THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
may 1918
volume 4 - number 5
THE INSTALLATION CEREMONY
AND RITE
BY BRO. A. S. MACBRIDE, SCOTLAND
AUTHOR'S NOTE: It has been suggested to me by Brother
Joseph Fort Newton, whose wish is to me a command, that I should write something
on this subject for THE BUILDER. I am not aware of having any special
qualifications for such a task, unless it be that, on last St. John's day (27th
December), it was fifty years since I was first installed as Master of a Lodge;
and that I had the good fortune to receive instruction, for two or three years,
from a Past Master who had then an experience as a Mason of upwards of fifty
years. If, in carrying out this suggestion, I appear egotistic to the reader, I
hope he will keep in view the difficulty I would otherwise have of conveying to
him my somewhat unique experience, in connection with this subject. For the sake
of simplicity, allow me to arrange my remarks under two parts, first, my
experience and information of this Ceremony and Rite, and second, the Form of
Installation.
PART I
MY EXPERIENCE AND INFORMATION OF THIS CEREMONY AND RITE
MY first acquaintance with what is now known as the
Installed Master's Rite was in 1867, when first installed as Master in the
Lodge, Leven Saint John, Renton. It was in a somewhat peculiar and mysterious,
albeit quite common manner in Scotland at that time, that I received this honour.
To understand the circumstances properly, please present this picture to your
mind's eye.
We are in a dimly lighted room in a small village inn, some
24 by 16 feet in size and of somewhat plain and simple aspect. Through the
centre of the room runs a plain deal table to within 4 or 5 feet of the chair in
the east. The forms ranged on each side are filled, or rather packed, with about
sixty or more Masons, among whom are six or seven past-masters. There is more
than the usual number of grey heads present, for it is Saint John's night, and
strong associations of "Auld Lang Syne" have drawn them, some from a distance of
five or six miles, to spend a few hours together; and then to wend their way
homeward through the mirk and storm of a dark December night. These old members
range from thirty to fifty years standing and they love their Mother-Lodge with
the real "Perfervidum ingenium Scotorum." As usual on Saint John's night, the
meeting for Installation has been preceded by a torch-light procession through
the village. In an upper window of the inn a transparent picture of the
venerable saint, with his long flowing beard, has been placed; with sufficient
lighted candles behind it to make clear and life-like his striking figure and
features, to the delight and wonderment of the villagers, old and young, who are
congregated outside. The din and bustle of the entrance of the processionists
having subsided, the Lodge is "opened" on the first degree. The Minutes of the
Election are read and the Installing Master, who is also the Retiring Master,
briefly addresses the meeting and calls on the Master-elect to come forward to
the east. The Installing Master is a man above fifty years, of average stature,
dark, stout, and somewhat round shouldered. He is not blest with a great store
of knowledge and still less with the gift of expression; yet he has a rough
dignity of manner, and the knack of giving to certain parts of the ceremony an
impression of mystery and importance which, to the general audience, is perhaps
all the more impressive in consequence of the very nebulosity of his phrases.
The Master-elect is twenty-two years of age, fair, of medium height and, through
exercise, spare in figure. By fortuitous circumstances he-has been unanimously
elected into the chair. He feels as if he was a pretender being crowned, without
the smallest right to the throne. His only claim is a popularity that attributes
gifts and virtues to him which he devoutly wishes he possessed. By force of
circumstances and not by choice he is in a position for which he has not had the
requisite training and experience; and, consequently, feels somewhat disquietful
and perplexed. The Installing Master reads the Charge from the book of the Laws
and Constitution of the Grand Lodge, administers the "oath de fideli," invests
the Master-elect with his apron and jewel; and then, forming a half-circle of
past-masters in front of the chair (thus screening himself and the Master-elect
from the brethren generally) he seizes the latter by the arm, in the same way as
is now done in a Board of Installed Masters, places him in the chair and
whispers in his ear the word of an Installed Master.
Such was the manner of my installation in 1867. The Lodge
was all the time on the first degree, and I have often thought that neither
Murray Lyon nor Gould would have suspected, from the minutes of that meeting,
that a secret word and grip, not belonging to any of the ordinary Craft degrees,
had been then and there imparted to the new Master without any of those present
(except the past-master) being in any way aware of the fact. Both of these
distinguished Masonic writers, it seems to me, have insisted too much on written
evidence before acknowledging anything contrary to their preconceptions. Hence
Gould in his history, vol. II, page 358, on this subject, quotes as follows from
the "General Regulations and the manner of constituting anew Lodge": "The
candidate . . . being yet among the Fellow Craft . . . having signified his
submission to the charges of a Master, the Grand Master shall, by certain
significant ceremonies and ancient usages, install him."- To this Gould adds the
remark: "It is in the highest degree improbable--not to say impossible--that any
secrets were communicated on such an occasion."
With the highest respect for the opinion of this admirable
Masonic historian, I submit that my experience establishes the fact that it was
neither "improbable" nor "impossible" to communicate secrets on such an
occasion. In the old days, when the places of meeting were not so commodious and
not so well provided with adjacent rooms as they now are, Masons would naturally
adopt methods to suit their circumstances and to overcome their difficulties.
Both Murray Lyon and Gould, at times, deny the existence of things outside the
circle of their ken, and the lack of a little imagination has caused them to
dogmatise on the unknown -- a dangerous thing for historians at any time to do.
Notwithstanding all this, when we consider the fables that passed as Masonic
history before they appeared in the field, we can well excuse any little slip
that may become visible on the pages of their magnificent works. Their careful
studies ushered in a new and better era in Masonic literature, and we can never
be too grateful to them for the work they so well and so persevering
accomplished.
The other parts of the Ceremony of Installation in 1867,
were substantially the same in form as those now usual under the Scottish
Constitution. At that time, however, a great deal of information was imparted in
private. Every Entered Apprentice had his instructors, or intenders as they were
called in the old times. These were appointed immediately after his initiation,
and were responsible to the Lodge that he should show "suitable progress" in a
knowledge of the Craft when "tried" in open Lodge, before being "passed as a
Fellow-of-the-Craft. The apprentice and his instructors met frequently, and his
instruction continues until he was "raised" a Master Mason, and in most cases
for some time afterwards. These meetings were a great help to me and I continued
them for several years, even after my installation into the Chair of Lodge Leven
St. John. My principal instructor was a Past Master who had one of the most
retentive memories in my experience, and who had been a Mason for upwards of
fifty years. From him, as well as from others, I learned all they knew of the
various degrees and of the Chair Rite, but, so far as my recollection goes,
there was nothing beyond the single grip and word. The tradition of the visit to
the Temple at Jerusalem by the Queen of Sheba was related at these private
meetings, with a number of other stories; but not with any special reference to
the installing of a Master. Numerous tales floated about and these were the
common property of the Craft, irrespective of degree. The tradition regarding
the Queen of Sheba may, by some clever brother, have been made the basis of a
pretty little rite, just as the tradition of the death of Hiram was, I believe,
shaped and moulded into the ceremony of the third degree by Dr. Desaguliers;
but, when that was done, or by whom it was done, there does not exist, so far as
I know, any evidence whatever.
Turning to our historians for information on this Rite we
find very little real information. Gould in his History (vol. II, page 239)
says: "There is no evidence to show that the degree of Installed Master was
invented before the second half of the eighteenth century. Murray Lyon in his
work (page 185) remarks: "Previous to the introduction into Scotland of
Symbolical Masonry, advancement to the chief office in Lodges was unmarked by
any ceremonial further than the exaction of an oath of fealty from the newly
elected brother. Even after the operative element had been eliminated from
Lodges, the form of installation or "chairing" that was at first adopted was
exceedingly simple. On his election the Master was shown to the chair by the old
Master, who invested him with the jewel of office, and gave the salute in which
the brethren joined. With the introduction of "high Masonry" came the dogma that
no brother could legally preside in a Lodge until his reception of the Chair
degree. This step originally bore some resemblance to the chairing which is
clandestinely practised in many Scotch Lodges of the present day (1873)--a
ceremony in which order and misrule are made alternately to predominate, in
order the more impressively to inspire the novitiate with a sense of the dignity
and responsibility that pertains to the president of a Lodge of Freemasons. This
mock installation will now disappear before the Installed Master's ritual
recently adopted by Grand Lodge."
