Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsEdicts MFM1871 1873"

Revision as of 01:40, 9 August 2013

ADVICE FROM MOORE'S FREEMASONS' MONTHLY MAGAZINE

Prior to 1875, a considerable amount of Masonic jurisprudence was based on the advice and direction published in The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, published in Boston and edited by one of the foremost Masonic authorities of the time, Rt. Wor. Charles W. Moore. While not established as edicts or rulings by Grand Masters, they were consequential in the establishment of precedents and contributed to the decisions made in later years.

Comments and views in the publication were often lengthy, but were generally based on sound reasoning that the author provided in response to inquiries from many Grand Jurisdictions.

1871

Past Masters

From Vol. XXXI, No. 2, p. 42, December 1871:

Dear Brother Moore.— The question as to what constitutes a Past Master was virtually introduced in the Grand Lodge of Virginia, at its last session by a decision of the Grand Master: viz. that "the installation of a Master-elect of a Lodge, followed by immediate resignation, will not entitle him to the rank of a Past Master who has not actually passed the Chair." In opposition to which ruling the Grand Lodge adopted the following, as reported by the committee to which the subject was referred. "Your Committee are of opinion that a Master-elect who has received the Degree of Past Master and been subsequently installed as Master of a Lodge is a Past Master without regard to the length of time he may have occupied the chair."

The point in this discussion is really whether the oath of office and the formal ceremonies incident to the installation of a Master, independent of the constitutional term of service, are of themselves sufficient to constitute the recipient a Past Master. In the decision of the Grand Master there-are two allegations ; one, that the ceremonies inducting to office do not make a Past Master, and the other, that to insure that rank there must be, in addition to the ceremonials, an occupancy of the office and a personal compliance with its duties, for a full constitutional term. Both of which positions are unquestionably correct. It seems to be a fair logical deduction, that where the constitutional regulations make the election annual, the term of service is for one year, and as the introductory ceremonies are also provided for, the acquisition of both is necessary to secure the emoluments of the office.

The practice of annual elections of officers in subordinate Lodges was probably established as a regulation early in the last century. It may possibly find its source at the annual gathering of the Craft to choose a Grand Master, even before a Grand Lodge originated. At any rate, be that as it may, it has now become a universal custom with the Craft, modified only by a difference of opinion regarding the length of time a Master should remain in office, before he is entitled to the benefits arising therefrom. While the right to resign a stational office is conceded by some Grand Lodges, it is denied by others and its awards withheld. There are very few instances, however, where the ruling so perfectly cuts off the necessity for personal service, and empowers the creation of Past Masters by a mere formal ceremony, as does this of Virginia. These conflicting regulations are more the result of diversified opinions and unscrutinized customs, than of any disposition to do violence to any old Masonic rule, and really grow out of a misconception of a well defined fundamental principle in Masonic government But still a deviation from the original design, however innocently fallen into, rarely ever adds strength or beauty to the institution. While the power may lie in a Grand Lodge to determine the prerequisite to Pastmastership, its right to violate any principle of Masonic law or usage in doing so, and particularly when its origin may be traced, as in the present case, to the earliest system of Masonic Government, is very questionable. It would be more desirable if the usage in this particular was more uniform: its incongruity not only leads to some embarrassment, but breaks in upon the harmony and symmetry of the Masonic system. In some instances, the various rulings and laws diverge so sharply, as almost to preclude the probability of a reconciliation of these conflicting views ; nor can relief be expected from this anomalous condition, unless by a general impulse the subject receives the calm and deliberate judgment of an enlightened brotherhood.

Among the ancient charges is this. "No brother can be made a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow Craft; nor Master until he has acted as a Warden; nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow Craft before his election, who is also to be noble bom, or a gentleman of the best fashion, or some eminent scholar, or some curious architect or other artist, descended of honest parents, and who is of singular great merit in the opinion of the Lodges, and further that in selecting a Deputy, the Grand Master is to choose a brother who must be then, or must have been formerly, the Master of a particular Lodge." It is evident from this special charge that merit and practical service are made a sine qua non to official positions ; no more initial ceremony could substitute its potent demand for physical duty and moral worth. Language more cogent could, scarcely have been selected to emphasize the design of the Craft of that day, to secure a proper appreciation of an official station by the occupant, and the responsibility resting upon him for fidelity and assiduity in the personal discharge of his duties.

