties.\n\nIt is, then, in the first place, the duty of the Treasurer \"to receive all\nmoneys from the hands of the Secretary.\" The Treasurer is only the banker\nof the lodge. All fees for initiation, arrearages of members, and all\nother dues to the lodge, should be first received by the Secretary, and\npaid immediately over to the Treasurer for safe keeping.\n\nThe keeping of just and regular accounts is another duty presented to the\nTreasurer. As soon as he has received an amount of money from the\nSecretary, he should transfer the account of it to his books. By this\nmeans, the Secretary and Treasurer become mutual checks upon each other,\nand the safety of the funds of the lodge is secured.\n\nThe Treasurer is not only the banker, but also the disbursing officer of\nthe lodge; but he is directed to pay no money except with the consent of\nthe lodge and on the order of the Worshipful Master. It seems to me,\ntherefore, that every warrant drawn on him should be signed by the Master,\nand the action of the lodge attested by the counter-signature of the\nSecretary.\n\nIt is usual, in consequence of the great responsibility of the Treasurer,\nto select some Brother of worldly substance for the office; and still\nfurther to insure the safety of the funds, by exacting from him a bond,\nwith sufficient security. He sometimes receives a per centage, or a fixed\nsalary, for his services.\n\n\n\nSection V.\n\n_Of the Secretary._\n\n\nIt is the duty of the Secretary to record all the proceedings of the\nlodge, \"which may be committed to paper;\" to conduct the correspondence of\nthe lodge, and to receive all moneys due the lodge from any source\nwhatsoever. He is, therefore, the recording, corresponding, and receiving\nofficer of the lodge. By receiving the moneys due to the lodge in the\nfirst place, and then paying them over to the Treasurer, he becomes, as I\nhave already observed, a check upon that officer.\n\nIn view of the many laborious duties which devolve upon him, the\nSecretary, in many lodges, receives a compensation for his services.\n\nShould the Treasurer or Secretary die or be expelled, there is no doubt\nthat an election for a successor, to fill the unexpired term, may be held\nby dispensation from the Grand Master. But the incompetency of either of\nthese officers to perform his duties, by reason of the infirmity of\nsickness or removal from the seat of the lodge, will not, I think,\nauthorize such an election. Because the original officer may recover from\nhis infirmity, or return to his residence, and, in either case, having\nbeen elected and installed for one year, he must remain the Secretary or\nTreasurer until the expiration of the period for which he had been so\nelected and installed, and, therefore, on his recovery or his return, is\nentitled to resume all the prerogatives and functions of his office. The\ncase of death, or of expulsion, which is, in fact, masonic death, is\ndifferent, because all the rights possessed during life cease _ex\nnecessitate rei_, and forever lapse at the time of the said physical or\nmasonic death; and in the latter case, a restoration to all the rights and\nprivileges of Masonry would not restore the party to any office which he\nhad held at the time of his expulsion.\n\n\n\nSection VI.\n\n_Of the Deacons._\n\n\nIn every lodge there are two of these officers--a Senior and a Junior\nDeacon. They are not elected, but appointed; the former by the Master, and\nthe latter by the Senior Warden.\n\nThe duties of these officers are many and important; but they are so well\ndefined in the ritual as to require no further consideration in this\nplace.\n\nThe only question that here invites our examination is, whether the\nDeacons, as appointed officers, are removable at the pleasure of the\nofficers who appointed them; or, whether they retain their offices, like\nthe Master and Wardens, until the expiration of the year. Masonic\nauthorities are silent on this subject; but, basing my judgment upon\nanalogy, I am inclined to think that they are not removable: all the\nofficers of a lodge are chosen to serve for one year, or, from one\nfestival of St. John the Evangelist to the succeeding one. This has been\nthe invariable usage in all lodges, and neither in the monitorial\nceremonies of installation, nor in any rules or regulations which I have\nseen, is any exception to this usage made in respect to Deacons. The\nwritten as well as the oral law of Masonry being silent on this subject,\nwe are bound to give them the benefit of this silence, and place them in\nthe same favorable position as that occupied by the superior officers,\nwho, we know, by express law are entitled to occupy their stations for one\nyear. Moreover, the power of removal is too important to be exercised\nexcept under the sanction of an expressed law, and is contrary to the\nwhole spirit of Masonry, which, while it invests a presiding officer with\nthe largest extent of prerogative, is equally careful of the rights of the\nyoungest member of the fraternity.\n\nFrom these reasons I am compelled to believe that the Deacons, although\noriginally appointed by the Master and Senior Warden, are not removable by\neither, but retain their offices until the expiration of the year.\n\n\n\nSection VII.\n\n_Of the Stewards._\n\n\nThe Stewards, who are two in number, are appointed by the Junior Warden,\nand sit on the right and left of him in the lodge. Their original duties\nwere, \"to assist in the collection of dues and subscriptions; to keep an\naccount of the lodge expenses; to see that the tables are properly\nfurnished at refreshment, and that every Brother is suitably provided\nfor.\" They are also considered as the assistants of the Deacons in the\ndischarge of their duties, and, lately, some lodges are beginning to\nconfide to them the important trusts of a standing committee for the\nexamination of visitors and the preparation of candidates.\n\nWhat has been said in relation to the removal of the Deacons in the\npreceding section, is equally applicable to the Stewards.\n\n\n\nSection VIII.\n\n_Of the Tiler._\n\n\nThis is an office of great importance, and must, from the peculiar nature\nof our institution, have existed from its very beginning. No lodge could\never have been opened until a Tiler was appointed, and stationed to guard\nits portals from the approach of \"cowans and eavesdroppers.\" The\nqualifications requisite for the office of a Tiler are, that he must be \"a\nworthy Master Mason.\" An Entered Apprentice, or a Fellow Craft, cannot\ntile a lodge, even though it be opened in his own degree. To none but\nMaster Masons can this important duty of guardianship be intrusted. The\nTiler is not necessarily a member of the lodge which he tiles. There is no\nregulation requiring this qualification. In fact, in large cities, one\nBrother often acts as the Tiler of several lodges. If, however, he is a\nmember of the lodge, his office does not deprive him of the rights of\nmembership, and in ballotings for candidates, election of officers, or\nother important questions, he is entitled to exercise his privilege of\nvoting, in which case the Junior Deacon will temporarily occupy his\nstation, while he enters the lodge to deposit his ballot. This appears to\nbe the general usage of the craft in this country.\n\nThe Tiler is sometimes elected by the lodge, and sometimes appointed by\nthe Master. It seems generally to be admitted that he may be removed from\noffice for misconduct or neglect of duty, by the lodge, if he has been\nelected, and by the Master, if he has been appointed.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nOf Rules of Order.\n\n\n\nThe safety of the minority, the preservation of harmony, and the dispatch\nof business, all require that there should be, in every well-regulated\nsociety, some rules and forms for the government of their proceedings,\nand, as has been justly observed by an able writer on parliamentary law,\n\"whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not, is really\nnot of so great importance; for it is much more material that there should\nbe a rule to go by, than what that rule is.\"[50] By common consent, the\nrules established for the government of Parliament in England, and of\nCongress in the United States, and which are known collectively under the\nname of \"Parliamentary Law,\" have been adopted for the regulation of all\ndeliberative bodies, whether of a public or private nature. But lodges of\nFreemasons differ so much in their organization and character from other\nsocieties, that this law will, in very few cases, be found applicable;\nand, indeed, in many positively inapplicable to them. The rules,\ntherefore, for the government of masonic lodges are in general to be\ndeduced from the usages of the Order, from traditional or written\nauthority, and where both of them are silent, from analogy to the\ncharacter of the institution. To each of these sources, therefore, I shall\napply, in the course of the present chapter, and in some few instances,\nwhere the parliamentary law coincides with our own, reference will be made\nto the authority of the best writers on that science.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of the Order of Business._\n\n\nWhen the Brethren have been \"congregated,\" or called together by the\npresiding officer, the first thing to be attended to is the ceremony of\nopening the lodge. The consideration of this subject, as it is\nsufficiently detailed in our ritual, will form no part of the present\nwork.\n\nThe lodge having been opened, the next thing to be attended to is the\nreading of the minutes of the last communication. The minutes having been\nread, the presiding officer will put the question on their confirmation,\nhaving first inquired of the Senior and Junior Wardens, and lastly of the\nBrethren \"around the lodge,\" whether they have any alterations to propose.\nIt must be borne in mind, that the question of confirmation is simply a\nquestion whether the Secretary has faithfully and correctly recorded the\ntransactions of the lodge. If, therefore, it can be satisfactorily shown\nby any one that there is a mis-entry, or the omission of an entry, this is\nthe time to correct it; and where the matter is of sufficient importance,\nand the recording officer, or any member disputes the charge of error, the\nvote of the lodge will be taken on the subject, and the journal will be\namended or remain as written, according to the opinion so expressed by the\nmajority of the members. As this is, however, a mere question of memory,\nit must be apparent that those members only who were present at the\nprevious communication, the records of which are under examination, are\nqualified to express a fair opinion. All others should ask and be\npermitted to be excused from voting.\n\nAs no special communication can alter or amend the proceedings of a\nregular one, it is not deemed necessary to present the records of the\nlatter to the inspection of the former. This preliminary reading of the\nminutes is, therefore, always omitted at special communications.\n\nAfter the reading of the minutes, unfinished business, such as motions\npreviously submitted and reports of committees previously appointed, will\ntake the preference of all other matters. Special communications being\ncalled for the consideration of some special subject, that subject must of\ncourse claim the priority of consideration over all others.\n\nIn like manner, where any business has been specially and specifically\npostponed to another communication, it constitutes at that communication\nwhat is called, in parliamentary law, \"the order of the day,\" and may at\nany time in the course of the evening be called up, to the exclusion of\nall other business.\n\nThe lodge may, however, at its discretion, refuse to take up the\nconsideration of such order; for the same body which determined at one\ntime to consider a question, may at another time refuse to do so. This is\none of those instances in which parliamentary usage is applicable to the\ngovernment of a lodge. Jefferson says: \"Where an order is made, that any\nparticular matter be taken up on any particular day, there a question is\nto be put, when it is called for, Whether the house will now proceed to\nthat matter?\" In a lodge, however, it is not the usage to propose such a\nquestion, but the matter being called up, is discussed and acted on,\nunless some Brother moves its postponement, when the question of\npostponement is put.\n\nBut with these exceptions, the unfinished business must first be disposed\nof, to avoid its accumulation and its possible subsequent neglect.[51]\n\nNew business will then be taken up in such order as the local bye-laws\nprescribe, or the wisdom of the Worshipful Master may suggest.\n\nIn a discussion, when any member wishes to speak, he must stand up in his\nplace, and address himself not to the lodge, nor to any particular\nBrother, but to the presiding officer, styling him \"Worshipful.\"\n\nWhen two or more members rise nearly together, the presiding officer\ndetermines who is entitled to speak, and calls him by his name, whereupon\nhe proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down, and gives way to the other.\nThe ordinary rules of courtesy, which should govern a masonic body above\nall other societies, as well as the general usage of deliberative bodies,\nrequire that the one first up should be entitled to the floor. But the\ndecision of this fact is left entirely to the Master, or presiding\nofficer.\n\nWhether a member be entitled to speak once or twice to the same question,\nis left to the regulation of the local bye-laws of every lodge. But, under\nall circumstances, it seems to be conceded, that a member may rise at any\ntime with the permission of the presiding officer, or for the purpose of\nexplanation.\n\nA member may be called to order by any other while speaking, for the use\nof any indecorous remark, personal allusion, or irrelevant matter; but\nthis must be done in a courteous and conciliatory manner, and the question\nof order will at once be decided by the presiding officer.\n\nNo Brother is to be interrupted while speaking, except for the purpose of\ncalling him to order, or to make a necessary explanation; nor are any\nseparate conversations, or, as they are called in our ancient charges,\n\"private committees,\" to be allowed.\n\nEvery member of the Order is, in the course of the debate as well as at\nall other times in the lodge, to be addressed by the title of \"Brother,\"\nand no secular or worldly titles are ever to be used.\n\nIn accordance with the principles of justice, the parliamentary usage is\nadopted, which permits the mover of a resolution to make the concluding\nspeech, that he may reply to all those who have spoken against it, and sum\nup the arguments in its favor. And it would be a breach of order as well\nas of courtesy for any of his opponents to respond to this final argument\nof the mover.\n\nIt is within the discretion of the Master, at any time in the course of\nthe evening, to suspend the business of the lodge for the purpose of\nproceeding to the ceremony of initiation, for the \"work\" of Masonry, as it\nis technically called, takes precedence of all other business.\n\nWhen all business, both old and new, and the initiation of candidates, if\nthere be any, has been disposed of, the presiding officer inquires of the\nofficers and members if there be anything more to be proposed before\nclosing. Custom has prescribed a formulary for making this inquiry, which\nis in the following words.\n\nThe Worshipful Master, addressing the Senior and Junior Wardens and then\nthe Brethren, successively, says: \"Brother Senior, have you anything to\noffer in the West for the good of Masonry in general or of this lodge in\nparticular? Anything in the South, Brother Junior? Around the lodge,\nBrethren?\" The answers to these inquiries being in the negative on the\npart of the Wardens, and silence on that of the craft, the Master proceeds\nto close the lodge in the manner prescribed in the ritual.\n\nThe reading of the minutes of the evening, not for confirmation, but for\nsuggestion, lest anything may have been omitted, should always precede the\nclosing ceremonies, unless, from the lateness of the hour, it be dispensed\nwith by the members.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of Appeals from the Decision of the Chair._\n\n\nFreemasonry differs from all other institutions, in permitting no appeal\nto the lodge from the decision of the presiding officer. The Master is\nsupreme in his lodge, so far as the lodge is concerned. He is amenable\nfor his conduct, in the government of the lodge, not to its members, but\nto the Grand Lodge alone. In deciding points of order as well as graver\nmatters, no appeal can be taken from that decision to the lodge. If an\nappeal were proposed, it would be his duty, for the preservation of\ndiscipline, to refuse to put the question. It is, in fact, wrong that the\nMaster should even by courtesy permit such an appeal to be taken; because,\nas the Committee of Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee have\nwisely remarked, by the admission of such appeals by _courtesy_, \"is\nestablished ultimately a precedent from which will be claimed _the right\nto take_ appeals.\"[52] If a member is aggrieved with the conduct or the\ndecisions of the Master, he has his redress by an appeal to the Grand\nLodge, which will of course see that the Master does not rule his lodge\n\"in an unjust or arbitrary manner.\" But such a thing as an appeal from the\nMaster to the lodge is unknown in Masonry.\n\nThis, at first view, may appear to be giving too despotic a power to the\nMaster. But a little reflection will convince any one that there can be\nbut slight danger of oppression from one so guarded and controlled as the\nMaster is by the obligations of his office and the superintendence of the\nGrand Lodge, while the placing in the hands of the craft so powerful, and,\nwith bad spirits, so annoying a privilege as that of immediate appeal,\nwould necessarily tend to impair the energies and lessen the dignity of\nthe Master, at the same time that it would be totally subversive of that\nspirit of strict discipline which pervades every part of the institution,\nand to which it is mainly indebted for its prosperity and perpetuity.\n\nIn every case where a member supposes himself to be aggrieved by the\ndecision of the Master, he should make his appeal to the Grand Lodge.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to add, that a Warden or Past Master, presiding\nin the absence of the Master, assumes for the time all the rights and\nprerogatives of the Master.\n\n\n\nSection III.\n\n_Of the Mode of Taking the Question._\n\n\nThe question in Masonry is not taken _viva voce_ or by \"aye\" and \"nay.\"\nThis should always be done by \"a show of hands.\" The regulation on this\nsubject was adopted not later than the year 1754, at which time the Book\nof Constitutions was revised, \"and the necessary alterations and additions\nmade, consistent with the laws and rules of Masonry,\" and accordingly, in\nthe edition published in the following year, the regulation is laid down\nin these words--\"The opinions or votes of the members are always to be\nsignified by each holding up one of his hands: which uplifted hands the\nGrand Wardens are to count; unless the number of hands be so unequal as to\nrender the counting useless. Nor should any other kind of division be ever\nadmitted among Masons.\"[53]\n\nCalling for the yeas and nays has been almost universally condemned as an\nunmasonic practice, nor should any Master allow it to be resorted to in\nhis lodge.\n\nMoving the \"previous question,\" a parliamentary invention for stopping all\ndiscussion, is still more at variance with the liberal and harmonious\nspirit which should distinguish masonic debates, and is, therefore, never\nto be permitted in a lodge.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\n\n_Of Adjournments._\n\n\nAdjournment is a term not recognized in Masonry. There are but two ways in\nwhich the communication of a lodge can be terminated; and these are either\nby _closing_ the lodge, or by _calling from labor to refreshment_. In the\nformer case the business of the communication is finally disposed of until\nthe next communication; in the latter the lodge is still supposed to be\nopen and may resume its labors at any time indicated by the Master.\n\nBut both the time of closing the lodge and of calling it from labor to\nrefreshment is to be determined by the absolute will and the free judgment\nof the Worshipful Master, to whom alone is intrusted the care of \"setting\nthe craft to work, and giving them wholesome instruction for labor.\" He\nalone is responsible to the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge, that his\nlodge shall be opened, continued, and closed in harmony; and as it is by\nhis \"will and pleasure\" only that it is opened, so is it by his \"will and\npleasure\" only that it can be closed. Any attempt, therefore, on the part\nof the lodge to entertain a motion for adjournment would be an\ninfringement of this prerogative of the Master. Such a motion is,\ntherefore, always out of order, and cannot be; and cannot be acted on.\n\nThe rule that a lodge cannot adjourn, but remain in session until closed\nby the Master, derives an authoritative sanction also from the following\nclause in the fifth of the Old Charges.\n\n\"All Masons employed shall meekly receive their wages without murmuring or\nmutiny, _and not desert the Master till the work is finished_.\"\n\n\n\nSection V.\n\n_Of the Appointment of Committees._\n\n\nIt is the prerogative of the Master to appoint all Committees, unless by a\nspecial resolution provision has been made that a committee shall\notherwise be appointed.\n\nThe Master is also, _ex officio_, chairman of every committee which he\nchooses to attend, although he may not originally have been named a member\nof such committee. But he may, if he chooses, waive this privilege; yet he\nmay, at any time during the session of the committee, reassume his\ninherent prerogative of governing the craft at all times when in his\npresence, and therefore take the chair.\n\n\n\nSection VI.\n\n_Of the Mode of Keeping the Minutes._\n\n\nMasonry is preeminently an institution of forms, and hence, as was to be\nexpected, there is a particular form provided for recording the\nproceedings of a lodge. Perhaps the best method of communicating this form\nto the reader will be, to record the proceedings of a supposititious\nmeeting or communication.\n\nThe following form, therefore, embraces the most important transactions\nthat usually occur during the session of a lodge, and it may serve as an\nexemplar, for the use of secretaries.\n\n\"A regular communication of ---- Lodge, NO. ----, was holden at ----; on\n----, the ---- day of ----A.: L.: 58--.\n\n    Present.\n\n    Bro.: A. B----, W.: Master.\n    \"     B. C----, S.: Warden.\n    \"     C. D----, J.: Warden.\n    \"     D. E----, Treasurer.\n    \"     E. F----, Secretary.\n    \"     F. G----, S.: Deacon.\n    \"     G. H----, J.: Deacon.\n    \"     H. I----, } Stewards.\n    \"     I. K----, }\n    \"     K. L----, Tiler.\n\n    _Members._\n    Bro.: L. M----\n          M. N----\n          N. O----\n          O. P----\n\n    _Visitors._\n          P. Q----\n          Q. R----\n          R. S----\n          S. T----\n\nThe Lodge was opened in due form on the third degree of Masonry.\n\n\"The minutes of the regular communication of ---- were read and\nconfirmed.[54]\n\n\"The committee on the petition of Mr. C. B., a candidate for initiation,\nreported favorably, whereupon he was balloted for and duly elected.\n\n\"The committee on the application of Mr. D. C., a candidate for\ninitiation, reported favorably, whereupon he was balloted for, and the box\nappearing foul he was rejected.\n\n\"The committee on the application of Mr. E. D., a candidate for initiation,\nhaving reported unfavorably, he was declared rejected without a ballot.\n\n\"The petition of Mr. F. E., a candidate for initiation, having been\nwithdrawn by his friends, he was declared rejected without a ballot.\n\n\"A petition for initiation from Mr. G.F., inclosing the usual amount and\nrecommended by Bros. C. D.---- and H. I.----, was referred to a committee\nof investigation consisting of Bros. G. H.----, L. M.----, and O. P.----.\n\n\"Bro. S.R., an Entered Apprentice, having applied for advancement, was\nduly elected to take the second degree; and Bro. W.Y., a Fellow Craft,\nwas, on his application for advancement, duly elected to take the third\ndegree.\n\n\"A letter was read from Mrs. T. V.----, the widow of a Master Mason, when\nthe sum of twenty dollars was voted for her relief.\n\n\"The amendment to article 10, section 5 of the bye-laws, proposed by Bro.\nM. N. ---- at the communication of ----, was read a third time, adopted by\na constitutional majority and ordered to be sent to the Grand Lodge for\napproval and confirmation.\n\n\"The Lodge of Master Masons was then closed, and a lodge of Entered\nApprentices opened in due form.\n\n\"Mr. C. B., a candidate for initiation, being in waiting, was duly\nprepared, brought forward and initiated as an Entered Apprentice, he\npaying the usual fee.\n\n\"The Lodge of Entered Apprentices was then closed, and a Lodge of Fellow\nCrafts opened in due form.\n\n\"Bro. S. R., an Entered Apprentice, being in waiting, was duly prepared,\nbrought forward and passed to the degree of a Fellow Craft, he paying the\nusual fee.\n\n\"The Lodge of Fellow Crafts was then closed, and a lodge of Master Masons\nopened in due form.\n\n\"Bro. W. Y., a Fellow Craft, being in waiting, was duly prepared, brought\nforward and raised to the sublime degree of a Master Mason, he paying the\nusual fee.\n\nAmount received this evening, as follows:\n\n    Petition of Mr.  G. F., $5\n    Fee      of Bro. C. B.,  5\n    do.      of Bro. S. R.,  5\n    do.      of Bro. W. Y.,  5--Total, $20\n\nall of which was paid over to the Treasurer.\n\nThere being no further business, the lodge was closed in due form and\nharmony.\n\nE. F----,\n\n_Secretary._\n\nSuch is the form which has been adopted as the most convenient mode of\nrecording the transactions of a lodge. These minutes must be read, at the\nclose of the meeting, that the Brethren may suggest any necessary\nalterations or additions, and then at the beginning of the next regular\nmeeting, that they may be confirmed, after which they should be\ntranscribed from the rough Minute Book in which they were first entered\ninto the permanent Record Book of the lodge.\n\n\n\n\n\nBook Third.\n\nThe Law Of Individuals.\n\n\n\nPassing from the consideration of the law, which refers to Masons in their\ncongregated masses, as the constituents of Grand and Subordinate Lodges, I\nnext approach the discussion of the law which governs, them in their\nindividual capacity, whether in the inception of their masonic life, as\ncandidates for initiation, or in their gradual progress through each of\nthe three degrees, for it will be found that a Mason, as he assumes new\nand additional obligations, and is presented with increased light,\ncontracts new duties, and is invested with new prerogatives and\nprivileges.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nOf the Qualifications of Candidates.\n\n\n\nThe qualifications of a candidate for initiation into the mysteries of\nFreemasonry, are four-fold in their character--moral, physical,\nintellectual and political.\n\nThe moral character is intended to secure the respectability of the Order,\nbecause, by the worthiness of its candidates, their virtuous deportment,\nand good reputation, will the character of the institution be judged,\nwhile the admission of irreligious libertines and contemners of the moral\nlaw would necessarily impair its dignity and honor.\n\nThe physical qualifications of a candidate contribute to the utility of\nthe Order, because he who is deficient in any of his limbs or members, and\nwho is not in the possession of all his natural senses and endowments, is\nunable to perform, with pleasure to himself or credit to the fraternity,\nthose peculiar labors in which all should take an equal part. He thus\nbecomes a drone in the hive, and so far impairs the usefulness of the\nlodge, as \"a place where Freemasons assemble to work, and to instruct and\nimprove themselves in the mysteries of their ancient science.\"\n\nThe intellectual qualifications refer to the security of the Order;\nbecause they require that its mysteries shall be confided only to those\nwhose mental developments are such as to enable them properly to\nappreciate, and faithfully to preserve from imposition, the secrets thus\nentrusted to them. It is evident, for instance, that an idiot could\nneither understand the hidden doctrines that might be communicated to him,\nnor could he so secure such portions as he might remember, in the\n\"depositary of his heart,\" as to prevent the designing knave from worming\nthem out of him; for, as the wise Solomon has said, \"a fool's mouth is his\ndestruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.\"\n\nThe political qualifications are intended to maintain the independence of\nthe Order; because its obligations and privileges are thus confided only\nto those who, from their position in society, are capable of obeying the\none, and of exercising the other without the danger of let or hindrance\nfrom superior authority.\n\nOf the moral, physical and political qualifications of a candidate there\ncan be no doubt, as they are distinctly laid down in the ancient charges\nand constitutions. The intellectual are not so readily decided.\n\nThese four-fold qualifications may be briefly summed up in the following\naxioms.\n\n_Morally_, the candidate must be a man of irreproachable conduct, a\nbeliever in the existence of God, and living \"under the tongue of good\nreport.\"\n\n_Physically_, he must be a man of at least twenty-one years of age,\nupright in body, with the senses of a man, not deformed or dismembered,\nbut with hale and entire limbs as a _man_ ought to be.\n\n_Intellectually_, he must be a man in the full possession of his\nintellects, not so young that his mind shall not have been formed, nor so\nold that it shall have fallen into dotage; neither a fool, an idiot, nor a\nmadman; and with so much education as to enable him to avail himself of\nthe teachings of Masonry, and to cultivate at his leisure a knowledge of\nthe principles and doctrines of our royal art.\n\n_Politically_, he must be in the unrestrained enjoyment of his civil and\npersonal liberty, and this, too, by the birthright of inheritance, and not\nby its subsequent acquisition, in consequence of his release from\nhereditary bondage.\n\nThe lodge which strictly demands these qualifications of its candidates\nmay have fewer members than one less strict, but it will undoubtedly have\nbetter ones.\n\nBut the importance of the subject demands for each class of the\nqualifications a separate section, and a more extended consideration.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of the Moral Qualifications of Candidates._\n\n\nThe old charges state, that \"a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the\nmoral law.\" It is scarcely necessary to say, that the phrase, \"moral law,\"\nis a technical expression of theology, and refers to the Ten Commandments,\nwhich are so called, because they define the regulations necessary for the\ngovernment of the morals and manners of men. The habitual violation of any\none of these commands would seem, according to the spirit of the Ancient\nConstitutions, to disqualify a candidate for Masonry.\n\nThe same charges go on to say, in relation to the religious character of a\nMason, that he should not be \"a stupid atheist, nor an irreligious\nlibertine.\" A denier of the existence of a Supreme Architect of the\nUniverse cannot, of course, be obligated as a Mason, and, accordingly,\nthere is no landmark more certain than that which excludes every atheist\nfrom the Order.\n\nThe word \"libertine\" has, at this day, a meaning very different from what\nit bore when the old charges were compiled. It then signified what we now\ncall a \"free-thinker,\" or disbeliever in the divine revelation of the\nScriptures. This rule would therefore greatly abridge the universality and\ntolerance of the Institution, were it not for the following qualifying\nclause in the same instrument:--\n\n\"Though in ancient times Masons were charged in every country to be of the\nreligion of that country or nation, whatever it was, yet it is now thought\nmore expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men\nagree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves; that is, to be\ngood men and true, or men of honor and honesty, by whatever denominations\nor persuasions they may be distinguished.\"\n\nThe construction now given universally to the religious qualification of a\ncandidate, is simply that he shall have a belief in the existence and\nsuperintending control of a Supreme Being.\n\nThese old charges from which we derive the whole of our doctrine as to the\nmoral qualifications of a candidate, further prescribe as to the political\nrelations of a Mason, that he is to be \"a peaceable subject to the civil\npowers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be concerned in\nplots and conspiracies against the peace and welfare of the nation, nor to\nbehave himself undutifully to inferior magistrates. He is cheerfully to\nconform to every lawful authority; to uphold on every occasion the\ninterest of the community, and zealously promote the prosperity of his own\ncountry.\"\n\nSuch being the characteristics of a true Mason, the candidate who desires\nto obtain that title, must show his claim to the possession of these\nvirtues; and hence the same charges declare, in reference to these moral\nqualifications, that \"The persons made Masons, or admitted members of a\nlodge, must be good and true men--no immoral or scandalous men, but of\ngood report.\"\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of the Physical Qualifications of Candidates._\n\n\nThe physical qualifications of a candidate refer to his sex, his age, and\nthe condition of his limbs.\n\nThe first and most important requisite of a candidate is, that he shall be\n\"_a man_.\" No woman can be made a Mason. This landmark is so indisputable,\nthat it would be wholly superfluous to adduce any arguments or authority\nin its support.\n\nAs to age, the old charges prescribe the rule, that the candidate must be\n\"of mature and discreet age.\" But what is the precise period when one is\nsupposed to have arrived at this maturity and discretion, cannot be\ninferred from any uniform practice of the craft in different countries.\nThe provisions of the civil law, which make twenty-one the age of\nmaturity, have, however, been generally followed. In this country the\nregulation is general, that the candidate must be twenty-one years of age.\nSuch, too, was the regulation adopted by the General Assembly, which met\non the 27th Dec., 1663, and which prescribed that \"no person shall be\naccepted unless he be twenty-one years old or more.