THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
april 1917
volume 3 - number 4
OPINION ON MASONIC SUBJECTS -- A FRATERNAL FORUM
(Announcing a Monthly Department of Personal Opinion on
Present-day Masonic subjects)
Edited by BRO. GEO. E. FRAZIER, President, The Board of
Stewards)
RESULTS speak louder than words. In reviewing the first two
years of the Society, the Board of Stewards have been especially impressed with
its loyalty to its original ideal, the character of its membership, and the
increasing use now being made of its resources. Mere numbers give no adequate
idea of its real strength, but it is surely significant that the Society has
enlisted the interest of fourteen thousand Masons in two years. Its members
include not only the rank and file of the Craft, but a large percentage of the
leaders and students of Masonry in America, and not a few representative
scholars from abroad. Indeed a list of the present members of the Society in any
state shows a striking combination of the veteran Masonic leaders and the
progressive young men of the jurisdiction.
Naturally the high character of the membership is making
itself felt month by month in the contents of The Builder, whose leading
articles provoke a wide response both in the Society as well as in the Masonic
press of the country. This response finds expression in the correspondence
column of The Builder, which increases in interest and value with each issue,
and also in answer and comment direct from individual members. Because of the
directness, vitality and farreaching interest of this response, the editor has
taxed the limits of space devoted to it, often withholding new articles to make
room for letters of reply or elaboration not infrequently as instructive as the
original article. Fortunately this demand has been met in part by the
Correspondence Circle Bulletin, edited by Brother Clegg, which is now an added
and invaluable monthly feature. The Board of Stewards is in entire sympathy with
the Study-Club movement, and wishes to make all possible provision to facilitate
its growth and advancement.
All of which shows a very real and vital interest in the
study of Masonry, and the development of our work so far reveals the wide range
of Masonic activities--as a glance at the Index of the first two volumes of The
Builder will make plain. We have, then, a trinity of working tools. First, we
have fourteen thousand leading Masons who are reading The Builder, and the
number is rapidly growing. Second, we have a hearty response from our members
not only in appreciation, but in comment, criticism, and practical suggestion
looking to the application of Masonic study to everyday life. Third, we have a
list of contributors of serious articles which embraces the names of many of the
finest Masonic students at home and abroad. Surely all this is as much an
evidence of the strength and virility of Masonry as beautiful temples, the
perfect exemplification of the ritual, or large numbers of candidates, excellent
as all these are.
Your Board of Stewards has, therefore, felt the need of
adding a department to The Builder that will bring the experience and special
information of its past and present contributors to bear on present-day Masonic
problems. We have accordingly established a department of personal opinion,
which will appear monthly commencing with an early issue. This department will
be edited by the President of the Board of Stewards, and he will invite
contributions to the department each month from each writer who has contributed
one or more articles to the magazine. At least four and not more than six such
expressions of personal opinion will make up the department for each month. In
order that opinions may be compared and opposite viewpoints fully considered the
President will announce a subject for each month in the form of a query. Some
possible subjects are:
a. Shall Masonic lodges encourage the formation of local
Masonic clubs for social purposes ?
b. Shall American Grand Lodges unite in a National Grand
Lodge?
c. Shall lodge dues be increased to cover the financial
support of Masonic charitable institutions?
d. Shall Masters and Grand Masters be elected from the
floor without regard to service in subordinate offices ?
e. Shall present Masonic orders favor the promotion of new
systems of Masonic or quasi-Masonic degrees ?
f. Shall Lodge officers be financially interested in the
sale of Masonic supplies ?
g. Shall Masonic lodges appoint committees to investigate
the non-sectarian administration of the public schools ?
You are asked to read over again the typical subjects just
given. Please note that they are subjects actively discussed in the official
correspondence of practically all grand lodges. They are live topics on which
Masons have opinion, and on which Masonic judgment must be passed. The subjects
do not involve the discussion of politics, religious creeds or personal
prejudices.
The subjects given are intended merely to sketch outthe
possibilities of this department. Each member is earnestly invited to suggest
other and better topics. Please remember that the department is not open to
discussion on international policies or on religious organizations or on sects,
cults and theories of personal application. The department is for the expression
of personal opinion by our own former contributors on subjects that are alive in
the administration of the Masonry of today.
The contributing editors of this department of personal
opinion assume responsibility only for what each writes over his own signature.
Each opinion must be expressed in one paragraph of not more than six hundred
words. All those who have contributed articles to The Builder are invited to
become contributing editors. The list will grow as all new contributors to The
Builder will also become contributing editors to this department of personal
opinion. Please note carefully that this department offers the only vehicle in
Masonry for comparing the personal opinions of leading Masonic students as to
present-day Masonic problems. With this in mind one can readily appreciate the
possibilities before us for constructive thinking of a high order.
The Correspondence department of The Builder will be
continued and will afford each member of the Society an opportunity to reply to
any expression of opinion that he finds of especial interest. It is the hope of
the Board of Stewards that this new department may stimulate many Masons to
Masonic inquiry that will in turn lead them to contribute articles to The
Builder, and to join our list of Contributing Editors
GEO. E. FRAZER, President of the Board of Stewards.
FOR TO-DAY
Above all, that I may not be a coward! That I may have
couragc courage to be unmoved by the uncertainties of life, and without dread of
loss, whether of friends, of health or of fortune: That I may come with a firm
and tranquil mind to the work of this day, fearing nothing--ready to meet
bravely failure or deprivation.
That I may bring to the day's efforts, good humor and a
cheerful regard for all with whom I may come into contact: That I may not judge
others hastily or with bitterness.
That I may not be grasping, but content with a fair share
of this world's goods, willing to let others have theirs: That I may be diligent
in the performance of duties and cheerful in manner: That I may be earnest in
pursuit of the right.
That I may stand with open mind ready to receive the Truth
in small affairs and in large--whether in learning new and better methods or in
receiving that philosophy necessary to a brave, tranquil, well-poised,
well-harmonized life. John Brisben Walker (Journal of the American
Pharmaceutical Association)
----o----
WORDS OF STRENGTH
By Friedrich Schiller, Born Nov. 10, 1759.
There are three lessons I would write,
Three words as with a burning pen,
In tracings of eternal light,
Upon the hearts of men:
Have hope. Though clouds environ now,
And gladness hides her face in scorn,
Put thou the shadow from thy brow,
No night but hath its morn.
Have faith. Where'er thy bark is driven--
The calm's disport, the tempest's mirth--
Know this--God rules the hosts of heaven,
The inhabitants of earth.
Have love. Not love alone for one,
But, man as man thy brother call,
And scatter, like the circling sun,
Thy charities on all.
Thus grave these lessons on thy soul--
Hope, Faith and Love and thou shalt find
Strength when life's surges rudest roll,
Light when thou else wert blind.
----o----
MASONRY AND KING SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
BY THE LATE BRO. WM. A. PAINE, JAMAICA
Paine, William A., of English parentage, date of birth
unknown; a man of business and a gentleman of the old school; Master of King
Solomon's Lodge, Kingston, Jamaica, also a Royal Arch Mason; lost his life in
the earthquake disaster at Kingston, Jan. 14th, 1907. He was a man of noble
character, of winning personality, learned in the lore of Freemasonry, devoted
to its service, and a pioneer in his jurisdiction in the cause of Masonic study.
