-
Articles/Ads
Article LUX E TENEBRA. ← Page 3 of 3 Article LUX E TENEBRA. Page 3 of 3
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Lux E Tenebra.
any attempt was made to collate tho manuscripts scattered among the Lodges as their individual property . With this beginning of the Institution in its present form , when Speculative , or , as it is move expressively called by Bro . Gould , Grand Lodge Masonrv , had become fully
evolved , a movement was inaugurated for a definite understanding of its relation to pro-existing laws . The result was the compilation of what was held to lie genuine and essential , and thus sifted , in tho form of the Charges of a
Freemason , it was agreed to b y tho Grand Lodge as tho organic , the unchangeable , and—to use a word which we fear will grate npon our brother ' s sensibilities , bnt for which there is no wholly satisfactory equivalent—the " fundamental" law .
So far from its being true that " they impose nowhere metes and bounds , limits or circumscri ption ou the definitions of Freemasonry , " they were for tho express purpose of defining and identifying Masonry so far as it could he done in print ; and if our brother will carefully
compare the essentials of what he has received in another way with what is there printed , he will see how correct is Bro . Mackey ' s statement that they embody " the most important points of tho ancient written as well as unwritten law of Masonry . "
For what purpose are landmarks set up if thoy do not impose metes and bounds ?—and what purpose can metes and bounds serve if they do not limit and circumscribe the definition of Freemasonry ? Our brother says that the question of title to the Masonic
name is not dependent on the three conditions formulated by ns , excepfc in so far as they embrace recognised land marks indispensable to all Masonic bodies , and , happily for our purpose , cites fche requirement of a belief in DEITY as an instance of such indispensability , " Unbelief in
DEITY , he says , " would afc once destroy such title . " Yes , but how do we determine that this requirement is an essential part of Masonry ? But finding it in the Charges of a Freemason , side by side with the guaranty of entire freedom of religious belief within the limits of that
requirement , the other half of the landmark " concerning GOD and religion "—thafc landmark the observance of one-half of which our brother readily admits is essential to prove fche title of a body to the Masonic name , while at the same time he accuses us of " speciousness and subtility " for insisting that the ofcher half is likewise essential .
He gives as a reason for his opinion that it cannot be determined whether a system is Masonic or not by the examination of its organic structure ; thafc " the Craft , in earl y times , and for ages together , was often under the worst kind of an oligarchy , an absolute Grand Master , and
whom they had not even always elected . " Whatever point this mi ght have , if correct , as against our position thafc no system can be identified as Masonry which does not possess fche structure and the form of government required by the organic law of the Institution , disappears in the face of the
following facts : the Craft never had a Grand Master whom they had not elected ; the government of the Craffc was never vested in an absolute Grand Master ; if an absolute Grand Master had existed he would not have been any
kind of au oligarchy ; and Grand Masters had not been known for ages , did not exist in early times , and were probabl y , almost certainly , unknown until the formation of the first Grand Lodge in 1717 .
Whether the Capitular or Cryptic bodies are legitimately entitled to the Masonic name , be is persuaded does not depend upon the Ancient Charges , " but solely and simply upon whether they practise or administer Masonic rites . " Yes , but upon what depends it whether the rites practised
are Masonic , or are only improperly called so ? Until this point is cleared up they cannot be put in as evidence that the bodies administering them are Masonic bodies ; and if in attempting to clear it up ifc shall be found that in administering these rites is involved any denial of the
guaranties , exclusion from any of the franchises , or any additions to the primary distinctions of the charges under whose constraint all definitions of Masonry must be framed , ' . ' -l likewise be found that our brother ' s conclusions , like his premises , are sometimes drawn from unreliable sources .
something in the nature of a boomerang is his inquiry ° f final and annihilating tone— " By what authority does . ro . Robbins set himself up as the judge on the orthodoxy ot the various Masonic bodies in ' the world ? " It is , or ° ught to be , identical with that in which ho finds his warrant for the exercise of similar judicial functions in fche
Lux E Tenebra.
article m which ( ho question occurs . Both of us havo been . peciticilly enjoin lto carefull y preserve tho ancie :. ' andmarks erifcru-nV-l to our keeping , and tie . authority im * Mio judgment necessary to this etui is full y commensurate with our duty . We are sorry to note , however , that , lie
overlooks this equality of responsibility , and protests in oratorical terms against tho right of anybody to pass Judgment , upon tho authority of certain bodies to administer Mnsonic ritos , unless the exercise of such rites takes the form of that silent acquiescence which is a judgment in thou favour .
He appears to havo boon betrayed into this protest by discovering in us , as it . seems to him , the fell purpose to sot np each Grand Lodgo " a . ' ; tho exclusive power to dispense chartered authority * to administer Masonic rites
within its jurisdiction . " If that is our purpose our action is sadly subsequen t , inasmuch as the relation which Grand Lodges from thoir inception have borne to Masonio rites has rarel y been better expressed than in tho language wo have quoted .