\"[55] In Prussia, the\ncandidate is required to be twenty-five; in England, twenty-one,[56]\n\"unless by dispensation from the Grand Master, or Provincial Grand\nMaster;\" in Ireland, twenty-one, except \"by dispensation from the Grand\nMaster, or the Grand Lodge;\" in France, twenty-one, unless the candidate\nbe the son of a Mason who has rendered important service to the craft,\nwith the consent of his parent or guardian, or a young man who has served\nsix months with his corps in the army--such persons may be initiated at\neighteen; in Switzerland, the age of qualification is fixed at twenty-one,\nand in Frankfort-on-Mayn, at twenty. In this country, as I have already\nobserved, the regulation of 1663 is rigidly enforced, and no candidate,\nwho has not arrived at the age of twenty-one, can be initiated.\n\nOur ritual excludes \"an old man in his dotage\" equally with a \"young man\nunder age.\" But as dotage signifies imbecility of mind, this subject will\nbe more properly considered under the head of intellectual qualifications.\n\nThe physical qualifications, which refer to the condition of the\ncandidate's body and limbs, have given rise, within a few years past, to\na great amount of discussion and much variety of opinion. The regulation\ncontained in the old charges of 1721, which requires the candidate to be\n\"a perfect youth,\" has in some jurisdictions been rigidly enforced to the\nvery letter of the law, while in others it has been so completely\nexplained away as to mean anything or nothing. Thus, in South Carolina,\nwhere the rule is rigid, the candidate is required to be neither deformed\nnor dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be, while\nin Maine, a deformed person may be admitted, provided \"the deformity is\nnot such as to prevent him from being instructed in the arts and mysteries\nof Freemasonry.\"\n\nThe first written law which we find on this subject is that which was\nenacted by the General Assembly held in 1663, under the Grand Mastership\nof the Earl of St. Albans, and which declares \"that no person shall\nhereafter be accepted a Freemason but such as are of _able_ body.\"[57]\n\nTwenty years after, in the reign of James II., or about the year 1683, it\nseems to have been found necessary, more exactly to define the meaning of\nthis expression, \"of able body,\" and accordingly we find, among the\ncharges ordered to be read to a Master on his installation, the following\nregulation:\n\n\"Thirdly, that he that be made be able in all degrees; that is, free-born,\nof a good kindred, true, and no bondsman, and that _he have his right\nlimbs as a man ought to have.\"_[58]\n\nThe old charges, published in the original Book of Constitutions in 1723,\ncontain the following regulation:\n\n\"No Master should take an Apprentice, unless he be a perfect youth having\nno maim or defect that may render him uncapable of learning the art.\"\n\nNotwithstanding the positive demand for _perfection_, and the positive and\nexplicit declaration that he must have _no maim or defect_, the remainder\nof the sentence has, within a few years past, by some Grand Lodges, been\nconsidered as a qualifying clause, which would permit the admission of\ncandidates whose physical defects did not exceed a particular point. But,\nin perfection, there can be no degrees of comparison, and he who is\nrequired to be perfect, is required to be so without modification or\ndiminution. That which is _perfect_ is complete in all its parts, and, by\na deficiency in any portion of its constituent materials, it becomes not\nless perfect, (which expression would be a solecism in grammar,) but at\nonce by the deficiency ceases to be perfect at all--it then becomes\nimperfect. In the interpretation of a law, \"words,\" says Blackstone, \"are\ngenerally to be understood in their usual and most known signification,\"\nand then \"perfect\" would mean, \"complete, entire, neither defective nor\nredundant.\" But another source of interpretation is, the \"comparison of a\nlaw with other laws, that are made by the same legislator, that have some\naffinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same\npoint.\"[59] Applying this law of the jurists, we shall have no difficulty\nin arriving at the true signification of the word \"perfect,\" if we refer\nto the regulation of 1683, of which the clause in question appears to have\nbeen an exposition. Now, the regulation of 1683 says, in explicit terms,\nthat the candidate must \"_have his right limbs as a man ought to have_.\"\nComparing the one law with the other, there can be no doubt that the\nrequisition of Masonry is and always has been, that admission could only\nbe granted to him who was neither deformed nor dismembered, but of hale\nand entire limbs as a man should be.\n\nBut another, and, as Blackstone terms it, \"the most universal and\neffectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law\" is, to consider\n\"the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which moved the legislator to\nenact it.\" Now, we must look for the origin of the law requiring physical\nperfection, not to the formerly operative character of the institution,\n(for there never was a time when it was not speculative as well as\noperative,) but to its symbolic nature. In the ancient temple, every stone\nwas required to be _perfect_, for a perfect stone was the symbol of truth.\nIn our mystic association, every Mason represents a stone in that\nspiritual temple, \"that house not made with hands, eternal in the\nheavens,\" of which the temple of Solomon was the type. Hence it is\nrequired that he should present himself, like the perfect stone in the\nmaterial temple, a perfect man in the spiritual building. \"The symbolic\nrelation of each member of the Order to its mystic temple, forbids the\nidea,\" says Bro. W.S. Rockwell, of Georgia,[60] \"that its constituent\nportions, its living stones, should be less perfect or less a type of\ntheir great original, than the immaculate material which formed the\nearthly dwelling place of the God of their adoration.\" If, then, as I\npresume it will be readily conceded, by all except those who erroneously\nsuppose the institution to have been once wholly operative and afterwards\nwholly speculative, perfection is required in a candidate, not for the\nphysical reason that he may be enabled to give the necessary signs of\nrecognition, but because the defect would destroy the symbolism of that\nperfect stone which every Mason is supposed to represent in the spiritual\ntemple, we thus arrive at a knowledge of the causes which moved the\nlegislators of Masonry to enact the law, and we see at once, and without\ndoubt, that the words _perfect youth_ are to be taken in an unqualified\nsense, as signifying one who has \"his right limbs as a man ought to\nhave.\"[61]\n\nIt is, however, but fair to state that the remaining clause of the old\ncharge, which asserts that the candidate must have no maim or defect that\nmay render him incapable of learning the art, has been supposed to intend\na modification of the word \"perfect,\" and to permit the admission of one\nwhose maim or defect was not of such a nature as to prevent his learning\nthe art of Masonry. But I would respectfully suggest that a criticism of\nthis kind is based upon a mistaken view of the import of the words. The\nsentence is not that the candidate must have no such maim or defect as\nmight, by possibility, prevent him from learning the art; though this is\nthe interpretation given by those who are in favor of admitting slightly\nmaimed candidates. It is, on the contrary, so worded as to give a\nconsequential meaning to the word \"_that_.\" He must have no maim or defect\n_that_ may render him incapable; that is, _because_, by having such maim\nor defect, he would be rendered incapable of acquiring our art.\n\nIn the Ahiman Rezon published by Laurence Dermott in 1764, and adopted for\nthe government of the Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons in England, and\nmany of the Provincial Grand and subordinate lodges of America, the\nregulation is laid down that candidates must be \"men of good report,\nfree-born, of mature age, not deformed nor dismembered at the time of\ntheir making, and no woman or eunuch.\" It is true that at the present day\nthis book possesses no legal authority among the craft; but I quote it, to\nshow what was the interpretation given to the ancient law by a large\nportion, perhaps a majority, of the English and American Masons in the\nmiddle of the eighteenth century.\n\nA similar interpretation seems at all times to have been given by the\nGrand Lodges of the United States, with the exception of some, who, within\na few years past, have begun to adopt a more latitudinarian construction.\n\nIn Pennsylvania it was declared, in 1783, that candidates are not to be\n\"deformed or dismembered at the time of their making.\"\n\nIn South Carolina the book of Constitutions, first published in 1807,\nrequires that \"every person desiring admission must be upright in body,\nnot deformed or dismembered at the time of making, but of hale and entire\nlimbs, as a man ought to be.\"\n\nIn the \"Ahiman Rezon and Masonic Ritual,\" published by order of the Grand\nLodge of North Carolina and Tennessee, in the year 1805, candidates are\nrequired to be \"hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of\ntheir making.\"[62]\n\nMaryland, in 1826, sanctioned the Ahiman Rezon of Cole, which declares\nthe law in precisely the words of South Carolina, already quoted.\n\nIn 1823, the Grand Lodge of Missouri unanimously adopted a report, which\ndeclared that all were to be refused admission who were not \"sound in mind\nand _all their members_,\" and she adopted a resolution asserting that \"the\nGrand Lodge cannot grant a letter or dispensation to a subordinate lodge\nworking under its jurisdiction, to initiate any person maimed, disabled,\nor wanting the qualifications establishing by ancient usage.\"[63]\n\nBut it is unnecessary to multiply instances. There never seems to have\nbeen any deviation from the principle that required absolute physical\nperfection, until, within a few years, the spirit of expediency[64] has\ninduced some Grand Lodges to propose a modified construction of the law,\nand to admit those whose maims or deformities were not such as to prevent\nthem from complying with the ceremonial of initiation. Still, a large\nnumber of the Grand Lodges have stood fast by the ancient landmark, and it\nis yet to be hoped that all will return to their first allegiance. The\nsubject is an important one, and, therefore, a few of the more recent\nauthorities, in behalf of the old law may with advantage be cited.\n\n\"We have examined carefully the arguments 'pro and con,' that have\naccompanied the proceedings of the several Grand Lodges, submitted to us,\nand the conviction has been forced upon our minds, even against our wills,\nthat we depart from the ancient landmarks and usages of Masonry, whenever\nwe admit an individual wanting in one of the human senses, or who is in\nany particular maimed or deformed.\"--_Committee of Correspondence G. Lodge\nof Georgia_, 1848, _page_ 36.\n\n\"The rationale of the law, excluding persons physically imperfect and\ndeformed, lies deeper and is more ancient than the source ascribed to\nit.[65] It is grounded on a principle recognized in the earliest ages of\nthe world; and will be found identical with that which obtained among the\nancient Jews. In this respect the Levitical law was the same as the\nmasonic, which would not allow any 'to go in unto the vail' who had a\nblemish--a blind man, or a lame, or a man that was broken-footed, or\nbroken-handed, or a dwarf, &c....\n\n\"The learned and studious Freemasonic antiquary can satisfactorily explain\nthe metaphysics of this requisition in our Book of Constitutions. For the\ntrue and faithful Brother it sufficeth to know that such a requisition\nexists. He will prize it the more because of its antiquity.... No man can\nin perfection be 'made a Brother,' no man can truly 'learn our mysteries,'\nand practice them, or 'do the work of a Freemason,' if he is not a _man_\nwith body free from maim, defect and deformity.\"--_Report of a Special\nCommittee of the Grand Lodge of New York, in_ 1848.[66]\n\n\"The records of this Grand Lodge may be confidently appealed to, for\nproofs of her repeated refusal to permit maimed persons to be initiated,\nand not simply on the ground that ancient usage forbids it, but because\nthe fundamental constitution of the Order--the ancient charges--forbid\nit.\"--_Committee of Correspondence of New York, for 1848, p. 70._\n\n\"The lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge are hereby required, in the\ninitiation of applicants for Masonry, to adhere to the ancient law (as\nlaid down in our printed books), which says he shall be of _entire\nlimbs_\"--_Resolution of the G.L. of Maryland, November, 1848._\n\n\"I received from the lodge at Ashley a petition to initiate into our Order\na gentleman of high respectability, who, unfortunately, has been maimed. I\nrefused my assent.... I have also refused a similar request from the lodge\nof which I am a member. The fact that the most distinguished masonic body\non earth has recently removed one of the landmarks, should teach _us_ to\nbe careful how we touch those ancient boundaries.\"--_Address of the Grand\nMaster of New Jersey in 1849._\n\n\"The Grand Lodge of Florida adopted such a provision in her constitution,\n[the qualifying clause permitting the initiation of a maimed person, if\nhis deformity was not such as to prevent his instruction], but more\nmature reflection, and more light reflected from our sister Grand Lodges,\ncaused it to be stricken from our constitution.\"--_Address of Gov. Tho.\nBrown, Grand Master of Florida in_ 1849.\n\n\"As to the physical qualifications, the Ahiman Rezon leaves no doubt on\nthe subject, but expressly declares, that every applicant for initiation\nmust be a man, free-born, of lawful age, in the perfect enjoyment of his\nsenses, hale, and sound, and not deformed or dismembered; this is one of\nthe ancient landmarks of the Order, which it is in the power of no body of\nmen to change. A man having but one arm, or one leg, or who is in anyway\ndeprived of his due proportion of limbs and members, is as incapable of\ninitiation as a woman.\"--_Encyclical Letter of the Grand Lodge of South\nCarolina to its subordinates in_ 1849.\n\nImpressed, then, by the weight of these authorities, which it would be\neasy, but is unnecessary, to multiply--guided by a reference to the\nsymbolic and speculative (not operative) reason of the law--and governed\nby the express words of the regulation of 1683--I am constrained to\nbelieve that the spirit as well as the letter of our ancient landmarks\nrequire that a candidate for admission should be perfect in all his\nparts, that is, neither redundant nor deficient, neither deformed nor\ndismembered, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be.\n\n\n\nSection III.\n\n_Of the Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates._\n\n\nThe Old Charges and Ancient Constitutions are not as explicit in relation\nto the intellectual as to the moral and physical qualifications of\ncandidates, and, therefore, in coming to a decision on this subject, we\nare compelled to draw our conclusions from analogy, from common sense, and\nfrom the peculiar character of the institution. The question that here\nsuggests itself on this subject is, what particular amount of human\nlearning is required as a constitutional qualification for initiation?\n\nDuring a careful examination of every ancient document to which I have had\naccess, I have met with no positive enactment forbidding the admission of\nuneducated persons, even of those who can neither read nor write. The\nunwritten, as well as the written laws of the Order, require that the\ncandidate shall be neither a _fool_ nor an _idiot_, but that he shall\npossess a discreet judgment, and be in the enjoyment of all the senses of\na man. But one who is unable to subscribe his name, or to read it when\nwritten, might still very easily prove himself to be within the\nrequirements of this regulation. The Constitutions of England, formed\nsince the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, are certainly explicit\nenough on this subject. They require even more than a bare knowledge of\nreading and writing, for, in describing the qualifications of a candidate,\nthey say:\n\n\"He should be a lover of the liberal arts and sciences, and have made some\nprogress in one or other of them; and he must, previous to his initiation,\nsubscribe his name at full length, to a declaration of the following\nimport,\" etc. And in a note to this regulation, it is said, \"Any\nindividual who cannot write is, consequently, ineligible to be admitted\ninto the Order.\" If this authority were universal in its character, there\nwould be no necessity for a further discussion of the subject. But the\nmodern constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England are only of force\nwithin its own jurisdiction, and we are therefore again compelled to\nresort to a mode of reasoning for the proper deduction of our conclusions\non this subject.\n\nIt is undoubtedly true that in the early period of the world, when\nFreemasonry took its origin, the arts of reading and writing were not so\ngenerally disseminated among all classes of the community as they now are,\nwhen the blessings of a common education can be readily and cheaply\nobtained. And it may, therefore, be supposed that among our ancient\nBrethren there were many who could neither read nor write. But after all,\nthis is a mere assumption, which, although it may be based on probability,\nhas no direct evidence for its support. And, on the other hand, we see\nthroughout all our ancient regulations, that a marked distinction was made\nby our rulers between the Freemason and the Mason who was not free; as,\nfor instance, in the conclusion of the fifth chapter of the Ancient\nCharges, where it is said: \"No laborer shall be employed in the common\nwork of Masonry, nor shall Freemasons work with those who are not free,\nwithout an urgent necessity.\" And this would seem to indicate a higher\nestimation by the fraternity of their own character, which might be\nderived from their greater attainments in knowledge. That in those days\nthe ordinary operative masons could neither read nor write, is a fact\nestablished by history. But it does not follow that the Freemasons, who\nwere a separate society of craftsmen, were in the same unhappy category;\nit is even probable, that the fact that they were not so, but that they\nwere, in comparison with the unaccepted masons, educated men, may have\nbeen the reason of the distinction made between these two classes of\nworkmen.\n\nBut further, all the teachings of Freemasonry are delivered on the\nassumption that the recipients are men of some education, with the means\nof improving their minds and increasing their knowledge. Even the Entered\nApprentice is reminded, by the rough and perfect ashlars, of the\nimportance and necessity of a virtuous education, in fitting him for the\ndischarge of his duties. To the Fellow Craft, the study of the liberal\narts and sciences is earnestly recommended; and indeed, that sacred\nhieroglyphic, the knowledge of whose occult signification constitutes the\nmost solemn part of his instruction, presupposes an acquaintance at least\nwith the art of reading. And the Master Mason is expressly told in the\nexplanation of the forty-seventh problem of Euclid, as one of the symbols\nof the third degree, that it was introduced into Masonry to teach the\nBrethren the value of the arts and sciences, and that the Mason, like the\ndiscoverer of the problem, our ancient Brother Pythagoras, should be a\ndiligent cultivator of learning. Our lectures, too, abound in allusions\nwhich none but a person of some cultivation of mind could understand or\nappreciate, and to address them, or any portion of our charges which refer\nto the improvement of the intellect and the augmentation of knowledge, to\npersons who can neither read nor write, would be, it seems to us, a\nmockery unworthy of the sacred character of our institution.\n\nFrom these facts and this method of reasoning, I deduce the conclusion\nthat the framers of Masonry, in its present organization as a speculative\ninstitution, must have intended to admit none into its fraternity whose\nminds had not received some preliminary cultivation, and I am, therefore,\nclearly of opinion, that a person who cannot read and write is not legally\nqualified for admission.\n\nAs to the inexpediency of receiving such candidates, there can be no\nquestion or doubt. If Masonry be, as its disciples claim for it, a\nscientific institution, whose great object is to improve the understanding\nand to enlarge and adorn the mind, whose character cannot be appreciated,\nand whose lessons of symbolic wisdom cannot be acquired, without much\nstudious application, how preposterous would it be to place, among its\ndisciples, one who had lived to adult years, without having known the\nnecessity or felt the ambition for a knowledge of the alphabet of his\nmother tongue? Such a man could make no advancement in the art of Masonry;\nand while he would confer no substantial advantage on the institution, he\nwould, by his manifest incapacity and ignorance, detract, in the eyes of\nstrangers, from its honor and dignity as an intellectual society.\n\nIdiots and madmen are excluded from admission into the Order, for the\nevident reason that the former from an absence, and the latter from a\nperversion of the intellectual faculties, are incapable of comprehending\nthe objects, or of assuming the responsibilities and obligations of the\ninstitution.\n\nA question here suggests itself whether a person of present sound mind,\nbut who had formerly been deranged, can legally be initiated. The answer\nto this question turns on the fact of his having perfectly recovered. If\nthe present sanity of the applicant is merely a lucid interval, which\nphysicians know to be sometimes vouched to lunatics, with the absolute\ncertainty, or at best, the strong probability, of an eventual return to a\nstate of mental derangement, he is not, of course, qualified for\ninitiation. But if there has been a real and durable recovery (of which a\nphysician will be a competent judge), then there can be no possible\nobjection to his admission, if otherwise eligible. We are not to look to\nwhat the candidate once was, but to what he now is.\n\nDotage, or the mental imbecility produced by excessive old age, is also a\ndisqualification for admission. Distinguished as it is by puerile desires\nand pursuits, by a failure of the memory, a deficiency of the judgment,\nand a general obliteration of the mental powers, its external signs are\neasily appreciated, and furnish at once abundant reason why, like idiots\nand madmen, the superannuated dotard is unfit to be the recipient of our\nmystic instructions.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\n\n_Of the Political Qualifications of Candidates._\n\n\nThe Constitutions of Masonry require, as the only qualification referring\nto the political condition of the candidate, or his position in society,\nthat he shall be _free-born_. The slave, or even the man born in\nservitude--though he may, subsequently, have obtained his liberty--is\nexcluded by the ancient regulations from initiation. The non-admission of\na slave seems to have been founded upon the best of reasons; because, as\nFreemasonry involves a solemn contract, no one can legally bind himself to\nits performance who is not a free agent and the master of his own actions.\nThat the restriction is extended to those who were originally in a servile\ncondition, but who may have since acquired their liberty, seems to depend\non the principle that birth, in a servile condition, is accompanied by a\ndegradation of mind and abasement of spirit, which no subsequent\ndisenthralment can so completely efface as to render the party qualified\nto perform his duties, as a Mason, with that \"freedom, fervency, and\nzeal,\" which are said to have distinguished our ancient Brethren.\n\"Children,\" says Oliver, \"cannot inherit a free and noble spirit except\nthey be born of a free woman.\"\n\nThe same usage existed in the spurious Freemasonry or the Mysteries of the\nancient world. There, no slave, or men born in slavery, could be\ninitiated; because, the prerequisites imperatively demanded that the\ncandidate should not only be a man of irreproachable manners, but also a\nfree-born denizen of the country in which the mysteries were celebrated.\n\nSome masonic writers have thought that, in this regulation in relation to\nfree birth, some allusion is intended, both in the Mysteries and in\nFreemasonry, to the relative conditions and characters of Isaac and\nIshmael. The former--the accepted one, to whom the promise was given--was\nthe son of a free woman, and the latter, who was cast forth to have \"his\nhand against every man, and every man's hand against him,\" was the child\nof a slave. Wherefore, we read that Sarah demanded of Abraham, \"Cast out\nthis bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir\nwith my son.\" Dr. Oliver, in speaking of the grand festival with which\nAbraham celebrated the weaning of Isaac, says, that he \"had not paid the\nsame compliment at the weaning of Ishmael, because he was the son of a\nbondwoman, and, consequently, could not be admitted to participate in the\nFreemasonry of his father, which could only be conferred on free men born\nof free women.\" The ancient Greeks were of the same opinion; for they used\nthe word \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 or, \"slave manners,\" to designate any very great\nimpropriety of manners.\n\nThe Grand Lodge of England extends this doctrine, that Masons should be\nfree in all their thoughts and actions, so far, that it will not permit\nthe initiation of a candidate who is only temporarily deprived of his\nliberty, or even in a place of confinement. In the year 1782, the Master\nof the Royal Military Lodge, at Woolwich, being confined, most probably\nfor debt, in the King's Bench prison, at London, the lodge, which was\nitinerant in its character, and allowed to move from place to place with\nits regiment, adjourned, with its warrant of constitution, to the Master\nin prison, where several Masons were made. The Grand Lodge, being informed\nof the circumstances, immediately summoned the Master and Wardens of the\nlodge \"to answer for their conduct in making Masons in the King's Bench\nprison,\" and, at the same time, adopted a resolution, affirming that \"it\nis inconsistent with the principles of Freemasonry for any Freemason's\nlodge to be held, for the purposes of making, passing, or raising Masons,\nin any prison or place of confinement.\"\n\n\n\nSection V.\n\n_Of the Petition of Candidates for Admission, and the Action thereon_.\n\n\nThe application of a candidate to a lodge, for initiation, is called a\n\"petition.\" This petition should always be in writing, and generally\ncontains a statement of the petitioner's age, occupation, and place of\nresidence, and a declaration of the motives which have prompted the\napplication, which ought to be \"a favorable opinion conceived of the\ninstitution and a desire of knowledge.\"[67] This petition must be\nrecommended by at least two members of the lodge.\n\nThe petition must be read at a stated or regular communication of the\nlodge, and referred to a committee of three members for an investigation\nof the qualifications and character of the candidate. The committee having\nmade the necessary inquiries, will report the result at the next regular\ncommunication and not sooner.\n\nThe authority for this deliberate mode of proceeding is to be found in the\nfifth of the 39 General Regulations, which is in these words:\n\n\"No man can be made or admitted a member of a particular lodge, without\nprevious notice one month before given to the said lodge, in order to make\ndue inquiry into the reputation and capacity of the candidate; unless by\ndispensation aforesaid.\"\n\nThe last clause in this article provides for the only way in which this\nprobation of a month can be avoided, and that is when the Grand Master,\nfor reasons satisfactory to himself, being such as will constitute what is\ncalled (sometimes improperly) a case of emergency, shall issue a\ndispensation permitting the lodge to proceed forthwith to the election.\n\nBut where this dispensation has not been issued, the committee should\nproceed diligently and faithfully to the discharge of their responsible\nduty. They must inquire into the moral, physical, intellectual and\npolitical qualifications of the candidate, and make their report in\naccordance with the result of their investigations.\n\nThe report cannot be made at a special communication, but must always be\npresented at a regular one. The necessity of such a rule is obvious. As\nthe Master can at any time within his discretion convene a special meeting\nof his lodge, it is evident that a presiding officer, if actuated by an\nimproper desire to intrude an unworthy and unpopular applicant upon the\ncraft, might easily avail himself for that purpose of an occasion when the\nlodge being called for some other purpose, the attendance of the members\nwas small, and causing a ballot to be taken, succeed in electing a\ncandidate, who would, at a regular meeting, have been blackballed by some\nof those who were absent from the special communication.\n\nThis regulation is promulgated by the Grand Lodge of England, in the\nfollowing words: \"No person shall be made a Mason without a regular\nproposition at one lodge and a ballot at the next regular stated lodge;\"\nit appears to have been almost universally adopted in similar language by\nthe Grand Lodges of this country; and, if the exact words of the law are\nwanting in any of the Constitutions, the general usage of the craft has\nfurnished an equivalent authority for the regulation.\n\nIf the report of the committee is unfavorable, the candidate should be\nconsidered as rejected, without any reference to a ballot. This rule is\nalso founded in reason. If the committee, after a due inquiry into the\ncharacter of the applicant, find the result so disadvantageous to him as\nto induce them to make an unfavorable report on his application, it is to\nbe presumed that on a ballot they would vote against his admission, and as\ntheir votes alone would be sufficient to reject him, it is held\nunnecessary to resort in such a case to the supererogatory ordeal of the\nballot. It would, indeed, be an anomalous proceeding, and one which would\nreflect great discredit on the motives and conduct of a committee of\ninquiry, were its members first to report against the reception of a\ncandidate, and then, immediately afterwards, to vote in favor of his\npetition. The lodges will not suppose, for the honor of their committees,\nthat such a proceeding will take place, and accordingly the unfavorable\nreport of the committee is always to be considered as a rejection.\n\nAnother reason for this regulation seems to be this. The fifth General\nRegulation declares that no Lodge should ever make a Mason without \"due\ninquiry\" into his character, and as the duty of making this inquiry is\nentrusted to a competent committee, when that committee has reported that\nthe applicant is unworthy to be made a Mason, it would certainly appear to\nmilitate against the spirit, if not the letter, of the regulation, for the\nlodge, notwithstanding this report, to enter into a ballot on the\npetition.\n\nBut should the committee of investigation report favorably, the lodge will\nthen proceed to a ballot for the candidate; but, as this forms a separate\nand important step in the process of \"making Masons,\" I shall make it the\nsubject of a distinct section.\n\n\n\nSection VI.\n\n_Of Balloting for Candidates._\n\n\nThe Thirty-nine Regulations do not explicitly prescribe the ballot-box as\nthe proper mode of testing the opinion of the lodge on the merits of a\npetition for initiation. The sixth regulation simply says that the consent\nof the members is to be \"formally asked by the Master; and they are to\nsignify their assent or dissent _in their own prudent way_ either\nvirtually or in form, but with unanimity.\" Almost universal usage has,\nhowever, sanctioned the ballot box and the use of black and white balls as\nthe proper mode of obtaining the opinion of the members.\n\nFrom the responsibility of expressing this opinion, and of admitting a\ncandidate into the fraternity or of repulsing him from it, no Mason is\npermitted to shrink. In balloting on a petition, therefore, every member\nof the Lodge is expected to vote; nor can he be excused from the discharge\nof this important duty, except by the unanimous consent of his Brethren.\nAll the members must, therefore, come up to the performance of this trust\nwith firmness, candor, and a full determination to do what is right--to\nallow no personal timidity to forbid the deposit of a black ball, if the\napplicant is unworthy, and no illiberal prejudices to prevent the\ndeposition of a white one, if the character and qualifications of the\ncandidate are unobjectionable. And in all cases where a member himself has\nno personal or acquired knowledge of these qualifications, he should rely\nupon and be governed by the recommendation of his Brethren of the\nCommittee of Investigation, who he has no right to suppose would make a\nfavorable report on the petition of an unworthy applicant.[68]\n\nThe great object of the ballot is, to secure the independence of the\nvoter; and, for this purpose, its secrecy should be inviolate. And this\nsecrecy of the ballot gives rise to a particular rule which necessarily\nflows out of it.\n\nNo Mason can be called to an account for the vote which he has deposited.\nThe very secrecy of the ballot is intended to secure the independence and\nirresponsibility to the lodge of the voter. And, although it is\nundoubtedly a crime for a member to vote against the petition of an\napplicant on account of private pique or personal prejudice, still the\nlodge has no right to judge that such motives alone actuated him. The\nmotives of men, unless divulged by themselves, can be known only to God;\n\"and if,\" as Wayland says, \"from any circumstances we are led to entertain\nany doubts of the motives of men, we are bound to retain these doubts\nwithin our own bosoms.\" Hence, no judicial notice can be or ought to be\ntaken by a lodge of a vote cast by a member, on the ground of his having\nbeen influenced by improper motives, because it is impossible for the\nlodge legally to arrive at the knowledge; in the first place, of the vote\nthat he has given, and secondly, of the motives by which he has been\ncontrolled.\n\nAnd even if a member voluntarily should divulge the nature of his vote and\nof his motives, it is still exceedingly questionable whether the lodge\nshould take any notice of the act, because by so doing the independence of\nthe ballot might be impaired. It is through a similar mode of reasoning\nthat the Constitution of the United States provides, that the members of\nCongress shall not be questioned, in any other place, for any speech or\ndebate in either House. As in this way the freedom of debate is preserved\nin legislative bodies, so in like manner should the freedom of the ballot\nbe insured in lodges.