The essay here published is of unusual value for its wide research and its clear
reasoning; and while all of its readers may not agree with the position taken,
they must reckon with its argument opposing the Jewish claims of Masonic origin.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT (For the above information and photograph,
and for Brother Paine's thoughtful paper herewith begun, we are indebted to our
Brother Member, E. T. Skinkle, 33d, of Chicago.)
PART I
IT is necessary that we look at this important and
instructive factor in the system of Speculative Freemasonry from two separate
and distinct points--the positive and the negative.
The positive asserts itself from the fact that Solomon's
Temple, the traditions connected therewith, and prominent Jewish Scriptural
characters, are very extensively introduced; and, in fine, that the Jewish
Ceremonials and Types are considerably availed of as the foundations on which
the three Craft Degrees have been erected. With a limited knowledge of the
origin and history of the Ritual, and of the Symbolism in Freemasonry, it is not
to be wondered at that a very large proportion of Masons consider they are
orthodox in holding the opinion that Solomon, King of Israel, and the two Hirams,
were Freemasons, and that Speculative Freemasonry originated at the building of
the First Temple. I need hardly say that it is only natural every Jewish Mason
should hold firmly to such a view.
The negative side of the question is this:--"That Hiram
Abiff was not slain. Solomon and the two Hirams were not Masons, and that
Freemasonry did not originate at the Temple." And as I shall be able to show
that we have Masonic history to support this negative, and that we have only to
deal with a series of interesting and instructive legends, the sooner we
recognize and admit the same, by placing the Temple and the Jewish characters
connected therewith under the legitimate and intelligent
classification,--allegory. The sooner we seek for the origin of the Legend of
the Temple, and the period in the history of Freemasonry, when it was
introduced, the earlier and the better shall we be able to understand really
what Speculative Freemasonry is; or, as in the words of one of our important
charges, "Be the better able to distinguish and appreciate the connection of our
whole system, and the relative dependency of its several parts."
If so great a Masonic student as Dr. Oliver, in his early
career, believed literally all that had been told him in the Lodge Room, is it
to be wondered at that the like erroneous view still exists? The Doctor's
experience can be best given in his own words: "The Legend of the 3d when given
as a naked and unexplained fact, and recited with all the solemnity of truth, 99
out of every 100 candidates believe it implicitly, and would esteem it a casus
belli if any one were to express a doubt respecting the most improbable
particulars which it professes to record; and when I was first initiated at an
early age, I confess that such were my own impressions."
Ragon, who died in 1866, and was considered one of the
ablest of French Masonic writers, thus refers to the 3d:--"All the fables which
are introduced to excite the wonder and astonishment of the Neophyte, and
repeated as undoubted facts as preserved by an ancient and accredited tradition,
may be termed fanciful monstrosities, because the Holy Scriptures tacitly
disprove them, for they contain no reference to the circumstanceS which
constitute the Legend."
Grand Master Dalcho, in one of his orations, says: "I
candidly confess that I feel a great degree of embarrassment, while I am
relating to Ministers of God's Holy Word, or to any other gentlemen, a story
founded on the grossest errors of accumulated ages; errors which they can prove
to me to be such, from the sacred pages of Holy Writ, and from profane history;
and, that too, in a minute after I have solemnly pronounced them to be
undeniable truths, even by the Holy Bible on which I have received their
obligation."
Oliver says also, on the same subject: "It is indeed
indefensible as a sober matter of History, and the most rational application of
it, which the W. M. could make at the conclusion of the ceremony, would be - to
explain to the Candidate, that the drama in which he has sustained so
conspicuous a part, is merely symbolical; and, then subjoin the reference. This
course would be plausible, and prevent the Candidate leaving the Lodge, either
with a fallacy on his mind, if he believes it to be true, or with a conviction
that a clumsy and unworthy imposition has been practiced on him; which, from a
better knowledge of the facts, he at once repudiates with a combined feeling of
pity and disgust." *******
Such being the opinions of eminent Masonic writers, printed
and published for the instruction even of entered apprentices, let us then
ascertain the true definition as given by Oliver and others. "Freemasonry is
confessedly an allegory, and as an allegory only must it be supported, for its
traditional history admits of no palliation. Whoever would remove Freemasonry
out of the category, as an allegorical institution, might as well destroy its
existence; for in no other character would it be able to hold its own. It is one
consistent and intelligible assemblage of symbols, and any attempt to explain
it, by reference to facts, is sure to fail: instead of a clear, beautiful, and
harmonious system connected in all its parts, a distorted caricature will be
produced without a single redeeming trait of character."
Dalcho, holding similar views, says in addition: "Neither
Moses, nor Solomon, nor Joshua, nor the two Hirams, nor the two Saints John
belonged to the Masonic Order. It is unwise to assert more than we can prove,
and to argue against probabilities. There is no record, sacred or profane, to
induce us to believe that Masonic these holy and distinguished men were
Freemasons. To assert which may make the ignorant stare, but will rather create
the contempt than the admiration of the wise--let Freemasons give up their vain
boastings, which ignorance has foisted into the Order, and relinquish a fabulous
antiquity, rather than sacrifice common sense."
I invite your attention to the consideration of this
fabulous antiquity as applicable to Solomon's Temple. Locke, the philosopher of
the 17th century, and whom we know was a Freemason, says: "Religion is the only
tie which will bind men, and where there is no religion, there can be no
Masonry." Max Muller asks us to bear in mind--"That without a belief in a
personal immortality, religion surely, is like an arch resting on one pillar, or
like a bridge ending in an abyss ;" and Bulwer Lytton truly adds: "Though all
the world were carved over, and inscribed with the letters of divine knowledge,
the characters would be valueless to him who does not pause to inquire the
language, and meditate the truth." These three quotations supply religion,
immortality, symbolism, a most appropriate triad, pointing to the pillars of
wisdom, strength, and beauty: for wisdom abides in the man, who, with revealed
religion as his guide, is strengthened in his belief in immortality, by
recognizing the beautiful symbolism of Freemasonry, by which it inculcates so
important a dogma.
Dr. Oliver considers that wherever and whenever the true
God was worshiped, in the midst of idolatry, as in the time of Israel's apostacy
under Ahab and Jezbel, that such worshipers of Jehovah were the representatives
of ancient speculative Freemasons, and therefore he adds, at the erection of the
First Temple, the Jews represented the pure speculative element which, joined to
the Tyrian pure operative Masonry, was the first combination of speculative with
operative. This can only be viewed at the most as merely sentimental--nothing
historical as bearing on the point that either the Jews were architects, or that
Solomon and the two Hirams were Freemasons. Nor can any such sentimental
amalgamation of the Jew and Tyrian, at the first temple, be urged as analagous
to the combination of Pagan and Christian architects in the time of Constantine
the First at Bysantium, or of Romanistand Protestant architects in the 17th
century under Wren at the erection of St. Paul's Cathedral.
Findel, that great German Masonic writer, entirely ignores
Jewish origin and Temple traditions, and although admitting much that is
historical, is only willing to trace Freemasonry from the German Gilds of the
middle ages. Fort, a renowned American writer, admits Jewish influence not
Jewish origin, but that influence as of a period long subsequent to the Second
Temple, for he commences his line of argument at the early Bysantium period of
architecture.