As evidence of our design he puts in the following from our February article : " ' Among the Grand Lodges of this country , Illinois , at least , by formal declaration , holds it to be impossible for any body of men outside of the regular successors of Grand Lodge organised on the basis of ' Tho
Charges of a Freemason , ' identified in those charges by direct reference to the Grand Lodge Regulations thereunto annexed , and maintaining the representative form of government rooted therein , to acquire the authority to administer the rites of Masonry . "
For two reasons , the firsfc of which is thafc our brother may be able to judge whether the above foreshadows some occult design , or whether ifc fairly reflects what the Grand Lodge set up for itself rive years ago , wo reproduce the following from p 50 , III . Proc . 1870 , which was formally and
unanimously concurred iu by the Grand Lodgo : " We utterly deny thafc any body save a representative Grand Lodge can by warrant or charter create a Lodge thafc has any claim whatever to fche name of Masonry , or that can administer its rites ; ancl as emphatically deny thafc any
body which establishes as a condition of eligibility to membership therein , any distinctions save those known to ' The Charges of a Freemason , ' viz .: Master , Fellow and Apprentice , or which admits that any organisation based upon ,
or by virtue of , distinctions othor than these , may supervise , veto , or in any manner restrict its action within the sphere circumscribed by those charges , is a Grand Lodge within the meanine * of Masonic law . "
Our second reason for reproducing this is to make plain to our critic what we presume we had already made clear to most , viz ., thafc in this action the Grand Lodge was not referring to associations like the Capitular and other bodies whose members had been made Masons under the Grand
Lodge system , but to so-called Masonic bodies of the " Scotch-Rite" system in other countries , which , while lacking the structure and representative form of government rooted in the Charges of a Freemason , assumed to administer the Masonry of the Lodge .
In referring to the " rites ot Masonry , " or to " Masonic rites , " the Grand Lodge did not have in mind the rites conferred by chapters , councils , commanderies , and the like , and by their members called Masonic . It neither knows nor can know anything of any Masonry outside of
that which is defined by the Charges of a Freemason , and of which , by the same law , the Graud Lodge , with . its constituents , is made the sole conservator ; and , we may add , tho conservation of which is fche sole excuse for the existence of that body . ft knows nothing * of the rites administered under the
authority of the Grand Chapter of Illinois , ancl it has no power to grant , or even to tender , either the privileges , rights , or authority which , through our eloquent brother , it gratuitously repudiates ; and ifc can have no interest in the work of that or any other body made up of the Masons
of its obedience , but not known to its law , unless those Masons seek to impose upon fche Craffc and upon the world a definition of Masonry other than that which , under the constraint of tho landmarks , the Graud Lodge is alone
authorised to formulate and set forth ; or unless those Masons are clandestinely administering elsewhere , some portion of tbat Masonry which it alone is authorised to administer or define . Voice of Masonry .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Lux E Tenebra.
any attempt was made to collate tho manuscripts scattered among the Lodges as their individual property . With this beginning of the Institution in its present form , when Speculative , or , as it is move expressively called by Bro . Gould , Grand Lodge Masonrv , had become fully
evolved , a movement was inaugurated for a definite understanding of its relation to pro-existing laws . The result was the compilation of what was held to lie genuine and essential , and thus sifted , in tho form of the Charges of a
Freemason , it was agreed to b y tho Grand Lodge as tho organic , the unchangeable , and—to use a word which we fear will grate npon our brother ' s sensibilities , bnt for which there is no wholly satisfactory equivalent—the " fundamental" law .
So far from its being true that " they impose nowhere metes and bounds , limits or circumscri ption ou the definitions of Freemasonry , " they were for tho express purpose of defining and identifying Masonry so far as it could he done in print ; and if our brother will carefully
compare the essentials of what he has received in another way with what is there printed , he will see how correct is Bro . Mackey ' s statement that they embody " the most important points of tho ancient written as well as unwritten law of Masonry . "
For what purpose are landmarks set up if thoy do not impose metes and bounds ?—and what purpose can metes and bounds serve if they do not limit and circumscribe the definition of Freemasonry ? Our brother says that the question of title to the Masonic
name is not dependent on the three conditions formulated by ns , excepfc in so far as they embrace recognised land marks indispensable to all Masonic bodies , and , happily for our purpose , cites fche requirement of a belief in DEITY as an instance of such indispensability , " Unbelief in
DEITY , he says , " would afc once destroy such title . " Yes , but how do we determine that this requirement is an essential part of Masonry ? But finding it in the Charges of a Freemason , side by side with the guaranty of entire freedom of religious belief within the limits of that
requirement , the other half of the landmark " concerning GOD and religion "—thafc landmark the observance of one-half of which our brother readily admits is essential to prove fche title of a body to the Masonic name , while at the same time he accuses us of " speciousness and subtility " for insisting that the ofcher half is likewise essential .
He gives as a reason for his opinion that it cannot be determined whether a system is Masonic or not by the examination of its organic structure ; thafc " the Craft , in earl y times , and for ages together , was often under the worst kind of an oligarchy , an absolute Grand Master , and
whom they had not even always elected . " Whatever point this mi ght have , if correct , as against our position thafc no system can be identified as Masonry which does not possess fche structure and the form of government required by the organic law of the Institution , disappears in the face of the
following facts : the Craft never had a Grand Master whom they had not elected ; the government of the Craffc was never vested in an absolute Grand Master ; if an absolute Grand Master had existed he would not have been any
kind of au oligarchy ; and Grand Masters had not been known for ages , did not exist in early times , and were probabl y , almost certainly , unknown until the formation of the first Grand Lodge in 1717 .