It was in 1872, at the February communication, that the
Grand Lodge of Scotland first recognised the Past Master's ceremonial of
Installation. Previous to that date, it was generally conducted in Scotland in
the manner I have here tried to describe as my experience in 1867. The reference
of Murray Lyon to "order and misrule" I never had any knowledge of, although
such a thing may have been common in some parts of the country. It should be
noted that the whole ceremony of Installation in 1867 was conducted while the
Lodge was on the first degree, in accordance with the Grand Lodge law then
existing. In a copy of the Laws and Constitutions of the Grand Lodge dated 1852
this law is stated thus: "The installation of the whole of the office-bearers of
a Lodge including the Master shall be held in a just and perfect Lodge, opened
in the Apprentice Degree."
Preston in his "Illustration of Masonry," published in 1762
(edition 1801, page 86), says: "The new Master is then conducted to an adjacent
room where he is regularly installed, and bound to his trust in antient form, by
his predecessor in office, in the presence of three installed Masters." From
this and the context of Preston's version of the ceremony it is evident that in
his day the "oath de fideli" was not administered in the Lodge, as the above
remark follows immediately after the reading of the charges. Today, in Scotland,
the Lodge must be opened in the first degree, in which the Charges are read and
the oath is administered. The new Master and the installed Masters then retire
to another room where the Chair Rite is performed. In England the Lodge is
opened on the second degree, and this is the only practical difference now
existing in this ceremony as practised under the respective constitutions.
In an admirable little work by Br. R. E. Wallace James,
Edinburgh, entitled "Digest of Scottish Masonic Jurisprudence," there are
various interesting items on this and other subjects. It is therein stated: "An
account of the early Irish practice in Caementaria Hibernica (vol. 1, p. 21)
disclosed why in Anderson's time it was not necessary to exclude those who were
not Installed Masters: In Ireland they retired behind the chair of the S. W. and
faced the west. There are, indeed, good reasons for supposing that this secret
ceremony is a survival of the ceremony practised before the Grand Lodge era,
when a Fellow and Master of his craft was elevated above his fellows and
authorised to become Master of the Work and Lodge."
From all this it seems to me apparent that the Installed
Master's Rite, in connection with the ceremony of Installation, has been
practised certainly from the middle of the eighteenth century and probably
before that in the old operative Lodges; and that, like many of our ceremonies,
it has been evolved from a rudimentary into its present more complex form a few
years after the great speculative evolution in 1717.
In Scotland it is not recognized as a degree. It is
sometimes called a "ceremony" and sometimes a "rite," for the Grand Lodge has
always maintained that there are only three degrees in Masonry-- Apprentice,
Fellowcraft, and Master--and it holds that the "Mark Ceremony" forms a part of
the Fellow-craft degree, and that the Installed Master's Rite is a part of the
Installation ceremony.
PART II
THE FORM OF INSTALLATION
From a comparison of Preston's "Ceremony of Installation"
with the ceremony as carried out today, it is evident that they are in all
respects practically the same. We may safely take it as certain, also, that the
ceremony, given with a fair amount of detail by Preston, was that which was in
general use in England from 1717, or shortly afterwards. The differences between
the 1717 and 1917 versions are purely verbal, and even in these insignificant;
and it may safely be said that during this two hundred years not one single
ceremony of our Craft has suffered less change so far as the exoteric part is
concerned. Regarding the esoteric part, we have no data to guide us; and we can
only assume, from the fact given by Preston of the new Master being conducted to
an adjacent room and therein obligated, that secrets were then imparted and
that, practically, these were the same as are now given to all Installed Masters
in what is now known as the Chair Rite.
From an early part of my Masonic career I have been
accustomed to lay out the work in which I was engaged in the form of a Plan.
These plans gave the various sections and details of the work and, to my mind,
established a coherence, clear and strong throughout, as well as affording help
to the memory. The Plan of Installation work which I have used for upwards of
thirty years is as follows:
(Note the following abbreviations:
A.I.M. Assistant Installing Master
I. M. Installing Master
N. M. New Master
R. M. Retiring Master)
Section A. Preliminaries.
Section B. Charges and Oath de fideli.
Section C. Installed Master's Rite.
Section D. Installation of Minor Officers.
Section E. Chairing of N. M.
Section F. Address by I. M.
Details--Section A, Preliminaries.
1. Lodge opened 1st degree by R. M.
2. Minutes of election read.
3. R. M. hands over mallet to I. M. requesting him to take
the chair.
4. I. M. and A. I. M. take their places--I. M. in chair; A.
I. M. on his left; R; M. on his right.
5. Introductory remarks by I. M.
6. Praise. 100th Psalm. R. M. leads N. M. to altar facing
E.
Details -- Section B, Charges and Oath de fideli.
1. R. M. presents N. M. to I. M.
2. I. M. addresses N. M. in re the ancient custom of
election and the qualifications of a Master; and asks if he conscientiously
accepts of the position.
3. I. M. asks A. I. M. to read Charges; receives N. M.
assent to same. A. I. M. calls brethren to "order."
4. Music. I. M. takes place at altar, facing W. opposite N.
M. Oath de fideli administered.
5. I. M. raises N. M. to the plumb. Music. I. M. returns to
dais.
6. I. M. intimates retirement with N. M. to confer honours
of an Installed Master, and requests company and assistance of Installed Masters
present; asks A. I. M. to occupy the chair, install minor officers, raise Lodge
to the third degree and intimate when ready to receive N. M. A. I. M. calls
brethren to "order." Music. Installed Masters retire in procession.
Details -- Section C, Installed Master's Rite.
1. Form the Board.
2. Prayer and Obligation.
3. Investure.
4. Tradition.
5. Chairing.
6. Proclamation.
7. Dissolve the Board.
(Note - A Board of Installed Masters is not permanent in
its character and is therefore not "opened" and "closed" like a Lodge. It is
transient and is formed for a special purpose. When that has been accomplished
it is naturally dissolved. Hence, I object to the terms "opening" and "closing,"
and prefer the words "forming" and "dissolving," in connection with a board of
Installed Masters.)
Details -- Section D, Installation of minor office bearers.
1. Names of office bearers, except Master, read from
minutes of election. As name is read out each one takes position at altar--
highest office to the south.
2. Oath de fideli administered.
3. A. I. M. in front of dais, invests with jewel, etc. Each
office bearer steps forward as called on. Duties and symbolic meaning of his
jewel briefly explained; placed in his position in the Lodge; music interluded
judiciously.
4. Lodge raised to 3d degree.
Details -- Section E, Chairing of the N. M.
1. Music. Procession of Installed Masters enters.
2. Perambulation. I. M. leads N. M. to north-east,
southeast, south-west, and north-west corners, and finally to the east and
places him in chair.
3. I. M. calls on brethren to acknowledge N. M. by salute
on 3rd degree. Salute given. A. I. M. in the east, makes proclamation. Lodge
lowered to 2d degree. Craftsmen admitted. Salutation of N. M. called for and
given. A. I. M. in the west, makes proclamation. Lodge lowered to 1st degree.
Apprentices admitted. Salutation of N. M. called for and given. A. I. M. in the
south, makes proclamation.
4. I. M. hands Lodge charter to N. M. for his personal
custody.