Woodford, Past Grand Chaplain of Grand Lodge of England,
and equally a writer of note, considers "our present speculative system, in its
modern development, as undoubtedly lineally and archaeologically the successor
of the Gild Fraternities of the operative Masons, but he asks 'whence did the
Gilds obtain the Masonic legends?' and he adds, I am not inclined to give up the
legend of the temple, or even a connection with the ancient mysteries
altogether."
Mackey, the American Masonic writer, referring to the 3rd
degree, says, "When I speak of the antiquity of Freemasonry, I must say, if I
must respect the axioms of historical science, that its body came out of the
middle ages, but that its spirit is to be traced to far - remoter periods, for
Freemasonry is the successor of the Building Corporations of the middle
ages--and through them with less certainty, but with great probability of the
Roman Colleges of Artificers--its connection with Solomon's Temple as its
birthplace may have been accidental or a mere arbitrary selection of its in
ventors, and bears therefore only an allegorical meaning. The Temple of Solomon
has played an important part in Freemasonry. Time was, when every Masonic writer
subscribed to the theory that Masonry was there first organized, that there
Solomon and the two Hirams presided as Grand Masters, initiated the symbolic
degrees and invented the system of initiation, and that - from that period in
unbroken succession and unaltered - form has it passed to us, down the stream
of time." But Mackey goes on to say, "The modern method of reading Masonic
history has swept away this edifice of imagination as efficiently as the
Babylonish King demolished the structure itself, upon which it is founded. No
writer who values his reputation as a critical historian would now attempt to
defend the theory that Masonry originated at the building of the First Temple."
Findel, Fort, Mackey--three of as great celebrities in
Masonic literature as are to be found entirely ignore the Jewish origin; and if
we bear this in view, together with the other important fact, that Freemasonry
is only a beautiful system of symbolism and allegory, we cannot but admit that
the Rabbi Mamonides' Commentary on the Legends of the Talmudists is very
appropriate, and a fitting Commentary on the Symbolism of Freemasonry. His words
are: "Beware that ye take not the words of the wise men in their literal
signification, for this would be to degrade and sometimes to contradict the
Sacred Doctrines. Search further for the hidden sense, and if you cannot find
the kernel, let the shell alone, and confess you cannot - understand it."
(To be continued)
----o----
THE PERFECT ASHLAR
BY BRO. H. A. KINGSBURY, MASSACHUSETTS
Kingsbury, Harold A.; born, Westfield, Mass., August 27,
1882; graduate in Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, Mass., 1907; graduate in Law, National University, Washington, D. C.,
1910; graduate in Patent Law, George Washington University, Washington, D. C.,
1911; Member of Bar of District of Columbia; Member of Bar of Supreme Court of
United States; Assistant Examiner U.S. Patent Office, 1908-1912; at present,
Assistant Patent Counsel, The New Departure Mfg. Co., Bristol, Connecticut;
Washington Centennial Lodge No. 14, Washington, D. C.; Mount Vernon Chapter No.
3, Washington, D. C.; Scottish Rite Bodies, 4d to 18d, Springfield, Mass.; 19d
to 32d, Massachusetts Consistory, Boston, Mass.
IN the case of many of the symbols used in Masonry it
almost seems as though the ritual writers must have followed the rule, "The
importance to be given a symbol in the ritual should be inversely proportional
to the real importance of that symbol." Particularly does this rule seem to have
been applied to the case of one of the Jewels of the Lodge--the Perfect Ashlar
or Perfect stone Cube. For this symbol, though casually dismissed with but two
or three brief sentences in the monitorial instructions, is, in reality, of very
considerable importance and interest and deserving of the careful attention of
the Mason.
The Perfect Ashlar is one of a group of three Jewels. Thus
the symbol calls the Mason's attention to one more of the many (not less than
twenty) references, in Craft Masonry, to the number Three - the most significant
of all the numbers (unless it be Seven) held in veneration in nearly every
ancient system of religious philosophy, and even having, in some of those
systems, notably that of Plato, the importance of a symbol of Deity.
Stone, the material of the Perfect Ashlar, was considered
of great importance in many of the ancient religions and, indeed, in some was
worshiped. Stone worship existed among the early American races. There is good
reason for believing that the Peruvians worshiped stones, as the protectors of
their crops. The Greeks originally used unhewn stones to represent their
deities. The Thebans represented the god Bacchus by a stone. In the Kaaba at
Mecca is a stone, Hajar al Aswad, which was worshiped by the ancient Arabians
and which present-day Mohammedans regard with veneration. The Druids represented
their gods by stones.
Stone is so evidently the symbol of Permanency, Faith and
Trust that it seems almost unnecessary to cite examples here. But any one
familiar with his New Testament will recall the incident of the giving of the
name Cephas, or Peter, meaning a stone, to simon, who stood for the permanency,
faith and truth of the Early Christian Church, and will recall that Christ said,
"Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church."
The cubical form of-the Perfect Ashlar serves to further
identify it as the symbol of Permanency, Faith and Truth as the Cube, from the
time of the Ancients has had this significance. We have an example of it in
Revelations (XXI, 16) where the New Jerusalem is described as having its length,
breadth and thickness equal, each to the other, giving, of course, a cubical
form to the city.
The fact that Masonry uses a hewn, rather than an unhewn
stone, for symbolizing Truth, furnishes an interesting example of the ways in
which the introduction of (comparatively) self-evident conceptions derived from
Operative Masonry has worked, in some instances, curious changes in the more
abstruse symbolistic systems which Masonry has, apparently, inherited from the
Hebrews and the Egyptians. That is, in the Masonic system, following at this
point suggestions from Operative Masonry, the hewn and perfect condition of the
Perfect Ashlar is understood to emphasize and make yet stronger the symbol's
reference to Truth, whereas in the symbolistic systems of the Hebrews and the
Egyptians a rough, unhewn cubical stone was considered to symbolize Truth and a
perfect, hewn stone was understood to symbolize Falsehood.
However interesting and important the various other
symbolic significances of the Cube may be, the symbolic suggestion that perhaps
most concerns the Mason of today, and particularly the American Mason of today,
is this:--The Cube is the symbol of the state and it is placed in the Masonic
Lodge to constantly remind the Mason, of the State, or political structure, of
which he forms a part, and to recall him to those duties which he, a citizen,
owes to that State.
If one views a cube with his eyes slightly above the top of
it, and opposite one of its vertical edges, he will find that, as indicated in
the figure, there are three faces visible, and three invisible, to him. The
three visible faces symbolize the three departments of the State, the
Legislative, which makes the laws, the Judicial which interprets them, and the
Executive which executes them. The three invisible faces symbolize the invisible
soul of the State, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. As these three invisible
faces are necessary to complete and make stable the Cube so are Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity necessary to complete and make stable the State.
The Perfect Ashlar, in its character of a symbol of the
State, represents an ideal to be striven for--the perfect State has not yet been
finally developed. But, upon his first entrance into Masonry, the Mason is
presented with Working Tools with which to shape and to gauge his work--the
Gavel, symbolizing Force, and the Gauge, symbolizing Rule or Law. And the
Perfect Ashlar reminds the Mason that his entered apprentice's Working Tools are
given him to use and that it is for him, a citizen, to apply them, using Force,
properly held in restraint by Rule or Law, to, so far as in him lies, make his
ashlar a Perfect Ashlar and his state a perfect State.
----o----
CONSTRUCTION
Destruction has its
millions within its awful thralls;
To do its bidding
night and day, and mandate all its calls.
Another host in other
parts Construction does employ;
To build our homes
and cities fair, and all that we enjoy.
