Part 11 (1/2)
In the Ahiman Rezon published by Laurence Dermott in 1764, and adopted for the government of the Grand Lodge of Ancient York Masons in England, and many of the Provincial Grand and subordinate lodges of America, the regulation is laid down that candidates must be ”men of good report, free-born, of mature age, not deformed nor dismembered at the time of their making, and no woman or eunuch.” It is true that at the present day this book possesses no legal authority among the craft; but I quote it, to show what was the interpretation given to the ancient law by a large portion, perhaps a majority, of the English and American Masons in the middle of the eighteenth century.
A similar interpretation seems at all times to have been given by the Grand Lodges of the United States, with the exception of some, who, within a few years past, have begun to adopt a more lat.i.tudinarian construction.
In Pennsylvania it was declared, in 1783, that candidates are not to be ”deformed or dismembered at the time of their making.”
In South Carolina the book of Const.i.tutions, first published in 1807, requires that ”every person desiring admission must be upright in body, not deformed or dismembered at the time of making, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be.”
In the ”Ahiman Rezon and Masonic Ritual,” published by order of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee, in the year 1805, candidates are required to be ”hale and sound, not deformed or dismembered at the time of their making.”[62]
Maryland, in 1826, sanctioned the Ahiman Rezon of Cole, which declares the law in precisely the words of South Carolina, already quoted.
In 1823, the Grand Lodge of Missouri unanimously adopted a report, which declared that all were to be refused admission who were not ”sound in mind and _all their members_,” and she adopted a resolution a.s.serting that ”the Grand Lodge cannot grant a letter or dispensation to a subordinate lodge working under its jurisdiction, to initiate any person maimed, disabled, or wanting the qualifications establis.h.i.+ng by ancient usage.”[63]
But it is unnecessary to multiply instances. There never seems to have been any deviation from the principle that required absolute physical perfection, until, within a few years, the spirit of expediency[64] has induced some Grand Lodges to propose a modified construction of the law, and to admit those whose maims or deformities were not such as to prevent them from complying with the ceremonial of initiation. Still, a large number of the Grand Lodges have stood fast by the ancient landmark, and it is yet to be hoped that all will return to their first allegiance. The subject is an important one, and, therefore, a few of the more recent authorities, in behalf of the old law may with advantage be cited.
”We have examined carefully the arguments 'pro and con,' that have accompanied the proceedings of the several Grand Lodges, submitted to us, and the conviction has been forced upon our minds, even against our wills, that we depart from the ancient landmarks and usages of Masonry, whenever we admit an individual wanting in one of the human senses, or who is in any particular maimed or deformed.”--_Committee of Correspondence G. Lodge of Georgia_, 1848, _page_ 36.
”The rationale of the law, excluding persons physically imperfect and deformed, lies deeper and is more ancient than the source ascribed to it.[65] It is grounded on a principle recognized in the earliest ages of the world; and will be found identical with that which obtained among the ancient Jews. In this respect the Levitical law was the same as the masonic, which would not allow any 'to go in unto the vail' who had a blemish--a blind man, or a lame, or a man that was broken-footed, or broken-handed, or a dwarf, &c....
”The learned and studious Freemasonic antiquary can satisfactorily explain the metaphysics of this requisition in our Book of Const.i.tutions. For the true and faithful Brother it sufficeth to know that such a requisition exists. He will prize it the more because of its antiquity.... No man can in perfection be 'made a Brother,' no man can truly 'learn our mysteries,'
and practice them, or 'do the work of a Freemason,' if he is not a _man_ with body free from maim, defect and deformity.”--_Report of a Special Committee of the Grand Lodge of New York, in_ 1848.[66]
”The records of this Grand Lodge may be confidently appealed to, for proofs of her repeated refusal to permit maimed persons to be initiated, and not simply on the ground that ancient usage forbids it, but because the fundamental const.i.tution of the Order--the ancient charges--forbid it.”--_Committee of Correspondence of New York, for 1848, p. 70._
”The lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge are hereby required, in the initiation of applicants for Masonry, to adhere to the ancient law (as laid down in our printed books), which says he shall be of _entire limbs_”--_Resolution of the G.L. of Maryland, November, 1848._
”I received from the lodge at Ashley a pet.i.tion to initiate into our Order a gentleman of high respectability, who, unfortunately, has been maimed. I refused my a.s.sent.... I have also refused a similar request from the lodge of which I am a member. The fact that the most distinguished masonic body on earth has recently removed one of the landmarks, should teach _us_ to be careful how we touch those ancient boundaries.”--_Address of the Grand Master of New Jersey in 1849._
”The Grand Lodge of Florida adopted such a provision in her const.i.tution, [the qualifying clause permitting the initiation of a maimed person, if his deformity was not such as to prevent his instruction], but more mature reflection, and more light reflected from our sister Grand Lodges, caused it to be stricken from our const.i.tution.”--_Address of Gov. Tho.