5. I. M. places before N. M. books of Laws and
Constitutions of Grand Lodge and By-laws of the Lodge, with counsel and
admonition.
6. I. M. hands Mallet to N. M. Invokes T. G. A. O. T. U. to
direct him in its use. A. I. M. calls for "Grand Honours" brethren rise and
respond.
Details -- Section F, Address by the I. M.
1. Advice to N. M.
2. Counsel to new office bearers.
3. Encouragement to brethren of the Lodge.
4. Inspiration to all in the great work of Masonry.
The following is one of many addresses which it has been my
privilege to deliver at Installations. It was given recently in Lodge Progress,
Glasgow.
RIGHT WORSHIPFUL BROTHER: He is the true king who enthrones
himself in the love of his people; he is the true Master who installs himself in
the hearts of his brethren. He who loves most serves best, and he who would rule
wisely must serve well. True service is the foundation of all real government.
In serving others we also do the best service to ourselves.
The higher law of our being is: we must bless, if we are to be blest; we must
forgive, if we are to be forgiven; we must lose, if we are to gain; we must
serve, if we are to rule. We have it on the highest authority, that he who is
the greatest amongst us is the servant of all.
The true master serves as a teacher, and his first duty is
to teach his Lodge how to be independent of him. His function, like that of a
window, is to transmit the light; the less the glass is seen the more light it
lets through. The more a master loses himself in his work the greater will his
influence be, and his influence will be greatest when he has taught his
craftsmen to be influenced, least by him and most by truth. Do you wish to rule
as a true master? Then first master and rule thyself. With the sharp chisel of
discipline, cut and carve your heart and character into the form of the perfect
ashlar; and every true craftsman will work to your pattern. Be good, and you
shall do good. Be true, and you shall teach truth. The noblest service you can
render the brethren who have placed you there, is to set them a good example.
Press on then, my brother, and through all the difficulties
and disappointments, the toil and trial, and seeming chaos of human life, let
the firm faith in a Divine Plan working in and through all, sustain and
encourage you; for
"The smallest effort is not lost;
Each wavelet on the ocean tossed
Aids in the ebb-tide, or the flow;
Each raindrop makes some flow'ret blow;
Each struggle lessens human woe."
WORSHIPFUL WARDENS AND OTHER OFFICE BEARERS: In your
respective offices, you will each find a sphere for being useful, and for doing
good. Remember that while there must needs be diversity, there can be no
disparity of office, in the true Mason Lodge. The real measure of a man is not
the place he fills, but how he fills his place. There is no office in the
universe too small for God, the Almighty. In the tiniest dewdrop He finds room
for the exercise of His infinite skill, and the microscope reveals His
greatness, perhaps even more than the telescope. Is there not room then, my
brothers, in the humblest office of a Lodge, for the exercise of all the powers
which we poor mortals possess ?
"Honour and shame from no condition rise;
Act well your part; there all the honour lies."
MEMBERS OF LODGE "PROGRESS": We are apt sometimes to
confound prominence with importance, and to imagine that that which bulks
largest on our eye is of greatest consequence. The cornice of a building is
prominent, but is it more important than the foundation that lies unseen in the
earth? Is not the peasant that raises corn for our food of more importance to us
than the prince in his palace? The people of a state are of greater consequence
than their governors; the members of a Lodge are more important than their
officers. We all stand together, and our duty is to fill our places wisely and
well, like stones in a building, true and square to those below, around, and
above us. In the perspective of the universe, in the measurements of eternity,
there is no distinction between the position of the monarch with his sceptre and
the beggar with his staff; between the master with his mallet and the apprentice
with his gavel. The only difference recognised is in the use they make of their
privileges and powers.
"There is no height nor depth in the eternal space;
Not humble work, but work ill-done, will bring disgrace."
RIGHT WORSHIPFUL MASTER, WORSHIPFUL WARDENS, AND BRETHREN
ALL: It is a little over three years since men were everywhere boasting of the
wealth and science, the culture and civilisation, of what they proudly called
this enlightened twentieth century. The civilisations of Egypt and Syria, "the
glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome." had grown and flourished,
faded and disappeared; but ours would go down the ages, prospering and
progressing. Today, what do we see? Death and destruction unparalleled even in
the darkest and most savage period of human history. Over the peaceful valley
and fertile plain, through the burning sands of the barren desert, down in the
depths of the sea, up in the clouds of the air, the messengers of hate speed,
spreading ruin and desolation in their track. The lusts and furies of hell have
burst their bounds, and the devil overruns the earth to work his will. Why?
Brethren, it needs no angelic vision to see why. Our boasted civilisation was
not built on the Square. The tie that held human society together was that of
self-interest backed by force. The moment our interests diverged the bond was
broken, and war--ruthless war--resulted. The ideal of a selfish world-dominance;
the culture of force; the glorification of the brute, that obsessed and
possessed the minds of men for the last two generations, have had their
inevitable sequence; and now we see our culture and civilisation cracking like
thin veneer under the iron heel of militarism, and the wealth we worshipped
disappearing in the seething, melting pot of this terrible war.
This is not the place nor is it the time--even were I
capable of the task--to assign the blame for this awful crime to this man, or to
that people; what I want to emphasise is the broad, ugly fact that, for many
years, the civilised nations have been like armed bandits watching each other
with jealous eyes; and that, within each nation, the people have been divided
into hostile camps-- political, religious, social, and industrial. Strife and
unrest existed everywhere, and, alas! unrest and strife still exist everywhere
today. Amid all this the human heart, sick and weary, for years has been longing
and crying and now, more than ever, longs and cries for some neutral ground on
which men may meet together in unity and peace. Brethren, there is only one spot
I know of in this warring world that answers to this cry, and that is here in
the Mason Lodge, where race, creed, sect and party are not recognised, and where
men may be united together by the one, simple, grand Faith in the Fatherhood of
God and the Brotherhood of man. This unique position of our institution places
on us Masons a great and grave responsibility. The highest interests of humanity
demand that this neutral ground shall be jealously preserved and sacredly
conserved, for brotherhood and peace. But, you may ask, how can this be when our
imperfections and often our very honest convictions, separate and divide us?
Brethren, if we be true Masons this problem will be readily solved. If we are
true to the teachings of our Craft, we will agree to acknowledge our differences
without contention; when we "tyle" the door of our Lodge, we will also "tyle"
our hearts to all the antagonisms of the outer world; when we put on our bodies
this emblem of innocence and badge of brotherhood, we will also clothe our souls
with the spirit of fraternal affection; when we engage in the labours of our
Craft, we will work in accordance with its Three Grand Principles of Love,
Benevolence, and Truth; and will thus hand down to posterity our ancient
heritage, "hele and unimpaired," to be a hallowed haven of peace, amid the
storms and tumults of human life. Thus, if Masons be true to Masonry, each Lodge
will be a centre from whence the influences of good-will and friendship will
radiate through human society. The silent Forces of the Universe are the
mightiest. The volcano may hurl its fiery bolts into the clouds, but the quiet
power of gravitation brings them back to earth. The destructive forces are
temporal and exhaust themselves; the constructive are eternal and inexhaustible.
Before the Temple was built at Jerusalem there was a period of din, discord, and
destruction. Rocks were rent and hills were removed, to provide a broad, level
foundation for the building. Then, in reverent silence, the great structure was
reared, and "there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the
house, while it was in building." And so, at last, will the mighty plans of The
Great Architect of All be accomplished, and the glorious Temple of Human
Brotherhood be established. Then shall the vision of the ancient Prophet of
Israel be realized: "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up a sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more; but they shall sit every man under his
vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid, for the mouth of
the Lord of hosts hath spoken it."
----o----
THE NOBLE NATURE
It is not growing like a tree
In bulk, doth make Man better be;
Or standing long an oak, three hundred year,
To fall a log at last, dry, bald and sere:
A lily of a day
Is fairer in May,
Although it fall and die that night--
It was the plant and flower of light.