\n\nThe sixth General Regulation requires unanimity in the ballot. Its\nlanguage is: \"but no man can be entered a Brother in any particular lodge,\nor admitted to be a member thereof, without the _unanimous consent of all\nthe members of that lodge_ then present when the candidate is proposed.\"\nThis regulation, it will be remembered, was adopted in 1721. But in the\n\"New Regulations,\" adopted in 1754, and which are declared to have been\nenacted \"only for amending or explaining the Old Regulations for the good\nof Masonry, without breaking in upon the ancient rules of the fraternity,\nstill preserving the old landmarks,\" it is said: \"but it was found\ninconvenient to insist upon unanimity in several cases; and, therefore,\nthe Grand Masters have allowed the lodges to admit a member, if not above\nthree black balls are against him; though some lodges desire no such\nallowance.\"[69]\n\nThe Grand Lodge of England still acts under this new regulation, and\nextends the number of black balls which will reject to three, though it\npermits its subordinates, if they desire it, to require unanimity. But\nnearly all the Grand Lodges of this country have adhered to the old\nregulation, which is undoubtedly the better one, and by special enactment\nhave made the unanimous consent of all the Brethren present necessary to\nthe election of a candidate.\n\nAnother question here suggests itself. Can a member, who by the bye-laws\nof his lodge is disqualified from the exercise of his other franchises as\na member, in consequence of being in arrears beyond a certain amount, be\nprevented from depositing his ballot on the application of a candidate?\nThat by such a bye-law he may be disfranchised of his vote in electing\nofficers, or of the right to hold office, will be freely admitted. But the\nwords of the old regulation seem expressly, and without equivocation, to\nrequire that _every member present_ shall vote. The candidate shall only\nbe admitted \"by the unanimous consent of all the members of that lodge\nthen present when the candidate is proposed.\" This right of the members to\nelect or reject their candidates is subsequently called \"an inherent\nprivilege,\" which is not subject to a dispensation. The words are\nexplicit, and the right appears to be one guaranteed to every member so\nlong as he continues a member, and of which no bye-law can divest him as\nlong as the paramount authority of the Thirty-nine General Regulations is\nadmitted. I should say, then, that every member of a lodge present at\nballoting for a candidate has a right to deposit his vote; and not only a\nright, but a duty which he is to be compelled to perform; since, without\nthe unanimous consent of all present, there can be no election.\n\nOur written laws are altogether silent as to the peculiar ceremonies which\nare to accompany the act of balloting, which has therefore been generally\ndirected by the local usage of different jurisdictions. Uniformity,\nhowever, in this, as in all other ritual observances, is to be commended,\nand I shall accordingly here describe the method which I have myself\npreferred and practised in balloting for candidates, and which is the\ncustom adopted in the jurisdiction of South Carolina.[70]\n\nThe committee of investigation having reported favorably, the Master of\nthe lodge directs the Senior Deacon to prepare the ballot box. The mode in\nwhich this is accomplished is as follows:--The Senior Deacon takes the\nballot box, and, opening it, places all the white and black balls\nindiscriminately in one compartment, leaving the other entirely empty. He\nthen proceeds with the box to the Junior and Senior Wardens, who satisfy\nthemselves by an inspection that no ball has been left in the compartment\nin which the votes are to be deposited. I remark here, in passing, that\nthe box, in this and the other instance to be referred to hereafter, is\npresented to the inferior officer first, and then to his superior, that\nthe examination and decision of the former may be substantiated and\nconfirmed by the higher authority of the latter. Let it, indeed, be\nremembered, that in all such cases the usage of masonic _circumambulation_\nis to be observed, and that, therefore, we must first pass the Junior's\nstation before we can get to that of the Senior Warden.\n\nThese officers having thus satisfied themselves that the box is in a\nproper condition for the reception of the ballots, it is then placed upon\nthe altar by the Senior Deacon, who retires to his seat. The Master then\ndirects the Secretary to call the roll, which is done by commencing with\nthe Worshipful Master, and proceeding through all the officers down to the\nyoungest member. As a matter of convenience, the Secretary generally votes\nthe last of those in the room, and then, if the Tiler is a member of the\nlodge, he is called in, while the Junior Deacon tiles for him, and the\nname of the applicant having been told him, he is directed to deposit his\nballot, which he does, and then retires.\n\nAs the name of each officer and member is called he approaches the altar,\nand having made the proper masonic salutation to the Chair, he deposits\nhis ballot and retires to his seat. The roll should be called slowly, so\nthat at no time should there be more than one person present at the box;\nfor, the great object of the ballot being secrecy, no Brother should be\npermitted so near the member voting as to distinguish the color of the\nball he deposits.\n\nThe box is placed on the altar, and the ballot is deposited with the\nsolemnity of a masonic salutation, that the voters may be duly impressed\nwith the sacred and responsible nature of the duty they are called on to\ndischarge. The system of voting thus described, is, therefore, far better\non this account than the one sometimes adopted in lodges, of handing round\nthe box for the members to deposit their ballots from their seats\n\nThe Master having inquired of the Wardens if all have voted, then orders\nthe Senior Deacon to \"take charge of the ballot box.\" That officer\naccordingly repairs to the altar, and taking possession of the box,\ncarries it, as before, to the Junior Warden, who examines the ballot, and\nreports, if all the balls are white, that \"the box is clear in the South,\"\nor, if there is one or more black balls, that \"the box is foul in the\nSouth.\" The Deacon then carries it to the Senior Warden, and afterwards to\nthe Master, who, of course, make the same report, according to the\ncircumstances, with the necessary verbal variation of \"West\" and \"East.\"\n\nIf the box is _clear_--that is, if all the ballots are white--the Master\nthen announces that the applicant has been duly elected, and the Secretary\nmakes a record of the fact.\n\nBut if the box is declared to be _foul_, the Master inspects the number\nof black balls; if he finds two, he declares the candidate to be rejected;\nif only one, he so states the fact to the lodge, and orders the Senior\nDeacon again to prepare the ballot box, and a second ballot is taken in\nthe same way. This is done lest a black ball might have been inadvertently\nvoted on the first ballot. If, on the second scrutiny, one black ball is\nagain found, the fact is announced by the Master, who orders the election\nto lie over until the next stated meeting, and requests the Brother who\ndeposited the black ball to call upon him and state his reasons. At the\nnext stated meeting the Master announces these reasons to the lodge, if\nany have been made known to him, concealing, of course, the name of the\nobjecting Brother. At this time the validity or truth of the objections\nmay be discussed, and the friends of the applicant will have an\nopportunity of offering any defense or explanation. The ballot is then\ntaken a third time, and the result, whatever it may be, is final. As I\nhave already observed, in most of the lodges of this country, a\nreappearance of the one black ball will amount to a rejection. In those\nlodges which do not require unanimity, it will, of course, be necessary\nthat the requisite number of black balls must be deposited on this third\nballot to insure a rejection. But if, on inspection, the box is found to\nbe \"clear,\" or without a black ball, the candidate is, of course, declared\nto be elected. In any case, the result of the third ballot is final, nor\ncan it be set aside or reversed by the action of the Grand Master or Grand\nLodge; because, by the sixth General Regulation, already so frequently\ncited, the members of every particular lodge are the best judges of the\nqualifications of their candidates; and, to use the language of the\nRegulation, \"if a fractious member should be imposed on them, it might\nspoil their harmony, or hinder their freedom, or even break and disperse\nthe lodge.\"\n\n\n\nSection VII.\n\n_Of the Reconsideration of the Ballot._\n\n\nThere are, unfortunately, some men in our Order, governed, not by\nessentially bad motives, but by frail judgments and by total ignorance of\nthe true object and design of Freemasonry, who never, under any\ncircumstances, have recourse to the black ball, that great bulwark of\nMasonry, and are always more or less incensed when any more judicious\nBrother exercises his privilege of excluding those whom he thinks unworthy\nof participation in our mysteries.\n\nI have said, that these men are not governed by motives essentially bad.\nThis is the fact. They honestly desire the prosperity of the institution,\nand they would not willfully do one act which would impede that\nprosperity. But their judgments are weak, and their zeal is without\nknowledge. They do not at all understand in what the true prosperity of\nthe Order consists, but really and conscientiously believing that its\nactual strength will be promoted by the increase of the number of its\ndisciples; they look rather to the _quantity_ than to the _quality_ of the\napplicants who knock at the doors of our lodges.\n\nNow a great difference in respect to the mode in which the ballot is\nconducted, will be found in those lodges which are free from the presence\nof such injudicious brethren, and others into which they have gained\nadmittance.\n\nIn a lodge in which every member has a correct notion of the proper moral\nqualifications of the candidates for Masonry, and where there is a general\ndisposition to work well with a few, rather than to work badly with many,\nwhen a ballot is ordered, each Brother, having deposited his vote,\nquietly and calmly waits to hear the decision of the ballot box announced\nby the Chair. If it is \"clear,\" all are pleased that another citizen has\nbeen found worthy to receive a portion of the illuminating rays of\nMasonry. If it is \"foul,\" each one is satisfied with the adjudication, and\nrejoices that, although knowing nothing himself against the candidate,\nsome one has been present whom a more intimate acquaintance with the\ncharacter of the applicant has enabled to interpose his veto, and prevent\nthe purity of the Order from being sullied by the admission of an unworthy\ncandidate. Here the matter ends, and the lodge proceeds to other business.\n\nBut in a lodge where one of these injudicious and over-zealous Brethren is\npresent, how different is the scene. If the candidate is elected, he, too,\nrejoices; but his joy is, that the lodge has gained one more member whose\nannual dues and whose initiation fee will augment the amount of its\nrevenues. If he is rejected, he is indignant that the lodge has been\ndeprived of this pecuniary accession, and forthwith he sets to work to\nreverse, if possible, the decision of the ballot box, and by a volunteer\ndefense of the rejected candidate, and violent denunciations of those who\nopposed him, he seeks to alarm the timid and disgust the intelligent, so\nthat, on a _reconsideration_, they may be induced to withdraw their\nopposition.\n\nThe _motion for reconsideration_ is, then, the means generally adopted, by\nsuch seekers after quantity, to insure the success of their efforts to\nbring all into our fold who seek admission, irrespective of worth or\nqualification. In other words, we may say, that _the motion for\nreconsideration is the great antagonist of the purity and security of the\nballot box_. The importance, then, of the position which it thus assumes,\ndemands a brief discussion of the time and mode in which a ballot may be\nreconsidered.\n\nIn the beginning of the discussion, it may be asserted, that it is\ncompetent for any brother to move a reconsideration of a ballot, or for a\nlodge to vote on such a motion. The ballot is a part of the work of\ninitiating a candidate. It is the preparatory step, and is just as\nnecessary to his legal making as the obligation or the investiture. As\nsuch, then, it is clearly entirely under the control of the Master. The\nConstitutions of Masonry and the Rules and Regulations of every Grand and\nSubordinate lodge prescribe the mode in which the ballot shall be\nconducted, so that the sense of the members may be taken. The Grand Lodge\nalso requires that the Master of the lodge shall see that that exact mode\nof ballot shall be pursued and no other, and it will hold him responsible\nthat there shall be no violation of the rule. If, then, the Master is\nsatisfied that the ballot has been regularly and correctly conducted, and\nthat no possible good, but some probable evil, would arise from its\nreconsideration, it is not only competent for him, but it is his solemn\nduty to refuse to permit any such reconsideration. A motion to that\neffect, it may be observed, will always be out of order, although any\nBrother may respectfully request the Worshipful Master to order such a\nreconsideration, or suggest to him its propriety or expediency.\n\nIf, however, the Master is not satisfied that the ballot is a true\nindication of the sense of the lodge, he may, in his own discretion, order\na reconsideration. Thus there may be but one black ball;--now a single\nblack ball may sometimes be inadvertently cast--the member voting it may\nhave been favorably disposed towards the candidate, and yet, from the\nhurry and confusion of voting, or from the dimness of the light or the\ninfirmity of his own eyes, or from some other equally natural cause, he\nmay have selected a black ball, when he intended to have taken a white\none. It is, therefore, a matter of prudence and necessary caution, that,\nwhen only one black ball appears, the Master should order a new ballot. On\nthis second ballot, it is to be presumed that more care and vigilance will\nbe used, and the reappearance of the black ball will then show that it was\ndeposited designedly.\n\nBut where two or three or more black balls appear on the first ballot,\nsuch a course of reasoning is not authorized, and the Master will then be\nright to refuse a reconsideration. The ballot has then been regularly\ntaken--the lodge has emphatically decided for a rejection, and any order\nto renew the ballot would only be an insult to those who opposed the\nadmission of the applicant, and an indirect attempt to thrust an unwelcome\nintruder upon the lodge.\n\nBut although it is in the power of the Master, under the circumstances\nwhich we have described, to order a reconsideration, yet this prerogative\nis accompanied with certain restrictions, which it may be well to notice.\n\nIn the first place, the Master cannot order a reconsideration on any other\nnight than that on which the original ballot was taken.[71] After the\nlodge is closed, the decision of the ballot is final, and there is no\nhuman authority that can reverse it. The reason of this rule is evident.\nIf it were otherwise, an unworthy Master (for, unfortunately, all Masters\nare not worthy) might on any subsequent evening avail himself of the\nabsence of those who had voted black balls, to order a reconsideration,\nand thus succeed in introducing an unfit and rejected candidate into the\nlodge, contrary to the wishes of a portion of its members.\n\nNeither can he order a reconsideration on the same night, if any of the\nBrethren who voted have retired. All who expressed their opinion on the\nfirst ballot, must be present to express it on the second. The reasons for\nthis restriction are as evident as for the former, and are of the same\ncharacter.\n\nIt must be understood, that I do not here refer to those reconsiderations\nof the ballot which are necessary to a full understanding of the opinion\nof the lodge, and which have been detailed in the ceremonial of the mode\nof balloting, as it was described in the preceding Section.\n\nIt may be asked whether the Grand Master cannot, by his dispensations,\npermit a reconsideration. I answer emphatically, NO. The Grand Master\npossesses no such prerogative. There is no law in the whole jurisprudence\nof the institution clearer than this--that neither the Grand Lodge nor the\nGrand Master can interfere with the decision of the ballot box. In\nAnderson's Constitutions, the law is laid down, under the head of \"Duty of\nMembers\" (edition of 1755, p. 312), that in the election of candidates the\nBrethren \"are to give their consent in their own prudent way, either\nvirtually or in form, but with unanimity.\" And the regulation goes on to\nsay: \"Nor is this inherent privilege _subject to a dispensation_, because\nthe members of a lodge are the best judges of it; and because, if a\nturbulent member should be imposed upon them, it might spoil their\nharmony, or hinder the freedom of their communications, or even break and\ndisperse the lodge.\" This settles the question. A dispensation to\nreconsider a ballot would be an interference with the right of the members\n\"to give their consent in their own prudent way;\" it would be an\ninfringement of an \"inherent privilege,\" and neither the Grand Lodge nor\nthe Grand Master can issue a dispensation for such a purpose. Every lodge\nmust be left to manage its own elections of candidates in its own prudent\nway.\n\nI conclude this section by a summary of the principles which have been\ndiscussed, and which I have endeavored to enforce by a process of\nreasoning which I trust may be deemed sufficiently convincing. They are\nbriefly these:\n\n1. It is never in order for a member to move for the reconsideration of a\nballot on the petition of a candidate for initiation, nor for a lodge to\nentertain such a motion.\n\n2. The Master alone can, for reasons satisfactory to himself, order such a\nreconsideration.\n\n3. The Master cannot order a reconsideration on any subsequent night, nor\non the same night, after any member, who was present and voted, has\ndeparted.\n\n4. The Grand Master cannot grant a dispensation for a reconsideration, nor\nin any other way interfere with the ballot. The same restriction applies\nto the Grand Lodge.\n\n\n\nSection VIII.\n\n_Of the Renewal of Applications by Rejected Candidates._\n\n\nAs it is apparent from the last section that there can be no\nreconsideration by a lodge of a rejected petition, the question will\nnaturally arise, how an error committed by a lodge, in the rejection of a\nworthy applicant, is to be corrected, or how such a candidate, when once\nrejected, is ever to make a second trial, for it is, of course, admitted,\nthat circumstances may occur in which a candidate who had been once\nblackballed might, on a renewal of his petition, be found worthy of\nadmission. He may have since reformed and abandoned the vicious habits\nwhich caused his first rejection, or it may have been since discovered\nthat that rejection was unjust. How, then, is such a candidate to make a\nnew application?\n\nIt is a rule of universal application in Masonry, that no candidate,\nhaving been once rejected, can apply to any other lodge for admission,\nexcept to the one which rejected him. Under this regulation the course of\na second application is as follows:\n\nSome Grand Lodges have prescribed that, when a candidate has been\nrejected, it shall not be competent for him to apply within a year, six\nmonths, or some other definite period. This is altogether a local\nregulation--there is no such law in the Ancient Constitutions--and\ntherefore, where the regulations of the Grand Lodge of the jurisdiction\nare silent upon the subject, general principles direct the following as\nthe proper course for a rejected candidate to pursue on a second\napplication. He must send in a new letter, recommended and vouched for as\nbefore, either by the same or other Brethren--it must be again referred to\na committee--lie over for a month--and the ballot be then taken as is\nusual in other cases. It must be treated in all respects as an entirely\nnew petition, altogether irrespective of the fact that the same person had\never before made an application. In this way due notice will be given to\nthe Brethren, and all possibility of an unfair election will be avoided.\n\nIf the local regulations are silent upon the subject, the second\napplication may be made at any time after the rejection of the first, all\nthat is necessary being, that the second application should pass through\nthe same ordeal and be governed by the same rules that prevail in relation\nto an original application.\n\n\n\nSection IX.\n\n_Of the necessary Probation and due Proficiency of Candidates before\nAdvancement_.\n\n\nThere is, perhaps, no part of the jurisprudence of Masonry which it is\nmore necessary strictly to observe than that which relates to the\nadvancement of candidates through the several degrees. The method which is\nadopted in passing Apprentices and raising Fellow Crafts--the probation\nwhich they are required to serve in each degree before advancing to a\nhigher--and the instructions which they receive in their progress, often\nmaterially affect the estimation which is entertained of the institution\nby its initiates. The candidate who long remains at the porch of the\ntemple, and lingers in the middle chamber, noting everything worthy of\nobservation in his passage to the holy of holies, while he better\nunderstands the nature of the profession upon which he has entered, will\nhave a more exalted opinion of its beauties and excellencies than he who\nhas advanced, with all the rapidity that dispensations can furnish, from\nthe lowest to the highest grades of the Order. In the former case, the\ndesign, the symbolism, the history, and the moral and philosophical\nbearing of each degree will be indelibly impressed upon the mind, and the\nappositeness of what has gone before to what is to succeed will be readily\nappreciated; but, in the latter, the lessons of one hour will be\nobliterated by those of the succeeding one; that which has been learned in\none degree, will be forgotten in the next; and when all is completed, and\nthe last instructions have been imparted, the dissatisfied neophyte will\nfind his mind, in all that relates to Masonry, in a state of chaotic\nconfusion. Like Cassio, he will remember \"a mass of things, but nothing\ndistinctly.\"\n\nAn hundred years ago it was said that \"Masonry was a progressive science,\nand not to be attained in any degree of perfection, but by time, patience,\nand a considerable degree of application and industry.\"[72] And it is\nbecause that due proportion of time, patience and application, has not\nbeen observed, that we so often see Masons indifferent to the claims of\nthe institution, and totally unable to discern its true character. The\narcana of the craft, as Dr. Harris remarks, should be gradually imparted\nto its members, according to their improvement.\n\nThere is no regulation of our Order more frequently repeated in our\nconstitutions, nor one which should be more rigidly observed, than that\nwhich requires of every candidate a \"suitable proficiency\" in one degree,\nbefore he is permitted to pass to another. But as this regulation is too\noften neglected, to the manifest injury of the whole Order, as well as of\nthe particular lodge which violates it, by the introduction of ignorant\nand unskillful workmen into the temple, it may be worth the labor we shall\nspend upon the subject, to investigate some of the authorities which\nsupport us in the declaration, that no candidate should be promoted,\nuntil, by a due probation, he has made \"suitable proficiency in the\npreceding degree.\"\n\nIn one of the earliest series of regulations that have been\npreserved--made in the reign of Edward III., it was ordained, \"that such\nas were to be admitted Master Masons, or Masters of work, should be\nexamined whether they be able of cunning to serve their respective Lords,\nas well the lowest as the highest, to the honor and worship of the\naforesaid art, and to the profit of their Lords.\"\n\nHere, then, we may see the origin of that usage, which is still practiced\nin every well governed lodge, not only of demanding a proper degree of\nproficiency in the candidate, but also of testing that proficiency by an\nexamination.\n\nThis cautious and honest fear of the fraternity, lest any Brother should\nassume the duties of a position which he could not faithfully discharge,\nand which is, in our time, tantamount to a candidate's advancing to a\ndegree for which he is not prepared, is again exhibited in the charges\nenacted in the reign of James II., the manuscript of which was preserved\nin the archives of the Lodge of Antiquity in London. In these charges it\nis required, \"that no Mason take on no lord's worke, nor any other man's,\nunless he know himselfe well able to perform the worke, so that the craft\nhave no slander.\" In the same charges, it is prescribed that \"no master,\nor fellow, shall take no apprentice for less than seven years.\"\n\nIn another series of charges, whose exact date is not ascertained, but\nwhose language and orthography indicate their antiquity, it is said: \"Ye\nshall ordain the wisest to be Master of the work; and neither for love nor\nlineage, riches nor favor, set one over the work[73] who hath but little\nknowledge, whereby the Master would be evil served, and ye ashamed.\"\n\nThese charges clearly show the great stress that was placed by our ancient\nBrethren upon the necessity of skill and proficiency, and they have\nfurnished the precedents upon which are based all the similar regulations\nthat have been subsequently applied to Speculative Masonry.\n\nIn the year 1722, the Grand Lodge of England ordered the \"Old Charges of\nthe Free and Accepted Masons\" to be collected from the ancient records,\nand, having approved of them, they became a part of the Constitutions of\nSpeculative Freemasonry. In these Charges, it is ordained that \"a younger\nBrother shall be instructed in working, to prevent spoiling the materials\nfor want of judgment, and for increasing and continuing of brotherly\nlove.\"\n\nSubsequently, in 1767, it was declared by the Grand Lodge, that \"no lodge\nshall be permitted to make and raise the same Brother, at one and the same\nmeeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master, or his Deputy;\"\nand, lest too frequent advantage should be taken of this power of\ndispensation, to hurry candidates through the degrees, it is added that\nthe dispensation, \"_on very particular occasions only_, may be\nrequested.\"\n\nThe Grand Lodge of England afterwards found it necessary to be more\nexplicit on this subject, and the regulation of that body is now contained\nin the following language:\n\n\"No candidate shall be permitted to receive more than one degree on the\nsame day, nor shall a higher degree in Masonry be conferred on any Brother\nat a less interval than four weeks from his receiving a previous degree,\nnor until he has passed an examination in open lodge in that degree.\"[74]\n\nThis seems to be the recognized principle on which the fraternity are, at\nthis day, acting in this country. The rule is, perhaps, sometimes, and in\nsome places, in abeyance. A few lodges, from an impolitic desire to\nincrease their numerical strength, or rapidly to advance men of worldly\nwealth or influence to high stations in the Order, may infringe it, and\nneglect to demand of their candidates that suitable proficiency which\nought to be, in Masonry, an essential recommendation to promotion; but the\ngreat doctrine that each degree should be well studied, and the candidate\nprove his proficiency in it by an examination, has been uniformly set\nforth by the Grand Lodge of the United States, whenever they have\nexpressed an opinion on the subject.\n\nThus, for instance, in 1845, the late Bro. A.A. Robertson, Grand Master of\nNew York, gave utterance to the following opinion, in his annual address\nto the intelligent body over which he presided:\n\n\"The practice of examining candidates in the prior degrees, before\nadmission to the higher, in order to ascertain their proficiency, is\ngaining the favorable notice of Masters of lodges, and cannot be too\nhighly valued, nor too strongly recommended to all lodges in this\njurisdiction. It necessarily requires the novitiate to reflect upon the\nbearing of all that has been so far taught him, and consequently to\nimpress upon his mind the beauty and utility of those sublime truths,\nwhich have been illustrated in the course of the ceremonies he has\nwitnessed in his progress in the mystic art. In a word, it will be the\nmeans of making competent overseers of the work--and no candidate should\nbe advanced, until he has satisfied the lodge, by such examination, that\nhe has made the necessary proficiency in the lower degrees.\"[75]\n\nIn 1845, the Grand Lodge of Iowa issued a circular to her subordinates,\nin which she gave the following admonition:\n\n\"To guard against hasty and improper work, she prohibits a candidate from\nbeing advanced till he has made satisfactory proficiency in the preceding\ndegrees, by informing himself of the lectures pertaining thereto; and to\nsuffer a candidate to proceed who is ignorant in this essential\nparticular, is calculated in a high degree to injure the institution and\nretard its usefulness.\"\n\nThe Grand Lodge of Illinois has practically declared its adhesion to the\nancient regulation; for, in the year 1843, the dispensation of Nauvoo\nLodge, one of its subordinates, was revoked principally on the ground that\nshe was guilty \"of pushing the candidate through the second and third\ndegrees, before he could possibly be skilled in the preceding degree.\" And\nthe committee who recommended the revocation, very justly remarked that\nthey were not sure that any length of probation would in all cases insure\nskill, but they were certain that the ancient landmarks of the Order\nrequired that the lodge should know that the candidate is well skilled in\none degree before being admitted to another.\n\nThe Grand Lodges of Massachusetts and South Carolina have adopted, almost\nin the precise words, the regulation of the Grand Lodge of England,\nalready cited, which requires an interval of one month to elapse between\nthe conferring of degrees. The Grand Lodge of New Hampshire requires a\ngreater probation for its candidates; its constitution prescribes the\nfollowing regulation: \"All Entered Apprentices must work five months as\nsuch, before they can be admitted to the degree of Fellow Craft. All\nFellow Crafts must work in a lodge of Fellow Crafts three months, before\nthey can be raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason. Provided,\nnevertheless, that if any Entered Apprentice, or Fellow Craft, shall make\nhimself thoroughly acquainted with all the information belonging to his\ndegree, he may be advanced at an earlier period, at the discretion of the\nlodge.\"\n\nBut, perhaps, the most stringent rule upon this subject, is that which\nexists in the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Hanover, which is in the\nfollowing words:\n\n\"No Brother can be elected an officer of a lodge until he has been three\nyears a Master Mason. A Fellow Craft must work at least one year in that\ndegree, before he can be admitted to the third degree. An Entered\nApprentice must remain at least two years in that degree.\"\n\nIt seems unnecessary to extend these citations. The existence of the\nregulation, which requires a necessary probation in candidates, until due\nproficiency is obtained, is universally admitted. The ancient\nconstitutions repeatedly assert it, and it has received the subsequent\nsanction of innumerable Masonic authorities. But, unfortunately, the\npractice is not always in accordance with the rule. And, hence, the object\nof this article is not so much to demonstrate the existence of the law, as\nto urge upon our readers the necessity of a strict adherence to it. There\nis no greater injury which can be inflicted on the Masonic Order (the\nadmission of immoral persons excepted), than that of hurrying candidates\nthrough the several degrees. Injustice is done to the institution, whose\npeculiar principles and excellencies are never properly presented--and\nirreparable injury to the candidate, who, acquiring no fair appreciation\nof the ceremonies through which he rapidly passes, or of the instructions\nwhich he scarcely hears, is filled either with an indifference that never\nafterwards can be warmed into zeal, or with a disgust that can never be\nchanged into esteem. Masonry is betrayed in such an instance by its\nfriends, and often loses the influence of an intelligent member, who, if\nhe had been properly instructed, might have become one of its warmest and\nmost steadfast advocates.\n\nThis subject is so important, that I will not hesitate to add to the\ninfluence of these opinions the great sanction of Preston's authority.\n\n\"Many persons,\" says that able philosopher of Masonry, \"are deluded by the\nvague supposition that our mysteries are merely nominal; that the\npractices established among us are frivolous, and that our ceremonies may\nbe adopted, or waived at pleasure. On this false foundation, we find them\nhurrying through all the degrees of the Order, without adverting to the\npropriety of one step they pursue, or possessing a single qualification\nrequisite for advancement. Passing through the usual formalities, they\nconsider themselves entitled to rank as masters of the art, solicit and\naccept offices, and assume the government of the lodge, equally\nunacquainted with the rules of the institution they pretend to support, or\nthe nature of the trust they engage to perform. The consequence is\nobvious; anarchy and confusion ensue, and the substance is lost in the\nshadow. Hence men eminent for ability, rank, and fortune, are often led to\nview the honors of Masonry with such indifference, that when their\npatronage is solicited, they either accept offices with reluctance, or\nreject them with disdain.\"[76]\n\nLet, then, no lodge which values its own usefulness, or the character of\nour institution, admit any candidate to a higher degree, until he has made\nsuitable proficiency in the preceding one, to be always tested by a strict\nexamination in open lodge. Nor can it do so, without a palpable violation\nof the laws of Masonry.\n\n\n\nSection X.