Brown, Grand Master of Florida in_ 1849.
”As to the physical qualifications, the Ahiman Rezon leaves no doubt on the subject, but expressly declares, that every applicant for initiation must be a man, free-born, of lawful age, in the perfect enjoyment of his senses, hale, and sound, and not deformed or dismembered; this is one of the ancient landmarks of the Order, which it is in the power of no body of men to change. A man having but one arm, or one leg, or who is in anyway deprived of his due proportion of limbs and members, is as incapable of initiation as a woman.”--_Encyclical Letter of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina to its subordinates in_ 1849.
Impressed, then, by the weight of these authorities, which it would be easy, but is unnecessary, to multiply--guided by a reference to the symbolic and speculative (not operative) reason of the law--and governed by the express words of the regulation of 1683--I am constrained to believe that the spirit as well as the letter of our ancient landmarks require that a candidate for admission should be perfect in all his parts, that is, neither redundant nor deficient, neither deformed nor dismembered, but of hale and entire limbs, as a man ought to be.
Section III.
_Of the Intellectual Qualifications of Candidates._
The Old Charges and Ancient Const.i.tutions are not as explicit in relation to the intellectual as to the moral and physical qualifications of candidates, and, therefore, in coming to a decision on this subject, we are compelled to draw our conclusions from a.n.a.logy, from common sense, and from the peculiar character of the inst.i.tution. The question that here suggests itself on this subject is, what particular amount of human learning is required as a const.i.tutional qualification for initiation?
During a careful examination of every ancient doc.u.ment to which I have had access, I have met with no positive enactment forbidding the admission of uneducated persons, even of those who can neither read nor write. The unwritten, as well as the written laws of the Order, require that the candidate shall be neither a _fool_ nor an _idiot_, but that he shall possess a discreet judgment, and be in the enjoyment of all the senses of a man. But one who is unable to subscribe his name, or to read it when written, might still very easily prove himself to be within the requirements of this regulation. The Const.i.tutions of England, formed since the union of the two Grand Lodges in 1813, are certainly explicit enough on this subject. They require even more than a bare knowledge of reading and writing, for, in describing the qualifications of a candidate, they say:
”He should be a lover of the liberal arts and sciences, and have made some progress in one or other of them; and he must, previous to his initiation, subscribe his name at full length, to a declaration of the following import,” etc. And in a note to this regulation, it is said, ”Any individual who cannot write is, consequently, ineligible to be admitted into the Order.” If this authority were universal in its character, there would be no necessity for a further discussion of the subject. But the modern const.i.tutions of the Grand Lodge of England are only of force within its own jurisdiction, and we are therefore again compelled to resort to a mode of reasoning for the proper deduction of our conclusions on this subject.
It is undoubtedly true that in the early period of the world, when Freemasonry took its origin, the arts of reading and writing were not so generally disseminated among all cla.s.ses of the community as they now are, when the blessings of a common education can be readily and cheaply obtained. And it may, therefore, be supposed that among our ancient Brethren there were many who could neither read nor write. But after all, this is a mere a.s.sumption, which, although it may be based on probability, has no direct evidence for its support. And, on the other hand, we see throughout all our ancient regulations, that a marked distinction was made by our rulers between the Freemason and the Mason who was not free; as, for instance, in the conclusion of the fifth chapter of the Ancient Charges, where it is said: ”No laborer shall be employed in the common work of Masonry, nor shall Freemasons work with those who are not free, without an urgent necessity.” And this would seem to indicate a higher estimation by the fraternity of their own character, which might be derived from their greater attainments in knowledge. That in those days the ordinary operative masons could neither read nor write, is a fact established by history. But it does not follow that the Freemasons, who were a separate society of craftsmen, were in the same unhappy category; it is even probable, that the fact that they were not so, but that they were, in comparison with the unaccepted masons, educated men, may have been the reason of the distinction made between these two cla.s.ses of workmen.