In small proportions we just beauties see;
And in short measures life may perfect be.
--Ben Jonson, 1674-1637.
----o----
MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE
BY BRO ROSCOE POUND, DEAN HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
III. MASONIC COMMON LAW
PART II
AS I said in the last lecture, (1) there is much to be said
for a Landmark of visitation. On the other hand, four points may be urged
against such a Landmark: (1) The serious differences among Masonic writers of
authority as to the existence of an absolute right of visitation; (2) The
pronouncements of important Grand Lodges to the contrary; (3) The obvious
necessity of restraints upon visitation under the conditions of today, which
give great force in this connection to what lawyers call the argument ab
inconvenienti; (4) The difficulties growing out of legislation in Grand Lodges
with respect to membership in clandestine bodies conferring higher degrees and
the effect thereof upon one's rights as a Craft Mason.
Let us look at these in order.
(1) While Mackey lays down the right of visitation as a
Landmark and says in his Principles of Masonic Law: "Every Master Mason who is
an affiliated member of a Lodge has the right to visit any other Lodge as often
as he may desire to do so," Doctor Morris lays down the contrary with equal
positiveness, saying: "There is no question in our mind but that a Lodge has the
right to prohibit intrusion from visitors at any and all times at its own
discretion." Likewise Brother Moore, whose excellent papers on the Landmarks
have been referred to heretofore says: "The very custom of asking permission to
visit implies the power to refuse the visitor admission." He concludes,
therefore, that there is a duty of hospitality, but not a right of visitation,
that the duty is moral rather than legal, and hence that there is no
unchangeable Landmark. In other words, visitation is an old institution of
Masonic common law. But, since it falls short of a Landmark, the subject is open
to regulation, and the circumstances of today call urgently for the regulation
which has sprung up through Masonic legislation.
(2) Masonic decision and legislation have not regarded the
right of visitation as a Landmark. Thus, in 1857, the Grand Lodge of England
decided that "the Master and Wardens may refuse admission to any visitor of
known bad character." According to Mackey's view the sole question would be
whether he was in good standing in a regular Lodge. Brother Moore asks why he
remains a Mason if he is of known bad character? No doubt a strong presumption
arises from his good standing in another Lodge. Still a Lodge may not do its
duty and such persons may remain unchallenged. If so, when we are told that
another Lodge may refuse to receive them, the result is to deny Mackey's
Landmark. In Massachusetts and in Kentucky visitation has been held not to be an
absolute right, but to be a favor which the Master may grant or may refuse in
his discretion. Michigan also rests the whole matter on discretion, holding that
a Lodge may admit or exclude visitors as it sees fit. These holdings are wholly
incompatible with the alleged Landmark and amount to a recognition of the
proposition for which Brother Moore contends, namely, that there is no more than
a moral duty of hospitality.
(3) This view of the so-called right of visitation becomes
almost imperative under the conditions of visitation today. With the best of
intention toward the honest Masonic traveler, we are compelled today, in view of
the enormous increase in the number of Masons, to restrict more and more the
hospitality we extend to the visiting brother. Imposters and Masons for revenue
only, traveling about the country, have not only required us to adopt elaborate
precautions in the way of boards of relief, extending even to an international
Masonic relief association, but have also driven our Grand Lodges to enact
somewhat strict rules as to visitation. Moreover, nearly everywhere, with the
great growth of the Order, clandestine Masonry has grown also. And this growth
of clandestine Masonry, rendered inevitable by the prosperity of legitimate
American Masonry, has been aggravated by controversies as to the legitimacy of
Scottish Rite bodies and by attempts of Masonic charlatans to peddle high
degrees of other rites, with which our Grand Lodges in many jurisdictions have
felt it necessary to deal by legislation. Thus in one of the great states of the
union--a state which took an honorable part in the spreading of Masonry over the
country--there is a so-called Grand Lodge made up entirely of clandestine and
irregular particular Lodges, having for their sole raison d'etre a claim that
the legitimate Grand Lodge had violated the ancient Landmarks by declaring the
Scottish Rite bodies of Cerneau origin to be clandestine. The propriety of such
legislation has been much controverted and is not relevant in the present
connection. It is enough to say here that the competency of Grand Lodges to
enact it seems indisputable. Nothing with any degree of pretension to be a
Landmark is violated and the question is simply one of expediency. Hence such
schisms have no legitimate basis. None the less they do exist, and elsewhere
clandestine so-called Grand Lodges exist with even less justification. Obviously
some barriers beyond the ordinary examination by a committee become necessary
under such conditions.
But the Grand Lodge legislation last referred to leads to
greater difficulties in that as a result a Mason may be in good standing in one
of two jurisdictions, each recognizing the other, and yet, if he were a member
in the jurisdiction where he seeks to visit he wouldnot be eligible to sit in
Lodge. For example, in Iowa, if a Mason joins a Cerneau Scottish Rite body, the
law of his Grand Lodge pronounces him a clandestine Mason. Also in Pennsylvania
an adherent of the Cerneau Scottish Rite is not permitted to visit a Craft
Lodge. Many other states have like legislation. In view of such legislation,
Brother George F. Moore puts this case: "There is, we will say for example, a
symbolic Lodge in session in the District of Columbia, where there is no law
forbidding a regular Mason to sit with a Cerneau Scottish Rite Mason. Seated in
this Lodge are two or three 'Cerneauites' and Brethren are present from
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, and other states which have declared Cerneaus to be
clandestine Master Masons. The visiting brethren from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
Iowa are prohibited by the Masonic laws of their own states from sitting in a
Lodge with the Cerneaus. They are not aware of the presence of the clandestine
Masons in the Washington City Lodge, and sit with them. Afterwards one of the
Cerneaus meets one of the Iowa Brethren who had sat with him in the Washington
Lodge, and the latter vouches for the Cerneau who is admitted because of this
voucher in a Lodge in another state. Has not the vouching brother violated his
obligation and the laws of his Grand Lodge ?
Clearly the Iowa brother has violated his obligation, and
the laws of Masonry in his own state by vouching for a "clandestine Mason."
That such a situation may arise innocently and may very
easily arise is unfortunate. It puts the Masonic visitor in a most awkward
position, and seems to require him either to be offensively discourteous, or to
know thoroughly the Masonic legislation both of his own jurisdiction and of that
in which he seeks to visit, or else to abstain from visiting. As Brother Moore
justly observes in the paper already quoted from, we can hardly expect the
visitor from a state where a Cerneau Scottish Rite Mason is deemed clandestine
also in the Craft Lodges, to say publicly, if he visits in a jurisdiction
without such legislation: "If there are any Cerneaus present I must not sit here
with you because I make myself liable to Masonic laws of my own state." Very
likely those who deny the concern of the Craft Lodge with the higher degrees
would suggest to him that he inform himself at his peril before he visits. But
what becomes of the right of visitation under such circumstances? What shall we
say of the Cerneau in good standing as a Master Mason at home who claims by
virtue of Mackey's alleged Landmark an absolute right to visit a Craft Lodge in
a jurisdiction which pronounces him clandestine?