\n\n_Of Balloting for Candidates in each Degree._\n\n\nAlthough there is no law, in the Ancient Constitutions, which in express\nwords requires a ballot for candidates in each degree, yet the whole tenor\nand spirit of these constitutions seem to indicate that there should be\nrecourse to such a ballot. The constant reference, in the numerous\npassages which were cited in the preceding Section, to the necessity of\nan examination into the proficiency of those who sought advancement, would\nnecessarily appear to imply that a vote of the lodge must be taken on the\nquestion of this proficiency. Accordingly, modern Grand Lodges have\ngenerally, by special enactment, required a ballot to be taken on the\napplication of an Apprentice or Fellow Craft for advancement, and where no\nsuch regulation has been explicitly laid down, the almost constant usage\nof the craft has been in favor of such ballot.\n\nThe Ancient Constitutions having been silent on the subject of the letter\nof the law, local usage or regulations must necessarily supply the\nspecific rule.\n\nWhere not otherwise provided by the Constitutions of a Grand Lodge or the\nbye-laws of a subordinate lodge, analogy would instruct us that the\nballot, on the application of Apprentices or Fellow Crafts for\nadvancement, should be governed by the same principles that regulate the\nballot on petitions for initiation.\n\nOf course, then, the vote should be unanimous: for I see no reason why a\nlodge of Fellow Crafts should be less guarded in its admission of\nApprentices, than a lodge of Apprentices is in its admission of profanes.\n\nAgain, the ballot should take place at a stated meeting, so that every\nmember may have \"due and timely notice,\" and be prepared to exercise his\n\"inherent privilege\" of granting or withholding his consent; for it must\nbe remembered that the man who was worthy or supposed to be so, when\ninitiated as an Entered Apprentice, may prove to be unworthy when he\napplies to pass as a Fellow Graft, and every member should, therefore,\nhave the means and opportunity of passing his judgment on that worthiness\nor unworthiness.\n\nIf the candidate for advancement has been rejected once, he may again\napply, if there is no local regulation to the contrary. But, in such a\ncase, due notice should be given to all the members, which is best done by\nmaking the application at one regular meeting, and voting for it on the\nnext. This, however, I suppose to be only necessary in the case of a\nrenewed application after a rejection. An Entered Apprentice or a Fellow\nCraft is entitled after due probation to make his application for\nadvancement; and his first application may be balloted for on the same\nevening, provided it be a regular meeting of the lodge. The members are\nsupposed to know what work is before them to do, and should be there to\ndo it.\n\nBut the case is otherwise whenever a candidate for advancement has been\nrejected. He has now been set aside by the lodge, and no time is laid down\nin the regulations or usages of the craft for his making a second\napplication. He may never do so, or he may in three months, in a year, or\nin five years. The members are, therefore, no more prepared to expect this\nrenewed application at any particular meeting of the lodge, than they are\nto anticipate any entirely new petition of a profane. If, therefore, the\nsecond application is not made at one regular meeting and laid over to the\nnext, the possibility is that the lodge may be taken by surprise, and in\nthe words of the old Regulation, \"a turbulent member may be imposed on\nit.\"\n\nThe inexpediency of any other course may be readily seen, from a\nsuppositions case. We will assume that in a certain lodge, A, who is a\nFellow Craft, applies regularly for advancement to the third degree. On\nthis occasion, for good and sufficient reasons, two of the members, B and\nC, express their dissent by depositing black balls. His application to be\nraised is consequently rejected, and he remains a Fellow Graft. Two or\nthree meetings of the lodge pass over, and at each, B and C are present;\nbut, at the fourth meeting, circumstances compel their absence, and the\nfriends of A, taking advantage of that occurrence, again propose him for\nadvancement; the ballot is forthwith taken, and he is elected and raised\non the same evening. The injustice of this course to B and C, and the evil\nto the lodge and the whole fraternity, in this imposition of one who is\nprobably an unworthy person, will be apparent to every intelligent and\nright-minded Mason.\n\nI do not, however, believe that a candidate should be rejected, on his\napplication for advancement, in consequence of objections to his moral\nworth and character. In such a case, the proper course would be to prefer\ncharges, to try him as an Apprentice or Fellow Craft; and, if found\nguilty, to suspend, expel, or otherwise appropriately punish him. The\napplicant as well as the Order is, in such a case, entitled to a fair\ntrial. Want of proficiency, or a mental or physical disqualification\nacquired since the reception of the preceding degree, is alone a\nlegitimate cause for an estoppal of advancement by the ballot. But this\nsubject will be treated of further in the chapter on the rights of Entered\nApprentices.\n\n\n\nSection XI.\n\n_Of the Number to be Initiated at one Communication._\n\n\nThe fourth General Regulation decrees that \"no Lodge shall make more than\nfive new Brothers at one time.\" This regulation has been universally\ninterpreted (and with great propriety) to mean that not more than five\ndegrees can be conferred at the same communication.\n\nThis regulation is, however, subject to dispensation by the Grand Master,\nor Presiding Grand Officer, in which case the number to be initiated,\npassed, or raised, will be restricted only by the words of the\ndispensation.\n\nThe following, or fifth General Regulation, says that \"no man can be made\nor admitted a member of a particular lodge, without previous notice, one\nmonth before, given to the same lodge.\"\n\nNow, as a profane cannot be admitted an Entered Apprentice, or in other\nwords, a member of an Entered Apprentices' lodge, unless after one month's\nnotice, so it follows that an Apprentice cannot be admitted a member of a\nFellow Crafts' lodge, nor a Fellow Craft of a Masters', without the like\nprobation. For the words of the regulation which apply to one, will\nequally apply to the others. And hence we derive the law, that a month at\nleast must always intervene between the reception of one degree and the\nadvancement to another. But this rule is also subject to a dispensation.\n\n\n\nSection XII.\n\n_Of Finishing the Candidates of one Lodge in another._\n\n\nIt is an ancient and universal regulation, that no lodge shall interfere\nwith the work of another by initiating its candidates, or passing or\nraising its Apprentices and Fellow Crafts. Every lodge is supposed to be\ncompetent to manage its own business, and ought to be the best judge of\nthe qualifications of its own members, and hence it would be highly\nimproper in any lodge to confer a degree on a Brother who is not of its\nhousehold.\n\nThis regulation is derived from a provision in the Ancient Charges, which\nhave very properly been supposed to contain the fundamental law of\nMasonry, and which prescribes the principle of the rule in the following\nsymbolical language:\n\n\"None shall discover envy at the prosperity of a Brother, nor supplant him\nor put him out of his work, if he be capable to finish the same; for no\nman can finish another's work, so much to the Lord's profit, unless he be\nthoroughly acquainted with the designs and draughts of him that began it.\"\n\nThere is, however, a case in which one lodge may, by consent, legally\nfinish the work of another. Let us suppose that a candidate has been\ninitiated in a lodge at A----, and, before he receives his second degree,\nremoves to B----, and that being, by the urgency of his business, unable\neither to postpone his departure from A----, until he has been passed and\nraised, or to return for the purpose of his receiving his second and third\ndegrees, then it is competent for the lodge at A---- to grant permission\nto the lodge at B---- to confer them on the candidate.\n\nBut how shall this permission be given--by a unanimous vote, or merely by\na vote of the majority of the members at A----? Here it seems to me that,\nso far as regards the lodge at A----, the reasons for unanimity no longer\nexist. There is here no danger that a \"fractious member will be imposed on\nthem,\" as the candidate, when finished, will become a member of the lodge\nat B----. The question of consent is simply in the nature of a\nresolution, and may be determined by the assenting votes of a majority of\nthe members at A---. It is, however, to be understood, that if any Brother\nbelieves that the candidate is unworthy, from character, of further\nadvancement, he may suspend the question of consent, by preferring charges\nagainst him. If this is not done, and the consent of the lodge is\nobtained, that the candidate may apply to the lodge at B---, then when his\npetition is read in that lodge, it must, of course, pass through the usual\nordeal of a month's probation, and a unanimous vote; for here the old\nreasons for unanimity once more prevail.\n\nI know of no ancient written law upon this subject, but it seems to me\nthat the course I have described is the only one that could be suggested\nby analogy and common sense.\n\n\n\nSection XIII.\n\n_Of the Initiation of Non-residents._\n\n\nThe subject of this section is naturally divided into two\nbranches:--First, as to the initiation by a lodge of a candidate, who,\nresiding in the same State or Grand Lodge jurisdiction, is still not an\ninhabitant of the town in which the lodge to which he applies is\nsituated, but resides nearer to some other lodge; and, secondly, as to the\ninitiation of a stranger, whose residence is in another State, or under\nthe jurisdiction of another Grand Lodge.\n\n1. The first of these divisions presents a question which is easily\nanswered. Although I can find no ancient regulation on this subject,\nstill, by the concurrent authority of all Grand Lodges in this country, at\nleast, (for the Grand Lodge of England has no such provision in its\nConstitution,) every lodge is forbidden to initiate any person whose\nresidence is nearer to any other lodge. If, however, such an initiation\nshould take place, although the lodge would be censurable for its\nviolation of the regulations of its superior, yet there has never been any\ndoubt that the initiation would be good and the candidate so admitted\nregularly made. The punishment must fall upon the lodge and not upon the\nnewly-made Brother.\n\n2. The second division presents a more embarrassing inquiry, on account of\nthe diversity of opinions which have been entertained on the subject. Can\na lodge in one State, or Grand Lodge jurisdiction, initiate the resident\nof another State, and would such initiation be lawful, and the person so\ninitiated a regular Mason, or, to use the technical language of the Order,\na Mason made \"in due form,\" and entitled to all the rights and privileges\nof the Order?\n\nThe question is one of considerable difficulty; it has given occasion to\nmuch controversy, and has been warmly discussed within the last few years\nby several of the Grand Lodges of the United States.\n\nIn 1847, the Grand Lodge of Alabama adopted the following regulation,\nwhich had been previously enacted by the Grand Lodge of Tennessee:\n\n\"Any person residing within the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, who has\nalready, or shall hereafter, travel into any foreign jurisdiction, and\nthere receive the degrees of Masonry, such person shall not be entitled to\nthe rights, benefits, and privileges of Masonry within this jurisdiction,\nuntil he shall have been regularly admitted a member of the subordinate\nlodge under this Grand Lodge, nearest which he at the time resides, in the\nmanner provided by the Constitution of this Grand Lodge for the admission\nof members.\"\n\nThe rule adopted by the Grand Lodge of Maryland is still more stringent.\nIt declares, \"that if any individual, from selfish motives, from distrust\nof his acceptance, or other causes originating in himself, knowingly and\nwillfully travel into another jurisdiction, and there receive the masonic\ndegrees, he shall be considered and held as a clandestine made Mason.\"\n\nThe Grand Lodge of New York, especially, has opposed these regulations,\ninflicting a penalty on the initiate, and assigns its reasons for the\nopposition in the following language:\n\n\"Before a man becomes a Mason, he is subject to no law which any Grand\nLodge can enact. No Grand Lodge has a right to make a law to compel any\ncitizen, who desires, to be initiated in a particular lodge, or in the\ntown or State of his residence; neither can any Grand Lodge forbid a\ncitizen to go where he pleases to seek acceptance into fellowship with the\ncraft; and where there is no right to compel or to forbid, there can be no\nright to punish; but it will be observed, that the laws referred to were\nenacted to punish the citizens of Maryland and Alabama, as Masons and\nBrethren, for doing something before they were Masons and Brethren, which\nthey had a perfect right to do as citizens and freemen; and it must\ncertainly be regarded as an act of deception and treachery by a young\nMason, on returning home, to be told, that he is 'a clandestine Mason,'\nthat he 'ought to be expelled,' or, that he cannot be recognized as a\nBrother till he 'joins a lodge where his residence is,' because he was\ninitiated in New York, in England, or in France, after having heard all\nhis life of the universality and oneness of the institution.\"[77]\n\nIt seems to us that the Grand Lodge of New York has taken the proper view\nof the subject; although we confess that we are not satisfied with the\nwhole course of reasoning by which it has arrived at the conclusion.\nWhatever we may be inclined to think of the inexpediency of making\ntransient persons (and we certainly do believe that it would be better\nthat the character and qualifications of every candidate should be\nsubmitted to the inspection of his neighbors rather than to that of\nstrangers), however much we may condemn the carelessness and facility of a\nlodge which is thus willing to initiate a stranger, without that due\nexamination of his character, which, of course, in the case of\nnon-residents, can seldom be obtained, we are obliged to admit that such\nmakings are legal--the person thus made cannot be called a clandestine\nMason, because he has been made in a legally constituted lodge--and as he\nis a regular Mason, we know of no principle by which he can be refused\nadmission as a visitor into any lodge to which he applies.\n\nMasonry is universal in its character, and knows no distinction of nation\nor of religion. Although each state or kingdom has its distinct Grand\nLodge, this is simply for purposes of convenience in carrying out the\nprinciples of uniformity and subordination, which should prevail\nthroughout the masonic system. The jurisdiction of these bodies is\nentirely of a masonic character, and is exercised only over the members of\nthe Order who have voluntarily contracted their allegiance. It cannot\naffect the profane, who are, of course, beyond its pale. It is true, that\nas soon as a candidate applies to a lodge for initiation, he begins to\ncome within the scope of masonic law. He has to submit to a prescribed\nformula of application and entrance, long before he becomes a member of\nthe Order. But as this formula is universal in its operation, affecting\ncandidates who are to receive it and lodges which are to enforce it in all\nplaces, it must have been derived from some universal authority. The\nmanner, therefore, in which a candidate is to be admitted, and the\npreliminary qualifications which are requisite, are prescribed by the\nlandmarks, the general usage, and the ancient constitutions of the Order.\nAnd as they have directed the _mode how_, they might also have prescribed\nthe _place where_, a man should be made a Mason. But they have done no\nsuch thing. We cannot, after the most diligent search, find any\nconstitutional regulation of the craft, which refers to the initiation of\nnon-residents. The subject has been left untouched; and as the ancient and\nuniversally acknowledged authorities of Masonry have neglected to\nlegislate on the subject, it is now too late for any modern and local\nauthority, like that of a Grand Lodge, to do so.\n\nA Grand Lodge may, it is true, forbid--as Missouri, South Carolina,\nGeorgia, and several other Grand Lodges have done--the initiation of\nnon-residents, within its own jurisdiction, because this is a local law\nenacted by a local authority; but it cannot travel beyond its own\nterritory, and prescribe the same rule to another Grand Lodge, which may\nnot, in fact, be willing to adopt it.\n\nThe conclusions, then, at which we arrive no this subject are these: The\nancient constitutions have prescribed no regulation on the subject of the\ninitiation of non-residents; it is, therefore, optional with every Grand\nLodge, whether it will or will not suffer such candidates to be made\nwithin its own jurisdiction; the making, where it is permitted, is legal,\nand the candidate so made becomes a regular Mason, and is entitled to the\nright of visitation.\n\nWhat, then, is the remedy, where a person of bad character, and having, in\nthe language of the Grand Lodge of Maryland, \"a distrust of his\nacceptance\" at home, goes abroad and receives the degrees of Masonry? No\none will deny that such a state of things is productive of great evil to\nthe craft. Fortunately, the remedy is simple and easily applied. Let the\nlodge, into whose jurisdiction he has returned, exercise its power of\ndiscipline, and if his character and conduct deserve the punishment, let\nhim be expelled from the Order. If he is unworthy of remaining in the\nOrder, he should be removed from it at once; but if he is worthy of\ncontinuing in it, there certainly can be no objection to his making use of\nhis right to visit.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nOf the Rights of Entered Apprentices.\n\n\n\nIn an inquiry into the rights of Entered Apprentices, we shall not be much\nassisted by the Ancient Constitutions, which, leaving the subject in the\nposition in which usage had established it, are silent in relation to what\nis the rule. In all such cases, we must, as I have frequently remarked\nbefore, in settling the law, have recourse to analogy, to the general\nprinciples of equity, and the dictates of common sense, and, with these\nthree as our guides, we shall find but little difficulty in coming to a\nright conclusion.\n\nAt present, an Entered Apprentice is not considered a member of the Lodge,\nwhich privilege is only extended to Master Masons. This was not formerly\nthe case. Then the Master's degree was not as indiscriminately conferred\nas it is now. A longer probation and greater mental or moral\nqualifications were required to entitle a candidate to this sublime\ndignity. None were called Master Masons but such as had presided over\ntheir Lodges, and the office of Wardens was filled by Fellow Crafts.\nEntered Apprentices, as well as Fellow Crafts, were permitted to attend\nthe communications of the Grand Lodge, and express their opinions; and, in\n1718, it was enacted that every new regulation, proposed in the Grand\nLodge, should be submitted to the consideration of even the youngest\nEntered Apprentice. Brethren of this degree composed, in fact, at that\ntime, the great body of the craft. But, all these things have, since, by\nthe gradual improvement of our organization, undergone many alterations;\nand Entered Apprentices seem now, by universal consent, to be restricted\nto a very few rights. They have the right of sitting in all lodges of\ntheir degree, of receiving all the instructions which appertain to it, but\nnot of speaking or voting, and, lastly, of offering themselves as\ncandidates for advancement, without the preparatory necessity of a formal\nwritten petition.\n\nThese being admitted to be the rights of an Entered Apprentice, few and\nunimportant as they may be, they are as dear to him as those of a Master\nMason are to one who has been advanced to that degree; and he is, and\nought to be, as firmly secured in their possession. Therefore, as no Mason\ncan be deprived of his rights and privileges, except after a fair and\nimpartial trial, and the verdict of his peers, it is clear that the\nEntered Apprentice cannot be divested of these rights without just such a\ntrial and verdict.\n\nBut, in the next place, we are to inquire whether the privilege of being\npassed as a Fellow Craft is to be enumerated among these rights? And, we\nclearly answer, No. The Entered Apprentice has the right of making the\napplication. Herein he differs from a profane, who has no such right of\napplication until he has qualified himself for making it, by becoming an\nEntered Apprentice. But, if the application is granted, it is _ex gratia_,\nor, by the favour of the lodge, which may withhold it, if it pleases. If\nsuch were not the case, the lodge would possess no free will on the\nsubject of advancing candidates; and the rule requiring a probation and an\nexamination, before passing, would be useless and absurd--because, the\nneglect of improvement or the want of competency would be attended with no\npenalty.\n\nIt seems to me, then, that, when an Apprentice applies for his second\ndegree, the lodge may, if it thinks proper, refuse to grant it; and that\nit may express that refusal by a ballot. No trial is necessary, because no\nrights of the candidate are affected. He is, by a rejection of his\nrequest, left in the same position that he formerly occupied. He is still\nan Entered Apprentice, in good standing; and the lodge may, at any time it\nthinks proper, reverse its decision and proceed to pass him.\n\nIf, however, he is specifically charged with any offense against the laws\nof Masonry, it would then be necessary to give him a trial. Witnesses\nshould be heard, both for and against him, and he should be permitted to\nmake his defense. The opinion of the lodge should be taken, as in all\nother cases of trial, and, according to the verdict, he should be\nsuspended, expelled, or otherwise punished.\n\nThe effect of these two methods of proceeding is very different. When, by\na ballot, the lodge refuses to advance an Entered Apprentice, there is\nnot, necessarily, any stigma on his moral character. It may be, that the\nrefusal is based on the ground that he has not made sufficient proficiency\nto entitle him to pass. Consequently, his standing as an Entered\nApprentice is not at all affected. His rights remain the same. He may\nstill sit in the lodge when it is opened in his degree; he may still\nreceive instructions in that degree; converse with Masons on masonic\nsubjects which are not beyond his standing; and again apply to the lodge\nfor permission to pass as a Fellow Craft.\n\nBut, if he be tried on a specific charge, and be suspended or expelled,\nhis moral character is affected. His masonic rights are forfeited; and he\ncan no longer be considered as an Entered Apprentice in good standing. He\nwill not be permitted to sit in his lodge, to receive masonic instruction,\nor to converse with Masons on masonic subjects; nor can he again apply for\nadvancement until the suspension or expulsion is removed by the\nspontaneous action of the lodge.\n\nThese two proceedings work differently in another respect. The Grand Lodge\nwill not interfere with a subordinate lodge in compelling it to pass an\nEntered Apprentice; because every lodge is supposed to be competent to\nfinish, in its own time, and its own way, the work that it has begun. But,\nas the old regulations, as well as the general consent of the craft, admit\nthat the Grand Lodge alone can expel from the rights and privileges of\nMasonry, and that an expulsion by a subordinate lodge is inoperative until\nit is confirmed by the Grand Lodge, it follows that the expulsion of the\nApprentice must be confirmed by that body; and that, therefore, he has a\nright to appeal to it for a reversal of the sentence, if it was unjustly\npronounced.\n\nLet it not be said that this would be placing an Apprentice on too great\nan equality with Master Masons. His rights are dear to him; he has paid\nfor them. No man would become an Apprentice unless he expected, in time,\nto be made a Fellow Craft, and then a Master. He is, therefore, morally\nand legally wronged when he is deprived, without sufficient cause, of the\ncapacity of fulfilling that expectation. It is the duty of the Grand Lodge\nto see that not even the humblest member of the craft shall have his\nrights unjustly invaded; and it is therefore bound, as the conservator of\nthe rights of all, to inquire into the truth, and administer equity.\nWhenever, therefore, even an Entered Apprentice complains that he has met\nwith injustice and oppression, his complaint should be investigated and\njustice administered.\n\nThe question next occurs--What number of black balls should prevent an\nApprentice from passing to the second degree? I answer, the same number\nthat would reject the application of a profane for initiation into the\nOrder. And why should this not be so? Are the qualifications which would\nbe required of one applying, for the first time, for admission to the\ndegree of an Apprentice more than would subsequently be required of the\nsame person on his applying for a greater favor and a higher honor--that\nof being advanced to the second degree? Or do the requisitions, which\nexist in the earlier stages of Masonry, become less and less with every\nstep of the aspirant's progress? Viewing the question in this light--and,\nindeed, I know of no other in which to view it--it seems to me to be\nperfectly evident that the peculiar constitution and principles of our\nOrder will require unanimity in the election of a profane for initiation,\nof an Apprentice for a Fellow Craft, and of a Fellow Craft for a Master\nMason; and that, while no Entered Apprentice can be expelled from the\nOrder, except by due course of trial, it is competent for the lodge, at\nany time, on a ballot, to refuse to advance him to the second degree. But,\nlet it be remembered that the lodge which refuses to pass an Apprentice,\non account of any objections to his moral character, or doubts of his\nworthiness, is bound to give him the advantage of a trial, and at once to\nexpel him, if guilty, or, if innocent, to advance him when otherwise\nqualified.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nOf the Rights of Fellow Crafts.\n\n\n\nIn ancient times there were undoubtedly many rights attached to the second\ndegree which have now become obsolete or been repealed; for formerly the\ngreat body of the fraternity were Fellow Crafts, and according to the old\ncharges, even the Grand Master might be elected from among them. The\nMaster and Wardens of Subordinate Lodges always were. Thus we are told\nthat no Brother can be Grand Master, \"unless he has been a Fellow Craft\nbefore his election,\" and in the ancient manner of constituting a lodge,\ncontained in the Book of Constitutions,[78] it is said that \"the\ncandidates, or the new Master and Wardens, being yet among the Fellow\nCrafts, the Grand Master shall ask his Deputy if he has examined them,\"\netc. But now that the great body of the Fraternity consists of Master\nMasons, the prerogatives of Fellow Crafts are circumscribed within limits\nnearly as narrow as those of Entered Apprentices. While, however,\nApprentices are not permitted to speak or vote, in ancient times, and up,\nindeed, to a very late date. Fellow Crafts were entitled to take a part in\nany discussion in which the lodge, while open in the first or second\ndegree, might engage, but not to vote. This privilege is expressly stated\nby Preston, as appertaining to a Fellow Craft, in his charge to a\ncandidate, receiving that degree.\n\n\"As a Craftsman, in our private assemblies you may offer your sentiments\nand opinions on such subjects as are regularly introduced in the Lecture,\nunder the superintendence of an experienced Master, who will guard the\nlandmark against encroachment.\"[79]\n\nThis privilege is not now, however, granted in this country to Fellow\nCrafts. All, therefore, that has been said in the preceding chapter, of\nthe rights of Entered Apprentices, will equally apply, _mutatis mutandis_,\nto the rights of Fellow Crafts.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nOf the Rights of Master Masons.\n\n\n\nWhen a Mason has reached the third degree, he becomes entitled to all the\nrights and privileges of Ancient Craft Masonry. These rights are extensive\nand complicated; and, like his duties, which are equally as extensive,\nrequire a careful examination, thoroughly to comprehend them. Four of\nthem, at least, are of so much importance as to demand a distinct\nconsideration. These are the rights of membership, of visitation, of\nrelief, and of burial. To each I shall devote a separate section.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of the Right of Membership._\n\n\nThe whole spirit and tenor of the General Regulations, as well as the\nuniform usage of the craft, sustain the doctrine, that when a Mason is\ninitiated in a lodge, he has the right, by signing the bye-laws, to\nbecome a member without the necessity of submitting to another ballot. In\nthe Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of New York, this principle is\nasserted to be one of the ancient landmarks, and is announced in the\nfollowing words: \"Initiation makes a man a Mason; but he must receive the\nMaster's degree, and sign the bye-laws before he becomes a member of the\nlodge.\"[80] If the doctrine be not exactly a landmark (which I confess I\nam not quite prepared to admit), it comes to us almost clothed with the\nauthority of one, from the sanction of universal and uninterrupted usage.\n\nHow long before he loses this right by a _non-user_, or neglect to avail\nhimself of it, is, I presume, a question to be settled by local authority.\nA lodge, or a Grand Lodge, may affix the period according to its\ndiscretion; but the general custom is, to require a signature of the\nbye-laws, and a consequent enrollment in the lodge, within three months\nafter receiving the third degree. Should a Mason neglect to avail himself\nof his privilege, he forfeits it (unless, upon sufficient cause, he is\nexcused by the lodge), and must submit to a ballot.\n\nThe reason for such a law is evident. If a Mason does not at once unite\nhimself with the lodge in which he was raised, but permits an extended\nperiod of time to elapse, there is no certainty that his character or\nhabits may not have changed, and that he may not have become, since his\ninitiation, unworthy of affiliation. Under the general law, it is,\ntherefore, necessary that he should in such case submit to the usual\nprobation of one month, and an investigation of his qualifications by a\ncommittee, as well as a ballot by the members.\n\nBut there are other privileges also connected with this right of\nmembership. A profane is required to apply for initiation to the lodge\nnearest his place of residence, and, if there rejected, can never in\nfuture apply to any other lodge. But the rule is different with respect to\nthe application of a Master Mason for membership.\n\nA Master Mason is not restricted in his privilege of application for\nmembership within any geographical limits. All that is required of him is,\nthat he should be an affiliated Mason; that is, that he should be a\ncontributing member of a lodge, without any reference to its peculiar\nlocality, whether near to or distant from his place of residence. The Old\nCharges simply prescribe, that every Mason ought to belong to a lodge. A\nMason, therefore, strictly complies with this regulation, when he unites\nhimself with any lodge, thus contributing to the support of the\ninstitution, and is then entitled to all the privileges of an affiliated\nMason.\n\nA rejection of the application of a Master Mason for membership by a lodge\ndoes not deprive him of the right of applying to another. A Mason is in\n\"good standing\" until deprived of that character by the action of some\ncompetent masonic authority; and that action can only be by suspension or\nexpulsion. Rejection does not, therefore, affect the \"good standing\" of\nthe applicant; for in a rejection there is no legal form of trial, and\nconsequently the rejected Brother remains in the same position after as\nbefore his rejection. He possesses the same rights as before, unimpaired\nand undiminished; and among these rights is that of applying for\nmembership to any lodge that he may select.\n\nIf, then, a Mason may be a member of a lodge distant from his place of\nresidence, and, perhaps, even situated in a different jurisdiction, the\nquestion then arises whether the lodge within whose precincts he resides,\nbut of which he is not a member, can exercise its discipline over him\nshould he commit any offense requiring masonic punishment. On this subject\nthere is, among masonic writers, a difference of opinion. I, however,\nagree with Brother Pike, the able Chairman of the Committee of\nCorrespondence of Arkansas, that the lodge can exercise such discipline. I\ncontend that a Mason is amenable for his conduct not only to the lodge of\nwhich he may be a member, but also to any one within whose jurisdiction he\npermanently resides. A lodge is the conservator of the purity and the\nprotector of the integrity of the Order within its precincts. The unworthy\nconduct of a Mason, living as it were immediately under its government, is\ncalculated most injuriously to affect that purity and integrity. A lodge,\ntherefore, should not be deprived of the power of coercing such unworthy\nMason, and, by salutary punishment, of vindicating the character of the\ninstitution. Let us suppose, by way of example, that a Mason living in San\nFrancisco, California, but retaining his membership in New York, behaves\nin such an immoral and indecorous manner as to bring the greatest\ndiscredit upon the Order, and to materially injure it in the estimation of\nthe uninitiated community. Will it be, for a moment, contended that a\nlodge in San Francisco cannot arrest the evil by bringing the unworthy\nMason under discipline, and even ejecting him from the fraternity, if\nseverity like that is necessary for the protection of the institution? Or\nwill it be contended that redress can only be sought through the delay and\nuncertainty of an appeal to his lodge in New York? Even if the words of\nthe ancient laws are silent on this subject, reason and justice would seem\nto maintain the propriety and expediency of the doctrine that the lodge at\nSan Francisco is amply competent to extend its jurisdiction and exercise\nits discipline over the culprit.\n\nIn respect to the number of votes necessary to admit a Master Mason\napplying by petition for membership in a lodge, there can be no doubt that\nhe must submit to precisely the same conditions as those prescribed to a\nprofane on his petition for initiation. There is no room for argument\nhere, for the General Regulations are express on this subject.\n\n\"No man can be made or _admitted a member_ of a particular lodge,\" says\nthe fifth regulation, \"without previous notice one month before given to\nthe said lodge.\"\n\nAnd the sixth regulation adds, that \"no man can be entered a Brother in\nany particular lodge, or _admitted to be a member_ thereof, without the\nunanimous consent of all the members of that lodge then present.