The natural tendency of the doctrine of the Virginia Committee is, to empower a Lodge on the evening of the election, if it sees fit to confer the honor, to pass any number of Wardens and Masters, it has the time and subjects to operate upon. Under a certain condition of things in some localities, this would be a most dangerous liberty. As startling as such a proposition may be, its conclusion is inevitable. Nor is such an idea preposterous; doctrines equally strange, hurtful and absurd have been carried into practice, and their damaging effects realized. The Grand Lodge of Virginia makes the elections in its subordinate Lodges annual, and provides for filling any vacancy which may occur, but there appears to be no Regulation securing the benefits of the office against forfeiture, should the officer relinquish his duties before the termination of his official term. In consequence of this omission the benefits of the office are accorded to him by a local usage; there is no statute under which he could take refuge and claim the benefits as a right, should any questions arise as to his title to the privileges. The decision of the Grand Lodge in the case under review, has no constitutional Regulations to sustain it, beyond the force of a custom. The context of the Constitution is more strongly against it than in its favor. The annual elections fix as a consequence a yearly term of service, and although a remedy is provided, to relieve the Lodge from any embarrassment should any exigency arise, the object of the Regulations is to keep the Lodge in a healthy working trim, not to heap honors on such as may be derelict in duty. The tenor of the Constitution establishes this reasonable position. Where ever the terms "Master" and "Lodge" appear in it, may be traced the design of the law to enjoin upon the Master his personal attention to the duties of the office during the elective term; for instance, he is made the responsible custodian of the Warrant; he is to preside in the Lodge during its sessions; he is to exercise its executive functions ; he is held accountable for its lawful transactions; he is to become proficient in the work and lectures, and during his term of service holds membership in Grand Lodge. These duties and responsibilities are indicative of a personal identity with them, and mean action, and faithful labor. The Master's official obligation, although encumbered by extraneous immaterial matter, enforces an individual application, and brings more vividly,to view the responsibilities consequent upon his new relationship to the fraternity and Institution. Very many of our intelligent brethren overlook these items which so forcibly strengthen the argument of practical service, and indulge the impression that the ceremonies incident to the installation, are of themselves ample to create a Past Master, and thus impart to their theory vital reality.

The correctness of the term " Degree " as applied to the initial installation ceremony is very questionable even with its prefix "honorary." It would be questionable in a Collegiate sense, if intended to carry therewith any mark of distinction. If there was any ceremony attached to the adminstration of the Masters oath of office originally, it is not at all probable it was classed as a Degree. It assumed that character after it was incorporated among the Degrees of the Chapter, as a prerequisite to the Royal Arch Degree.. So far as the present generations may date back their personal knowledge in this matter, it is probable they have known no other form than the one at present in vogue. Many are familiar with its traditional history and ceremonial, but the oldest, who may be with us now, is scarcely old enough to have been Masons at the period when this new American work was first introduced, hence it is reasonable to expect a bias in its favor. It is principally its inconsistency, which renders its historical authenticity doubtful, and its utility questionable. It is generally known that when the Royal Arch Degree was under the control of subordinate Lodges, none but those who had regularly passed the Chair was eligible to it. That test of eligibility being originally an essential element in the qualifications of Candidates to that Degree in those bodies, it was deemed equally necessary to those seeking the Degree in Chapters upon the organization of Royal Arch Masonry. The success of the latter depended principally upon the quantity of material it could obtain to operate with. This demand could not readily be supplied. Past Masters were not made in a day, they were of a yearly production, and but here and there dotted a jurisdiction. To overcome the technical obstruction which this barrier interposed to its progress, the Past Masters Degree was constructed, when any number of nominal Past Masters were created, thus facilitating the passage of hundreds to the Royal Arch Degree. Of course to impart to this ceremony the character and tone of a Degree, there must be an imposing form, and a consistent history; both were found and elaborately decorated by the prolific imagination of the projector. This degree symbolized the service of a Master, covering the whole period of his official existence, beginning with the initial ceremony of installation and ending with his descent from the Chair. The term Past Master's Degree therefore, is perfectly consistent when applied to this Degree, when conferred in a Chapter; not so, however, when applied to the initial form given to the Master elect, before he enters upon the duties of his office.