We have here a question similar to the class of questions
now very common in the law of the state to which we give the name of Conflict of
Laws. Some explanation is necessary. In most of the cases which come before the
courts in Massachusetts, for example, the parties are American citizens residing
in Massachusetts and the transaction or occurrence out of which the controversy
arises took place in this commonwealth. But an increasing number of cases are
coming before tribunals which involve a foreign element. One or both of the
parties may be foreign; the transaction or some part of it may have taken place
abroad; or one or both of the parties may reside in another state of the union
or the transaction may have taken place in another state or with reference to
the laws of another state. In such cases the court must ask whether and how far
it is to apply the law of the foreign country or of the other state, and the
principles by which it answers these questions are said to belong to the subject
of Conflict of Laws. When the law was substantially the same in our several
states and interstate business was not extensive the subject was of no great
importance. Today, however, in view of the great volume of interstate business
and of foreign trade, and in view of the increasing divergence in the laws of
the several states due to the huge output of legislation and judicial decision
in recent years; the subject has become one of great consequence as well as one
of much difficulty. A like situation has arisen in Masonry. When Masonic law and
custom was simple and alike in all substantial details in each of our states
conflict of laws was not an item in Masonic jurisprudence. Today Masons are so
numerous and so peripatetic and the law in most of our jurisdictions is becoming
so minute, so detailed, and hence often so diverse, that serious questions of
what the lawyer would term Conflict of Laws arise continually. Doubtless, so far
as the lawyer's theories of Conflict of Laws are grounded on natural reason and
not merely upon historical accident, they are available to the Masonic jurist
where not in conflict with the Landmarks or with Masonic common law.
In general the lawyer holds that a man's status, opposition
before the law, is governed by the law of his home. Yet if his home law puts him
in a position unknown to the local law, it may not recognize the status, and
even if the local law does recognize the status it does not follow that effect
will be given to the legal results which it involves at home. If we may apply
this analogy--on the theory that it represents natural reason and formulates
human experience of the just way of solving a difficult problem--we may say that
in the case put the Mason's standing as a Master Mason is determined by the law
of his home jurisdiction, and yet the jurisdiction where he seeks to visit,
recognizing this standing, is not bound to give effect to the legal result
involved at home, namely, the right to visit. He is in good standing by the law
of his home jurisdiction, whose Masonic competency is admitted. But the policy
of the local law requires that we refuse to give to that standing all the
results which it involves at home. If such a solution is admissible under
Masonic law, it is surely expedient, and the practical necessity of some such
solution is a strong argument against an absolute right of visitation.
Mackey's fifteenth Landmark is thus stated: "No visitor
unknown to the Brethren present or to some one of them as a Mason can enter a
Lodge without first passing an examination according to ancient usage." In
commenting upon this supposed Landmark he adds that it "refers only to the cases
of strangers who are not to be recognized unless after strict trial, due
examination, or lawful information." Hence the visitor may be vouched for and
the examination may be dispensed with. There is some warrant for the claim of a
Landmark here in the pronouncement of the Grand Lodge of England that the
Landmarks are contained in the Master Mason's obligation. But after all the
requirement of voucher or examination is a necessary consequence of the
fundamental principle of secrecy. If we put secrecy as the Landmark, voucher or
examination are but common-law or customary modes of giving it effect. It is
important to recognize this not only because the practice of American
jurisdictions varies, but because the great increase in the number of
clandestine organizations in recent times and the ever-growing tribe of
imposters render legislation on the subject expedient if not imperative, and it
would be unfortunate if we were hampered by a Landmark. As to the first point,
it may be enough to say that some jurisdictions take the phrase "lawful
information" to mean that he who vouches for another must have sat with the
other in a regular Lodge, while in other jurisdictions satisfactory evidence
will suffice although the brothers vouching and vouched for have never sat
together in Lodge. This divergence is not inconsistent with Mackey's claim of a
Landmark. But the continually increasing reliance upon cards, receipts for dues,
or diplomas is not unlikely to encroach upon it very materially and emphasizes
the desirability of confining the absolute and unalterable requirement to the
broad principle of secrecy. Nevertheless, examination or voucher are the
established customary practice and, as in other matters of Masonic common law,
legislative innovation ought to proceed cautiously and with assurance of sound
reason for any change.
Doctor Mackey states his sixteenth Landmark in these words:
"No Lodge can interfere in the business of any other Lodge nor give degrees to
Brethren who are members of other Lodges." As in so many other cases, Mackey
seeks to make a case for this Landmark analytically. "It is," he says,
"undoubtedly an ancient Landmark founded on the great principles of courtesy and
fraternal kindness which are at the very foundation of our institution." But
Landmarks cannot be deduced from general principles in this way. Philosophy and
logic may confirm history, but they cannot demonstrate a Landmark in the face of
history. The conclusive objection to this supposed Landmark is that it assumes
the established system of permanent Lodges with local jurisdiction which dates
only from the eighteenth century. The second argument which Mackey brings
forward is universal recognition in Masonic legislation. He says: "It has been
repeatedly recognized by subsequent statutory enactment of all Grand Lodges."
The remarks of Brother Moore in this connection are very pertinent: "It is the
'statutory enactments' which have made the so-called Landmark, and not the
Landmark which has produced the statutes." In other words, the legislation of
our Grand Lodges on this subject is not declaratory of a Landmark, but Doctor
Mackey after studying the legislation was able to deduce a general principle
underlying it, which he sought to set up as a Landmark. Together with all other
rules that presuppose our modern Lodge system, it can only be a rule of Masonic
common law.
We have here, however, a very important and difficult
series of questions of Masonic Conflict of Laws. Although courtesy and fraternal
spirit obviate many difficulties that might else arise, it is evident that they
may not be relied upon entirely. Legislation has dealt with the matter
everywhere as between the particular Lodges of the same jurisdiction. But as men
move about so frequently and in such large numbers and as the volume and detail
of Masonic legislation increases conflict between the legislation or usage of
different Grand Lodges becomes inevitable. Such controversies as those which
have raged over the question of perpetual jurisdiction illustrate the
possibilities involved. There must be some general principles by which we may be
governed in the absence of legislation and by which we may be guided in shaping,
interpreting, and applying legislation. The nature of the case calls for
something more than courtesy and comity, and Mackey's principle of
non-interference and of keeping hands off of those who are members of other
Lodges while giving us some guidance is not sufficiently definite. No doubt it
is dangerous to turn to the law of the land for analogies. If this is done too
much an alien element may creep into Masonry which would be undesirable. But the
problems of law are often the same, whether we look to the law of the state, the
law of the church, or the law of a fraternal order. And, so far as the answers
proceed on natural reason and not on history, so far as they are universal and
not the results of special circumstance of the society in which they originated,
the solutions arrived at in the one society, embodying experience in the
attainment of justice in the elimination of waste and conservation of values by
means of a rule--these solutions, I say, arrived at in one type of society may
well afford valuable suggestions for the law giver in another type. Thus we may
well supplement the principle of Masonic common law contained in Mackey's
fifteenth Landmark with the further principles of exclusive competence of a
sovereign to determine the status or legal position of those subject to its
authority, of the independence of legal control from without involved in the
very idea of sovereignty, and of recognition of rights duly acquired under the
law of other sovereigns as a matter of comity, which human experience has
established in connection with the legal regulation of the everyday affairs of
life. But we must not be dogmatic. These are but principles by the light of
which independent Masonic sovereignties may co-exist, as independent political
sovereignties co-exist. Details are subject to legislation in which every
jurisdiction ultimately must decide what it deems expedient.
The seventeenth Landmark in Mackey's system is thus stated:
"Every Freemason is amenable to the laws and regulations of the Masonic
jurisdiction in which he resides, and this although he may not be a member of
any Lodge." In other words, it is said to be a Landmark that all Masonic bodies
have jurisdiction over all Masons residing within their territorial limits,
whether affiliated or unafflliated, and if affiliated, no matter where they hold
their Masonic membership. This alleged Landmark, as a Landmark, is open to the
conclusive objection that it presupposes a territorial jurisdiction in Lodges,
something which did not come into existence till well along in the eighteenth
century. Brother Moore goes further and denies that territorial jurisdiction
over foreign and unaffiliated Masons is Masonic law at all. He says: "If a Mason
in good standing in a Lodge chartered by one of our American Grand Lodges were
guilty of a Masonic offense in France made so by the French law, he would not
and could not be tried by a Lodge under the Grand Orient of France for the
offense. Nor would a member of a Lodge under the Grand Orient of France, who has
been guilty of a Masonic offense made so by our law, here be tried in one of our
Lodges, and much more so is it the case where unaffiliated Masons are concerned.
