Grand Lodge Seals Of The "Ancients."

I think it highly probable that the wjrds "in London " were added to the legend on the new seal merely to distinguish the Grand Lodge in London from other Grand Lodges which had emanated from it , and , of course , claimed to be " according to the old institutions , " although they were not held in London , but abroad . I attach no importance whatever to the omission of the final "S" in what was probably intended for "I NSTITUTIONS , " as on the older seal , the new one being a little smaller ; the letter was

probably crowded out by the addition of the two words before mentioned , and I think it very likely that the engraver , not being " a person of eminence in that branch , " as was his predecessor , Kirk , had not allowed himself sufficient space to finish the word . However that may be , it is quite clear that the " Ancients " themselves attached no significance to the omission , for they continued to print the word in the plural on their circulars for io years after tbe seal was made , when they substituted " Constitutions , " in conformity with the heading of their warrants and certificates .

The seal engraved for the Grand Chapter in 1813 , which is similar to Kirk ' s in its outlines , but with the legend "Holy Royal Arch Grand Chapter of Ancient Free Masons , London , " and apparently a slight difference in the Hebrew rr . otto , makes the fourth seal which has come under my notice appertaining to the " Ancients . " I hope shortly to offer a few observations on the subject of the " missing link , " i . e ., the very important but mysterious seal used by that body prior to 17 60 .

Masonic Offences And Masonic Punishments.

MASONIC OFFENCES AND MASONIC PUNISHMENTS .

( BY " LEX SCRIPTA . " ) ( Continuedfrom page 265 ) . It will be observed that , whilst providing carefully who are to deal with complaints against lodges or brethren and for appeals by parties aggrieved to the higher authorities in due order ( Rules 214 to 217 ) , the cases provided for are almost entirely such as affect the external fabric of the Craft , and do not touch the far more serious class affecting the vital parts of the system , viz ., the conduct and

character of its members . An opinion has recently been expressed by one whose words necessarily and justly carry very great weight , ( and which has been endorsed by Grand Lodge ) , going far to establish a course of action which , if carried out in its entirety , would practically revolutionise the whole theory of the object of the Institution , and would leave us nothing but a mere shell—an organised conglomerate of social clubs banded together for certain social and charitable purposes , with rights of common intercourse , but with no higher aims beyond social

intercourse , & c , aforesaid , and without even the power , reserved by all other social clubs , of refusing to keep as an intimate associate one who had become a scandal and disgrace to the Society . This can never have been intended either by the speaker or his hearers , but there are those who consider it to legitimately result from the Grand Registrar's dictum , and this , it is submitted , is a sufficient justification for an effort to show that it is not the correct interpretation of the Book of Constitutions , nor of thc spirit of Masonry ; hence if the Constitutions do not provide sufficient safeguards it is time they were amended accordingly .

The theory submitted then as the true one is this . Every society , for . whatever purpose established , has an inherent right , and , for its own protection is bound , to reserve to itself full jurisdiction over its members , with ample powers to warn , correct , and punish them for acts affecting the welfare of the society , including , as a last resource , tiie power to purge itself of dangerous and incorrigible members by the severe punishment of death—whether that death be , according to the nature and design of the society , physical , spiritual , social , or otherwise ; for in a

society of more limited objects , bahishment , excommunication , or expulsion , are , as far as the society is concerned , theoretically and practically , the same thing as death ; by whatever name the effect be called . A civil community that reserved power to punish only mala prohibita , but not mala in se—a religion that reserved power to punish breaches of discipline but not offences against its moral or doctrinal teachings—or a social club that reserved or assumed power fo punish for trivial solecisms in breeding but not for dishonest or other disgraceful conductwould be an anomalous , puerile , and worthless institution .

So with Freemasonry . It is incredible , that whilst it has penalties amounting practically to suspension for such an offence as rudely interrupting a speech , it has no power to deal vvith matters rendering a man unfit to mix with those of his follows who have any regaid for their own character with the outside world , or vitally affecting the very fundamental tenets of the Craft I Is not the true reading of the Constitutions this ?•—that the compilers recognised as a fact , that whilst ,

for offences against the regulations of the Craft , some statutory enactments defining those offences , and the scale of punishments might be necessary and proper , yet , that for the more important offences , matters affecting the real welfare of the Craft in its very essence , in its primary object , as a system of morality , matters affecting its good standing with the outside world—for these offences there was no need to draw up a written code ; that offenders might as a rule be safely left to