\"\n\nSo that it may be considered as settled law, so far as the General\nRegulations can settle a law of Masonry, that a Master Mason can only be\nadmitted a member of a lodge when applying by petition, after a month's\nprobation, after due inquiry into his character, and after a unanimous\nballot in his favor.\n\nBut there are other rights of Master Masons consequent upon membership,\nwhich remain to be considered. In uniting with a lodge, a Master Mason\nbecomes a participant of all its interests, and is entitled to speak and\nvote upon all subjects that come before the lodge for investigation. He is\nalso entitled, if duly elected by his fellows, to hold any office in the\nlodge, except that of Master, for which he must be qualified by previously\nhaving occupied the post of a Warden.\n\nA Master has the right in all cases of an appeal from the decision of the\nMaster or of the lodge.\n\nA Master Mason, in good standing, has a right at any time to demand from\nhis lodge a certificate to that effect.\n\nWhatever other rights may appertain to Master Masons will be the subjects\nof separate sections.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of the Right of Visit._\n\n\nEvery Master Mason, who is an affiliated member of a lodge, has the right\nto visit any other lodge as often as he may desire to do so. This right is\nsecured to him by the ancient regulations, and is, therefore,\nirreversible. In the \"Ancient Charges at the Constitution of a Lodge,\"\nformerly contained in a MS. of the Lodge of Antiquity in London, and whose\ndate is not later than 1688,[81]it is directed \"that every Mason receive\nand cherish strange fellows when they come over the country, and set them\non work, if they will work as the manner is; that is to say, if the Mason\nhave any mould stone in his place, he shall give him a mould stone, and\nset him on work; and if he have none, the Mason shall refresh him with\nmoney unto the next lodge.\"\n\nThis regulation is explicit. It not only infers the right of visit, but\nit declares that the strange Brother shall be welcomed, \"received, and\ncherished,\" and \"set on work,\" that is, permitted to participate in the\nwork of your lodge. Its provisions are equally applicable to Brethren\nresiding in the place where the lodge is situated as to transient\nBrethren, provided that they are affiliated Masons.\n\nIn the year 1819, the law was in England authoritatively settled by a\ndecree of the Grand Lodge. A complaint had been preferred against a lodge\nin London, for having refused admission to some Brethren who were well\nknown to them, alleging that as the lodge was about to initiate a\ncandidate, no visitor could be admitted until that ceremony was concluded.\nIt was then declared, \"that it is the undoubted right of every Mason who\nis well known, or properly vouched, to visit any lodge during the time it\nis opened for general masonic business, observing the proper forms to be\nattended to on such occasions, and so that the Master may not be\ninterrupted in the performance of his duty.\"[82]\n\nA lodge, when not opened for \"general masonic business,\" but when engaged\nin the consideration of matters which interest the lodge alone, and which\nit would be inexpedient or indelicate to make public, may refuse to admit\na visitor. Lodges engaged in this way, in private business, from which\nvisitors are excluded, are said by the French Masons to be opened \"_en\nfamille_.\"\n\nTo entitle him to this right of visit, a Mason must be affiliated, that\nis, he must be a contributing member of some lodge. This doctrine is thus\nlaid down in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England:\n\n\"A Brother who is not a subscribing member to some lodge, shall not be\npermitted to visit any one lodge in the town or place in which he resides,\nmore than once during his secession from the craft.\"\n\nA non-subscribing or unaffiliated Mason is permitted to visit each lodge\nonce, and once only, because it is supposed that this visit is made for\nthe purpose of enabling him to make a selection of the one with which he\nmay prefer permanently to unite. But, afterwards, he loses this right of\nvisit, to discountenance those Brethren who wish to continue members of\nthe Order, and to partake of its pleasures and advantages, without\ncontributing to its support.\n\nA Master Mason is not entitled to visit a lodge, unless he previously\nsubmits to an examination, or is personally vouched for by a competent\nBrother present; but this is a subject of so much importance as to claim\nconsideration in a distinct section.\n\nAnother regulation is, that a strange Brother shall furnish the lodge he\nintends to visit with a certificate of his good standing in the lodge from\nwhich he last hailed. This regulation has, in late years, given rise to\nmuch discussion. Many of the Grand Lodges of this country, and several\nmasonic writers, strenuously contend for its antiquity and necessity,\nwhile others as positively assert that it is a modern innovation upon\nancient usage.\n\nThere can, however, I think, be no doubt of the antiquity of certificates.\nThat the system requiring them was in force nearly two hundred years ago,\nat least, will be evident from the third of the Regulations made in\nGeneral Assembly, December 27, 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the\nEarl of St. Albans,[83] and which is in the following words:\n\n\"3. That no person hereafter who shall be accepted a Freemason, shall be\nadmitted into any lodge or assembly, until he has brought a certificate\nof the time and place of his acceptation, from the lodge that accepted\nhim, unto the Master of that limit or division where such a lodge is\nkept.\" This regulation has been reiterated on several occasions, by the\nGrand Lodge of England in 1772, and at subsequent periods by several Grand\nLodges of this and other countries. It is not, however, in force in many\nof the American jurisdictions.\n\nAnother right connected with the right of visitation is, that of demanding\na sight of the Warrant of Constitution. This instrument it is, indeed, not\nonly the right but the duty of every strange visitor carefully to inspect,\nbefore he enters a lodge, that he may thus satisfy himself of the legality\nand regularity of its character and authority. On such a demand being made\nby a visitor for a sight of its Warrant, every lodge is bound to comply\nwith the requisition, and produce the instrument. The same rule, of\ncourse, applies to lodges under dispensation, whose Warrant of\nDispensation supplies the place of a Warrant of Constitution.\n\n\n\nSection III.\n\n_Of the Examination of Visitors._\n\n\nIt has already been stated, in the preceding section, that a Master Mason\nis not permitted to visit a lodge unless he previously submits to an\nexamination, or is personally vouched for by some competent Brother\npresent. The prerogative of vouching for a Brother is an important one,\nand will constitute the subject of the succeeding section. At present let\nus confine ourselves to the consideration of the mode of examining a\nvisitor.\n\nEvery visitor, who offers himself to the appointed committee of the lodge\nfor examination, is expected, as a preliminary step, to submit to the\nTiler's Obligation; so called, because it is administered in the Tiler's\nroom. As this obligation forms no part of the secret ritual of the Order,\nbut is administered to every person before any lawful knowledge of his\nbeing a Mason has been received, there can be nothing objectionable in\ninserting it here, and in fact, it will be advantageous to have the\nprecise words of so important a declaration placed beyond the possibility\nof change or omission by inexperienced Brethren.\n\nThe oath, then, which is administered to the visitor, and which he may, if\nhe chooses, require every one present to take with him, is in the\nfollowing words\n\n\"I, A. B., do hereby and hereon solemnly and sincerely swear, that I have\nbeen regularly initiated, passed, and raised, to the sublime degree of a\nMaster Mason, in a just and legally constituted lodge of such, that I do\nnot now stand suspended or expelled, and know of no reason why I should\nnot hold masonic communication with my Brethren.\n\nThis declaration having been given in the most solemn manner, the\nexamination must then be conducted with the necessary forms. The good old\nrule of \"commencing at the beginning\" should be observed. Every question\nis to be asked and every answer demanded which is necessary to convince\nthe examiner that the party examined is acquainted with what he ought to\nknow, to entitle him to the appellation of a Brother. Nothing is to be\ntaken for granted--categorical answers must be required to all that it is\ndeemed important to be asked. No forgetfulness is to be excused, nor is\nthe want of memory to be accepted as a valid excuse for the want of\nknowledge. The Mason, who is so unmindful of his duties as to have\nforgotten the instructions he has received, must pay the penalty of his\ncarelessness, and be deprived of his contemplated visit to that society\nwhose secret modes of recognition he has so little valued as not to have\ntreasured them in his memory. While there are some things which may be\nsafely passed over in the examination of one who confesses himself to be\n\"rusty,\" or but recently initiated, because they are details which require\nmuch study to acquire, and constant practice to retain, there are still\nother things of great importance which must be rigidly demanded, and with\nthe knowledge of which the examiner cannot, under any circumstances,\ndispense.\n\nShould suspicions of imposture arise, let no expression of these\nsuspicions be made until the final decree for rejection is pronounced. And\nlet that decree be uttered in general terms, such as: \"I am not\nsatisfied,\" or, \"I do not recognize you,\" and not in more specific terms,\nsuch as, \"You did not answer this inquiry,\" or, \"You are ignorant on that\npoint.\" The visitor is only entitled to know, generally, that he has not\ncomplied with the requisitions of his examiner. To descend to particulars\nis always improper and often dangerous.\n\nAbove all, the examiner should never ask what are called \"leading\nquestions,\" or such as include in themselves an indication of what the\nanswer is to be; nor should he in any manner aid the memory of the party\nexamined by the slightest hint. If he has it in him, it will come out\nwithout assistance, and if he has it not, he is clearly entitled to no\naid.\n\nLastly, never should an unjustifiable delicacy weaken the rigor of these\nrules. Let it be remembered, that for the wisest and most evident reasons,\nthe merciful maxim of the law, which says, that it is better that\nninety-nine guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be\npunished, is with us reversed, and that in Masonry _it is better that\nninety and nine true men should be turned away from the door of a lodge\nthan that one cowan should be admitted_.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\n\n_Of Vouching for a Brother._\n\n\nAn examination may sometimes be omitted when any competent Brother present\nwill vouch for the visitor's masonic standing and qualifications. This\nprerogative of vouching is an important one which every Master Mason is\nentitled, under certain restrictions, to exercise; but it is also one\nwhich may so materially affect the well-being of the whole\nfraternity--since by its injudicious use impostors might be introduced\namong the faithful--that it should be controlled by the most stringent\nregulations.\n\nTo vouch for one, is to bear witness for him; and, in witnessing to truth,\nevery caution should be observed, lest falsehood should cunningly assume\nits garb. The Brother who vouches should, therefore, know to a certainty\nthat the one for whom he vouches is really what he claims to be. He should\nknow this not from a casual conversation, nor a loose and careless\ninquiry, but, as the unwritten law of the Order expresses it, from\n\"_strict trial, due examination, or lawful information_.\"\n\nOf strict trial and due examination I have already treated in the\npreceding section; and it only remains to say, that when the vouching is\nfounded on the knowledge obtained in this way, it is absolutely necessary\nthat the Brother so vouching shall be _competent_ to conduct such an\nexamination, and that his general intelligence and shrewdness and his\nknowledge of Masonry shall be such as to place him above the probability\nof being imposed upon. The important and indispensable qualification of a\nvoucher is, therefore, that he shall be competent. The Master of a lodge\nhas no right to accept, without further inquiry, the avouchment of a\nyoung and inexperienced, or even of an old, if ignorant, Mason.\n\nLawful information, which is the remaining ground for an avouchment, may\nbe derived either from the declaration of another Brother, or from having\nmet the party vouched for in a lodge on some previous occasion.\n\nIf the information is derived from another Brother, who states that he has\nexamined the party, then all that has already been said of the competency\nof the one giving the information is equally applicable. The Brother,\ngiving the original information, must be competent to make a rigid\nexamination. Again, the person giving the information, the one receiving\nit, and the one of whom it is given, should be all present at the time;\nfor otherwise there would be no certainty of identity. Information,\ntherefore, given by letter or through a third party, is highly irregular.\nThe information must also be positive, not founded on belief or opinion,\nbut derived from a legitimate source. And, lastly, it must not have been\nreceived casually, but for the very purpose of being used for masonic\npurposes. For one to say to another in the course of a desultory\nconversation: \"A.B. is a Mason,\" is not sufficient. He may not be\nspeaking with due caution, under the expectation that his words will be\nconsidered of weight. He must say something to this effect: \"I know this\nman to be a Master Mason,\" for such or such reasons, and you may safely\nrecognize him as such. This alone will insure the necessary care and\nproper observance of prudence.\n\nIf the information given is on the ground that the person, vouched has\nbeen seen sitting in a lodge by the voucher, care must be taken to inquire\nif it was a \"Lodge of Master Masons.\" A person may forget, from the lapse\nof time, and vouch for a stranger as a Master Mason, when the lodge in\nwhich he saw him was only opened in the first or second degree.\n\n\n\nSection V.\n\n_Of the Right of Claiming Relief._\n\n\nOne of the great objects of our institution is, to afford relief to a\nworthy, distressed Brother. In his want and destitution, the claim of a\nMason upon his Brethren is much greater than that of a profane. This is a\nChristian as well as a masonic doctrine. \"As we have therefore\nopportunity,\" says St. Paul, \"let us do good unto all men, especially\nunto them who are of the household of faith.\"\n\nThis claim for relief he may present either to a lodge or to a Brother\nMason. The rule, as well as the principles by which it is to be regulated,\nis laid down in that fundamental law of Masonry, the Old Charges, in the\nfollowing explicit words, under the head of \"Behavior towards a strange\nBrother:\"\n\n\"You are cautiously to examine him, in such a method as prudence shall\ndirect you, that you may not be imposed upon by an ignorant, false\npretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and derision, and beware\nof giving him any hints of knowledge.\n\n\"But if you discover him to be a true and genuine Brother, you are to\nrespect him accordingly; and if he is in want, you must relieve him if you\ncan, or else direct him how he may be relieved. You must employ him some\ndays, or else recommend him to be employed. But you are not charged to do\nbeyond your ability, only to prefer a poor Brother, that is a good man and\ntrue, before any other people in the same circumstances.\"\n\nThis law thus laid down, includes, it will be perceived, as two important\nprerequisites, on which to found a claim for relief, that the person\napplying shall be in distress, and that he shall be worthy of assistance.\n\nHe must be in distress. Ours is not an insurance company, a joint stock\nassociation, in which, for a certain premium paid, an equivalent may be\ndemanded. No Mason, or no lodge, is bound to give pecuniary or other aid\nto a Brother, unless he really needs. The word \" benefit,\" as usually used\nin the modern friendly societies, has no place in the vocabulary of\nFreemasonry. If a wealthy Brother is afflicted with sorrow or sickness, we\nare to strive to comfort him with our sympathy, our kindness, and our\nattention, but we are to bestow our eleemosynary aid only on the indigent\nor the destitute.\n\nHe must also be worthy. There is no obligation on a Mason to relieve the\ndistresses, however real they may be, of an unworthy Brother. The claimant\nmust be, in the language of the Charge, \"true and genuine.\" True here is\nused in its good old Saxon meaning, of \"faithful\" or \"trusty.\" A true\nMason is one who is mindful of his obligations, and who faithfully\nobserves and practices all his duties. Such a man, alone, can rightfully\nclaim the assistance of his Brethren.\n\nBut a third provision is made in the fundamental law; namely, that the\nassistance is not to be beyond the ability of the giver. One of the most\nimportant landmarks, contained in our unwritten law, more definitely\nannounces this provision, by the words, that the aid and assistance shall\nbe without injury to oneself or his family. Masonry does not require that\nwe shall sacrifice our own welfare to that of a Brother; but that with\nprudent liberality, and a just regard to our own worldly means, we shall\ngive of the means with which Providence may have blessed us for the relief\nof our distressed Brethren.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to say, that the claim for relief of a worthy\ndistressed Mason extends also to his immediate family.\n\n\n\nSection VI.\n\n_Of the Right of Masonic Burial._\n\n\nAfter a very careful examination, I can find nothing in the old charges or\nGeneral Regulations, nor in any other part of the fundamental law, in\nrelation to masonic burial of deceased Brethren. It is probable that, at\nan early period, when the great body of the craft consisted of Entered\nApprentices, the usage permitted the burial of members, of the first or\nsecond degree, with the honors of Masonry. As far back as 1754,\nprocessions for the purpose of burying Masons seemed to have been\nconducted by some of the lodges with either too much frequency, or some\nother irregularity; for, in November of that year, the Grand Lodge adopted\na regulation, forbidding them, under a heavy penalty, unless by permission\nof the Grand Master, or his Deputy.[84] As there were, comparatively\nspeaking, few Master Masons at that period, it seems a natural inference\nthat most of the funeral processions were for the burial of Apprentices,\nor, at least, of Fellow Crafts.\n\nBut the usage since then, has been greatly changed; and by universal\nconsent, the law, as first committed to writing, by Preston, who was the\nauthor of our present funeral service, is now adopted.\n\nThe Regulation, as laid down by Preston, is so explicit, that I prefer\ngiving it in his own words.[85]\n\n\"No Mason can be interred with the formalities of the Order, unless it be\nat his own special request, communicated to the Master of the Lodge of\nwhich he died a member--foreigners and sojourners excepted; nor unless he\nhas been advanced to the third degree of Masonry, from which restriction\nthere can be no exception. Fellow Crafts or Apprentices are not entitled\nto the funeral obsequies.\"\n\nThis rule has been embodied in the modern Constitutions of the Grand Lodge\nof England; and, as I have already observed, appears by universal consent\nto have been adopted as the general usage.\n\nThe necessity for a dispensation, which is also required by the modern\nEnglish Constitutions, does not seem to have met with the same general\napproval, and in this country, dispensations for funeral processions are\nnot usually, if at all, required. Indeed, Preston himself, in explaining\nthe law, says that it was not intended to restrict the privileges of the\nregular lodges, but that, \"by the universal practice of Masons, every\nregular lodge is authorized by the Constitution to act on such occasions\nwhen limited to its own members.\"[86] It is only when members of other\nlodges, not under the control of the Master, are convened, that a\ndispensation is required. But in America, Grand Lodges or Grand Masters\nhave not generally interfered with the rights of the lodges to bury the\ndead; the Master being of course amenable to the constituted authorities\nfor any indecorum or impropriety.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nOf the Rights of Past Masters.\n\n\n\nI have already discussed the right of Past Masters to become members of a\nGrand Lodge, in a preceding part of this work,[87] and have there arrived\nat the conclusion that no such inherent right exists, and that a Grand\nLodge may or may not admit them to membership, according to its own notion\nof expediency. Still the fact, that they are competent by their masonic\nrank of accepting such a courtesy when extended, in itself constitutes a\nprerogative; for none but Masters, Wardens, or Past Masters, can under any\ncircumstances become members of a Grand Lodge.\n\nPast Masters possess a few other positive rights.\n\nIn the first place they have a right to install their successors, and at\nall times subsequent to their installation to be present at the ceremony\nof installing Masters of lodges. I should scarcely have deemed it\nnecessary to dwell upon so self-evident a proposition, were it not that it\ninvolves the discussion of a question which has of late years been warmly\nmooted in some jurisdictions, namely, whether this right of being present\nat an installation should, or should not, be extended to Past Masters,\nmade in Royal Arch Chapters.\n\nIn view of the fact, that there are two very different kinds of possessors\nof the same degree, the Grand Lodge of England has long since\ndistinguished them as \"virtual\" and as \"actual\" Past Masters. The terms\nare sufficiently explicit, and have the advantage of enabling us to avoid\ncircumlocution, and I shall, therefore, adopt them.\n\nAn _actual Past Master_ is one who has been regularly installed to preside\nover a symbolic lodge under the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge. A _virtual\nPast Master_ is one who has received the degree in a chapter, for the\npurpose of qualifying him for exaltation to the Royal Arch.\n\nNow the question to be considered is this. Can a virtual Past Master be\npermitted to be present at the installation of an actual Past Master?\n\nThe Committee of Correspondence of New York, in 1851, announced the\ndoctrine, that a Chapter, or virtual Past Master, cannot legally install\nthe Master of a Symbolic Lodge; but that there is no rule forbidding his\nbeing present at the ceremony. This doctrine has been accepted by several\nGrand Lodges, while others again refuse to admit the presence of a virtual\nPast Master at the installation-service.\n\nIn South Carolina, for instance, by uninterrupted usage, virtual Past\nMasters are excluded from the ceremony of installation.\n\nIn Louisiana, under the high authority of the late Brother Gedge, it is\nasserted, that \"it is the bounden duty of all Grand Lodges to prevent the\npossessors of the (chapter) degree from the exercise of any function\nappertaining to the office and attributes of an installed Master of a\nlodge of Symbolic Masonry, and refuse to recognize them as belonging to\nthe order of Past Masters.\"[88]\n\nBrother Albert Pike, whose opinion on masonic jurisprudence is entitled to\nthe most respectful consideration, has announced a similar doctrine in one\nof his elaborate reports to the Grand Chapter of Arkansas. He does not\nconsider \"that the Past Master's degree, conferred in a chapter, invests\nthe recipient with any rank or authority, except within the chapter\nitself; that it no ways qualifies or authorizes him to preside in the\nchair of a lodge: that a lodge has no legal means of knowing that he has\nreceived the degree in a chapter: for it is not supposed to know anything\nthat takes place there any more than it knows what takes place in a Lodge\nof Perfection, or a Chapter of Knights of the Rose Croix;\" and, of course,\nif the Past Masters of a lodge have no such \"legal means\" of recognition\nof Chapter Masters, they cannot permit them to be present at an\ninstallation.\n\nThis is, in fact, no new doctrine. Preston, in his description of the\ninstallation ceremony, says: \"The new Master is then conducted to an\nadjacent room, where he is regularly installed, and bound to his trust in\nancient form, in the presence of at least _three installed Masters_\"[89]\nAnd Dr. Oliver, in commenting on this passage, says, \"this part of the\nceremony can only be orally communicated, nor can any but _installed_\nMasters be present.\"[90]\n\nAnd this rule appears to be founded on the principles of reason. There can\nbe no doubt, if we carefully examine the history of Masonry in this\ncountry and in England, that the degree of Past Master was originally\nconferred by Symbolic Lodges as an honorarium or reward bestowed upon\nthose Brethren who had been found worthy to occupy the Oriental Chair. In\nso far it was only a degree of office, and could be obtained only from the\nLodge in which the office had been conferred. At a later period it was\ndeemed an essential prerequisite to exaltation in the degree of Royal\nArch, and was, for that purpose, conferred on candidates for that\nposition, while the Royal Arch degree was under the control of the\nsymbolic Lodges, but still only conferred by the Past Masters of the\nLodge. But subsequently, when the system of Royal Arch Masonry was greatly\nenlarged and extended in this country, and chapters were organized\nindependent of the Grand and symbolic Lodges, these Chapters took with\nthem the Past Master's degree, and assumed the right of conferring it on\ntheir candidates. Hence arose the anomaly which now exists in American\nMasonry, of two degrees bearing the same name, and said to be almost\nidentical in character, conferred by two different bodies under entirely\ndifferent qualifications and for totally different purposes. As was to be\nexpected, when time had in some degree obliterated the details of history,\neach party began to claim for itself the sovereign virtue of legitimacy.\nThe Past Masters of the Chapters denied the right of the Symbolic Lodges\nto confer the degree, and the latter, in their turn, asserted that the\ndegree, as conferred in the Chapter, was an innovation.\n\nThe prevalence of the former doctrine would, of course, tend to deprive\nthe Symbolic Lodges of a vested right held by them from the most ancient\ntimes--that, namely, of conferring an honorarium on their Masters elect.\n\nOn the whole, then, from this view of the surreptitious character of the\nChapter Degree, and supported by the high authority whom I have cited, as\nwell as by the best usage, I am constrained to believe that the true rule\nis, to deny the Chapter, or Virtual Past Masters, the right to install, or\nto be present at the installation of the Master of a Symbolic Lodge. A\nPast Master may preside over a lodge in the absence of the Master,\nprovided he is invited to do so by the Senior Warden present. The Second\nGeneral Regulation gave the power of presiding, during the absence of the\nMaster, to the last Past Master present, after the lodge had been\ncongregated by the Senior Warden; but two years afterwards, the rule was\nrepealed, and the power of presiding in such cases was vested in the\nSenior Warden. And accordingly, in this country, it has always been held,\nthat in the absence of the Master, his authority descends to the Senior\nWarden, who may, however, by courtesy, offer the chair to a Past Master\npresent, after the lodge has been congregated. Some jurisdictions have\npermitted a Past Master to preside in the absence of the Master and both\nWardens, provided he was a member of that lodge. But I confess that I can\nfind no warrant for this rule in any portion of our fundamental laws. The\npower of congregating the lodge in the absence of the Master has always\nbeen confined to the Wardens; and it therefore seems to me, that when both\nthe Master and Wardens are absent, although a Past Master may be present,\nthe lodge cannot be opened.\n\nA Past Master is eligible for election to the chair, without again passing\nthrough the office of a Warden.\n\nHe is also entitled to a seat in the East, and to wear a jewel and collar\npeculiar to his dignity.\n\nBy an ancient regulation, contained in the Old Charges, Past Masters alone\nwere eligible to the office of Grand Warden. The Deputy Grand Master was\nalso to be selected from among the Masters, or Past Masters of Lodges. No\nsuch regulation was in existence as to the office of Grand Master, who\nmight be selected from the mass of the fraternity. At the present time, in\nthis country, it is usual to select the Grand officers from among the Past\nMasters of the jurisdiction, though I know of no ancient law making such a\nregulation obligatory, except in respect to the affairs of Grand Wardens\nand Deputy Grand Master.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nOf Affiliation.\n\n\n\nAffiliation is defined to be the act by which a lodge receives a Mason\namong its members. A profane is said to be \"initiated,\" but a Mason is\n\"affiliated.\"[91]\n\nNow the mode in which a Mason becomes affiliated with a lodge, in some\nrespects differs from, and in others resembles, the mode in which a\nprofane is initiated.\n\nA Mason, desiring to be affiliated with a lodge, must apply by petition;\nthis petition must be referred to a committee for investigation of\ncharacter, he must remain in a state of probation for one month, and must\nthen submit to a ballot, in which unanimity will be required for his\nadmission. In all these respects, there is no difference in the modes of\nregulating applications for initiation and affiliation. The Fifth and\nSixth General Regulations, upon which these usages are founded, draw no\ndistinction between the act of making a Mason and admitting a member. The\ntwo processes are disjunctively connected in the language of both\nregulations. \"No man can be made, _or admitted a member_ * * * * without\nprevious notice one month before;\" are the words of the Fifth Regulation.\nAnd in a similar spirit the Sixth adds: \"But no man can be entered a\nBrother in any particular lodge, _or admitted to be a member_ thereof,\nwithout the unanimous consent of all the members of that lodge.\"\n\nNone but Master Masons are permitted to apply for affiliation; and every\nBrother so applying must bring to the lodge to which he applies a\ncertificate of his regular dismission from the lodge of which he was last\na member. This document is now usually styled a \"demit,\" and should\nspecify the good standing of the bearer at the time of his resignation or\ndemission.\n\nUnder the regulations of the various Grand Lodges of this country, a\nprofane cannot, as has been already observed, apply for initiation in any\nother lodge than the one nearest to his residence. No such regulation,\nhowever, exists in relation to the application of a Mason for\naffiliation. Having once been admitted into the Order, he has a right to\nselect the lodge with which he may desire to unite himself. He is not even\nbound to affiliate with the lodge in which he was initiated, but after\nbeing raised, may leave it, without signing the bye-laws, and attach\nhimself to another.\n\nA profane, having been rejected by a lodge, can never apply to any other\nfor initiation. But a Mason, having been rejected, on his application for\naffiliation, by a lodge, is not thereby debarred from subsequently making\na similar application to any other.\n\nIn some few jurisdictions a local regulation has of late years been\nenacted, that no Mason shall belong to more than one lodge. It is, I\npresume, competent for a Grand Lodge to enact such a regulation; but where\nsuch enactment has not taken place, we must be governed by the ancient and\ngeneral principle.\n\nThe General Regulations, adopted in 1721, contain no reference to this\ncase; but in a new regulation, adopted on the 19th February, 1723, it was\ndeclared that \"no Brother shall belong to more than one lodge within the\nbills of mortality.\" This rule was, therefore, confined to the lodges in\nthe city of London, and did not affect the country lodges. Still,\nrestricted as it was in its operation, Anderson remarks, \"this regulation\nis neglected for several reasons, and now obsolete.\"[92] Custom now in\nEngland and in other parts of Europe, as well as in some few portions of\nthis country, is adverse to the regulation; and where no local law exists\nin a particular jurisdiction, I know of no principle of masonic\njurisprudence which forbids a Mason to affiliate himself with more than\none lodge.\n\nThe only objection to it is one which must be urged, not by the Order, but\nby the individual. It is, that his duties and his responsibilities are\nthus multiplied, as well as his expenses. If he is willing to incur all\nthis additional weight in running his race of Masonry, it is not for\nothers to resist this exuberance of zeal. The Mason, however, who is\naffiliated with more than one lodge, must remember that he is subject to\nthe independent jurisdiction of each; may for the same offense be tried in\neach, and, although acquitted by all except one, that, if convicted by\nthat one, his conviction will, if he be suspended or expelled, work his\nsuspension or expulsion in all the others.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VII.\n\nOf Demitting.\n\n\n\nTo demit from a lodge is to resign one's membership, on which occasion a\ncertificate of good standing and a release from all dues is given to the\napplicant, which is technically called a _demit_.\n\nThe right to demit or resign never has, until within a few years, been\ndenied. In 1853, the Grand Lodge of Connecticut adopted a regulation \"that\nno lodge should grant a demit to any of its members, except for the\npurpose of joining some other lodge; and that no member shall be\nconsidered as having withdrawn from one lodge until he has actually become\na member of another.\" Similar regulations have been either adopted or\nproposed by a few other Grand Lodges, but I much doubt both their\nexpediency and their legality. This compulsory method of keeping Masons,\nafter they have once been made, seems to me to be as repugnant to the\nvoluntary character of our institution as would be a compulsory mode of\nmaking them in the beginning. The expediency of such a regulation is also\nhighly questionable. Every candidate is required to come to our doors \"of\nhis own free will and accord,\" and surely we should desire to keep none\namong us after that free will is no longer felt. We are all familiar with\nthe Hudibrastic adage, that\n\n    \"A man convinced against his will,\n    Is of the same opinion still,\"\n\nand he who is no longer actuated by that ardent esteem for the institution\nwhich would generate a wish to continue his membership, could scarcely\nhave his slumbering zeal awakened, or his coldness warmed by the bolts and\nbars of a regulation that should keep him a reluctant prisoner within the\nwalls from which he would gladly escape. Masons with such dispositions we\ncan gladly spare from our ranks.