Whether the Capitular or Cryptic bodies are legitimately entitled to the Masonic name , be is persuaded does not depend upon the Ancient Charges , " but solely and simply upon whether they practise or administer Masonic rites . " Yes , but upon what depends it whether the rites practised
are Masonic , or are only improperly called so ? Until this point is cleared up they cannot be put in as evidence that the bodies administering them are Masonic bodies ; and if in attempting to clear it up ifc shall be found that in administering these rites is involved any denial of the
guaranties , exclusion from any of the franchises , or any additions to the primary distinctions of the charges under whose constraint all definitions of Masonry must be framed , ' . ' -l likewise be found that our brother ' s conclusions , like his premises , are sometimes drawn from unreliable sources .
something in the nature of a boomerang is his inquiry ° f final and annihilating tone— " By what authority does . ro . Robbins set himself up as the judge on the orthodoxy ot the various Masonic bodies in ' the world ? " It is , or ° ught to be , identical with that in which ho finds his warrant for the exercise of similar judicial functions in fche
Lux E Tenebra.
article m which ( ho question occurs . Both of us havo been . peciticilly enjoin lto carefull y preserve tho ancie :. ' andmarks erifcru-nV-l to our keeping , and tie . authority im * Mio judgment necessary to this etui is full y commensurate with our duty . We are sorry to note , however , that , lie
overlooks this equality of responsibility , and protests in oratorical terms against tho right of anybody to pass Judgment , upon tho authority of certain bodies to administer Mnsonic ritos , unless the exercise of such rites takes the form of that silent acquiescence which is a judgment in thou favour .
He appears to havo boon betrayed into this protest by discovering in us , as it . seems to him , the fell purpose to sot np each Grand Lodgo " a . ' ; tho exclusive power to dispense chartered authority * to administer Masonic rites
within its jurisdiction . " If that is our purpose our action is sadly subsequen t , inasmuch as the relation which Grand Lodges from thoir inception have borne to Masonio rites has rarel y been better expressed than in tho language wo have quoted .
As evidence of our design he puts in the following from our February article : " ' Among the Grand Lodges of this country , Illinois , at least , by formal declaration , holds it to be impossible for any body of men outside of the regular successors of Grand Lodge organised on the basis of ' Tho
Charges of a Freemason , ' identified in those charges by direct reference to the Grand Lodge Regulations thereunto annexed , and maintaining the representative form of government rooted therein , to acquire the authority to administer the rites of Masonry . "
For two reasons , the firsfc of which is thafc our brother may be able to judge whether the above foreshadows some occult design , or whether ifc fairly reflects what the Grand Lodge set up for itself rive years ago , wo reproduce the following from p 50 , III . Proc . 1870 , which was formally and
unanimously concurred iu by the Grand Lodgo : " We utterly deny thafc any body save a representative Grand Lodge can by warrant or charter create a Lodge thafc has any claim whatever to fche name of Masonry , or that can administer its rites ; ancl as emphatically deny thafc any
body which establishes as a condition of eligibility to membership therein , any distinctions save those known to ' The Charges of a Freemason , ' viz .: Master , Fellow and Apprentice , or which admits that any organisation based upon ,
or by virtue of , distinctions othor than these , may supervise , veto , or in any manner restrict its action within the sphere circumscribed by those charges , is a Grand Lodge within the meanine * of Masonic law . "
Our second reason for reproducing this is to make plain to our critic what we presume we had already made clear to most , viz ., thafc in this action the Grand Lodge was not referring to associations like the Capitular and other bodies whose members had been made Masons under the Grand
Lodge system , but to so-called Masonic bodies of the " Scotch-Rite" system in other countries , which , while lacking the structure and representative form of government rooted in the Charges of a Freemason , assumed to administer the Masonry of the Lodge .
In referring to the " rites ot Masonry , " or to " Masonic rites , " the Grand Lodge did not have in mind the rites conferred by chapters , councils , commanderies , and the like , and by their members called Masonic . It neither knows nor can know anything of any Masonry outside of
that which is defined by the Charges of a Freemason , and of which , by the same law , the Graud Lodge , with . its constituents , is made the sole conservator ; and , we may add , tho conservation of which is fche sole excuse for the existence of that body . ft knows nothing * of the rites administered under the
authority of the Grand Chapter of Illinois , ancl it has no power to grant , or even to tender , either the privileges , rights , or authority which , through our eloquent brother , it gratuitously repudiates ; and ifc can have no interest in the work of that or any other body made up of the Masons
of its obedience , but not known to its law , unless those Masons seek to impose upon fche Craffc and upon the world a definition of Masonry other than that which , under the constraint of tho landmarks , the Graud Lodge is alone
authorised to formulate and set forth ; or unless those Masons are clandestinely administering elsewhere , some portion of tbat Masonry which it alone is authorised to administer or define . Voice of Masonry .