be dealt with by that particular branch of the organisation to which they belonged , and which would be probably the one which would suffer first and most severely from the offence ? Does not the Craft by its Constitutions say in effect—It is true that we expressly reserve to the Grand Lodge the right to inflict the supreme penalty of the law—i . e ., expulsion from the Craft—because there may be circumstances which would make this too severe a penalty to be inflicted by any subordinate power ; but

we admit that each lodge has an inherent right to deal with all offences of its own brethren , and even to purge itself at any time of an unworthy brother , subject to his right to appeal from its decision ; we only require you to act "for sufficient cause , " with due deliberation and proper formality ; nay , more , we will do all we can to support you in such a proper course ; we will not allow ( Rules 212 and 213 ) any other lodge to receive that brother as a member till it has been informed why you thought such a step necessary ,- and we require you to report the case to the

higher authorities , that we may , if we think proper , go on and inflict that higher penalty which we now restrain you from inflicting ( Rule 210 ) , for the brother may already be a member of other lodges , and then Rules 212 and 213 are not sufficient protection to the Craft , and your reason for declining to associate any longer with him maybe , though it is not necessarily so , a good reason why he should no longer be admitted to any of our assemblies , though other lodges may not know of his conduct , or may not take the same right-minded view that you have done .

If this be not the correct construction of R . 210 , it is difficult to see the reason of compelling the lodge to report the exclusion . It cannot be to secure justice to the excluded brother , as he has his remedy of appeal if he is dissatisfied with the sentence .

Some foreign authorities recognise this theory so fully as to permit a lodge to expel a brother , merely notifying the sentence to the higher authority , who must confirm it before it becomes final ; "and this confirmation" ( says Mackey ) "is generally given by a silent reception of the report of the lodge , though it is always competent for a Grand Lodge , with or without an appeal from the punished party to review thc transaction , and wholly or in part reverse the sentence . "

But besides the lodge ' s power , it seems pretty clear that the next authority , whether Provincial or District Grand , Master or Lodge , may similarly initiate proceedings , as well as entertain appeals , and may proceed , with due formalities , to punish , according to its legislative power ; and similarly the Grand Lodge above

Masonic Offences And Masonic Punishments.

has the like initial and appellate jurisdiction . But it is submitted that in the e cise , of the appellate power , the higher authority is to some extent bound \™\\ proceedings of the subordinate body , and should only take action upon cert rules . If the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the evidence was insufficient , that rf " notice had not been given to the accused , or that the trial was otherwise ' unfai improper , or the sentence awarded was heavier than the Court below had po ^ Y ?' inflict , or if fresh and stronger evidence be adduced on behalf of the defend —then it is apprehended that the Court of Appeal may properly reverse or duce the sentence , or may send the case back to the Court below for fresh trial ^

If , on the other hand , the Court appealed to be of opinion that the evidence w sufficient , the trial and sentence , in every way regular , then it is submitted that th * higher authority should confirm the sentence , and uphold as far as possible a proi and legitimate weight of sentence , and ought to interfere as little as possible w ft the sentence of the subordinate body , who must be assumed to have acted with r ! deliberation , and with a more accurate estimate of local considerations than % Court of Appeal can possess ; and this is more especialy the case with the decisio of distant District authorities . ns

But then comes the question . . What is " sufficient cause ? Can it be serious ! contended for a moment that conduct outside the four walls of the Iod ^ may not be " sufficient ? " Here comes in the true test . What is the real object of the Craft ? It is " a system of morality . " It professes at least to be so , and itprofession is widely known , and its behaviour is closely watched by the ' outside world ; it being often thrown in our teeth that our profession may be good , but the of members belies itand if admit that have

practice our ; we we absolutely nn power to take cognizance of offences against the moral law , however gross how can we refute the taunt ? A vast number of lodges are situated in small towns where everyone knows pretty well everybody and every thing , and probabl y knows pretty well who are members of the lodge . If , in such a place , a brother liveoutside the lodge in such a grossly immoral way as to become a man shunned bv

all respectable persons who have any regard tor their own character—a man totally unfit for the society of men who prize honour and virtue—if friendl y advice and admonition prove useless—is it not probable , or at any rate possible , that he mav become by his life a standing reproach and scandal to the lodge , and thereby to the Craft at large ? Will he not cause desirable neophytes to refrain from joining 1 and the best members of the lodge to refuse to attend ? In such a case is not Dr

Mackey right when he says " a Mason who habitually transgresses the moral code or lives in constant violation of the fundamental teachings of the Order , is to the Society what a gangrenous limb is to the body . " " The incurable wound , says the Roman poet , must be cut out with a knife , least the healthy part of the bod y be involved in the disease . " Mackey , Mas . Jurisprudence , p . 536 . The punishment rightly viewed , is not really an infliction on the brother merely , but a protection to the Craft ,

Whilst quite admitting that we are not " general censores morum" and that the power should be very rarely and reluctantly resorted to . and then onl y after advice and warning have failed , yet I submit unhesitatingly that the power to take notice of , and punish Masonically for , matters " outside Masonry , " if offences against the moral law can be properly called matters outside Masonry—on vvhich point I join issue—does distinctly exist ; but if it do not exist then it should do so .