\n\nThe Ancient Charges, while they assert that every Mason should belong to a\nlodge, affix no penalty for disobedience. No man can be compelled to\ncontinue his union with a society, whether it be religious, political, or\nsocial, any longer than will suit his own inclinations or sense of duty.\nTo interfere with this inalienable prerogative of a freeman would be an\ninfringement on private rights. A Mason's initiation was voluntary, and\nhis continuance in the Order must be equally so.\n\nBut no man is entitled to a demit, unless at the time of demanding it he\nbe in good standing and free from all charges. If under charges for crime,\nhe must remain and abide his trial, or if in arrears, must pay up his\ndues.\n\nThere is, however, one case of demission for which a special law has been\nenacted. That is, when several Brethren at the same time request demits\nfrom a lodge. As this action is sometimes the result of pique or anger,\nand as the withdrawal of several members at once might seriously impair\nthe prosperity, or perhaps even endanger the very existence of the lodge,\nit has been expressly forbidden by the General Regulations, unless the\nlodge has become too numerous for convenient working; and not even then is\npermitted except by a Dispensation. The words of this law are to be found\nin the Eighth General Regulation, as follows:\n\n\"No set or number of Brethren shall withdraw or separate themselves from\nthe lodge in which they were made Brethren, or were afterwards admitted\nmembers, unless the lodge becomes too numerous; nor even then, without a\ndispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy; and when they are thus\nseparated, they must either immediately join themselves to such other\nlodge as they shall like best, with the unanimous consent of that other\nlodge to which they go, or else they must obtain the Grand Master's\nwarrant to join in forming a new lodge.\"\n\nIt seems, therefore, that, although a lodge cannot deny the right of a\nsingle member to demit, when a sort of conspiracy may be supposed to be\nformed, and several Brethren present their petitions for demits at one and\nthe same time, the lodge may not only refuse, but is bound to do so,\nunless under a dispensation, which dispensation can only be given in the\ncase of an over-populous lodge.\n\nWith these restrictions and qualifications, it cannot be doubted that\nevery Master Mason has a right to demit from his lodge at his own\npleasure. What will be the result upon himself, in his future relations to\nthe Order, of such demission, will constitute the subject of the\nsucceeding chapter.\n\n\n\n\nChapter VIII.\n\nOf Unaffiliated Masons.\n\n\n\nAn unaffiliated Mason is one who is not connected by membership with any\nlodge. There can be no doubt that such a position is contrary to the\nspirit of our institution, and that affiliation is a duty obligatory on\nevery Mason. The Old Charges, which have been so often cited as the\nfundamental law of Masonry, say on this subject: \"every Brother ought to\nbelong to a lodge and to be subject to its bye-laws and the General\nRegulations.\"\n\nExplicitly as this doctrine has been announced, it has been too little\nobserved, in consequence of no precise penalty having been annexed to its\nviolation. In all times, unaffiliated Masons have existed--Masons who have\nwithdrawn from all active participation in the duties and responsibilities\nof the Order, and who, when in the hour of danger or distress, have not\nhesitated to claim its protection or assistance, while they have refused\nin the day of their prosperity to add anything to its wealth, its power,\nor its influence. In this country, the anti-masonic persecutions of 1828,\nand a few years subsequently, by causing the cessation of many lodges,\nthrew a vast number of Brethren out of all direct connection with the\ninstitution; on the restoration of peace, and the renewal of labor by the\nlodges, too many of these Brethren neglected to reunite themselves with\nthe craft, and thus remained unaffiliated. The habit, thus introduced, was\nfollowed by others, until the sin of unaffiliation has at length arrived\nat such a point of excess, as to have become a serious evil, and to have\nattracted the attention and received the condemnation of almost every\nGrand Lodge.\n\nA few Grand Lodges have denied the right of a Mason permanently to demit\nfrom the Order. Texas, for instance, has declared that \"it does not\nrecognize the right of a Mason to demit or separate himself from the lodge\nin which he was made, or may afterwards be admitted, except for the\npurpose of joining another lodge, or when he may be about to remove\nwithout the jurisdiction of the lodge of which he may be a member.\"[93] A\nfew other Grand Lodges have adopted a similar regulation; but the\nprevailing opinion of the authorities appears to be, that it is competent\nto interfere with the right to demit, certain rights and prerogatives\nbeing, however, lost by such demission.\n\nArkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and one or two other Grand Lodges, while not\npositively denying the right of demission, have at various times levied a\ntax or contribution on the demitted or unaffiliated Masons within their\nrespective jurisdictions. This principle, however, has also failed to\nobtain the general concurrence of other Grand Lodges, and some of them, as\nMaryland, have openly denounced it. After a careful examination of the\nauthorities, I cannot deny to any man the _right_ of withdrawing,\nwhensoever he pleases, from a voluntary association--the laws of the land\nwould not sustain us in the enforcement of such a regulation; and our own\nself-respect should prevent us from attempting it. If, then, he has a\nright to withdraw, it clearly follows that we have no right to tax him,\nwhich is only one mode of inflicting a fine or penalty for an act, the\nright to do which we have acceded. In the strong language of the Committee\nof Correspondence of Maryland:[94] \"The object of Masonry never was to\nextort, _nolens volens,_ money from its votaries. Such are not its\nprinciples or teaching. The advocating such doctrines cannot advance the\ninterest or reputation of the institution; but will, as your committee\nfear, do much to destroy its usefulness. Compulsive membership deprives it\nof the title, _Free_ and Accepted.\"\n\nBut as it is an undoubted precept of the Order that every Mason should\nbelong to a lodge, and contribute, so far as his means will allow, to the\nsupport of the institution, and as, by his demission, for other than\ntemporary purposes, he violates the principles and disobeys the precepts\nof the Order, it naturally follows that his withdrawal must place him in a\ndifferent position from that which he would occupy as an affiliated Mason.\nIt is now time for us to inquire what that new position is.\n\nWe may say, then, that, whenever a Mason permanently withdraws his\nmembership, he at once, and while he continues unaffiliated, dissevers all\nconnection between himself and the _Lodge organization_ of the Order. He,\nby this act, divests himself of all the rights and privileges which belong\nto him as a member of that organization. Among these rights and privileges\nare those of visitation, of pecuniary aid, and of masonic burial.\nWhenever he approaches the door of a lodge, asking to enter or seeking for\nassistance, he is to be met in the light of a profane. He may knock, but\nthe door must not be opened--he may ask, but he is not to receive. The\nwork of the lodge is not to be shared by those who have thrown aside their\naprons and their implements, and abandoned the labors of the Temple--the\nfunds of the lodge are to be distributed only among these who are aiding,\nby their individual contributions, to the formation of similar funds in\nother lodges.\n\nBut from the well-known and universally-admitted maxim of \"once a Mason,\nand always a Mason,\" it follows that a demitted Brother cannot by such\ndemission divest himself of all his masonic responsibilities to his\nBrethren, nor be deprived of their correlative responsibility to him. An\nunaffiliated Mason is still bound by certain obligations, of which he\ncannot, under any circumstances, divest himself, and by similar\nobligations are the fraternity bound to him. These relate to the duties of\nsecrecy and of aid in the imminent hour of peril. Of the first of these\nthere can be no doubt; and as to the last, the words of the precept\ndirecting it leaves us no option; nor is it a time when the G.H.S. of D.\nis thrown out to inquire into the condition of the party.\n\nSpeaking on this subject, Brother Albert Pike, in his report to the Grand\nLodge of Arkansas, says \"if a person appeals to us as a Mason in imminent\nperil, or such pressing need that we have not time to inquire into his\nworthiness, then, lest we might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy\nBrother, we must not stop to inquire _as to anything_.\" But I do not think\nthat the learned Brother has put the case in the strongest light. It is\nnot alone \"lest we might refuse to relieve and aid a worthy Brother,\" that\nwe are in cases of \"imminent peril\" to make no pause for deliberation. But\nit is because we are bound by our highest obligations at all times, and to\nall Masons, to give that aid when _duly_ called for.\n\nI may, then, after this somewhat protracted discussion, briefly\nrecapitulate the position, the rights and the responsibilities of an\nunaffiliated Mason as follows:\n\n1. An unaffiliated Mason is still bound by all his masonic duties and\nobligations, excepting those connected with the organization of the lodge.\n\n2. He has a right to aid in imminent peril when _he asks for that aid in\nthe_ proper _and conventional way_.\n\n3. He loses the right to receive pecuniary relief.\n\n4. He loses the general right to visit[95] lodges, or to walk in masonic\nprocessions.\n\n5. He loses the right of masonic burial.\n\n6. He still remains subject to the government of the Order, and may be\ntried and punished for any offense as an affiliated Mason would be, by the\nlodge within whose geographical jurisdiction he resides.\n\n\n\n\n\nBook Fourth.\n\nOf Masonic Crimes and Punishments.\n\n\n\n\nChapter I.\n\nOf What Are Masonic Crimes.\n\n\n\nThe division of wrongs, by the writers on municipal law, into private and\npublic, or civil injuries and crimes and misdemeanors, does not apply to\nthe jurisprudence of Freemasonry. Here all wrongs are crimes, because they\nare a violation of the precepts of the institution; and an offense against\nan individual is punished, not so much because it is a breach of his\nprivate rights, as because it affects the well-being of the whole masonic\ncommunity.\n\nIn replying to the question, \"what are masonic crimes?\" by which is meant\nwhat crimes are punishable by the constituted authorities, our safest\nguide will be that fundamental law which is contained in the Old Charges.\nThese give a concise, but succinct summary of the duties of a Mason, and,\nof course, whatever is a violation of any one of these duties will\nconstitute a masonic crime, and the perpetrator will be amenable to\nmasonic punishment.\n\nBut before entering on the consideration of these penal offenses, it will\nbe well that we should relieve the labor of the task, by inquiring what\ncrimes or offenses are not supposed to come within the purview of masonic\njurisprudence.\n\nReligion and politics are subjects which it is well known are stringently\nforbidden to be introduced into Masonry. And hence arises the doctrine,\nthat Masonry will not take congnizance of religious or political offenses.\n\nHeresy, for instance, is not a masonic crime. Masons are obliged to use\nthe words of the Old Charges, \"to that religion in which all men agree,\nleaving their particular opinions to themselves;\" and, therefore, as long\nas a Mason acknowledges his belief in the existence of one God, a lodge\ncan take no action on his peculiar opinions, however heterodox they may\nbe.\n\nIn like manner, although all the most ancient and universally-received\nprecepts of the institution inculcate obedience to the civil powers, and\nstrictly forbid any mingling in plots or conspiracies against the peace\nand welfare of the nation, yet no offense against the state, which is\nsimply political in its character, can be noticed by a lodge. On this\nimportant subject, the Old Charges are remarkably explicit. They say,\nputting perhaps the strongest case by way of exemplifying the principle,\n\"that if a Brother should be a rebel against the State, he is not to be\ncountenanced in his rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy man;\nand, if convicted of no other crime, though the loyal Brotherhood must and\nought to disown his rebellion, and give no umbrage or ground of political\njealousy to the government for the time being, _they cannot expel him from\nthe lodge, and his relation to it remains indefeasible_\"\n\nThe lodge can, therefore, take no cognizance of religious or political\noffenses.\n\nThe first charge says: \"a Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral\nlaw.\" Now, although, in a theological sense, the ten commandments are said\nto embrace and constitute the moral law, because they are its best\nexponent, yet jurists have given to the term a more general latitude, in\ndefining the moral laws to be \"the eternal, immutable laws of good and\nevil, to which the Creator himself, in all dispensations, conforms, and\nwhich he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are\nnecessary for the conduct of human actions.\"[96] Perhaps the well known\nsummary of Justinian will give the best idea of what this law is, namely,\nthat we \"should live honestly, (that is to say, without reproach,)[97]\nshould injure nobody, and render to every one his just due.\"\n\nIf such, then, be the meaning of the moral law, and if every Mason is by\nhis tenure obliged to obey it, it follows, that all such crimes as profane\nswearing or great impiety in any form, neglect of social and domestic\nduties, murder and its concomitant vices of cruelty and hatred, adultery,\ndishonesty in any shape, perjury or malevolence, and habitual falsehood,\ninordinate covetousness, and in short, all those ramifications of these\nleading vices which injuriously affect the relations of man to God, his\nneighbor, and himself, are proper subjects of lodge jurisdiction. Whatever\nmoral defects constitute the bad man, make also the bad Mason, and\nconsequently come under the category of masonic offenses. The principle is\nso plain and comprehensible as to need no further exemplification. It is\nsufficient to say that, whenever an act done by a Mason is contrary to or\nsubsersive of the three great duties which he owes to God, his neighbor,\nand himself, it becomes at once a subject of masonic investigation, and of\nmasonic punishment.\n\nBut besides these offenses against the universal moral law, there are many\nothers arising from the peculiar nature of our institution. Among these we\nmay mention, and in their order, those that are enumerated in the several\nsections of the Sixth Chapter of the Old Charges. These are, unseemly and\nirreverent conduct in the lodge, all excesses of every kind, private\npiques or quarrels brought into the lodge; imprudent conversation in\nrelation to Masonry in the presence of uninitiated strangers; refusal to\nrelieve a worthy distressed Brother, if in your power; and all \"wrangling,\nquarreling, back-biting, and slander.\"\n\nThe lectures in the various degrees, and the Ancient Charges read on the\ninstallation of the Master of a lodge, furnish us with other criteria for\ndeciding what are peculiarly masonic offenses. All of them need not be\ndetailed; but among them may be particularly mentioned the following: All\nimproper revelations, undue solicitations for candidates, angry and\nover-zealous arguments in favor of Masonry with its enemies, every act\nwhich tends to impair the unsullied purity of the Order, want of\nreverence for and obedience to masonic superiors, the expression of a\ncontemptuous opinion of the original rulers and patrons of Masonry, or of\nthe institution itself; all countenance of impostors; and lastly, holding\nmasonic communion with clandestine Masons, or visiting irregular lodges.\n\nFrom this list, which, extended as it is, might easily have been enlarged,\nit will be readily seen, that the sphere of masonic penal jurisdiction is\nby no means limited. It should, therefore, be the object of every Mason,\nto avoid the censure or reproach of his Brethren, by strictly confining\nhimself as a point within that circle of duty which, at his first\ninitiation, was presented to him as an object worthy of his consideration.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II.\n\nOf Masonic Punishments.\n\n\n\nHaving occupied the last chapter in a consideration of what constitute\nmasonic crimes, it is next in order to inquire how these offenses are to\nbe punished; and accordingly I propose in the following sections to treat\nof the various modes in which masonic law is vindicated, commencing with\nthe slightest mode of punishment, which is censure, and proceeding to the\nhighest, or expulsion from all the rights and privileges of the Order.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of Censure._\n\n\nA censure is the mildest form of punishment that can be inflicted by a\nlodge; and as it is simply the expression of an opinion by the members of\nthe lodge, that they do not approve of the conduct of the person\nimplicated, in a particular point of view, and as it does not in any\ndegree affect the masonic standing of the one censured, nor for a moment\nsuspend or abridge his rights and benefits, I have no doubt that it may be\ndone on a mere motion, without previous notice, and adopted, as any other\nresolution, by a bare majority of the members present.\n\nMasonic courtesy would, however, dictate that notice should be given to\nthe Brother, if absent, that such a motion of censure is about to be\nproposed or considered, to enable him to show cause, if any he have, why\nhe should not be censured. But such notice is not, as I have said,\nnecessary to the legality of the vote of censure.\n\nA vote of censure will sometimes, however, be the result of a trial, and\nin that case its adoption must be governed by the rules of masonic trials,\nwhich are hereafter to be laid down.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of Reprimand._\n\n\nA reprimand is the next mildest form of masonic punishment. It should\nnever be adopted on a mere motion, but should always be the result of a\nregular trial, in which the party may have the opportunity of defense.\n\nA reprimand may be either private or public. If to be given in private,\nnone should be present but the Master and the offender; or, if given by\nletter, no copy of that letter should be preserved.\n\nIf given in public, the lodge is the proper place, and the reprimand\nshould be given by the Master from his appropriate station.\n\nThe Master is always the executive officer of the lodge, and in carrying\nout the sentence he must exercise his own prudent discretion as to the\nmode of delivery and form of words.\n\nA reprimand, whether private or public, does not affect the masonic\nstanding of the offender.\n\n\n\nSection III.\n\n_Of Exclusion from the Lodge._\n\n\nExclusion from a lodge may be of various degrees.\n\n1. A member may for indecorous or unmasonic conduct be excluded from a\nsingle meeting of the lodge. This may be done by the Master, under a\nprovision of the bye-laws giving him the authority, or on his own\nresponsibility, in which case he is amenable to the Grand Lodge for the\ncorrectness of his decision. Exclusion in this way does not affect the\nmasonic standing of the person excluded, and does not require a previous\ntrial.\n\nI cannot entertain any doubt that the Master of a lodge has the right to\nexclude temporarily any member or Mason, when he thinks that either his\nadmission, if outside, or his continuance within, if present, will impair\nthe peace and harmony of the lodge. It is a prerogative necessary to the\nfaithful performance of his duties, and inalienable from his great\nresponsibility to the Grand Lodge for the proper government of the Craft\nintrusted to his care. If, as it is described in the ancient manner of\nconstituting a lodge, the Master is charged \"to preserve the cement of the\nLodge,\" it would be folly to give him such a charge, unless he were\ninvested with the power to exclude an unruly or disorderly member. But as\nMasters are enjoined not to rule their lodges in an unjust or arbitrary\nmanner, and as every Mason is clearly entitled to redress for any wrong\nthat has been done to him, it follows that the Master is responsible to\nthe Grand Lodge for the manner in which he has executed the vast power\nintrusted to him, and he may be tried and punished by that body, for\nexcluding a member, when the motives of the act and the other\ncircumstances of the exclusion were not such as to warrant the exercise of\nhis prerogative.\n\n2. A member may be excluded from his lodge for a definite or indefinite\nperiod, on account of the non-payment of arrears. This punishment may be\ninflicted in different modes, and under different names. It is sometimes\ncalled, _suspension from the lodge,_ and sometimes _erasure from the\nroll_. Both of these punishments, though differing in their effect, are\npronounced, not after a trial, but by a provision of the bye-laws of the\nlodge. For this reason alone, if there were no other, I should contend,\nthat they do not affect the standing of the member suspended, or erased,\nwith relation to the craft in general. No Mason can be deprived of his\nmasonic rights, except after a trial, with the opportunity of defense, and\na verdict of his peers.\n\nBut before coming to a definite conclusion on this subject, it is\nnecessary that we should view the subject in another point of view, in\nwhich it will be seen that a suspension from the rights and benefits of\nMasonry, for the non-payment of dues, is entirely at variance with the\ntrue principles of the Order.\n\nThe system of payment of lodge-dues does not by any means belong to the\nancient usages of the fraternity. It is a modern custom, established for\npurposes of convenience, and arising out of other modifications, in the\norganization of the Order. It is not an obligation on the part of a Mason,\nto the institution at large, but is in reality a special contract, in\nwhich the only parties are a particular lodge and its members, of which\nthe fraternity, as a mass, are to know nothing. It is not presented by any\ngeneral masonic law, nor any universal masonic precept. No Grand Lodge has\never yet attempted to control or regulate it, and it is thus tacitly\nadmitted to form no part of the general regulations of the Order. Even in\nthat Old Charge in which a lodge is described, and the necessity of\nmembership in is enforced, not a word is said of the payment of arrears to\nit, or of the duty of contributing to its support. Hence the non-payment\nof arrears is a violation of a special and voluntary contract with a\nlodge, and not of any general duty to the craft at large. The corollary\nfrom all this is, evidently, that the punishment inflicted in such a case\nshould be one affecting the relations of the delinquent with the\nparticular lodge whose bye-laws he has infringed, and not a general one,\naffecting his relations with the whole Order. After a consideration of\nall these circumstances, I am constrained to think that suspension from\nalodge, for non-payment of arrears, should only suspend the rights of the\nmember as to his own lodge, but should not affect his right of visiting\nother lodges, nor any of the other privileges inherent in him as a Mason.\nSuch is not, I confess, the general opinion, or usage of the craft in this\ncountry, but yet I cannot but believe that it is the doctrine most\nconsonant with the true spirit of the institution. It is the practice\npursued by the Grand Lodge of England, from which most of our Grand Lodges\nderive, directly or indirectly, their existence. It is also the regulation\nof the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. The Grand Lodge of South Carolina\nexpressly forbids suspension from the rights and benefits of Masonry for\nnon-payment of dues, and the Grand Lodge of New York has a similar\nprovision in its Constitution.\n\nOf the two modes of exclusion from a lodge for non-payment of dues,\nnamely, suspension and erasure, the effects are very different. Suspension\ndoes not abrogate the connection between the member and his lodge, and\nplaces his rights in abeyance only. Upon the payment of the debt, he is\nat once restored without other action of the lodge. But erasure from the\nroll terminates all connection between the delinquent and the lodge, and\nhe ceases to be a member of it. Payment of the dues, simply, will not\nrestore him; for it is necessary that he should again be elected by the\nBrethren, upon formal application.\n\nThe word exclusion has a meaning in England differing from that in which\nit has been used in the present section. There the prerogative of\nexpulsion is, as I think very rightly, exercised only by the Grand Lodge.\nThe term \"expelled\" is therefore used only when a Brother is removed from\nthe craft, by the Grand Lodge. The removal by a District Grand Lodge, or a\nsubordinate lodge, is called \"exclusion.\" The effect, however, of the\npunishment of exclusion, is similar to that which has been here advocated.\n\n\n\nSection IV.\n\n_Of Definite Suspension._\n\n\nSuspension is a punishment by which a party is temporarily deprived of his\nrights and privileges as a Mason. It does not terminate his connection\nwith the craft, but only places it in abeyance, and it may again be\nresumed in a mode hereafter to be indicated.\n\nSuspension may be, in relation to time, either definite or indefinite. And\nas the effects produced upon the delinquent, especially in reference to\nthe manner of his restoration, are different, it is proper that each\nshould be separately considered.\n\nIn a case of definite suspension, the time for which the delinquent is to\nbe suspended, whether for one month, for three, or six months, or for a\nlonger or shorter period, is always mentioned in the sentence.\n\nAt its termination, the party suspended is at once restored without\nfurther action of the lodge. But as this is a point upon which there has\nbeen some difference of opinion, the argument will be fully discussed in\nthe chapter on the subject of _Restoration._\n\nBy a definite suspension, the delinquent is for a time placed beyond the\npale of Masonry. He is deprived of all his rights as a Master Mason--is\nnot permitted to visit any lodge, or hold masonic communication with his\nBrethren--is not entitled to masonic relief, and should he die during his\nsuspension, is not entitled to masonic burial. In short, the amount of\npunishment differs from that of indefinite suspension or expulsion only\nin the period of time for which it is inflicted.\n\nThe punishment of definite suspension is the lightest that can be\ninflicted of those which affect the relations of a Mason with the\nfraternity at large. It must always be preceded by a trial, and the\nprevalent opinion is, that it may be inflicted by a two-thirds vote of the\nlodge.\n\n\n\nSection V.\n\n_Of Indefinite Suspension._\n\n\nIndefinite suspension is a punishment by which the person suspended is\ndeprived of all his rights and privileges as a Mason, until such time as\nthe lodge which has suspended him shall see fit, by a special action, to\nrestore him.\n\nAll that has been said of definite suspension in the preceding section,\nwill equally apply to indefinite suspension, except that in the former\ncase the suspended person is at once restored by the termination of the\nperiod for which he was suspended; while in the latter, as no period of\ntermination had been affixed, a special resolution of the lodge will be\nnecessary to effect a restoration.\n\nBy suspension the connection of the party with his lodge and with the\ninstitution is not severed; he still remains a member of his lodge,\nalthough his rights as such are placed in abeyance. In this respect it\nmaterially differs from expulsion, and, as an inferior grade of\npunishment, is inflicted for offenses of a lighter character than those\nfor which expulsion is prescribed.\n\nThe question here arises, whether the dues of a suspended member to his\nlodge continue to accrue during his suspension? I think they do not. Dues\nor arrears are payments made to a lodge for certain rights and\nbenefits--the exercise and enjoyment of which are guaranteed to the\nmember, in consideration of the dues thus paid. But as by suspension,\nwhether definite or indefinite, he is for the time deprived of these\nrights and benefits, it would seem unjust to require from him a payment\nfor that which he does not enjoy. I hold, therefore, that suspension from\nthe rights and benefits of Masonry, includes also a suspension from the\npayment of arrears.\n\nNo one can be indefinitely suspended, unless after a due form of trial,\nand upon the vote of at least two-thirds of the members present.\n\n\n\nSection VI.\n\n_Of Expulsion._[98]\n\n\nExpulsion is the very highest penalty that can be inflicted upon a\ndelinquent Mason. It deprives the party expelled of all the masonic rights\nand privileges that he ever enjoyed, not only as a member of the lodge\nfrom which he has been ejected, but also of all those which were inherent\nin him as a member of the fraternity at large. He is at once as completely\ndivested of his masonic character as though he had never been admitted\ninto the institution. He can no longer demand the aid of his Brethren, nor\nrequire from them the performance of any of the duties to which he was\nformerly entitled, nor visit any lodge, nor unite in any of the public or\nprivate ceremonies of the Order. No conversation on masonic subjects can\nbe held with him, and he is to be considered as being completely without\nthe pale of the institution, and to be looked upon in the same light as a\nprofane, in relation to the communication of any masonic information.\n\nIt is a custom too generally adopted in this country, for subordinate\nlodges to inflict this punishment, and hence it is supposed by many, that\nthe power of inflicting it is vested in the subordinate lodges. But the\nfact is, that the only proper tribunal to impose this heavy penalty is a\nGrand Lodge. A subordinate may, indeed, try its delinquent member, and if\nguilty declare him expelled. But the sentence is of no force until the\nGrand Lodge, under whose jurisdiction it is working, has confirmed it. And\nit is optional with the Grand Lodge to do so, or, as is frequently done,\nto reverse the decision and reinstate the Brother. Some of the lodges in\nthis country claim the right to expel independently of the action of the\nGrand Lodge, but the claim is not valid. The very fact that an expulsion\nis a penalty, affecting the general relations of the punished party with\nthe whole fraternity, proves that its exercise never could, with\npropriety, be intrusted to a body so circumscribed in its authority as a\nsubordinate lodge. Besides, the general practice of the fraternity is\nagainst it. The English Constitutions vest the power to expel exclusively\nin the Grand Lodge.[99]\n\nThe severity of the punishment will at once indicate the propriety of\ninflicting it only for the most serious offenses, such, for instance, as\nimmoral conduct, that would subject a candidate for initiation to\nrejection.\n\nAs the punishment is general, affecting the relation of the one expelled\nwith the whole fraternity, it should not be lightly imposed, for the\nviolation of any masonic act not general in its character. The commission\nof a grossly immoral act is a violation of the contract entered into\nbetween each Mason and his Order. If sanctioned by silence or impunity, it\nwould bring discredit on the institution, and tend to impair its\nusefulness. A Mason who is a bad man, is to the fraternity what a\nmortified limb is to the body, and should be treated with the same mode of\ncure--he should be cut off, lest his example spread, and disease be\npropagated through the constitution.\n\nThe punishment of expulsion can only be inflicted after a due course of\ntrial, and upon the votes of at least two-thirds of the members present,\nand should always be submitted for approval and confirmation to the Grand\nLodge.\n\nOne question here arises, in respect not only to expulsion but to the\nother masonic punishments, of which I have treated in the preceding\nsections:--Does suspension or expulsion from a Chapter of Royal Arch\nMasons, an Encampment of Knights Templar, or any other of what are called\nthe higher degrees of Masonry, affect the relations of the expelled party\nto Symbolic or Ancient Craft Masonry? I answer, unhesitatingly, that it\ndoes not, and for reasons which, years ago, I advanced, in the following\nlanguage, and which appear to have met with the approval of the most of my\ncontemporaries:--\n\n\"A chapter of Royal Arch Masons, for instance, is not, and cannot be,\nrecognized as a masonic body, by a lodge of Master Masons. 'They hear them\nso to be, but they do not know them so to be,' by any of the modes of\nrecognition known to Masonry. The acts, therefore, of a Chapter cannot be\nrecognized by a Master Masons' lodge, any more than the acts of a literary\nor charitable society wholly unconnected with the Order. Again: By the\npresent organization of Freemasonry, Grand Lodges are the supreme masonic\ntribunals. If, therefore, expulsion from a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons\ninvolved expulsion from a Blue Lodge, the right of the Grand Lodge to hear\nand determine causes, and to regulate the internal concerns of the\ninstitution, would be interfered with by another body beyond its control.\nBut the converse of this proposition does not hold good. Expulsion from a\nBlue Lodge involves expulsion from all the higher degrees; because, as\nthey are composed of Blue Masons, the members could not of right sit and\nhold communications on masonic subjects with one who was an expelled\nMason.\"[100]\n\n\n\n\nChapter III.\n\nOf Masonic Trials.\n\n\n\nHaving thus discussed the penalties which are affixed to masonic offenses,\nwe are next to inquire into the process of trial by which a lodge\ndetermines on the guilt or innocence of the accused. This subject will be\nthe most conveniently considered by a division into two sections; first,\nas to the form of trial; and secondly, as to the character of the\nevidence.\n\n\n\nSection I.