Construction and destruction have been fighting hand to
hand
Since this old world
began to turn, and neither rules the land.
But what construction does today to build in modern ways
Destruction lays in
desolate waste in future struggling days.
One hand can swing the mighty sword, and in its awful swath
The lives of millions
fall like grain - why reckon up the loss?
But two hands do the
building as we raise the wall again;
Two hands bind up the wounded, and two hands construct
again.
One hand can raise
the fire-brand from the smoldering coals of hate;
Two hands must stop
the raging flames before it is too late.
One hand can give the signal for the largest guns to boom
Two hands must raise
above the dead the flowers into bloom.
Two hands can build
with stone on stone the highest wall that's laid;
One hand can burst
the fatal shells, and debts alone are made.
One hand may wield
destruction as it goes along life's path;
Two hands must do the
healing, as we reap the aftermath.
Why not use the brick
and mortar, not the rifle and the sword?
Why not use the
trowel and level, at Construction's signal word?
Why not use the
square and plumb-line as we raise our friendships kind?
For destruction's not
external until cherished in man's mind.
What's within brings
forth the harvest; thoughts rethought make up the seeds;
That same harvest may
be useful, or a useless growth of weeds.
Why delay internal
plantings when destruction's passions yield?
Go into internal
pastures; there prepare the fertile field.
There prepare it for
the planting, like a garden fair to see;
Sow it, watch it,
tend and weed it, 'til from weeds the ground is free.
By and by the crop
grows stronger, and no weeds can therein grow;
For the harvest forth
is coming - a repayment for the sow.
By destruction things
are severed from their proper place in life.
By construction
brought together; fitted 'gainst a social strife.
By destruction strong
connections are at once asunder torn;
By construction once
well welded - and redone by son unborn.
When our lives are in their fittings and each unit has its
place
The design has form
and beauty which the artist's brush would trace;
With the back ground
and perspective, and our hopes the foreground fill -
There's construction
in the picture; beauty through the artist's will.
Faith it takes for
all construction; faith it takes to plan to do;
Faith it takes at the
foundation, and to see the matter through.
Faith it takes when
all's destruction to rise up and build some more;
Faith it takes when
broken idols lie upon the tiled floor.
Hope in all
constructive action is the active force to move.
Faith is passive in
the planning, and the two, resultants prove.
Hope moves faith into
an action which before was in the breast,
And the two are both
constructive counting for the very best.
The resultant is
construction, in both matter and in mind;
Putting useful things
together which apart, serve not mankind.
Two hands, with a mind and feeling make for charity and
love
They produce the
world's resultant guided by a Force above.
By Geo. N. Foster,
Lincoln, Nebr.
----o----
Justice is as strictly
due between neighbor nations, as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as
much a robber when he plunders in a gang, as when single; and a nation that
makes an unjust war is only a great gang of robbers. - Franklin.
----o----
MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE
BY BRO. ROSCOE POUND, DEAN, HARVARD COLLEGE OF LAW
I. THE DATA OF MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE
At the outset we may well ask ourselves why do we say
Masonic Jurisprudence? Why not simply Masonic Law ? Is there a science of
Masonic law as distinct from Masonic law itself? For in its original and
etymological meaning and in the best usage, jurisprudence means the science of
law. It is true there are two other uses of the term. The French use it to mean
the course of decision in the courts as contrasted on the one hand with
legislation and on the other hand with doctrine or the consensus of opinion of
learned writers and commentators. To some extent this French usage has been
received with us, particularly in the phrase "equity jurisprudence," signifying
the course of decision in Anglo-American courts of equity, which has gained
currency through the classical work of Judge Story. But it must be obvious that
Masons do not employ the word in this sense. Although the course of decision in
Masonic tribunals in the form of rulings of the Grand Masters and action of
Grand Lodges thereon and of review of trials in or by Grand Lodges, is an
important form of Masonic law; it furnishes but a part, and relatively a modern
part, of the materials of what we are wont to style Masonic jurisprudence.
By a not unnatural transition from the French use of the
term it has come to be used also chiefly in this country, simply as a
polysyllabic synonym for law. Medical jurisprudence, for the forensic
applications of medicine, has much vogue. Dental jurisprudence for the law of
interest to dentists, engineering jurisprudence for the law of interest to
engineers, architectural jurisprudence for the law of interest to architects,
are heard occasionally. These seem quite indefensible. But even if they were not
to be critized, they would not warrant Masonic jurisprudence, for the latter
term calls to mind not that part of the general law of the land which has
special interest for the Mason, but the internal law of the fraternity itself.
We come back, therefore, to our question whether Masonic jurisprudence is simply
a grandiose name for Masonic law or whether, on the other hand, there is a
science of Masonic law distinct from the law of each Masonic jurisdiction? Is
there, in other words, an organized body of knowledge above and behind each
particular local Masonic law upon which the latter rests as fully and truly as
the particular legal rules of one of our commonwealths rest upon the principles
of general legal science and the principles of Anglo-American legal tradition?
For the moment I shall assume that there is, and my purpose in this course will
be, not to expound dogmatically the rules of Masonic law which obtain here or
elsewhere, but to show, if I may, that there is a science of Masonic law, to
examine its material and its methods, and to set forth its principles.
In studying the law of politically organized society we say
that it may be expounded dogmatically, that is, the content and application of
its several rules and principles may be investigated and set forth, or it may be
studied by one of the methods of jurisprudence-- analytical, historical, or
philosophical. In truth dogmatic study is of little value except as it makes use
of and rests upon these methods of legal science. They justify themselves in the
end by making for effective understanding and criticism and improvement of the
law of each state. But they are methods of legal science generally, while the
dogmatic method is applicable not to jurisprudence but to a particular body of
law. We may study a particular body of law analytically, that is, we may
investigate the structure, subjectmatter and rules of a legal system in order to
reach by analysis the principles and theories which it logically presupposes, As
a method of jurisprudence, however, the analytical method is comparative. It
involves a comparative study of the purposes, methods and ideas common to
developed systems of law by analysis of such systems and of their doctrines and
institutions in their matured forms. Again, a particular body of law may be
studied historically. That is, investigation may be made of the historical
origin and development of the legal system and of its institutions and
doctrines, looking to the past of the law to disclose the principles of the law
of today. But here also, as a method of jurisprudence the historical method must
be comparative. lt involves a comparative study of the origin and development of
law, of legal systems, and of particular doctrines and institutions in order to
draw therefrom universal principles of legal science. Finally, a particular body
of law may be studied philosophically. That is, investigation may be made of the
philosophical bases of the institutions and doctrines of a legal system in order
to reach its fundamental principles through philosophical speculation. When this
method is pursued comparatively and the philosophical basis of law generally and
of general legal institutions and universal legal doctrines is sought, in order
to reach universal principles, the philosophical method becomes a method of
jurisprudence. Formerly these three methods, the analytical, the historical and
the philosophical, contended for the mastery. Today we recognize that no one of
them is self-sufficient and that jurisprudence must employ each of them in order
to achieve a well-rounded science.