The status of the Mason is determined not alone by the fact of his having been a
Mason and becoming unaffiliated, but also by the relations between the
jurisdictions under which he became a Mason, and that where he resides and has
committed some Masonic offense. Some years ago nearly all the Grand Lodges in
the United States broke off fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of the
State of Washington, because the latter had recognized certain negro Lodges.
While that condition existed does anyone for a moment suppose that an
unaffiliated Mason made in Washington state but residing in Massachusetts, who
had committed a Masonic offense in the latter state, would have been tried for
it in a Bay State Lodge?"
Perhaps a follower of Mackey might answer the last question
by saying that it might depend on whether, after the severance of relations, the
Washington made Mason was recognized as a Mason at all. As the point was that
the Washington Masons were communicating Masonically with clandestine Masons,
such an answer might well be returned. But in any event Brother Moore's next
observation must be conceded: "This alleged Landmark," he says, "illustrates
very forcibly the danger of generalizing without noticing all the facts which go
to make up the problem."
As a matter of common law, how far is there such a
territorial jurisdiction over resident Masons, regardless of where made?
To understand Mackey's position and the position of Brother
Moore, who criticizes Mackey and not only rejects the alleged Landmark-- which
undoubtedly we must do--but also denies that there is any such jurisdiction by
virtue of territory at all--to understand the two positions, I say, we must turn
to a burning question in jurisprudence generally as to jurisdiction over crimes.
There are four theories of criminal jurisdiction in the
modern world. The first is the territorial theory, the theory of the forum
delicti commissi, the theory that offenses are punishable and only punishable by
the sovereign of the place where the offense is committed, without regard to the
allegiance of the offender. This is the theory of Anglo-American law, and it is
one to which our law has thus far adhered very obstinately so that it has given
rise to some curious cases.
Two examples of the territorial theory of criminal
jurisdiction as applied in Anglo-American law may be of interest in the present
connection. In one well known case, an American editor in Texas wrote a
libellous article concerning a Mexican. Afterward, going into Mexico, where his
paper circulated, the editor was taken under process from a Mexican court and
required to go before a Court of Conciliation and enter into a settlement with
the person he had libelled. Thereafter he again libelled the Mexican in his
paper and going once more into Mexico was prosecuted criminally for the libel.
The American government insisted upon his release, asserting the principle of
English and American law that crimes are only to be prosecuted in the
territorial jurisdiction in which they are committed as a principle of universal
law. In another well-known case, one person, standing upon the North Carolina
side of the line between North Carolina and Tennessee, shot and killed another,
who stood in Tennessee. The crime being complete in Tennessee according to the
common law could only be prosecuted in that state. There could be no prosecution
in North Carolina because the act did not take effect there. On the other hand,
as the murderer was never in Tennessee, he could not be regarded as a fugitive
from Tennessee justice and therefore could not be taken from North Carolina to
Tennessee on extradition. This case shows strikingly the type of difficulties
involved in the Anglo-American theory, difficulties which indeed are compelling
our several states by legislation to adopt more liberal views of criminal
jurisdiction.
The territorial theory grows out of our conception that
there must be a trial by a jury of the vicinage where the crime was committed.
Historically it is a feudal theory. Obviously, Mackey took it without question
that the doctrine he found in our American law books was a principle of
universal justice and so erected it as a Landmark.
A second theory is the personal theory, the theory of the
forum ligeantiae or theory of the forum of allegiance. According to this theory,
the sovereign to which the offender owes political allegiance has jurisdiction
to deal with him for offenses done anywhere in the world. This is the Roman
theory, and it is held very strongly in the modern world by France. Hence
Brother Moore, whose studies in the Scottish Rite have led him to read the
French authors, sees this principle of jurisdiction and rightly criticizes
Mackey for overlooking it. But I think, with submission, Brother Moore is
equally wrong in laying down that there is no territorial jurisdiction over
Masonic offenses. The basis of my view that there is such a jurisdiction--not as
a Landmark indeed, but as a matter of Masonic common law--will appear from the
other two theories of criminal jurisdiction, which I am about to explain.
A third theory is the theory of self-preservation, the
theory of the forum laesae civitatis, or theory of the forum of the injured
state. According to this theory, if an offense, wherever committed, is an injury
to any particular sovereign, if that sovereign can reach the offender, he may
deal with him. For example, in a leading case a Frenchman in Switzerland forged
German government securities. He then went from Switzerland into Germany. He
could not be dealt with by the French on the theory of the forum of allegiance
because he was not in France, and could not be dealt with by Switzerland on the
theory of the forum where the crime was committed because he was no longer in
Switzerland. The German authorities, however, dealt with his case on the theory
of the forum of the injured state, and this solution has generally been regarded
as proper in Continental Europe. I will speak of possible Masonic applications
of this theory in a moment.
Finally there is the theory of cosmopolitan justice, the
theory of the forum deprehensionis, or forum of capture, the theory that when an
offense has been committed anywhere in the world, by any person, no matter what
his allegiance, any sovereign in the world who happens to be able to reach him,
may deal with him in order to prevent failure of justice. The Italians insist in
this theory. The English and Americans cannot adopt it because of our
requirement of jury trial and producing of witnesses in court. Our mode of trial
is in the way of proof by deposition. But as no such difficulties are in the way
of Masonry, there would seem no reason why territorial jurisdiction should not
be admitted, so far as the self-preservation theory or the theory of a
cosmopolitan Masonic justice may require. In other words, we may agree with
Brother Moore in rejecting Mackey's alleged Landmark of a territorial
jurisdiction and yet may claim that there is such a jurisdiction as a matter of
Masonic common law, along with the personal jurisdiction for which Brother Moore
contends.
Suppose, for example, a Mason made abroad or made in
another state whether unaffiliated or retaining his old membership, advertised
his Masonic membership generally and thereupon so conducted himself as to bring
scandal upon Masonry. Here there is an injury to the local Masonic sovereignty.
There is good ground for it to interfere, and the person is before it where he
can be reached. Masonic discipline can be given the same publicity which he has
given his membership. Are we to say this cannot be done? Again, why should we
not hold here to a doctrine of cosmopolitan justice? In such a case the Masonic
sovereignty on the spot may be far the best able to try the case and to apply
the remedy. Are we to take so narrow a view of Masonic justice as to deny this
jurisdiction? It seems to me that, if nothing prevents, the most liberal view is
perfectly open in Masonic jurisprudence and hence that Masonic common law admits
of both territorial and personal jurisdiction over Masonic offenses. But, mark
you, the territorial jurisdiction ought to be over general Masonic offenses,
over offenses which injure Masonry generally and hence are either a danger to
the local Masonic sovereign or are within a principle of cosmopolitan justice,
and not offenses against mere local regulations. As the lawyer would say, they
ought to be mala in se--not mala prohibita.
Mackey is generally very sound as to Masonic common law,
where his wide experience of what actually obtained in practice, his keen sense
of justice, and his sound common sense were safe guides.
But how about Mackey's proposition as to territorial
jurisdiction to try for non-affiliation? Brother Moore rejects this idea wholly.
His argument is "If non-affiliation is a Masonic offense as is asserted by
Mackey, every Mason wherever he may be, is liable to be tried by any Lodge in
whose territorial jurisdiction he resides. This would, indeed, be a strange and,
it would seem, unbrotherly proceeding. It is quite true that the duty of the
Mason to remain a working member may be traced to the ancient Gilds, but to
raise to the dignity of a Landmark the proposition that every man once initiated
must keep his dues paid and thereby keep up his affiliation wherever he may be
on the surface of the earth or if he does not or becomes unaffiliated by dimit,
he is guilty of a Masonic offense for which he may be tried like a criminal
wherever he may be found, seems quite unmasonic. The unaffiliated Mason,
according to that principle, bears on him the mark of Cain and everyone who
finds him can slay him ! There is nothing to show this is a Landmark, and
against such a position is the conclusive argument that the permanent local
Lodge is an eighteenth-century institution."