\n\n_Of the Form of Trial._\n\n\nAlthough the authority for submitting masonic offenses to trials by lodges\nis derived from the Old Charges, none of the ancient regulations of the\nOrder have prescribed the details by which these trials are to be\ngoverned. The form of trial must, therefore, be obtained from the customs\nand usages of the craft, and from the regulations which have been adopted\nby various Grand Lodges. The present section will, therefore, furnish a\nsummary of these regulations as they are generally observed in this\ncountry.\n\nA charge or statement of the offense imputed to the party is always a\npreliminary step to every trial.\n\nThis charge must be made in writing, signed by the accuser, and delivered\nto the Secretary, who reads it at the next regular communication of the\nlodge. A time and place are then appointed by the lodge for the trial.\n\nThe accused is entitled to a copy of the charge, and must be informed of\nthe time and place that have been appointed for his trial.\n\nAlthough it is necessary that the accusation should be preferred at a\nstated communication, so that no one may be taken at a disadvantage, the\ntrial may take place at a special communication. But ample time and\nopportunity should always be given to the accused to prepare his defense.\n\nIt is not essential that the accuser should be a Mason. A charge of\nimmoral conduct can be preferred by a profane; and if the offense is\nproperly stated, and if it comes within the jurisdiction of the Order or\nthe lodge, it must be investigated. It is not the accuser but the accused\nthat Is to be put on trial, and the lodge is to look only to the nature of\nthe accusation, and not to the individual who prefers it. The motives of\nthe accuser, but not his character, may be examined.\n\nIf the accused is living beyond the jurisdiction of the lodge--that is to\nsay, if he be a member and have removed to some other place without\nwithdrawing his membership, not being a member, or if, after committing\nthe offense, he has left the jurisdiction, the charge must be transmitted\nto his present place of residence, by mail or otherwise, and a reasonable\ntime be allowed for his answer before the lodge proceeds to trial.\n\nThe lodge should be opened in the highest degree to which the accused has\nattained; and the examinations should take place in the presence of the\naccused and the accuser (if the latter be a Mason); but the final decision\nshould always be made in the third degree.\n\nThe accused and the accuser have a right to be present at all examinations\nof witnesses, whether those examinations are taken in open lodge or in a\ncommittee, and to propose such relevant questions as they desire.\n\nWhen the trial is concluded, the accused and accuser should retire, and\nthe Master or presiding officer must then put the question of guilty or\nnot guilty to the lodge. Of course, if there are several charges or\nspecifications, the question must be taken on each separately. For the\npurposes of security and independence in the expression of opinion, it\nseems generally conceded, that this question should be decided by ballot;\nand the usage has also obtained, of requiring two-thirds of the votes\ngiven to be black, to secure a conviction. A white ball, of course, is\nequivalent to acquittal, and a black one to conviction.\n\nEvery member present is bound to vote, unless excused by unanimous\nconsent.\n\nIf, on a scrutiny, it is found that the verdict is guilty, the Master or\npresiding officer must then put the question as to the amount and nature\nof the punishment to be inflicted.\n\nHe will commence with the highest penalty, or expulsion, and, if\nnecessary, by that punishment being negatived, proceed to propose\nindefinite and then definite suspension, exclusion, public or private\nreprimand, and censure.\n\nFor expulsion or either kind of suspension, two-thirds of the votes\npresent are necessary. For either of the other and lighter penalties, a\nbare majority will be sufficient.\n\nThe votes on the nature of the punishment should be taken by a show of\nhands.\n\nIf the residence of the accused is not known, or if, upon due summons, he\nrefuses or neglects to attend, the lodge may, nevertheless, proceed to\ntrial without his presence.\n\nIn trials conducted by Grand Lodges, it is usual to take the preliminary\ntestimony in a committee; but the final decision must always be made in\nthe Grand Lodge.\n\n\n\nSection II.\n\n_Of the Evidence in Masonic Trials._\n\n\nIn the consideration of the nature of the evidence that is to be given in\nmasonic trials, it is proper that we should first inquire what classes of\npersons are to be deemed incompetent as witnesses.\n\nThe law of the land, which, in this instance, is the same as the law of\nMasonry, has declared the following classes of person to be incompetent to\ngive evidence.\n\n1. Persons who have not the use of reason, are, from the infirmity of\ntheir nature, considered to be utterly incapable of giving evidence.[101]\nThis class includes idiots, madmen, and children too young to be sensible\nof the obligations of an oath, and to distinguish between good and evil.\n\n2. Persons who are entirely devoid of any such religious principle or\nbelief as would bind their consciences to speak the truth, are incompetent\nas witnesses. Hence, the testimony of an atheist must be rejected;\nbecause, as it has been well said, such a person cannot be subject to that\nsanction which is deemed an indispensable test of truth. But as Masonry\ndoes not demand of its candidates any other religious declaration than\nthat of a belief in God, it cannot require of the witnesses in its trials\nany profession of a more explicit faith. But even here it seems to concur\nwith the law of the land; for it has been decided by Chief Baron Willes,\nthat \"an infidel who believes in a God, and that He will reward and punish\nhim in this world, but does not believe in a future state, may be examined\nupon oath.\"\n\n3. Persons who have been rendered infamous by their conviction of great\ncrimes, are deemed incompetent to give evidence. This rule has been\nadopted, because the commission of an infamous crime implies, as Sir\nWilliam Scott has observed, \"such a dereliction of moral principle on the\npart of the witness, as carries with it the conclusion that he would\nentirely disregard the obligation of an oath.\" Of such a witness it has\nbeen said, by another eminent judge,[102] that \"the credit of his oath is\nover-balanced by the stain of his iniquity.\"\n\n4. Persons interested in the result of the trial are considered\nincompetent to give evidence. From the nature of human actions and\npassions, and from the fact that all persons, even the most virtuous, are\nunconsciously swayed by motives of interest, the testimony of such persons\nis rather to be distrusted than believed. This rule will, perhaps, be\ngenerally of difficult application in masonic trials, although in a civil\nsuit at law it is easy to define what is the interest of a party\nsufficient to render his evidence incompetent. But whenever it is clearly\napparent that the interests of a witness would be greatly benefited by\neither the acquittal or the conviction of the accused, his testimony must\nbe entirely rejected, or, if admitted, its value must be weighed with the\nmost scrupulous caution.\n\nSuch are the rules that the wisdom of successive generations of men,\nlearned in the law, have adopted for the establishment of the competency\nor incompetency of witnesses. There is nothing in them which conflicts\nwith the principles of justice, or with the Constitutions of Freemasonry;\nand hence they may, very properly, be considered as a part of our own\ncode. In determining, therefore, the rule for the admission of witnesses\nin masonic trials, we are to be governed by the simple proposition that\nhas been enunciated by Mr. Justice Lawrence in the following language:\n\n\"I find no rule less comprehensive than this, that all persons are\nadmissible witnesses who have the use of their reason, and such religious\nbelief as to feel the obligation of an oath, who have not been convicted\nof any infamous crime, and who are not influenced by interest.\"\n\nThe peculiar, isolated character of our institution, here suggests as an\nimportant question, whether it is admissible to take the testimony of a\nprofane, or person who is not a Freemason, in the trial of a Mason before\nhis lodge.\n\nTo this question I feel compelled to reply, that such testimony is\ngenerally admissible; but, as there are special cases in which it is not,\nit seems proper to qualify that reply by a brief inquiry into the grounds\nand reasons of this admissibility, and the mode and manner in which such\ntestimony is to be taken.\n\nThe great object of every trial, in Masonry, as elsewhere, is to elicit\ntruth; and, in the spirit of truth, to administer justice. From whatever\nsource, therefore, this truth can be obtained, it is not only competent\nthere to seek it, but it is obligatory on us so to do. This is the\nprinciple of law as well as of common sense. Mr. Phillips, in the\nbeginning of his great \"Treatise on the Law of Evidence,\" says: \"In\ninquiries upon this subject, the great end and object ought always to be,\nthe ascertaining of the most convenient and surest means for the\nattainment of truth; the rules laid down are the means used for the\nattainment of that end.\"\n\nNow, if A, who is a Freemason, shall have committed an offense, of which B\nand C alone were cognizant as witnesses, shall it be said that A must be\nacquitted for want of proof, because B and C are not members of the Order?\nWe apprehend that in this instance the ends of justice would be defeated,\nrather than subserved. If the veracity and honesty of B and C are\nunimpeached, their testimony as to the fact cannot lawfully be rejected on\nany ground, except that they may be interested in the result of the trial,\nand might be benefited by the conviction or the acquittal of the\ndefendant. But this is an objection that would hold against the evidence\nof a Mason, as well as a profane.\n\nAny other rule would be often attended with injurious consequences to our\ninstitution. We may readily suppose a case by way of illustration. A, who\nis a member of a lodge, is accused of habitual intemperance, a vice\neminently unmasonic in its character, and one which will always reflect a\ngreat portion of the degradation of the offender upon the society which\nshall sustain and defend him in its perpetration. But it may happen--and\nthis is a very conceivable case--that in consequence of the remoteness of\nhis dwelling, or from some other supposable cause, his Brethren have no\nopportunity of seeing him, except at distant intervals. There is,\ntherefore, no Mason, to testify to the truth of the charge, while his\nneighbors and associates, who are daily and hourly in his company, are all\naware of his habit of intoxication.\n\nIf, then, a dozen or more men, all of reputation and veracity, should\ncome, or be brought before the lodge, ready and willing to testify to this\nfact, by what process of reason or justice, or under what maxim of masonic\njurisprudence, could their testimony be rejected, simply because they were\nnot Masons? And if rejected--if the accused with this weight of evidence\nagainst him, with this infamy clearly and satisfactorily proved by these\nreputable witnesses, were to be acquitted, and sent forth purged of the\ncharge, upon a mere technical ground, and thus triumphantly be sustained\nin the continuation of his vice, and that in the face of the very\ncommunity which was cognizant of his degradation of life and manners, who\ncould estimate the disastrous consequences to the lodge and the Order\nwhich should thus support and uphold him in his guilty course? The world\nwould not, and could not appreciate the causes that led to the rejection\nof such clear and unimpeachable testimony, and it would visit with its\njust reprobation the institution which could thus extend its fraternal\naffections to the support of undoubted guilt.\n\nBut, moreover, this is not a question of mere theory; the principle of\naccepting the testimony of non-masonic witnesses has been repeatedly acted\non. If a Mason has been tried by the courts of his country on an\nindictment for larceny, or any other infamous crime, and been convicted by\nthe verdict of a jury, although neither the judge nor the jury, nor the\nwitnesses were Masons, no lodge after such conviction would permit him to\nretain his membership, but, on the contrary, it would promptly and\nindignantly expel him from the Brotherhood. If, however, the lodge should\nrefuse to expel him, on the ground that his conviction before the court\nwas based on the testimony of non-masonic witnesses, and should grant him\na lodge trial for the same offense, then, on the principle against which\nwe are contending, the evidence of these witnesses as \"profanes\" would be\nrejected, and the party be acquitted for want of proof; and thus the\nanomalous and disgraceful spectacle would present itself--of a felon\ncondemned and punished by the laws of his country for an infamous crime,\nacquitted and sustained by a lodge of Freemasons.\n\nBut we will be impressed with the inexpediency and injustice of this\nprinciple, when we look at its operation from another point of view. It is\nsaid to be a bad rule that will not work both ways; and, therefore, if the\ntestimony of non-masonic witnesses against the accused is rejected on the\nground of inadmissibility, it must also be rejected when given in his\nfavor. Now, if we suppose a case, in which a Mason was accused before his\nlodge of having committed an offense, at a certain time and place, and, by\nthe testimony of one or two disinterested persons, he could establish what\nthe law calls an _alibi_, that is, that at that very time he was at a\nfar-distant place, and could not, therefore, have committed the offense\ncharged against him, we ask with what show of justice or reason could such\ntestimony be rejected, simply because the parties giving it were not\nMasons? But if the evidence of a \"profane\" is admitted in favor of the\naccused, rebutting testimony of the same kind cannot with consistency be\nrejected; and hence the rule is determined that in the trial of Masons, it\nis competent to receive the evidence of persons who are not Masons, but\nwhose competency, in other respects, is not denied.\n\nIt must, however, be noted, that the testimony of persons who are not\nMasons is not to be given as that of Masons is, within the precincts of\nthe lodge. They are not to be present at the trial; and whatever testimony\nthey have to adduce, must be taken by a committee, to be afterwards\naccurately reported to the lodge. But in all cases, the accused has a\nright to be present, and to interrogate the witnesses.\n\nThe only remaining topic to be discussed is the method of taking the\ntestimony, and this can be easily disposed of.\n\nThe testimony of Masons is to be taken either in lodge or in committee,\nand under the sanction of their obligations.\n\nThe testimony of profanes is always to be taken by a committee, and on\noath administered by a competent legal officer--the most convenient way of\ntaking such testimony is by affidavit.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV.\n\nOf the Penal Jurisdiction of a Lodge.\n\n\n\nThe penal jurisdiction of a lodge is that jurisdiction which it is\nauthorized to exercise for the trial of masonic offenses, and the\ninfliction of masonic punishment. It may be considered as either\ngeographical or personal.\n\nThe geographical jurisdiction of a lodge extends in every direction, half\nway to the nearest lodge. Thus, if two lodges be situated at the distance\nof sixteen miles from each other, then the penal jurisdiction of each will\nextend for the space of eight miles in the direction of the other.\n\nThe personal jurisdiction of a lodge is that jurisdiction which a lodge\nmay exercise over certain individuals, respective or irrespective of\ngeographical jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is more complicated than the\nother, and requires a more detailed enumeration of the classes over whom\nit is to be exercised.\n\n1. A lodge exercises penal jurisdiction over all its members, no matter\nwhere they may reside. A removal from the geographical jurisdiction will\nnot, in this case, release the individual from personal jurisdiction. The\nallegiance of a member to his lodge is indefeasible.\n\n2. A lodge exercises penal jurisdiction over all unaffiliated Masons,\nliving within its geographical jurisdiction. An unaffiliated Mason cannot\nrelease himself from his responsibilities to the Order. And if, by immoral\nor disgraceful conduct, he violates the regulations of the Order, or tends\nto injure its reputation in the estimation of the community, he is\namenable to the lodge nearest to his place of residence, whether this\nresidence be temporary or permanent, and may be reprimanded, suspended, or\nexpelled.\n\nThis doctrine is founded on the wholesome reason, that as a lodge is the\nguardian of the purity and safety of the institution, within its own\njurisdiction, it must, to exercise this guardianship with success, be\ninvested with the power of correcting every evil that occurs within its\nprecincts. And if unaffiliated Masons were exempted from this control, the\ninstitution might be seriously affected in the eyes of the community, by\ntheir bad conduct.\n\n3. The personal jurisdiction of a lodge, for the same good reason,\nextends over all Masons living in its vicinity. A Master Mason belonging\nto a distant lodge, but residing within the geographical jurisdiction of\nanother lodge, becomes amenable for his conduct to the latter, as well as\nto the former lodge. But if his own lodge is within a reasonable distance,\ncourtesy requires that the lodge near which he resides should rather make\na complaint to his lodge than itself institute proceedings against him.\nBut the reputation of the Order must not be permitted to be endangered,\nand a case might occur, in which it would be inexpedient to extend this\ncourtesy, and where the lodge would feel compelled to proceed to the trial\nand punishment of the offender, without appealing to his lodge. The\ngeographical jurisdiction will, in all cases, legalize the proceedings.\n\n4. But a lodge situated near the confines of a State cannot extend its\njurisdiction over Masons residing in a neighboring State, and not being\nits members, however near they may reside to it: for no lodge can exercise\njurisdiction over the members of another Grand Lodge jurisdiction. Its\ngeographical, as well as personal jurisdiction, can extend no further than\nthat of its own Grand Lodge.\n\n5. Lastly, no lodge can exercise penal jurisdiction over its own Master,\nfor he is alone responsible for his conduct to the Grand Lodge. But it may\nact as his accuser before that body, and impeach him for any offense that\nhe may have committed. Neither can a lodge exercise penal jurisdiction\nover the Grand Master, although under other circumstances it might have\nboth geographical and personal jurisdiction over him, from his residence\nand membership.\n\n\n\n\nChapter V.\n\nOf Appeals.\n\n\n\nEvery Mason, who has been tried and convicted by a lodge, has an\ninalienable right to appeal from that conviction, and from the sentence\naccompanying it, to the Grand Lodge.\n\nAs an appeal always supposes the necessity of a review of the whole case,\nthe lodge is bound to furnish the Grand Lodge with an attested copy of its\nproceedings on the trial, and such other testimony in its possession as\nthe appellant may deem necessary for his defense.\n\nThe Grand Lodge may, upon investigation, confirm the verdict of its\nsubordinate. In this case, the appeal is dismissed, and the sentence goes\ninto immediate operation without any further proceedings on the part of\nthe lodge.\n\nThe Grand Lodge may, however, only approve in part, and may reduce the\npenalty inflicted, as for instance, from expulsion to suspension. In this\ncase, the original sentence of the lodge becomes void, and the milder\nsentence of the Grand Lodge is to be put in force. The same process would\ntake place, were the Grand Lodge to increase instead of diminishing the\namount of punishment, as from suspension to expulsion. For it is competent\nfor the Grand Lodge, on an appeal, to augment, reduce or wholly abrogate\nthe penalty inflicted by its subordinate.\n\nBut the Grand Lodge may take no direct action on the penalty inflicted,\nbut may simply refer the case back to the subordinate for a new trial. In\nthis case, the proceedings on the trial will be commenced _de novo_, if\nthe reference has been made on the ground of any informality or illegality\nin the previous trial. But if the case is referred back, not for a new\ntrial, but for further consideration, on the ground that the punishment\nwas inadequate--either too severe, or not sufficiently so--in this case,\nit is not necessary to repeat the trial. The discussion on the nature of\nthe penalty to be inflicted should, however, be reviewed, and any new\nevidence calculated to throw light on the nature of the punishment which\nis most appropriate, may be received.\n\nLastly, the Grand Lodge may entirely reverse the decision of its\nsubordinate, and decree a restoration of the appellant to all his rights\nand privileges, on the ground of his innocence of the charges which had\nbeen preferred against him. But, as this action is often highly important\nin its results, and places the appellant and the lodge in an entirely\ndifferent relative position, I have deemed its consideration worthy of a\ndistinct chapter.\n\nDuring the pendency of an appeal, the sentence of the subordinate lodge is\nheld in abeyance, and cannot; be enforced. The appellant in this case\nremains in the position of a Mason \"under charges.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter VI.\n\nOf Restoration.\n\n\n\nThe penalties of suspension and expulsion are terminated by restoration,\nwhich may take place either by the action of the lodge which inflicted\nthem, or by that of the Grand Lodge.\n\nRestoration from definite suspension is terminated without any special\naction of the lodge, but simply by the termination of the period for which\nthe party was suspended. He then at once reenters into the possession of\nall the rights, benefits, and functions, from which he had been\ntemporarily suspended.\n\nI have myself no doubt of the correctness of this principle; but, as it\nhas been denied by some writers, although a very large majority of the\nauthorities are in its favor, it may be well, briefly, to discuss its\nmerits.\n\nLet us suppose that on the 1st of January A.B. had been suspended for\nthree months, that is, until the 1st day of April. At the end of the three\nmonths, that is to say, on the first of April, A.B. would no longer be a\nsuspended member--for the punishment decreed will have been endured; and\nas the sentence of the lodge had expressly declared that his suspension\nwas to last until the 1st of April, the said sentence, if it means\nanything, must mean that the suspension was, on the said 1st of April, to\ncease and determine. If he were, therefore, to wait until the 1st of May\nfor the action of the lodge, declaring his restoration, he would suffer a\npunishment of four months' suspension, which was not decreed by his lodge\nupon his trial, and which would, therefore, be manifestly unjust and\nillegal.\n\nAgain: if the offense which he had committed was, upon his trial, found to\nbe so slight as to demand only a dismissal for one night from the lodge,\nwill it be contended that, on his leaving the lodge-room pursuant to his\nsentence, he leaves not to return to it on the succeeding communication,\nunless a vote should permit him? Certainly not. His punishment of\ndismissal for one night had been executed; and on the succeeding night he\nreentered into the possession of all his rights. But if he can do so after\na dismissal or suspension of one night, why not after one or three, six or\ntwelve months? The time is extended, but the principle remains the same.\n\nBut the doctrine, that after the expiration of the term of a definite\nsuspension, an action by the lodge is still necessary to a complete\nrestoration, is capable of producing much mischief and oppression. For, if\nthe lodge not only has a right, but is under the necessity of taking up\nthe case anew, and deciding whether the person who had been suspended for\nthree months, and whose period of suspension has expired, shall now be\nrestored, it follows, that the members of the lodge, in the course of\ntheir inquiry, are permitted to come to such conclusion as they may think\njust and fit; for to say that they, after all their deliberations, are, to\nvote only in one way, would be too absurd to require any consideration.\nThey may, therefore, decide that A.B., having undergone the sentence of\nthe lodge, shall be restored, and then of course all would be well, and no\nmore is to be said. But suppose that they decide otherwise, and say that\nA.B., having undergone the sentence of suspension of three months, _shall\nnot_ be restored, but must remain suspended until further orders. Here,\nthen, a party would have been punished a second time for the same offense,\nand that, too, after having suffered what, at the time of his conviction,\nwas supposed to be a competent punishment--and without a trial, and\nwithout the necessary opportunities of defense, again found guilty, and\nhis comparatively light punishment of suspension for three months changed\ninto a severer one, and of an indefinite period. The annals of the most\narbitrary government in the world--the history of the most despotic tyrant\nthat ever lived--could not show an instance of more unprincipled violation\nof law and justice than this. And yet it may naturally be the result of\nthe doctrine, that in a sentence of definite suspension, the party can be\nrestored only by a vote of the lodge at the expiration of his term of\nsuspension. If the lodge can restore him, it can as well refuse to restore\nhim, and to refuse to restore him would be to inflict a new punishment\nupon him for an old and atoned-for offense.\n\nOn the 1st of January, for instance, A.B., having been put upon his trial,\nwitnesses having been examined, his defense having been heard, was found\nguilty by his lodge of some offense, the enormity of which, whatever it\nmight be, seemed to require a suspension from Masonry for just three\nmonths, neither more nor less. If the lodge had thought the crime still\ngreater, it would, of course, we presume, have decreed a suspension of\nsix, nine, or twelve months. But considering, after a fair, impartial, and\ncompetent investigation of the merits of the case (for all this is to be\npresumed), that the offended law would be satisfied with a suspension of\nthree months, that punishment is decreed. The court is adjourned _sine\ndie_; for it has done all that is required--the prisoner undergoes his\nsentence with becoming contrition, and the time having expired, the bond\nhaving been paid, and the debt satisfied, he is told that he must again\nundergo the ordeal of another trial, before another court, before he can\nreassume what was only taken from him for a definite period; and that it\nis still doubtful, whether the sentence of the former court may not even\nnow, after its accomplishment, be reversed, and a new and more severe one\nbe inflicted.\n\nThe analogy of a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a\ncertain period, and who, on the expiration of that period, is at once\nreleased, has been referred to, as apposite to the case of a definite\nsuspension. Still more appropriately may we refer to the case of a person\ntransported for a term of years, and who cannot return until that term\nexpires, but who is at liberty at once to do so when it has expired.\n\"Another capital offense against public justice,\" says Blackstone, \"is\nthe returning from transportation, or being seen at large in Great Britain\n_before the expiration of the term for which the offender was sentenced to\nbe transported.\" _ Mark these qualifying words: \"before the expiration of\nthe term:\" they include, from the very force of language, the proposition\nthat it is no offense to return _after_ the expiration of the term. And so\nchanging certain words to meet the change of circumstances, but leaving\nthe principle unchanged, we may lay down the law in relation to\nrestorations from definite suspensions, as follows:\n\n_It is an offense against the masonic code to claim the privileges of\nMasonry, or to attempt to visit a lodge after having been suspended,\nbefore the expiration of the term for which the offender was suspended_.\n\nOf course, it is no crime to resume these privileges after the term has\nexpired; for surely he must have strange notions of the powers of\nlanguage, who supposes that suspension for three months, and no more, does\nnot mean, that when the three months are over the suspension ceases. And,\nif the suspension ceases, the person is no longer suspended; and, if no\nlonger suspended he is in good standing, and requires no further action to\nrestore him to good moral and masonic health.\n\nBut it is said that, although originally only suspended for three months,\nat the expiration of that period, his conduct might continue to be such as\nto render his restoration a cause of public reproach. What is to be done\nin such a case? It seems strange that the question should be asked. The\nremedy is only too apparent. Let new charges be preferred, and let a new\ntrial take place for his derelictions of duty during the term of his\nsuspension. Then, the lodge may again suspend him for a still longer\nperiod, or altogether expel him, if it finds him deserving such\npunishment. But in the name of justice, law, and common sense, do not\ninsiduously and unmanfully continue a sentence for one and a former\noffense, as a punishment for another and a later one, and that, too,\nwithout the due forms of trial.\n\nLet us, in this case, go again for an analogy to the laws of the land.\nSuppose an offender had been sentenced to an imprisonment of six months\nfor a larceny, and that while in prison he had committed some new crime.\nWhen the six months of his sentence had expired, would the Sheriff feel\njustified, or even the Judge who had sentenced him, in saying: \"I will not\nrelease you; you have guilty of another offense during your\nincarceration, and therefore, I shall keep you confined six months\nlonger?\" Certainly not. The Sheriff or the Judge who should do so\nhigh-handed a measure, would soon find himself made responsible for the\nviolation of private rights. But the course to be pursued would be, to\narrest him for the new offense, give him a fair trial, and, if convicted\nagain, imprison or otherwise punish him, according to his new sentence,\nor, if acquitted, discharge him.\n\nThe same course should be pursued with a Mason whose conduct during the\nperiod of his suspension has been liable to reproach or suspicion. Masons\nhave rights as well as citizens--every one is to be considered innocent\nuntil he is proved guilty--and no one should suffer punishment, even of\nthe lightest kind, except after an impartial trial by his peers.\n\nBut the case of an indefinite suspension is different. Here no particular\ntime has been appointed for the termination of the punishment. It may be\ncontinued during life, unless the court which has pronounced it think\nproper to give a determinate period to what was before indeterminate, and\nto declare that on such a day the suspension shall cease, and the offender\nbe restored. In a case of this kind, action on the part of the lodge is\nnecessary to effect a restoration.\n\nSuch a sentence being intended to last indefinitely--that is to say,\nduring the pleasure of the lodge--may, I conceive, be reversed at any\nlegal time, and the individual restored by a mere majority vote the of\nlodge. Some authorities think a vote of two-thirds necessary; but I see no\nreason why a lodge may not, in this as in other cases, reverse its\ndecision by a vote of a simple majority. The Ancient Constitutions are\ncompletely silent on this and all its kindred points; and, therefore,\nwhere a Grand Lodge has made no local regulation on the subject, we must\nbe guided by the principles of reason and analogy, both of which direct us\nto the conclusion that a lodge may express its will, in matters\nunregulated by the Constitutions, through the vote of a majority.\n\nBut the restoration of an expelled Mason requires a different action. By\nexpulsion, as I have already said, all connection with the Order is\ncompletely severed. The individual expelled ceases to be a Mason, so far\nas respects the exercise of any masonic rights or privileges. His\nrestoration to the Order is, therefore, equivalent to the admission of a\nprofane. Having ceased on his expulsion to be a member of the lodge which\nhad expelled him, his restoration would be the admission of a new member.\nThe expelled Mason and the uninitiated candidate are to be placed on the\nsame footing--both are equally unconnected with the institution--the one\nhaving never been in it, and the other having been completely discharged\nfrom it.\n\nThe rule for the admission of new members, as laid down in the Thirty-nine\nRegulations, seems to me, therefore, to be applicable in this case; and\nhence, I conceive that to reverse a sentence of expulsion and to restore\nan expelled Mason will require as unanimous a vote as that which is\nnecessary on a ballot for initiation.\n\nEvery action taken by a lodge for restoration must be done at a stated\ncommunication and after due notice, that if any member should have good\nand sufficient reasons to urge against the restoration, he may have an\nopportunity to present them.\n\nIn conclusion, the Grand Lodge may restore a suspended or expelled Mason,\ncontrary to the wishes of the lodge.\n\nIn such case, if the party has been suspended only, he, at once, resumes\nhis place and functions in the lodge, from which, indeed, he had only been\ntemporarily dissevered.\n\nBut in the case of the restoration of an expelled Mason to the rights and\nprivileges of Masonry, by a Grand Lodge, does such restoration restore him\nto membership in his lodge? This question is an important one, and has\nvery generally been decided in the negative by the Grand Lodges of this\ncountry. But as I unfortunately differ from these high authorities, I\ncannot refrain, as an apology for this difference of opinion, from\npresenting the considerations which have led me to the conclusion which I\nhave adopted. I cannot, it is true, in the face of the mass of opposing\nauthority, offer this conclusion as masonic law. But I would fain hope\nthat the time is not far distant when it will become so, by the change on\nthe part of Grand Lodges of the contrary decisions which they have made.