If we apply these ideas to Masonic law, we may say that a
dogmatic exposition of the law of any jurisdiction would, indeed, very likely be
profitable. But it would be relatively of little value, certainly of little
permanent value, unless it made use of and rested upon the analytical, the
historical and the philosophical methods. Moreover these methods should be
developed comparatively, as methods of a Masonic legal science, if they are to
give their best results. On the other hand these methods are not pursued for
their own sake. In the end they must justify themselves by making the law of
each Masonic jurisdiction more scientific, better organized, more easy of
comprehension and of application and more eflective for the purposes for which
it exists. Unless he can give us principles of systematization, of criticism and
of improvement in those parts of our law which are subject to change, the jurist
has no claim upon the attention of a craft of workmen.
Another preliminary question confronts us. How far are we
justified in speaking of Masonic law? Is the body of rules to which we give that
name law in any proper sense of the term? Are we warranted in applying to it the
methods and in attaching to it the ideas which are appropriate when treating of
the law of politically organized society ?
There are three common uses of the term "law": (1) Law as
used in the natural and physical sciences; (2) natural law or law of nature as
the term has been used by writers on ethics, politics and the philosophy of law;
(3) law in the juridical sense. In the sciences, law is used to mean deductions
from human experience of the course of events. Thus the law of gravitation is a
record of human observation and experience of the manner in which bodies which
are free to move do in fact move toward one another. Similarly Grimm's law in
philology is a record of the observations of philologists as to the manner in
which consonantal changes have taken place in the several Aryan languages. By
natural law ethical, philosophical and political writers mean the principles
which philosophy and ethics discover as those which should govern human action
and the adjustment of human relations, and hence as those with respect to which
obligatory rules of human conduct ought to be framed. Law in the juridical sense
is said to be the body of rules, principles and standards recognized or enforced
by public or regular tribunals in the administration of justice. Obviously there
is an idea in common here, namely, the idea of a rule or principle, underlying a
sequence of events, whether natural or moral, or judicial. In this wide sense,
therefore, we may speak of the rules or principles which underly a sequence of
events in a fraternal organization as law, just as we should so style the rules
or principles underlying a sequence of events in a political society. But this
wide use of the term law has been the subject of much objection and much dispute
and we may put ourselves on firmer ground by looking at certain analogies
between the rules which govern the decision of controversies and the adjustment
of relations in a politically organized society and those which govern disputes
and adjust relations in religious organizations and in fraternal organizations.
At bottom we mUst rest the whole structure of state and law
upon the hard fundamental fact that in a finite world, human demands are
infinite. If there were enough material goods to go around and enough room so
that each of us might move in the widest orbit his fancy could picture or hiS
desires could dictate without coming into collision with hiS felow men, we
should not need any elaborate system of balancing conflicting interests nor any
elaborate machinery for putting into effect the standards for delimiting and
enforcing interests which result from such balancing. Unhappily the material
goods of existence do not suffice to give to each everything which he may claim
or which he does claim. Hence to conserve the values of life and to eliminate
waste men organize themselves and organize or invent rules and standards and
principles by which to eliminate waste and make the available stock of values go
as far as possible. In the beginning these organizations are simply groups of
kindred. Presently religious and maternal organizations develop. Subsequently
political organizations arise. In time trade and professional associations are
added. All these seek in one way or another to secure to men values which might
otherwise be dissipated. They have their justification in the necessity of
conserving what would otherwise be lost in the struggle of individuals to
satisfy infinite claims upon a limited store. Accordingly, if we look for a
moment at the state, we see that it eliminates waste by means of the law in
several ways. For one thing it furnishes a rule of decision in case of dispute
and thus obviates resort to private war when controversies arise. One has only
to consider what happens today in case of an industrial dispute in order to see
what this means.
In an ordinary dispute between man and man today we have a
measure of conduct which is ascertainable within reasonable limits in advance.
If the dispute becomes acute, one party or the other may summon his adversary
before a public tribunal and may have the dispute adjudicated upon the basis of
settled rules, according to a settled procedure, and with reference to settled
modes of redress. When the judgment is pronounced, it is not optional with the
defeated party to adhere to it or not. The whole power of the state is behind it
and the force of organized society may be invoked to carry it out. In an
industrial dispute on the other hand, we have no clear measure of conduct. Each
party is referred to his individual sense of fairness and to the general sense
of fairness of the public at large. But in a highly diversified community in
which groups and classes with apparently divergent interests understand each
other none too well and have conflicting ideas of justice, general public
opinion is seldom sufficiently definite and consistent to serve as a restraint
upon the partisan notions of justice entertained by the contending parties and
hence is left to be the judge of its own case. With no clear predetermined
measure of adjustment of such controversies, with no settled mode of procedure,
with no settled mode of redress and no strong, permanent tribunal, backed by the
moral sense of the community, long tradition, and the force of the state, to
pronounce and give effect to a judgment, there is no way to satisfy or to coerce
the disputants and in practice, as like as not, the interests of each and the
interests of society suffer equally. Society struggles to maintain its interest
in the general security and to prevent waste under such circumstances by seeking
peace at whatever sacrifice. It is not a question of equal and exact justice.
The paramount demands of peace and good order are to be met first. The policy is
not "let justice be done though the heavens fall," but "peace at any price."
Hence society endeavors to put pressure upon the disputants, directly,
indirectly, openly or covertly, to submit to arbitration and to abide the award.
A public service company may be threatened with forfeiture of franchise. A
private owner may be threatened with extra-legal sequestration of his property.
Both parties may be threatened with a report as to the causes of the dispute and
the issues involved to be made public after an official inquiry. Press, pulpit
and platform may exhort and rebuke. Thus in one way or another a compromise or
an arbitration may be brought about. But when such a result has been achieved,
no guide has been provided for the next dispute. No precedent has resulted.
Nothing has been accomplished beyond averting or terminating a condition of
private war in that one case. The whole process is crude and wasteful. Every
time that this happens we act over again the inception of law. The Roman
magistrate who stepped between the contending litigants and called out, "Let go,
both of you," the praetor who pronounced the interdict, "I forbid that violence
take place," and the indirect devices whereby a case for arbitration was
formulated, not upon direct statement of their claims by the parties but through
indirectly inducing or coercing a reference or an arbitration, testify to a
general condition of which the special condition that obtains in a modern
industrial dispute is perhaps the last remnant. By furnishing a rule for
decision and by furnishing a guide to conduct the law enables society to
reconcile conflicting interests, to conserve values and to eliminate waste.
This same problem of reconciling conflicting interests, of
conserving values and of eliminating waste arises in every group-- in religious
and fraternal organizations no less than in political organizations. And it is
met in the same way. By slow and painful development of customs through
experience, followed by deliberate formulation of rules invented for the
purpose, men select out of the great mass of possible claims those which seem to
call most urgently for security, define them, weigh them against other
recognized inter ests and devise means for giving them effect. This process of
recognizing, delimiting and securing interests when carried on by a political
society is called lawmaking and the rules and standards of conduct and rules and
principles of decision thereby set up are called law. In like manner the rules
and standards of conduct and the rules and principles of decision developed or
devised to secure interests and conserve values In the universal medieval church
are called the canon law. No less justly may we apply to the rules and standards
of conduct and the rules and principles of decision evolved or devised to secure
interests and conserve values in our universal fraternal organization the name
of Masonic law. For if it is said that we cannot enforce our law as the state
enforces its law--that the sheriff and his posse looms in the background of the
latter while the former is but hortatory--the answer must be that our law has
behind it the same sanction that was behind the law of the medieval church,
namely, excommunication and that this is essentially nothing else than the
sanction of the earlier stageS of the law of politically organized
society--namely, outlawry. The group in each case casts out the individual who,
through defiance of its law threatens a waste of the values which it seeks to
secure.