Moreover Mackey's idea that non-affiliation is necessarily,
inevitably, and unalterably a Masonic offense is not merely uncharitable, it is
very unseemly. While bestirring ourselves to collect dues to meet the expenses
of the Lodge, we are apt to forget some things of much more importance than the
merely financial side of Masonry. Every organization, no matter how high its
purposes, encounters this obstacle to the attainment of its ideals as it becomes
prosperous. Unhappily we cannot attain great things spiritually without a
certain material foundation. And it is very easy, in our zeal for the former, to
forget that the latter is but a means and to make it consciously or
subconsciously an end. At the end of the Middle Ages the church, with its
wonderful spiritual heritage, very nearly forgot its essential character as
something not of this world in the press of temporal interests which were but
the byproducts of its true activities. The Reformation was the result. Let us
not make the same mistake. For in our proper zeal to punish wilful evasion of
the duties of membership in a Lodge, we may easily fall into the grave error of
measuring too much by a money standard and may easily commercialize the
Fraternity. We may grant that the unaffiliated are not exempt from Masonic
discipline to the extent that their conduct, ascribed by the world at large to
Masons, may endanger the good report of the Order, and yet we may not be bound
to regard non-affiliation in and of itself as an offense. Mackenzie's language
on this subject is noteworthy. He says: "That a Mason, by non-affiliation, does
not relax his fealty to the Craft at large or exempt him[self] from censure for
Masonic offenses from the Grand Lodge whence his certificate has been derived."
I think we may well add that the Masonic jurisdiction where he resides may deal
with him, at least in case his Masonic offenses committed in that jurisdiction
are injurious in their effects to Masonry in that locality. But it is quite a
different proposition to lay down that he must absolutely affiliate at all
events, and that his failure to keep up the payment of dues so long as he lives
is in and of itself to be branded as an offense.
Mackey's eighteenth Landmark has to do with the
qualifications of a candidate. Mackey states these qualifications thus: - "He
must be a free-born man, and of full age; . . . he must not be mutilated, a
woman, an idiot, or a slave." This alleged Landmark was considered in part in a
former lecture. (2) So far as it requires the candidate to be a man, free,
free-born, and of the age of discretion by the law or custom of the place, we
may accept it. But the requirement that the candidate be whole or unmutilated is
not so clear. There is, indeed, more to be said for Mackey's position than some
have perceived. It is not to be denied that primitive society looked upon the
man who was not whole very differently from the way in which we now regard him.
In civilized society there is a place for him. Serious physical injuries or
physical defects will not prevent him from being a useful and a happy member of
society. Very likely they may involve little more than inconvenience to the
afflicted person. In primitive society the situation was very different. The man
who was not physically whole was at least of no use to society and was very
likely to be a serious incumbrance. If he was congenitally defective society in
self-defense simply put him out of the way. If the defect was acquired later the
defective man, if he was able to drag out a miserable existence, very likely had
to associate with the women and children through inability to take a man's part
in the community. He had no place in the men's house and hence primitive rites
and secret societies were not favorably inclined toward him. Thus there was an
immemorial prejudice against the physically defective which left traces even in
so enlightened an institution as the Roman law and even in so unworldly an
institution as the canon law. This immemorial prejudice against the mutilated or
defective gains additional support in Masonry from the requirements of the
operative art and from logical arguments based on the requirements of our
ritual. Immemorial prejudice, growing out of the circumstances of primitive
society, the practice of ancient rites, the requirements of the operative art,
logical deduction from our ceremonies, and a certain amount of Masonic usage
combine to make a formidable case. Most jurisdictions in the United States have
accepted or assumed some requirement of wholeness, and our American Grand Lodge
proceedings are full of discussions as to just what degree of mutilation will
disqualify. Few things have been more debated in Masonic common law. But much as
may be said for some such requirement as an ancient custom of the Craft, the
practice in England is conclusive that the doctrine as to wholeness is not even
universal Masonic common law. So far from admitting or regarding it as a
Landmark, the English Masons have never insisted on physical perfection as so
many jurisdictions do in America and our American distinctions and discussions
are quite unknown to them. At most, therefore, this is but common law, and any
jurisdiction which feels disposed to take a liberal view of the subject in the
light of the conditions of modern civilized society and of the purposes and
ideals of Masonry is clearly entitled so to do.
The remainder of Mackey's list of twenty-five Landmarks
were considered in a prior lecture, (3) and require nothing further.
It would be unjust to close this view of the leading
principles of Masonic common law without a tribute to Doctor Mackey. It has been
necessary to criticize his theories at many points. But this necessity of
criticism should not blind us to the permanent value of his work in formulating
the main ideas that underlie Masonic law. Where he erred chiefly was in assuming
too rigid a body of fundamental law. But this was a natural error for an
American in the nineteenth century. American lawyers of that time believed that
an ideal version of our traditional Anglo-American legal system was, as it were,
ordained by nature; they believed that the sections of our American bills of
rights simply declared universal and eternal principles inherent in the very
idea of free government. Hence it was not unnatural for an American Mason of
that time to assume that an ideal development of the generally received customs
of the Craft in America was the eternal jural order in Freemasonry. We may
reject this idea and yet recognize the invaluable service which Mackey performed
for us by working out and formulating the leading principles of our customary
law.
(1) "Masonic Common Law--Part I," THE BUILDER, April, 1917,
p. 117.
(2) "The Landmarks," vol. III, p. 211.
(3) Idem.
----o----
THE ACACIA
BY BRO. H. A. KINGSBURY, CONNECTICUT
Many a Mason fails to realize that the Acacia, both in its
occurrence as the Sprig of Acacia and its occurrence as the proper material of
the Horns of the Masonic Altar, is a symbol--an example of the symbolism of
natural objects and, more specifically, an example of the symbolism of plants.
Therefore, two suggestions for interesting study offered by Masonry are
neglected far more often than they are heeded. This is hardly the place for the
making of a full investigation of either of these two fields of research, and no
investigation will be attempted. The most that will be endeavored is a brief
review of certain phases of the significances of some few plants, with
particular reference to the Acacia.
The practice of assigning certain symbolic meanings and
peculiar significances to plants has come down to us from a time so distant
"that memory of man runneth not to the contrary" and, although so far as
present-day usage is concerned much has been lost, we moderns yet follow the
practice to no inconsiderable extent. To cite but a few examples: the olive is
recognized by us as the symbol of peace, the laurel of victory, the rosemary of
remembrance, and the oak of sturdiness and strength.
The symbolistic systems of nearly all the ancient peoples
included examples of the symbolism of plants. Among the Egyptians the names of
women, except those of Egyptian queens, were, in the hieroglyphics, terminated,
or accompanied by, a representation of a bouquet of the flowers of the papyrus.
The bunch of papyrus was also the generic determination of the names of all
plants, herbs and flowers. The bean symbolized unclean things--a conception
adopted by the Pythagoreans and, therefore, of particular interest to the
Mason--the apparent reason for assigning this significance to the bean being
that the name of that vegetable, in the Hebrew, is the same, except for a
difference in gender, as that of the nomadic people, which people were an
abomination to the Egyptians.
Referring further to the conceptions of the Egyptians; the
fig tree was, Portal in his "Egyptian Symbols" supposes, the symbol of marriage.