\n\nThe general opinion in this country is, that when a Mason has been\nexpelled by his lodge, the Grand Lodge may restore him to the rights and\nprivileges, but cannot restore him to membership in his lodge. My own\nopinion, in contradiction to this, is, that when a Grand Lodge restores an\nexpelled Mason, on the ground that the punishment of expulsion from the\nrights and privileges of Masonry was too severe and disproportioned to the\noffense, it may or may not restore him to membership in his lodge. It\nmight, for instance, refuse to restore his membership on the ground that\nexclusion from his lodge is an appropriate punishment; but where the\ndecision of the lodge as to the guilt of the individual is reversed, and\nthe Grand Lodge declares him to be innocent, or that the charge against\nhim has not been proved, then I hold, that it is compelled by a just\nregard to the rights of the expelled member to restore him not only to the\nrights and privileges of Masonry, but also to membership in his lodge.\n\nI cannot conceive how a Brother, whose innocence has been declared by the\nverdict of his Grand Lodge, can be deprived of his vested rights as the\nmember of a particular lodge, without a violation of the principles of\njustice. If guilty, let his expulsion stand; but, if innocent, let him be\nplaced in the same position in which he was before the passage of the\nunjust sentence of the lodge which has been reversed.\n\nThe whole error, for such I conceive it to be, in relation to this\nquestion of restoration to membership, arises, I suppose, from a\nmisapprehension of an ancient regulation, which says that \"no man can be\nentered a Brother in any particular lodge, or admitted a member thereof,\nwithout the unanimous consent of all the members\"--which inherent\nprivilege is said not to be subject to dispensation, \"lest a turbulent\nmember should thus be imposed upon them, which might spoil their harmony,\nor hinder the freedom of their communication, or even break and disperse\nthe Lodge.\" But it should be remembered that this regulation altogether\nrefers to the admission of new members, and not to the restoration of old\nones--to the granting of a favor which the candidate solicits, and which\nthe lodge may or may not, in its own good pleasure, see fit to confer, and\nnot to the resumption of a vested and already acquired right, which, if it\nbe a right, no lodge can withhold. The practical working of this system of\nincomplete restoration, in a by no means extreme case, will readily show\nits absurdity and injustice. A member having appealed from expulsion by\nhis lodge to the Grand Lodge, that body calmly and fairly investigates the\ncase. It finds that the appellant has been falsely accused of an offense\nwhich he has never committed; that he has been unfairly tried, and\nunjustly convicted. It declares him innocent--clearly and undoubtedly\ninnocent, and far freer from any sort of condemnation than the prejudiced\njurors who convicted him. Under these circumstances, it becomes\nobligatory that the Grand Lodge should restore him to the place he\nformerly occupied, and reinvest him with the rights of which he has been\nunjustly despoiled. But that it cannot do. It may restore him to the\nprivileges of Masonry in general; but, innocent though he be, the Grand\nLodge, in deference to the prejudices of his Brethren, must perpetuate a\nwrong, and punish this innocent person by expulsion from his lodge. I\ncannot, I dare not, while I remember the eternal principles of justice,\nsubscribe to so monstrous an exercise of wrong--so flagrant an outrage\nupon private rights.\n\n\n\n\nIndex.\n\n\n\nA.\n\n\nAccused, to what he is entitled\nAct passed in the reign of Henry VI., anno 1425\n    \"        \"        \"               it was never enforced\nActual Past Master, term defined\nAdjournment, a term not recognized in Masonry\n     \"       motion for, cannot be entertained\nAffiliated Masons only, can visit lodges\nAffiliation, what it is\n      \"      mode of\n      \"      requires unanimity\n      \"      Master Masons only entitled to it\n      \"      rejected application for, may be renewed in other lodges\n      \"      may be made with more than one lodge\nAge, qualifications of candidates as to\nAppeal from Grand Master not permitted\n  \"    not to be entertained in a lodge\n  \"    cannot be taken from the chair\n  \"    doctrine of, discussed\n  \"    from the Master, must be to the Grand Lodge\n  \"    every Mason has a right to one, to the Grand Lodge\n  \"    pending one, the sentence is in abeyance\nApprentices, rights of _(see Entered Apprentice_)\nArrears, non-payment of\n   \"     to lodges, history of their origin\n   \"     do not accrue during suspension\nAssembly, general-one held in 287 by St. Alban\n     \"       \"       \"     in 926 at York\n     \"       \"      governed the craft for nearly 800 years\n     \"       \"      how organized\nAtheist cannot be a Mason\nAuthorities for masonic law\n\n\n\nB.\n\n\nBalloting for candidates\n  every member must take a part in it\n  secrecy of, inviolable\n  must be unanimous\n  Mason irresponsible for it to the lodge\n    not disfranchised of it by non-payment of arrears\n  mode of\nBalloting in each degree\n  not actually prescribed in the ancient constitutions, but implied\n  must be unanimous\nBallot, reconsideration of\n  motion for, out of order\n  cannot be granted by dispensation\nBlack ball is the bulwark of Masonry\nBrother, a title to be always used in lodge\nBurial, masonic, right of\n  must be requested except for strangers\n  Master Masons only entitled to it\n  dispensation for, not usually required\nBusiness, order of\n  may be suspended at any time by the Master\nBy-laws must be approved and confirmed by Grand Lodge\n\n\n\nC.\n\n\nCalling from labor to refreshment\nCensure, a masonic punishment\nCertificates, masonic\nChaplain, Grand (_see Grand Chaplain_)\nCharges of accusation, how to be made\nClosing lodge is at the discretion of the Master\nCommittee of investigation on character of candidates\nCommittees to be appointed by the Master\n  Master is chairman of, when present\nCommunication of a lodge, how terminated\nConsecration of a lodge how performed\n  meaning of\nConstituting a lodge, ceremony of\n  meaning of\nConstitutions, how to be altered\n\"  Gothic, adopted in 926,\nCorn, wine, and oil, masonic elements of consecration,\n\"  \"  \"  why elements,\nCrimes, masonic,\n\"   \"  definition of,\n\"   \"  enumeration of\n\n\n\nD.\n\n\nDeacons,\n\" two in each lodge,\n\" are appointed officers,\n\" not removable by Master or Senior Warden\n\"  Grand _(see Grand Deacons_)\nDedication of a lodge, how performed\n\"  to whom, and why,\n\"  meaning of\nDefinite suspension\n\"     \"     restoration from\nDegrees, no candidate can receive more than two at one communication\nDemitting\n\"  right of, not denied until recently,\n\"  regulations concerning\n\"  of many at one time may be refused\nDeputy Grand Master, duties and prerogatives of\n\"  \" office of, not very ancient\n\"  \" exercises prerogatives of Grand Master in his absence\n\"\" cannot be more than one\n\"\" originally appointed by Grand Master\nDiscussions, how to be conducted in lodge,\nDispensation what and where to be granted\n\"for a lodge\n\"\" \" tenure of its duration\n\"\" \" difference from a Warrant\nDistrict Deputy Grand Master, a modern invention\nDotage a disqualification of candidates\n\" meaning of the term\nDues to lodges, a modern usage\n\" non-payment of, does not disqualify from voting for candidates\n\n\n\nE.\n\n\nEmergency, rule upon the subject\nEntered Apprentice, rights of\n  formerly a member of his lodge\n  formerly permitted to attend the Grand Communications\n  may sit in a lodge of his degree\n  cannot speak or vote\n  cannot be deprived of his rights without trial\n  after trial may appeal to the Grand Lodge\nErasure from lodge, a masonic punishment\nEvidence in masonic trials\nExamination of visitors\n  how to be conducted\nExclusion, a masonic punishment\nExecutive powers of a Grand Lodge\nExpulsion is masonic death\nExpulsion, a masonic punishment\n  should be inflicted by Grand Lodge or with its approval\n  from higher degrees, its effect\n  restoration from\nExtinct lodges, funds of, revert to the Grand Lodge\n\n\n\nF.\n\n\nFamily distressed, of a Mason, entitled to relief\nFellow Craft, rights of\n  they formerly constituted the great body of the Fraternity\n  formerly permitted to speak, but not vote\nFinishing candidates of one lodge in another\nFool cannot be a Mason\nFree, a candidate must be, at the time of making\nFree-born, a Mason must be\n  reason for the rule\nFunds of extinct lodges revert to the Grand Lodge\n\n\n\nG.\n\n\nGeneral Assembly. (_See Assembly, General._)\nGod, belief in, a qualification of a candidate\nGothic constitutions adopted in 926\nGrand Chaplain,\n  office established in 1775\n  duties of\nGrand Deacons\n  office more ancient than Oliver supposes\n  duties of\n  how appointed\nGrand Lodge held in 1717\n  mode of organizing one\n  three lodges necessary to organize one\n  dormant may be revived if a Grand Officer remains,\n  all the Craft formerly members of\n  Masters and Wardens of lodges are members\n  Grand Officers are also members\n  Past Masters are not members by inherent right\n  its powers and prerogatives\n  may make new regulations\n  must observe the landmarks\nGrand Lodges, historical sketch of\n  are comparatively modern institutions\nGrand Marshal\n  appointed by the Grand Master\n  duties of\nGrand Master, duties and prerogatives of\n  office of has existed since the origin of Masonry\n  an elective officer\n  by whom to be installed\n  prerogatives of, derived from two sources\n  no appeal from his decision\n  may convene Grand Lodge when he chooses\n  entitled to two votes\n  how to be punished\n  may grant dispensations\nGrand Master may make Masons at sight\n  may constitute new lodges\n  cannot dispense with requisite forms in making Masons\n  his own lodge cannot exercise jurisdiction over him\nGrand Pursuivant\nGrand Secretary\n  office of established in 1723\n  duties of\nGrand Secretary, may appoint an assistant\nGrand Stewards\n  \"      \"     first mentioned in 1721\n  \"      \"     duties of\n  \"      \"     appointed by Junior Grand Warden\nGrand Stewards' Lodge\nGrand Sword-Bearer\n  \"      \"     duties of\n  \"      \"     office of, constituted in 1731\nGrand Tiler\n\"      \"     office of, must have existed from the earliest times\n\"      \"     must not be a member of the Grand Lodge\n\"      \"     sometimes appointed, and sometimes elected\nGrand Treasurer\n\"      \"     office of, established in 1724\n\"      \"     duties of\n\"      \"     has always been elected\nGrand Wardens\n\"      \"     originally appointed by the Grand Master\n\"      \"     succeed the Grand Master and Deputy\n\n\n\nH.\n\n\nHeresy not a masonic crime\nHigher degrees, effect of expulsion from\nHistorical sketch\n\n\n\nI.\n\n\nIdiot cannot be made a Mason\nImpostor, how to be treated in examination\nIncompetent witnesses, who they are\nIndefinite suspension\n\"            \"     restoration from\nInnovations cannot be made in the body of Masonry\nInsanity, if perfectly cured, no disqualification of a candidate\nInstallation\n      \"      whence the term derived\n      \"      necessary to legal existence of an officer\n      \"      of a Master of a lodge\n      \"      of the Grand Master\nInstruction of representatives, right of, is vested in a lodge\nInvestigation of character must be by a committee\nIrreligious libertine cannot be a Mason\n  \"  \"  definition of the term\n\n\n\nJ.\n\n\nJudicial powers of a Grand Lodge,\nJunior Grand Warden\nJunior Warden,\n  \"  \"  presides in absence of Master and Senior Warden,\n  \"  \"  does not take the West in absence of Senior Warden,\n  \"  \"  presides over the craft during refreshment\n  \"  \"  appoints the stewards\nJurisdiction of a lodge\n  \"  geographical or personal\n  \"  is over all its members\n  \"  \"  \"  unaffiliated Masons in its vicinity\n  \"  cannot extend beyond State lines,\n  \"  none over its Master\n\n\n\nK.\n\n\nKnowledge of reading and writing necessary to a Mason\n\n\n\nL.\n\n\nLabor, calling from, to refreshment\nLandmarks, what they are,\n  \"  ritual and legislative\n  \"  must be observed by the Grand Lodge\nLaw of Grand Lodges\n  \"  subordinate lodges\n  \"  individuals\nLawful information, what it is\nLaws, how to be interpreted\n  \"  of Masonry are of two kinds--written and unwritten\n  \"  written, whence derived\n  \"  unwritten, whence derived\n  \"  \"  same as ancient usage\nLegislative powers of a Grand Lodge\nLibertine, irreligious, cannot be a Mason\n  meaning of the term\nLodge, subordinate\n  definition of\n  how organized\n  must have been congregated by some superior authority\nLodge, under dispensation\n  definition of\n  generally precedes a warranted lodge\n  how formed\n  cannot make by-laws\n  cannot elect officers\n  cannot install officers\n  cannot elect members\nLodge, warranted\n  its powers and rights\n  must be consecrated\n  must be dedicated\n  must be constituted\n  its officers must be installed\n  ceremony of installation in\n  its powers are inherent in it\n  its reserved rights are secured by the regulations\n  an assembly of the craft in their primary capacity\n  may select its own members\n  elects its own officers\n  what officers of, are elected in England\n  may install its officers\n  Master of, must be installed by a past Master\n  may be represented in the Grand Lodge\n  representatives of\n  may instruct its representatives\n  may frame by-laws\n  may suspend or exclude a member\n  may declare a member expelled, the sentence to be approved by the Grand Lodge\n  may levy annual contributions\n  may select its name\n  cannot select its number\n  duties of\n  cannot alter the ritual\n  must elect officers at a particular time\nLodge, warranted, cannot interfere with business of another lodge\n  \"       \"       cannot initiate without previous notice\n  \"       \"       cannot confer more than two degrees on the same candidate at one time\n  \"       \"       cannot make more than five new Brothers at the same time\n  \"       \"       must meet once a month\n  \"       \"       neglecting to meet forfeits its warrant\n  \"       \"       cannot remove from the town, without the consent of the Grand Lodge\n  \"       \"       may remove from one part of the town to another, under restrictions\n  \"       \"       officers of\n\n\n\nM.\n\n\nMadmen cannot be Masons\nMaims, how far disqualifying candidates\n  \"    reason for the rule relating to\nMass meeting of the craft cannot organize a Grand Lodge\nMaster, Grand. _(See Grand Master_.)\nMaster Mason, rights of\n  \"      \"    becomes a member by signing the by-laws\n  \"      \"    how this right is forfeited\n  \"      \"    may apply to any lodge for membership\n  \"      \"    to whom subject for discipline\n  \"      \"    may speak and vote on all questions\n  \"      \"    may hold any office to which elected\n  \"      \"    but to serve as Master must have been a Warden\n  \"      \"    may appeal to the Grand Lodge\n  \"      \"    may visit any lodge, after examination\nMaster of a lodge\n  \"     \"      \"  must have previously served as Warden\n  \"     \"      \"  must see Grand Lodge regulations enforced\n  \"     \"      \"  must be installed by a Past Master\n  \"     \"      \"  has the warrant in charge\n  \"     \"      \"  may call special meetings of his lodge\n  \"     \"      \"  may close his lodge at any time\n  \"     \"      \"  presides over business as well as labor\n  \"     \"      \"  is supreme in his lodge\nMaster of a lodge, no appeal from his decision except to Grand\nLodge\n  moral qualifications of\n  intellectual qualifications of\n  who is to judge of them\n  is a member of the Grand Lodge\n  may exclude a member temporarily\nMembership, right of\nMembers of Grand Lodge are Masters and Wardens with the Grand Officers\nMinutes, when to be read\n  how to be amended\n  not to be read at special communications\n  formula for keeping\nMoral law, what it is\n   a Mason must obey it\nMotions, when to be entertained\n\n\n\nN.\n\n\nName of a lodge to be selected by itself\nNon-residents, initiation of\nNumber of a lodge regulates its precedency\n  of candidates to be initiated at one communication\n\n\n\nO.\n\n\nOffice, can be vacated only by death, removal, or expulsion\n  not vacated by suspension\nOfficers of a Grand Lodge\n    subordinate lodge\n    warranted lodge must be installed\n      how to be installed\n  time of election determined by Grand Lodge\n  elected annually\n  vacancies in, how to be supplied\n  cannot resign\nOrder, rules of\n      whence derived\n\n\n\nP.\n\n\nParliamentary law not applicable to Masonry\nPast Masters\n  rights of\n  not members of the Grand Lodge by inherent right\n  may install their successors\n  of two kinds--actual and virtual\n  may preside in a lodge\n  eligible to election to the chair\n  entitled to a seat in the East\n  eligible to be elected Deputy Grand Master, or Grand Warden\n  virtual, cannot be present at installing a Master\nPenal jurisdiction of a lodge\nPerfect youth, meaning of the term\nPerfection, physical, why required of a candidate\nPetition of candidate\n  must be read at a regular communication\n  referred to a committee of three\n  reported on at next regular communication\n  report on, cannot be made at a special communication\n  renewal of, in case of rejection\n  how to be renewed, if rejected\n  for advancement to a higher degree\n  if rejected, how to be renewed\nPetitioners, not less than seven to form a lodge\n  what they must set forth\n  must be recommended by nearest lodge\nPolitical offenses not cognizable by a lodge\nPolitical qualifications of candidates\nPostponed business, when to be called up\nPrecedency of lodges, regulated by their numbers\nPresiding in a lodge, who has the right of\n  officer, has the prerogatives of the Master, for the time\nPrevious question, unknown in Masonry\nProbation of candidates\n  for initiation\n  for advancement\nProceedings of a regular communication cannot be amended at a special one\nProfanes, testimony of, how to be taken in trials\nProficiency of candidates\nProficiency of candidates, must be suitable\nPunishments, masonic\nPursuivant, a title equivalent to Sword-Bearer\n\n\n\nQ.\n\n\nQualifications of a Master of a lodge\n  of candidates,\n  moral\n  religious\n  physical\n  intellectual\n  political, 184\nQuarterly communications of Grand Lodge, ordered in 1717\nQuestion, how to be taken on a motion\n\n\n\nR.\n\n\nReading, a qualification of candidates\nRecommendation of nearest lodge, necessary to form a new one\n  of candidate, must be by two members\nReconsideration of ballot\n  motion for, is out of order,\n  cannot be granted by dispensation\nRejected candidate cannot apply to any other lodge\n  renewed petition of, when to be made,\nRelief, right of claiming it\n  unworthy Masons not entitled to it\nReligion of a Mason, what it is required to be\nReligious offenses not cognizable by a lodge\nRemoval of a lodge, rule on the subject of\nRepresentatives of a lodge, who they are\nReprimand, a masonic punishment\nRestoration\n  from definite suspension\n    indefinite supension\n    expulsion\n  must be at a stated communication\n  may be by Grand Lodge\n  requires a unanimous vote\n  to membership discussed\n\n\n\nS.\n\n\nSecretary, Grand. (_See Grand Secretary._)\n  of a lodge\n  his duty\n  is a recording, corresponding, and receiving officer\n  is a check upon the treasurer\n  often receives compensation\n  in case of death, or expulsion, a successor may be elected\n  but not in case of removal, or sickness\nSenior Grand Warden. (_See Grand Wardens._)\nSenior Warden\n  presides in absence of Master\n  may invite a Past Master to preside\n  presides over the craft during labor\n  appoints the Junior Deacon\nSentence in trials, how to be obtained\n  ---- is in abeyance pending an appeal\nStewards, Grand. (_See Grand Stewards._)\n  of a lodge\n  appointed by Junior Warden\n  duties of\n  not removable by Junior Warden\nStranger, initiation of\nSuspension\n  definite\n  indefinite\nSword Bearer, Grand. (_See Grand Sword Bearer._)\n\n\n\nT.\n\n\nTestimony, how to be taken on masonic trials\nTiler, Grand. (_See Grand Tiler._)\n  of a lodge\n  office existed from beginning of the institution\n  no lodge can be without one\n  must be a worthy Master Mason\n  if a member, the office does not disfranchise him\n  when voting, Junior Deacon takes his place\n  may be removed for misconduct\nTiler's obligation, form of it\nTransient persons, initiation of\nTreasurer, Grand. _(See Grand Treasurer_.)\n    \"        \"    of a lodge\n    \"        \"    duties of\n    \"        \"    is the only banker of the lodge\n    \"        \"    is a disbursing officer\n    \"        \"    a Brother of worldly substance usually selected\n    \"        \"    in case of death, a successor may be elected\n    \"        \"    but not in case of sickness, or removal\nTrials, masonic\n   \"       \"    form of\n   \"       \"    evidence in\n\n\nU.\n\n\nUnaffiliated Masons\n     \"         \"    tax sometimes levied on\n     \"         \"    position, rights, and duties of\nUnaffiliation, contrary to the spirit of Masonry\n     \"         effect of, on a Mason\nUnanimity in the ballot required by the ancient constitutions\nUneducated candidates not forbidden by positive enactment\n     \"         \"   their admission opposed to the spirit of the institution\n\n\nV.\n\n\nVirtual Past Masters, who they are\nVisit, right of\n  \"    only affiliated Mason entitled to it\n  \"    must be preceded by an examination\n  \"    requires a certificate to insure it\nVisitors, examination of, described\n    \"     must take the Tiler's obligation\nVoting must always be by a show of hands\nVoting in trials, obligatory on all members present\nVoucher must be a competent Mason\nVouching for a visitor\n\n\n\nW.\n\n\nWardens, Grand. (_See Grand Wardens._)\n  of a lodge are assistants of the Master\n  entitled to membership in Grand Lodge\nWarden, Senior. (_See Senior Warden._)\nWarden, Junior. (_See Junior Warden._)\nWarrant of constitution\n  what it is\n  its difference from a dispensation\n  can be revoked only by the Grand Lodge\n  confers powers of installation and succession\n  not necessary before 1717\n  cannot be resigned by a majority of the lodge\nWarranted lodges. (_See Lodges, Warranted._)\nWitnesses in masonic trials, qualifications of\n  definition of incompetent ones\nWoman cannot be made a Mason\nWriting, a qualification of candidates\n\n\n\nY.\n\n\nYeas and nays, calling for, unmasonic\nYoung man under age cannot be made a Mason\nYouth, perfect, meaning of the term\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n[1] They will be found in Oliver's edition of Preston, p. 71, note,\n(U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 58), or in the American edition by Richards,\nAppendix i., note 5.\n\n[2] Found in Ol. Preston, n. 3 (p. 162. U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 134).\n\n[3] In all references to, or citations from, Anderson's Constitutions, I\nhave used, unless otherwise stated, the first edition printed at London in\n1723--a fac simile of which has recently been published by Bro. John W.\nLeonard, of New York. I have, however, in my possession the subsequent\neditions of 1738, 1755, and 1767, and have sometimes collated them\ntogether.\n\n[4] The Gothic Constitutions are that code of laws which was adopted by\nthe General Assembly at York, in the year 926. They are no longer extant,\nbut portions of them have been preserved by Anderson, Preston, and other\nwriters.\n\n[5] Preston, book iv., sec, 2., p. 132, n. (U.M.L.,vol. iii., p. 109).\n\n[6] General Regulations, art. xxxix.\n\n[7] Chancellor Walworth, in his profound argument on the New York\ndifficulties, asserted that this fact \"does not distinctly appear,\nalthough it is, pretty evident that all voted.\"--p. 33. The language of\nAnderson does not, however, admit of a shadow of a doubt. \"The Brethren,\"\nhe says, \"by a majority of hands, elected,\" &c.\n\n[8] Opinion of Chancellor Walworth upon the questions connected with the\nlate masonic difficulties in the State of New York, p. 37. There is much\nhistorical learning displayed in this little pamphlet.\n\n[9] Preston, p. 131, n., Oliver's Edit. (U.M.L., vol. iii.,p. 109).\n\n[10] Of the thirty-six Grand Masters who have presided over the craft in\nEngland since the revival of Masonry in 1717, thirty have been noblemen,\nand three princes of the reigning family.\n\n[11] Article xxxiv.\n\n[12] His most important prerogatives are inherent or derived from ancient\nusage.\n\n[13] Proceedings G.L. Maryland, 1849, p. 25.\n\n[14] Art. xxxix.\n\n[15] The word \"time\" has been interpreted to mean _communication_.\n\n[16] And this is not because such past officer has an inherent right to\nthe mastership, but because as long as such an one is present and willing\nto serve, there does not exist such an emergency as would authorize a\ndispensation of the law.\n\n[17] What further concerns a lodge under dispensation is referred to a\nspecial chapter in a subsequent part of the work.\n\n[18] It is well known, although it cannot be quoted as authority, that the\nAthol Constitutions expressly acknowledged the existence of this\nprerogative. See Dermott's Ahiman Rezon.\n\n[19] Book of Constitutions, edit. 1767, p. 222.\n\n[20] Book of Const., p. 233.\n\n[21] Book of Const., p. 313.\n\n[22] Book of Constitutions, p. 319.\n\n[23] Preston, p. 237, ed. 1802, (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 223).\n\n[24] Book of Constitutions, p. 247\n\n[25] The existence of this prerogative is denied by the Grand Lodges of\nMissouri, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, while it is admitted by\nthose of New York, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Wisconsin,\nVermont, Mississippi, Ohio, New Hampshire, Maryland, Indiana, Texas and\nFlorida; in the last two, however, subject to limitation.\n\n[26] That is, the one who has longest been a Freemason.\n\n[27] Book of the Lodge, p. 115 (U.M.L., vol. i., book 2, p. 78).\n\n[28] It was abolished in New York in 1854.\n\n[29] This is a small chest or coffer, representing the ark of the\ncovenant, and containing the three great lights of Masonry.\n\n[30] \"What man is there that hath a new house and hath not dedicated it?\nLet him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another\nman dedicate it.\" Deut. xx. 5.\n\n[31] De Syned. Vet. Ebr\u00e6or., 1. iii., c. xiv., \u00a7 1.\n\n[32] Cicero, Brut. i.\n\n[33] See such a form of Dispensation in Cole's Masonic Library, p. 91.\n\n[34] Preston, Append., n. 4 (U.M.L., vol. iii., pp. 150, 151).\n\n[35] Book of Constitutions, orig. ed, p., 70 (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p.\n70).\n\n[36] General Regulations of 1722. A subsequent regulation permitted the\nelection of a candidate, if there were not more than three black balls\nagainst him, provided the lodge desired such a relaxation of the rule. The\nlodges of this country, however, very generally, and, as I think, with\npropriety, require unanimity. The subject will be hereafter discussed.\n\n[37] Every lodge shall annually elect its Master and Treasurer by ballot.\nSuch Master having been regularly appointed and having served as Warden of\na warranted lodge for one year. _Constitutions of the Ancient Fraternity\nof Free and Accepted Masons, published by authority of the United Grand\nLodge of England_, 1847, _p_. 58 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).\n\n[38] The Wardens, or officers, of a lodge cannot be removed, unless for a\ncause which appears to the lodge to be sufficient; but the Master, if he\nbe dissatisfied with the conduct of any of his officers, may lay the cause\nof complaint before the lodge; and, if it shall appear to the majority of\nthe Brethren present that the complaint be well founded, he shall have\npower to displace such officer, and to nominate another. _English\nConstitutions, as above, p._ 80 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).\n\n[39] It is not necessary that he should be a Past Master of the lodge.\n\n[40] No master shall assume the Master's chair, until he shall have been\nregularly installed, though he may in the interim rule the lodge. _English\nConstitutions_ (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).\n\n[41] Every Warranted Lodge is a constituent part of the Grand Lodge, in\nwhich assembly all the power of the fraternity resides. _English\nConstitutions, p_. 70 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).\n\n[42] We shall not here discuss the question whether Past Masters are\nmembers of the Grand Lodge, by inherent right, as that subject will be\nmore appropriately investigated when we come to speak of the Law of Grand\nLodges, in a future chapter. They are, however clearly, not the\nrepresentatives of their lodge.\n\n[43] Preston, p. 167 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 151).\n\n[44] General Regulations. Of the duty of members, Art. X, (U.M.L., vol.\nxv., book 1, p. 61).\n\n[45] English Constitutions, p. 59 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).\n\n[46] In selecting the name, the modern Constitutions of England make the\napprobation of the Grand Master or Provincial Grand Master necessary.\n\n[47] Such is the doctrine of the modern English Constitutions.\n\n[48] \"No Brother can be a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow\nCraft; nor a Master until he has acted as a Warden.\"--_Old Charges_, IV.\n(U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 52).\n\n[49] Regulations on Installation of a Master, No. III. Preston, p. 74\n(U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 61).\n\n[50] Hats. quoted in Jefferson, p. 14.\n\n[51] One of the ancient charges, which Preston tells us that it was the\nconstant practice of our Ancient Brethren to rehearse at the opening and\nclosing of the lodge, seems to refer to this rule, when it says, \"the\nMaster, Wardens, and Brethren are just and faithful, and _carefully finish\nthe work they begin_.\"--Oliver's Preston, p. 27, _note_ (U.M.L., vol.\niii., p. 22).\n\n[52] Proceedings of G.L. of Tennessee, 1850. Appendix A, p. 8.\n\n[53] Book of Constitutions, edition of 1755, p. 282.\n\n[54] If it is an extra communication, this item of the transaction is, of\ncourse, omitted, for minutes are only to be confirmed at regular\ncommunications.\n\n[55] Oliver's Preston, p. 163, note (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135).\n\n[56] Such is the provision in the modern constitutions of England, but the\n4th of the 39 Regulations required the candidate to be at least\ntwenty-five.\n\n[57] See these regulations in Preston, p. 162, Oliver's ed. (U.M.L., vol.\niii., p. 135).\n\n[58] Oliver's Preston, p. 72, (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 59).\n\n[59] Blackstone, Com. I., Introd., \u00a7 2.\n\n[60] In an able report on this subject, in the proceedings of the Grand\nLodge of Georgia for 1852. In accordance with the views there expressed,\nBro. Rockwell decided officially, as District Deputy Grand Master, in\n1851, that a man who had lost one eye was not admissible.\n\n[61] Potter, 184.\n\n[62] Page 18. In December, 1851, the Committee of Correspondence of North\nCarolina, unregardful of the rigid rule of their predecessors, decided\nthat maimed candidates might be initiated, \"provided their loss or\ninfirmity will not prevent them from making full proficiency in Masonry.\"\n\n[63] Proceedings of the G.L. of Mo. for 1823, p. 5. The report and\nresolution were on the petitions of two candidates to be initiated, one\nwith only one arm, and the other much deformed in his legs.\n\n[64] When the spirit of expediency once begins, we know not where it will\nstop. Thus a blind man has been initiated in Mississippi, and a one-armed\none in Kentucky; and in France a few years since, the degrees were\nconferred by sign-language on a deaf mute!\n\n[65] Namely, the incorrectly presumed operative origin of the Order. The\nwhole of this report, which is from the venerable Giles F. Yates, contains\nan able and unanswerable defense of the ancient law in opposition to any\nqualification.\n\n[66] See proceedings of New York, 1848, pp. 36, 37.\n\n[67] Such is the formula prescribed by the Constitutions of England as\nwell as all the Monitors in this country.\n\n[68] See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art, _Ballot_.\n\n[69] Book of Constitutions. Edit. 1755, p. 312.\n\n[70] See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, 3d Edit., art. _Ballot_\n\n[71] Except when there is but one black ball, in which case the matter\nlies over until the next stated meeting. See preceding Section.\n\n[72] Masonry founded on Scripture, a Sermon preached in 1752, by the Rev.\nW. Williams.\n\n[73] That is, advance him, from the subordinate position of a serving man\nor Apprentice, to that of a Fellow Craft or journeyman.\n\n[74] This is also the regulation of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina.\n\n[75] Proceedings of Grand Lodge of New York, for 1845. He excepts, of\ncourse, from the operation of the rule, those made by dispensation; but\nthis exception does not affect the strength of the principle.\n\n[76] Preston, edition of Oliver, p. 12 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 10).\n\n[77] Transactions of the G.L. of New York, anno 1848, p. 73.\n\n[78] Edition of 1723, page 71 (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 71).\n\n[79] Preston, p. 48 (U.M.L., vol, iii., p. 40).\n\n[80] Const. New York, 1854, p. 13. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of\nEngland (p. 64) have a similar provision; but they require the Brother to\nexpress his wish for membership on the day of his initiation.\n\n[81] Preston, Oliver's Ed., p. 71, _note_ (U.L.M., vol. iii., p. 60).\n\n[82] See Oliver, note in Preston, p. 75 (U.M.L., vol. iii, p. 61).\n\n[83] Oliver's Preston, p. 162 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135.)\n\n[84] See Anderson's Const., 3d Edit., 1755, page 303.\n\n[85] Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 89 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 72).\n\n[86] Preston, Oliver's Edit\" p. 90 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 73).\n\n[87] Book I., chap. iii.\n\n[88] Proceedings of Louisiana, an. 1852.\n\n[89] Preston, Oliver's Edit., p. 76 (U.M.L., vol. iii, p. 62).\n\n[90] Ibid\n\n[91] See Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry, _in voce_.\n\n[92] Constitutions, Second Edition of 1738, p. 154.\n\n[93] Proceedings for 1853.\n\n[94] Proceedings for 1847.\n\n[95] The right to visit is restricted to once, by many Grand Lodges to\nenable him to become acquainted with the character of the lodge before he\napplies for membership.\n\n[96] Blackstone, Introd., \u00a7 i.\n\n[97] For so we should interpret the word \"honeste.\"\n\n[98] I have treated this subject of expulsion so fully in my \"Lexicon of\nFreemasonry,\" and find so little more to say on the subject, that I have\nnot at all varied from the course of argument, and very little from the\nphraseology of the article in that work.\n\n[99] In England, ejection from a membership by a subordinate lodge is\ncalled \"exclusion,\" and it does not deprive the party of his general\nrights as a member of the fraternity.\n\n[100] Lexicon of Freemasonry.\n\n[101] Phillips, on Evidence, p. 3.\n\n[102] Chief Baron Gilbert.","title":"The Principles of Masonic Law: A Treatise on the Constitutional Laws, Usages and Landmarks of Freemasonry","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":71375}