Assuming, then, that we are justified in speaking of
Masonic law, what are the component parts of our Masonic legal system; what are
the jural materials with which the Masonic lawyer must work ? I venture to
distinguish three types of rules: (1) The landmarks; (2) the Masonic common law;
(3) Masonic legislation. I cannot deny that in so classifying the jural
materials of Masonry I am influenced by our Anglo-American distinction of
constitutional rules, common law and legislation. And one should not turn to
such an analogy hastily or unadvisedly. For I shall endeavor to show in another
connection that Masonic jurisprudence has suffered in this country from
overzealous attempts to mould our law by the analogies of the political law of
the time and place and from the hasty assumption that our American legal and
political institutions might be relied upon to furnish principles of law for a
universal fraternity. Nevertheless the craft has engaged the hearty service of
great lawyers for at least two centuries and the revival from which we date the
Masonry of today took place in a time and in a country in which certain legal
and politic ideas were universally entertained and were almost taken to inhere
in nature. Hence we have more than analogy-- we have, if not a causal relation,
at least a relation of great influence.
Presupposing this three-fold division, we have first, the
landmarks, a small not clearly defined body of fundamentals which are beyond
reach of change. They are the prescriptive or unwritten constitution (using
constitution in the purely American sense) by which every thing must be judged
ultimately and to which we must all conform. Second, we have Masonic common
law--the body of tradition and doctrine, which falling short of the sanctity and
authority of the landmarks, nevertheless is of such long standing, and so
universal, and so well attested, that we should hesitate to depart from it and
are perforce wont to rely upon it whether to apply our own law or to appreciate
the law of our neighbors.
These first two elements of Masonic law rest in tradition
and in doctrinal writing. They take the form of: (a) Tradition--the mode of
conducting Masonic affairs which has been handed down from master to master,
from lodge to lodge for centuries and embodies the experience of countless
sincere, zealous, well-informed brothers; (b) treatises, of which Oliver's
Institutes of Masonic Jurisprudence and Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence are the
best types; (c) decisions of Grand Masters and review thereof by Grand Lodges,
recorded in the published proceedings of Grand Lodges, chiefly in America; and
(d) reports of the committees on correspondence of our American Grand Lodges, in
which the decisions in other jurisdictions are reviewed and criticized and a
comparative and universal element is introduced which is of the highest value to
the Masonic jurist. These committees on correspondence have been much kicked at
and it cannot be denied that the work of some of them at times has been crude.
Yet for the present purpose their work has been invaluable. No one who has
studied Masonic jurisprudence attentively can fail to testify to the unifying
force exerted by these committees. The stimulus of their criticism, even when
ill directed has made our local Masonic jurists pause to think of the rest of
the Masonic world; it has exerted the scientific influence which is always
involved in comparison; it has worked everywhere for universality in our welter
of independent local jurisdictions, each ambitious to make its own law.
The two main elements just enumerated make up the unwritten
law of Masonry. A third element, namely, Grand Lodge legislation, of which our
American Grand Lodges have been exceedingly prolific, constitutes the written
law of Masonry.
A moment's digression is required to explain these terms.
As soon as legal systems attain any degree of maturity, they are made up of two
elements: A traditional element and an imperative element. Following the Roman
jurists, the traditional element is generally known in jurisprudence by the name
of the unwritten law--jus non scriptum--and the imperative element by the name
of the written law--jus scriptum; not that we do not find the principles and
rules of each today only in writings, but because the latter was deliberately
and authoritatively reduced to writing at its inception.
Our main interest is in the unwritten law--the traditional
element--which, except as local decisions interpret or apply local legislation,
proceeds or purports to proceed on universal lines and is or seeks to be in
principle permanent and general, even as legislation is ephemeral and local.
Let me develop this point a bit. As has been said, a
developed legal system is made up of two elements, a traditional element and an
enacted or imperative element. Although at present the balance in our law is
shifting gradually to the side of the enacted element, the traditional element
is still by far the more important. In the first instance, we must rely upon it
to meet all new problems, for the legislator acts only after they attract
attention. But even after the legislator has acted, it is seldom if ever that
his foresight extends to all the details of his problem or that he is able to do
more than provide a broad, if not a crude outline. Hence even in the field of
the enacted law, the traditional element of the legal system plays a chief part.
We must rely upon it to fill the gaps in legislation, to develop the principles
introduced by legislation and to interpret them. Let us not forget that
so-called interpretation is not merely ascertainment of the legislative intent.
If it were, it would be the easiest instead of the most difficult of judicial
tasks. Where the legislator has had an intent and has sought to express it,
there is seldom a question of interpretation. The difficulties arise in the
myriad cases with respect to which the law maker had no intention because he had
never thought of them--indeed perhaps he could never have thought of them. Here
under the guise of interpretation the court, willing or unwilling, must to some
extent make the law, and our security that it will be made as law and not as
arbitrary rule lies in the judicial and juristic tradition from which the
materials of judicial law-making are derived. Accordingly the traditional
element of the legal system is and must be used even in an age of copious
legislation, to supplement, round out and develop the enacted element, and in
the end it usually swallows up the latter and incorporates its results in the
body of tradition. Moreover a large field is always unappropriated by enactment,
and here the traditional element is supreme. In this part of the law fundamental
ideas change slowly. The alterations wrought here and there by legislation, not
always consistent with one another, do not produce a general advance. Indeed
they may be held back at times in the interests, real or supposed, of uniformity
and consistency, through the influence of the traditional element. It is
obvious, therefore, that above all else the condition of the law depends upon
the condition of this element of the legal system.
Another feature of the twofold composition of developed
legal systems is of no less importance. The traditional element rests at first
upon the traditional mode of advising litigants on the part of those upon whom
tribunals rely for guidance or upon the usage and practice of tribunals. Later
it rests upon juristic science and the habitual modes of thought of a learned
profession. Thus the ultimate basis of its author;ty is reason and conformity to
ideals of right. On the other hand the imperative element rests upon enactment.
It rests upon the expressed will of the sovereign. The basis of its authority is
the power of the state.
The parallel with Masonic law is exact. With us, the most
important of our jural materials are in the traditional element.
First, we must rely upon the traditional element to meet
all new problems, and the normal course of growth in Masonic law is: (1) A new
application of a traditional principle by the decision of a Grand Master; (2)
review thereof in a Grand Lodge; (3) comment thereon by the various committees
on correspondence; (4) the growth of a consensus of opinion on the subject among
Masonic jurists; and (5) incorporation in some text book of Masonic law or in
declaratory legislation. Secondly, we must rely on the traditional element to
fill all gaps in Masonic legislation. Thirdly, we must rely on it to interpret
legislation and to develop legislation. Fourthly, above all, as we are a
universal institution and ought to legislate cautiously, we must rely on the
traditional element to furnish the principles of legislation and a critique of
legislation. We are not like a political organization- -mere will has no place
in any theory of Masonic law-making.
Accordingly it is of the first importance to have a theory
of the unwritten law of Masonry and an organized, systematic science of this
traditional element of our law--in other words, to have a science of Masonic
jurisprudence.
What are the data of this science ? What are the materials
which we may use in constructing it?
I take it they are five: (1) History; (2) general Masonic
tradition; (3) philosophy; (4) logical (or systematic) construction on the basis
of history, philosophy and tradition; and (5) authentic modern materials of
Masonic common law.