It is scarcely probable that any one who received the Chapter Degree, in the early period of its history, ever appropriated to himself any virtue from it beyond its nominal title. The recognition of such, as Past Masters, was left for the erroneous construction of some of the brethren, who received it at a more recent date, through a misconception of the intent and character of the Degree. It is no part of York Masonry, and should receive no consideration as such from the fraternity. Whatever ceremonial may be found connected with the oath of office, was taken from the Chapter degree. If the object is to furnish by a Degree some means of identifying Past Masters, it would be more consistent to create a form of ceremonial for that purpose. I do not propose such a scheme, but it may be done with as much propriety as was the present form, some sixty or eighty years ago, and, I was going to say, with as little harm, but that fancy was not intruded with impunity. It fastened upon the Craft an error not easily removed or battled with; it created a new doctrine; established fixed prejudices; diverted a reasonable and legitimate usage, and has driven in an entering wedge, calculated under less favorable circumstances, to sever the tie uniting a Mason's tenacity to the ancient laws and customs, of the Order. The assumption of this article is that the inaugural ceremony of a Master is not a Degree; that if it is a Degree, acquiring it does not constitute one a Past Master ; that to become a Past Master, a Master has to serve out the full term to which he was elected, and that in every case where the Regulations do not expressly award the past honors to a Master for an unfinished term, he is not entitled to it by implication, but must remain in the discharge of his duties to the end of the first year of his election.

Yours in fraternal love, D.

1872

Initiation of Minors

From Vol. XXXI, No. 4, p. 97, February 1872:

A correspondent sends us the following:

Dec. 19, 1871.
Chas, W. Moore, Esq.

Dear Sir & Bro. — By the advise of eminent brethren here, I am induced to ask your opinion on the following — There is at present in out city a Bro. hailing from Canada, who was made a Master Mason in that jurisdiction, by dispensation, before he was 19 years of age. He is still under 21 years of age. Can we receive him as a regular Mason and allow him to visit our Lodges?

Very truly and fraternally yours, ----, P. J. G. Warden.

The earliest regulation on this subject, of which we have any recol
lection, is contained among the "Additional Orders and Constitutions 
made and agreed upon at a General Assembly" of the Fraternity in
 1663, and is in the following words:

"VI. That no person shall be accepted a Free-Mason, unless he be One and Twenty Years Old, or more."

In the Constitutions compiled by order of the Grand Lodge of Eng
land from the "general records and faithful traditions of many ages," 
in 1720, approved in 1721, and first published by order of that Grand
 Body in 1723, it is provided that

"The persons admitted Members of a Lodge most be good and true men, free born, and of mature and discreet age, - no bond men, no women, no immoral or scandalous men, but of good report"

And in the fourth article of the General Regulations appended to these Constitutions, mature and dvcreet age is defined to be twenty five years, as follows:

"IV. No Lodge shall make more than Five new brethren at one Time, nor any man under the age of Twenty-five, who must be also his own Master; unless by a Dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy."

In the Irish edition of these old Constitutions, published at Dublin in 1730, we find this same regulation, with the substitution of twenty-one for twenty-five, as the required age of the candidate. But in Anderson's Constitutions published at London in 1738, and in Entick's, published in 1756, the twenty-five years is still retained among the "Old Regulations." At what precise period the Grand Lodge of England reduced the required number of years to twenty-one, we have no ready means of ascertaining; but the fact is not material. The foregoing is sufficient to show what the old regulation was, and that, as a pre-requisite to his initiation, the candidate must have attained to his majority - to the full stature of his manhood and freedom — when, being "his own Master," he could truthfully and in honor present himself at the door of the Lodge as a man of "lawful age." And this requirement is literally and clearly recognized by the present English Constitutions, which enact that the "candidate must be a free man, and his own Master, and at the time of initiation, be known to be in reputable circumstances;" and, further, that before his initiation he shall "subscribe his name at full length, to a declaration " that he is "of the full age of twenty-one years."