The lily or lotus was the symbol of initiation or the birth of celestial light,
indeed, on some of the monuments of Egypt the god Phree, the sun, is pictured as
rising from the cup of a lotus; this symbolical meaning--that the lotus is the
symbol of the birth of celestial light--was probably assigned to the plant by
the Egyptians because of the fact that the flower opens at the rising of the sun
and closes at the close of day.
In the legend taught in the Adonisian Mysteries, Venus
placed the body of the dead Adonis on a bed of lettuce. In the Druidical
Mysteries the mistletoe was a sacred plant. In the Grecian Mysteries the myrtle
was of peculiar significance. In the Mysteries of Dionysus the ivy was a sacred
emblem. And in the Egyptian Mysteries of Osiris and Isis the heath was held in
veneration, this-being due to the following circumstance:
It is related, in a certain legend taught in the Mysteries
of Osiris and Isis, that Isis, after a long search for the body of her husband,
the god Osiris murdered by Typhoon, discovered the body buried on the brow of a
hill; there was a heath plant growing near by. Hence, in the mysteries which
Isis established to commemorate the death and resurrection of Osiris, the heath
plant was adopted as sacred on the strength of the fact that it had pointed out
to Isis, in her search, the spot where the body of Osiris lay concealed. Let us
now consider the Acacia.
Among the Hebrews, in early biblical times, the Acacia or,
as it is rendered in the Scriptures, the Shittah, was set apart from the other
trees of the forest as the one from whose wood various objects having a special
religious significance should be constructed. So that, as told in the
Scriptures, Acacia was the wood from which were made the sanctuary of the
temple, the Ark of the Covenant, the table for the shew bread, and all the
articles of the sacred furniture that ought properly to be constructed from
wood, including the Horns of the Altar. So, this tree comes to the Mason endowed
with a special and peculiar importance and with a history that well qualifies it
for that important place which it occupies in the symbolistic system of Masonry.
To the Mason the symbolic significance of the Acacia has a
double aspect, as the tree is the symbol Both of Innocence and of Immortality of
the Soul. Its character as a symbol of Innocence is dependent upon the two-fold
meaning of the Greek word for Acacia as that word signifies both the Acacia and
the moral quality of innocence or purity of life. It must be confessed that had
not this conception--depending as it does merely upon the double meaning of a
word--the sanction of Brother Albert Mackey, it might seem to some a straining
after the symbolical hardly necessary or called for, in a symbolistic system so
rich in clear and straightforward conceptions as is Masonry.
But, however it may be with the assigning to the Acacia the
character of a symbol of Innocence, the preeminent symbolic significance of the
Acacia--that it is the symbol of Immortality of the Soul--is both natural and
beautiful, being based upon and derived from the fact that the Acacia is an
evergreen.
As the evergreen never yields to the Changing Seasons or
gives up its hold on Life under the attacks of Winter, so the Soul never yields
to the Vicissitudes of Mortal Life or surrenders its existence under the attacks
of Death.
The Acacia, then, presents to the Mason's attention an
example of the symbolism of natural objects and so points the way to interesting
fields of investigation; reiterates that lesson taught by every investigation of
Masonic symbolism--that practically everything in Masonry has a veiled
significance not apparent at first glance, and not intended to be so apparent,
but designedly so veiled in order that the Mason, to arrive at a basic knowledge
of his craft, must exert himself-- and, finally, it presents symbolically one of
the Great Teachings of Masonry--Immortality of the Soul.
----o----
A MASON'S PRAYER
Dedicated to Pleasantville Lodge, Pleasantville, New York
on the
occasion of the public installation of officers, by Linda
Germond
Baker, the daughter of a former member of Gavel, Bro.
Gilbert A.
Germond, who lived as he should and has gone to the Higher
Temple.
To the Father of brothers, the Giver of good,
To the Master of nations, the Worker in wood,
To the great elder Brother who lived as he should--
We come;
For power to be stewards to earn a "well-done,"
For love to be brothers and follow that One,
The Man among fishers, the carpenter's Son--
We look;
For help to be Masons in heart and in deed,
For will to be craftsmen through life, quick to heed
The Grand Master's bidding, where'er it may lead--
We pray;
Till, when Masons ever, with honors so high
That man's sweetest thinking can them but espy,
We bring to the altar, with Hosanna cry, Our lives.
----o----
CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN---No. 18
DEVOTED TO ORGANIZED MASONIC STUDY
Edited by Bro. Robert I. Clegg
THE BULLETIN COURSE OF MASONIC STUDY
FOR MONTHLY LODGE MEETINGS AND STUDY CLUBS
FOUNDATION OF THE COURSE
THE Course of Study has for its foundation two sources of
Masonic information: THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. In another paragraph
is explained how the references to former issues of THE BUILDER and to Mackey's
Encyclopedia may be worked up as supplemental papers to exactly fit into each
installment of the Course with the paper by Brother Clegg.
MAIN OUTLINE
The Course is divided into five principal divisions which
are in turn subdivided, as is shown below:
Division I. Ceremonial Masonry.
A. The Work of a Lodge.
B. The Lodge and the Candidate.
C. First Steps.
D. Second Steps.
E. Third Steps.
Division II. Symbolical Masonry.
A. Clothing.
B. Working Tools.
C. Furniture.
D. Architecture.
E. Geometry.
F. Signs.
G. Words.
H. Grips.
Division III. Philosophical Masonry.
A. Foundations.
B. Virtues.
C. Ethics.
D. Religious Aspect.
E. The Quest.
F. Mysticism.
G. The Secret Doctrine.
Division IV. Legislative Masonry.
A. The Grand Lodge.
1. Ancient Constitutions.
2. Codes of Law.
3. Grand Lodge Practices.
4. Relationship to Constituent Lodges.
5. Official Duties and Prerogatives.
B. The Constituent Lodge.
1. Organization.
2. Qualifications of Candidates.
3. Initiation, Passing and Raising.
4. Visitation.
5. Change of Membership.
Division V. Historical Masonry.
A. The Mysteries--Earliest Masonic Light.
B. Studies of Rites--Masonry in the Making.
C. Contributions to Lodge Characteristics.
D. National Masonry.
E. Parallel Peculiarities in Lodge Study.
F. Feminine Masonry.
G. Masonic Alphabets.
H. Historical Manuscripts of the Craft.
I. Biographical Masonry.
J. Philological Masonry--Study of Significant Words.
THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS
Each month we are presenting a paper written by Brother
Clegg, who is following the foregoing outline. We are now in "First Steps" of
Ceremonial Masonry. There will be twelve monthly papers under this particular
subdivision. On page two, preceding each installment, will be given a number of
"Helpful Hints" and a list of questions to be used by the chairman of the
Committee during the study period which will bring out every point touched upon
in the paper.
Whenever possible we shall reprint in the Correspondence
Circle Bulletin articles from other sources which have a direct bearing upon the
particular subject covered by Brother Clegg in his monthly paper. These articles
should be used as supplemental papers in addition to those prepared by the
members from the monthly list of references. Much valuable material that would
otherwise possibly never come to the attention of many of our members will thus
be presented.
The monthly installments of the Course appearing in the
Correspondence Circle Bulletin should be used one month later than their
appearance. If this is done the Committee will have opportunity to arrange their
programs several weeks in advance of the meetings and the Brethren who are
members of the National Masonic Research Society will be better enabled to enter
into the discussions after they have read over and studied the installment in
THE BUILDER.
REFERENCES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS
Immediately preceding each of Brother Clegg's monthly
papers in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin will be found a list of references
to THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. These references are pertinent to the
paper and will either enlarge upon many of the points touched upon or bring out
new points for reading and discussion. They should be assigned by the Committee
to different Brethren who may compile papers of their own from the material thus
to be found, or in many instances the articles themselves or extracts therefrom
may be read directly from the originals. The latter method may be followed when
the members may not feel able to compile original papers, or when the original
may be deemed appropriate without any alterations or additions. |