Let me take these up in order. First as to history. Here
there are two questions: (a) What materials does Masonic history furnish which
are important for Masonic jurisprudence; (b) what is the function of history in
Masonic jurisprudencc how and for what purpose should we use history in this
connection ? On such an occasion one can only speak summarily. In a few words,
the historical materials which are important for the Masonic. jurist seem to be
five:
(1) The manuscript constitutions of British Freemasons--a
series of manuscripts the oldest of which go back to the fourteenth century,
which are the foundation of authentic Masonic history. These are of especial
importance on the subject of the landmarks. Thus, when we trace in the
manuscripts the old charge to be true to God and holy church and the new charge
of 1738 that if the Mason understands his art aright he will never be a stupid
atheist, history reinforces the tradition contained in the master's obligation.
(2) Seventeenth and eighteenth-century notices of English
Masonry prior to 1717. From these materials we are able to see how Masons met
and what they meant by a lodge prior to the rise of Grand-Lodge Masonry and are
enabled to distinguish between the landmarks and the common law as to Masonic
organization.
(3) Old lodge records in England and Scotland. These also
throw great light upon the organization of the Craft prior to 1717. When we find
presidents and wardens and deacons as the highest officers of lodges, we see
again what was from the beginning and what is simply common law.
(4) Eighteenth-century writers who had or purported to have
access to traditions current among Masons at and prior to the organization of
the Grand Lodge of England in 1717 and to old manuscripts not now extant. Even
if some or much of the information which they purport to give on the basis of
such traditions and such manuscripts is apocryphal, it has entered into the
stream of subsequent Masonic tradition and may not be overlooked.
(5) Grand Lodge records, beginning in England in 1723,
which show the settled practice of the formative period of Masonry as we know it
today.
Of these five classes of historical materials, the fourth
calls for some special notice. It is made up of three well-known books which
have exerted an almost controlling influence upon our ideas of Masonic history
and have largely determined Masonic tradition. These books are: Anderson's
Constitution (1723, second edition 1738), Preston's Illustrations (1772) and
Dermott's Ahiman Rezon (1756, second edition 1764). It would be out of place to
attempt an appraisal of their historical value here. Moreover the thorough-going
critique of Gould, which has definitely overthrown much which had long been
accepted on the authority of these books has not wholly destroyed their
importance for Masonic jurisprudence. As Hobbes puts it, "authority not truth
makes the law." It may well happen that historical mistakes may become fixed in
the legal fabric. For example, Lord Coke very likely erred in much that he laid
down in his Second Institute as to the history of our Anglo-American
constitutional doctrine of the supremacy of law. Yet his writing is the
foundation of our public law and his results have amply justified themselves. It
is no fatal objection in practical affairs that the conclusions must sustain the
premises. Hence if Anderson and Preston and Dermott cannot be vouched for
landmarks, they must be read diligently in order to reach the sources of much of
our Masonic common law.
Let us turn now to the other question, what are the uses of
Masonic history ? One use is to correct tradition, as for example, in the case
of the apocryphal long list of royal and noble Grand Masters. Another is to hold
philosophy in bounds, as for example, in the case of the controversy which raged
once in one of our American Grand Lodges as to the wearing of white gloves, on
the theory that gloves were unknown at the time of the building of the temple,
or, again, in the rejection of the letter G on philosophical grounds by another
of our Grand Lodges. Another use is to test doctrinal (systematic, logical)
exposition, as in the case of Mackey's twenty-five landmarks. But this
correction by history should not be pressed too far. It should not be used as
the basis of rejecting settled Masonic common law, shown by universal practice
since the end of the eighteenth century. For example, nothing is better settled
than the doctrines of territorial jurisdiction in Craft Masonry and the
impropriety of invasion of jurisdiction. If there are no landmarks here, there
are settled principles of Masonic conflict of laws which are a part of the
universal law of the Craft.
Our second main source of law is tradition. Today this is
set forth in the form of doctrinal exposition and Grand-Lodge decision. Much of
it is declared by Grand-Lodge legislation. It is of the highest value in fixing
the principles of Masonic common law. But elsewhere it is dangerous. It must
always be corrected by careful historical consideration of whether the tradition
in question is authentic, immemorial and pure.
Our third main source of law is philosophy, that is,
deduction from principles found by philosophical study of the ends and purpose
of Masonry--for example, deduction from the principle of universality, from the
principle of organization of moral sentiments of mankind, from the principle of
furthering human civilization. It may be compared with the metaphysical method
in jurisprudence which seeks to deduce all legal rules from or correct them by a
fundamental principle of human freedom. Philosophy is chiefly useful as a check
on Masonic history. For example, if one were to look only to history, he might
make a strong argument that the dinner or banquet following the work on
important occasions was a landmark. Certainly as far back as we have accounts of
Masonic work we find the brethren sitting about the board in this way. But
consideration of the purposes and ends of the order shows us at once that we
have here but an incident of ordinary human social intercourse. So in the case
of the objection to white gloves above referred to. The Masonic philosopher
perceives at once that we have here a traditional symbol and that purely
historical considerations cannot be suffered to prevail.
Our fourth main source of law is logical construction. It
has the same place with us as juristic science has in the law of the state. It
is of the first importance if the data are sound and are well used. Mackey's
famous text book of Masonic jurisprudence (1859) is still the best example of
the use of logical construction.
The fifth main source of Masonic law is to be found in
authentic modern materials of Masonic customary law and in settled Masonic usage
since the last half of the eighteenth century. Indeed the general principles of
this settled usage have all but the force of landmarks. Thus Mackey recognizes:
(1) Landmarks; (2) general laws or regulations; (3) local laws or regulations.
Here the second is substantially what I call Masonic common law and the third
what I call Masonic legislation. Mackey says of the second: "These are all those
regulations that have been enacted by such bodies as had at the time universal
jurisdiction. They operate, therefore, over the Craft wheresoever dispersed; and
as the paramount bodies which enacted them have long ceased to exist, it would
seem that they are unrepealable. It is generally agreed that these general or
universal laws are to be found in the old constitutions or charges, so far as
they were recognized and accepted by the Grand Lodge of England at the revival
in 1717 and adopted previous to the year 1726." This would receive Anderson's
first edition without question as a conclusive exposition of the principles of
the traditional element. Today it is clear that we cannot accept it. But the
idea at the bottom of Mackey's system is sound.
I take it we must distinguish two things. (a) We may
perceive certain settled principles adhered to by all regular and well-governed
lodges since the last quarter of the eighteenth century. For example, with one
exception it has always been recognized that at least three lodges are required
to set up a Grand Lodge. But we must be cautious here. It will be noticed that
Mackey assumes that fluidity is at an end by 1721. We cannot accept this
proposition. We must recognize a great deal of fluidity till much later. But
Ma,sonry is not bound to retain forever the fluidity of the first half of the
eighteenth century. (b) Next we must differentiate from the principles
themselves the development of these principles (i) by logical deduction and
juristic speculation, and (ii) by judicial empiricism in the decisions of Grand
Masters and the review thereof by Grand Lodges.
The latter is almost wholly American and much of it is
worthy to rank with the best achievements of legal development in any political
organization. If the law of the medieval church became for a time the law of the
world and gave ideas and doctrines to the law of the state which are valuable
for all time, it is not at all impossible that our universal organization,
coming much later to the work of law-making, may in its turn develop legal ideas
of universal value and thus contribute indirectly to the furtherance of
civilization while contributing directly thereto in its ordinary work.