The only conclusion to be drawn from these regulations is, that the candidate for Masonry most be of the full age of twenty-one years before he can lawfully be received into the Lodge for initiation. This is the rule and the law of Masonry, as it has come down to us from a time whereof the record of the Craft runneth not to the contrary, and, like many others of the old regulations and landmarks of the Craft, it is irrevocable and unchangeable. We first meet with the attempt to change or evade it, in the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England of 1793, through the Dispensation of its Grand Master. But the granting of that dispensatory power over it was a clear innovation upon the ancient law, and at best, constitutes but a doubtful exception to the rule, obligatory or permissible only within the limits of the jurisdiction when it originated. It cannot made available either directly or indirectly, in contravention of the law of any other independent masonic power whatever. And while we are not disposed to quarrel with our ancient mother for making Masons of minors, we admit no obligation on the part of the Lodges of this country, to receive or recognize them as such; for, as minors are young men "under age," whom it would be unlawful for our Lodges to initiate, it should seem to follow, as a logical sequence, that it would be equally unlawful to affiliate them as brethren, "lawfully made."

By the civil law of England, as by that of the United States, " lawful age" is twenty-one years. The law of Masonry does not differ from this, in either country. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England so recognise it, and we are not aware that there is any difference in this respect among the Grand Lodges on the Continent, or elsewhere. It is a fundamental and fixed law of the Craft; and if it may be set aside by the dispensatory power of the Grand Master, or his Deputy, then may any other fundamental law of the Order, not excepting that which forbids the initiation of females, atheists, or libertines, be disposed of in the same way, and our Lodges be thus thrown open to the indiscriminate admission of all applicants, including minors, or, in legal phrase, infants, of both sexes. Extreme and improbable as this may appear, it is only carrying the principle out in its logical results.

We are not ignorant of the fact that the initiation of minors obtains in France, and perhaps in some of the other continental states; but we do not look to the Grand Orient of France for our law, nor acknowledge any obligation to accept its innovations as a rule of masonic government. But we are not informed that even the French Orient, whimsical and unstable as it is, ever sanctioned the initiation of the minor sons of Masons to any thing beyond the first, or apprentice degree; and we shall be surprised to learn that the practice in England at the present time, so restricted or otherwise, is not of very rare occurrence. There might have been a seeming apology, though really no justifiable excuse, for it, when in 1723, if was incorporated into the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England. The Craft were than in a feeble and transition state, and the acquisition of even the minor sons of tie nobility and gentry of the kingdom, may have been a matter of some consequence with them — sufficient, in the judgment of that Grand Lodge, to authorize a departure from the ancient usage. But no such necessity exists now, if it,ever existed at all, and the practice should be no longer tolerated anywhere, and especially not, either directly or indirectly, by the Grand Lodges of this country. If our Canadian brethren, or the Grand Lodge of any other foreign jurisdiction, feel themselves authorized to over-ride and ignore the plain and positive teachings of the Constitutions and landmarks of the Craft, and make Masons of boys, they should be given distinctly to understand that they cannot force them into our Lodges, as men "of mature and discreet age."

We speak plainly on this point, because our correspondent, in a subsequent note writes us, that the practice is common in Canada, and that the party whose application for admission to his Lodge as a visitor has given rise to this inquiry, informs him that there are four other minors who, to his own knowledge, recently received the degrees of Masonry there, under the same dispensatory power by virtue of which he himself was allowed to receive them. It is therefore not unreasonable to presume, that among our Canadian brethren the practice has become an established usage, or at least a facile rule, in the government of their Lodges. We trust this is not so, but that the cases referred to by our correspondent, are the results of thoughtlessness, or of misconstrued powers; because, nothing of good, but much of evil, must inevitably ensue from the continuance of a practice so directly opposed to the letter and spirit of the ritualistic requirements and established convictions of duty and obligation entertained by the Fraternity of this country.