----o----
AT REFRESHMENT
BY BRO. GEO. W. WARVELLE, ILLINOIS
I CONTINUE to hear complaints from certain quarters
concerning the wasteful extravagance in the matter of refreshments, together
with suggestions as to the good that might be accomplished if the money so
expended were applied to works of charity and pure beneficence. But,
notwithstanding these oft repeated admonitions from those who stand on the watch
towers of zion, the Craft jogs along in the same old way and the banquet is
still a potent factor in Masonic life. And yet, this is strictly in keeping with
the old precedents; a faithful adherence to the old land. marks.
Freemasonry, in its inception, was strictly a convivial
institution, all reports to the contrary notwithstanding. In later years it took
on liturgic features,but the old customs, in large measure, were continued and
in modified forms are still practiced. The custom of "refreshment" may be traced
back to the mediaeval Gilds, while the oldest records of the Masonic Fraternity,
as a speculative society, contain references to the feasting (including
drinking) at the craft meetings.
The seventeenth century has left many authentic references
to the conviviality which characterized the meetings in those days. Thus, Plot
in his history, when alluding to the Masons, says: "When any are admitted, they
call a meeting (or Lodge as they term it in some places) and entertain with a
collation according to the custom of the place; This ended, they proceed to the
admission of them." Plot was not a Mason. Ashmole, in his diary, notes a meeting
he attended at London in 1682. Of this he says: "We all dined at the Half-moon
Tavern in Cheapside, at a noble Dinner prepared at the Charge of the new
accepted Masons." And so, it will be seen that from very early times a feast was
an important part of a Masonic meeting.
It has been suggested, by some of the English scholars,
that this custom of a feast originated in the actual necessities of the
occasion; that many of the members of the early lodges came long distances to
attend the meetings and frequently on foot. Hence, it was necessary that they
should be provided with refreshment of some kind either on their arrival or
before setting out on their return journey. You will see, therefore, that the J.
W.'s call to refreshment was not an empty formality in those days.
It would seem that in the old days the feast always
preceded the work, a custom that has not yet died out in England. And as in
nature the tendency is to constantly revert to earlier types, so in human
institutions we may observe the same phenomena. In many localities the six
o'clock dinner has taken the place of the eleven o'clock banquet, while the
old-time flow of post prandial oratory has been eliminated. This was the custom
of the Grand Lodge of England far into the historic period, as witness the
minutes of the "assembly and feast" at Stationers Hall on June 22, 1721, when
"after Grace said, they sat down in the antient manner of Masons to a very
elegant Feast, and dined with Joy and Gladness." After this followed the regular
business, and.then the Grand Master ordered the Warden "to close the Lodge in
good Time." * * *
But the banquet is too firmly entrenched to be obliterated
by any shell fire the disciples of the new thought may pour upon it. The
Freemasons are still, even as in the old days, a social brotherhood and the
customs of the fathers will long continue, notwithstanding the edict "The
Banquet must go." From the dawn of history we may find the custom in connection
with fraternal societies. It is not peculiar to Freemasonry. In fact, our
Masonic ancestors simply borrowed the custom from those who preceded them. Long
years ago, in ancient Greece, the banquet followed the initiations into the
mysteries, as witness the following, which I quote from the "Golden Ass" of
Apuleius:
"All the uninitiated having been sent away, the priest
clothed me in a new linen garment, and, taking my hand, let me into the
penetralia of the sanctuary. You will perhaps, ask, studious reader, and be
anxious to know, what was then done. What was done, ask you? I would tell, if it
were lawful to tell; thou shouldst know, if it were lawful for thee to hear. But
I will not detain in long suspense you, who are, perchance, in a state of
suspense with religious anxiety. Hear, therefore, and believe, for the things I
narrate are true. I approached the confines of death, and, having trod the
threshold of Proserpine, I was earried back through all the elements. At
midnight, I beheld the sun glittering with clear light; l approached the gods of
Hades and of Heaven, and adored them face to face. Thus have I related to you
things, which, although heard by thee, thou canst not know. . . After this, I
celebrated a most cheerful banquet in honor of my birth day into these rites;
pleasant was the banquet and lively the entertainment."
I direct your special attention to the closing lines of the
above paragraph. They simply show that mankind and human nature are much the
same in all ages and all lands. * * *
A few years ago Admiral Dewey is reported to have said,
that he attributed his robust health and length of days to these facts: that he
had entered the navy and kept away from public banquets. Perhaps all of us
cannot take the first part of his prescription, and perhaps also, the real worth
lies in the latter part of it. Certain it is, that while the 12-inch gun may
have slain its thousands the deviled crab and the overripe lobster have laid low
their tens of thousands. It is not given to all of us to die in behalf of a
great cause. In fact, few of us care to die. But everyone is privileged to incur
indigestion and other gastronomic ills, and this privilege the most of us insist
in availing ourselves of with remarkable persistence.
It is said, however, that the fatalities which mark the
history of public feeding do not constitute its worst reproach; that the gleater
harm consists in the undigested ideas which every well regulated banquet is
bound to liberate. Bad food and poor talk make a combination that is fatal to
the soundest human system. Thus is it written:
Avoid the groaning board, my son,
The devilled crab, the Melbaed peach,
But, deadliest of all, avoid
The after-dinner speech.
----o----
MASONIC JEWELS
Does the square that you wear mean the test by your God
Of the work that you do, and the word that you speak,
Of the will of your mind, the thought of your heart,
Of the Past that is gone, of the Future you seek?
The Compass you wear, does it mean that you move
Within the true bound appointed and sure,
Restricted desire, pleasure defined,
A yielding of self to the bonds that endure ?
The Triangle too--great emblem of Him
Who is Maker, and Master, Beginning and End,--
Do you wear it to show that He is to you
The Source and the Aim that all others transcend?
What means the gold trowel that hangs at your chain ?
Does it tell of the mortar of Love that you spread?
Of the joint well cement with fine brotherly love?
Of the stones that now lie in the well-mortared bed?
If 'tis not so, then take the poor jewels away;
The meaningless bauble will only deceive
Yourself and the others you meet on your way
As meaningless lies which none ever believe.
John George Gibson.
----o----
NOTES ON THE ORIGIN OF CO-MASONRY
BY BRO. ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE, ENGLAND
IT is said that in or about 1879, several Chapters under
the obedience of the Supreme Council of France, Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite, revolted from that authority and re-incorporated themselves as La Grande
Loge Symbolique de France. The rebellion, as usual, was fomented by the Grand
Orient.
It is impossible from the confused evidence to decide what
Degrees were conferred by the new body, but they were probably the Craft Grades
only and not the High Grades of the Scottish Rite. The central body appears to
have governed Lodges and not Chapters.
One of the separated Lodges, the nature of whose
dissatisfaction is shown by its title of Les Libres Penseurs, held its meetings
at Pecq, a village in the department of Seine et Oise.
This Lodge on November 25, 1881, proposed that Mlle Maria
Desraimes, a writer on humanitarian subjects and the rights of women, should be
admitted to Freemasonry.
The proposers were the W. M. Hubron and six other Master
Masons. The initiation took place on January 14, 1882, in the presence of
Brethren drawn from all parts. From her subsequent history, the candidat |