To the direct inquiry of our correspondent, we answer, that, for the reasons above given, we should not feel justified in admitting as a visitor a minor, who had been received into the institution in the manner and under the circumstances stated by him. The diploma would have but little weight with us in deciding the question. Such a document is simply prima facie, or at best, collateral evidence of regularity, and is by no means conclusive of the pretensions or claims of its possessor. It may be lawfully his or not. That is to be established, as far as may be, by personal examination. The latter being satisfactory, the former is admitted, not otherwise; and the rejection of it is no disrespect to the body issuing it. But it may be objected that the diploma, properly authenticated, entitles the holder of it to the examination. Not so. That is a matter optional with the Lodge, and cannot be controlled by another. Suppose, by way of illustration, — and in these fast times the reality may not be far off — (it is already knocking at our doors) — suppose then, that a " woman" presents herself at the door of one of our Lodges, with diploma in hand, showing her to have been made a Mason in a lawful Lodge, or under the authority of some competent masonic power — as in Paris, where the thing has been done, — or "at sight," by some Grand Master with, a brain fully indoctrinated with the popular theory of "women's rights," and claims to be examined as a visitor — could the Master lawfully order such an examination? On the contrary, he would at once reject the evidence of the diploma, and politely dismiss her; for, though made in a regular Lodge, the making was in violation of the altar-obligations of Masonry. And yet she occupies the masonic status of the minor, because made under the same exclusive law which forbids the initiation of women and "young men under age." The rule admits of no exceptions, and cannot be controlled by the Dispensation of the Grand Master, for it is above the legislative jurisdiction of Grand Lodges. The principle has its root deep down in the unchangeable obligations of the ritual, and if these obligations may be set aside at the pleasure of the Grand Master or his Deputy, the corollary is logically conclusive, that if a minor is admissible, then there is no lawful hindrance to the making a Mason of a woman, through the exercise of the same dispensatory power. The practice is an absurdity, and in derogation of the true spirit and welfare of the institution.

We leave the subject here. But it may not be out of place to say (by way of parenthesis), for the information of some of our younger readers, that in France the minor son of a Mason is called a louveteau (an iron wedge), and it was the practice some years since, and it may be so now in some few of the Lodges in Paris, to take such a child, soon after birth, to the Lodge-room for baptism, when he received a masonic name, different from that which he bears in the world; and this prepared him for initiation to the first degree, on his attaining to the age of eighteen years. But such folly and irreligious trifling is not adapted to our American sense of propriety, though it has on one or two occasions been attempted here. In England, such a son is called a lewis, a term in operative Masonry, signifying an iron cramp, such as is usually inserted in the cavity of a large stone, to aid in the raising of it. A symbolical meaning is assigned to it in the English ritual, which is hardly worth repeating, and certainly not worth transferring to our own, either as a symbol, or as indicating a practice.

In what we have written above we have given no attention to the modern English ritual. The omissions and interpolations to which, through a mistaken policy of compromise, that was subjected at the "Union" in 1813, are such that, beautiful as it is admitted to be, it can have little or no weight in any argument based on the purer ritual of this country. Solomon condensed a whole volume of sound conservative masonic wisdom into a single sentence, when he said— "My son, forget not my law, but let thine heart keep my commandments ; and remove not (he ancient land-marks thy fathers have set."

Black Ball

From Vol. XXXI, No. 2, p. 42, December 1871:

"We believe any man 'free born,' having the full and free use of limbs, and faculty, or, in other words, of sound mind and not maimed, of good moral character, who believes in the existence of God, and comes well recommended, is entitled to the first degree of Masonry. And any brother who blackballs such an applicant, because some member may have blackballed a friend of his, does a great wrong to Masonry, and drenches his own conscience with a sin, near akin to that of moral perjury. When that spirit takes hold of the brethren, of any subordinate Lodge, the best thing a Grand Lodge can do, is to arrest their charter. The good name of Masonry should not be entrusted to the keeping of such men.

"We are however a strong advocate of the black ball being used to exclude all improper material; and we further believe, that when used, the reason why should never be given." — Bro. C. O. Matchett.

Edicts Main Page