Rules 183 , 191 prescribe great care in the enquiry as to the character and qualifications of persons to be admitted as members or received as candidates ; and a lodge admitting a member or candidate of notoriously bad character would no doubt be severely punished upon due representation to the higher authorities j and it can hardly be that , however unworthy a man may become after admission , the brethren are bound to'ignore , and condone his subsequent conduct , simply because it is subsequent to his admission , whilst had it been antecedent and brought to their notice they would have been bound not to admit him .

And Rule 151 distinctly concedes to every Master power to refuse admission into his lodge to any visitor of '' known bad character . " May not a lodge then exercise , after due trial , as to its own brethren , a power which any other lodge may exercise without trial ? It cannot be ! '

And it is submitted that Rule 210 , must be read in conjunction with the "Old Charges , " otherwise why does Grand Lodge issue these old Regulations vvith its Constitutions ? Clearly the one regulates the principles or forms the basis , the other some of the details or the superstructure of the system . The charges commence " A Mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral law ; " the first of the Master ' s " Ancient Charges " is " You agree to be a good man and true , and strictly to obey the moral law . "

And in the ioth point of the Halliwell MS . we find that if " the Mason lyve amyss , and yn hys werk be false he schal thenne be chasted after the laws . " Gould ' s History of Freemasonry , Vol . I ., p . 24 Q . But what view do the writers on Masonic Jurisprudence take . True , they are mostly foreign writers , and of these it may perhaps be said that their views are therefore not entitled to weight ; but it is submitted that on matters of this kind ,

not mere technical matters such as the jurisdiction of Grand Lodges , a consensus of opinion and practice is—if Masonry be , and be wished to continue , universalof very great weight , especially if they agree , as it is submitted they do , vvith our own theory . Technicalities of procedure are of little importance provided the main principle be the same . Dr . Oliver , after quoting the Antient Charges as to irreligion and speaking or our freedom of opinion as to a particular form of religion , and of our obligation

to obey the moral law , thus concludes that passage . " Thus atheism and irreligion are repudiated by the Craft , as offences against Masonry . A preliminary test secures us against the admission of an Atheist ; and if , subsequently to his initiation , he should become a convert to such principles , apublicavowal of them would render him subject to exclusion . " Oliver , Masonic Jurisprudence , p . 226 ; thus clearly expressing an opinion that subsequent conduct such as , if antecedent , would prevent admission , may be taken notice of and punished . to

And , later , in discussing the subject of expulsion , he supposes a case , first as misconduct which may be regarded as inside the lodge , and continues '' that he ha been further guilty of such glaring offences against the laws of his country as haV made it necessary for him to flee from justice and take refuge in a foreign ' an (); and then he goes on to show how the lodge should proceed by exclusion and te P ° ' , ' ing to Grand Lodge for expulsion . This seems clearly a case as much " outsi Masonry " as immorality . Dr . Oliver plainly considers such a case within the jun ' diction of the lodge . —Masonic Jurisprudence 240

, p . . Bro . Kelly , writing mainly from an Irish standpoint , treating of Masonic offenc divides them into three heads— " ( 1 ) Transgressions of the Laws and Constitu « ° and By-laws ( 2 ) , Masonic misconduct—i . e ., offences which come within the ju diction of the Craft authorities , as having been committed against lodges or thren ( 3 ) , Offences practically non-Masonic , but virtually so . Such , for insta . 1

as those in which breaches of the law of the land may bring a member inW social degradation as will render him unfit to any longer associate with men ^ . prize honour and virtue above the external advantages of rank and fortune . ^ then he goes on to discuss Rules 20 g and 210 , which he says are particu lar JY plicit , stating that the expression " for sufficient cause " may be said tope B tor

and indefinite ; " however , it may be presumed that the lodges can decide f selves judicially as to the nature of the offence committed , and the P ' , - w , which ought in certain cases to be meted out . " Freemasons' Pocket C " K j , as pp . 100 , 101 . And in another place ( Ibid ., p . 106 ) he says : "Any brotherw a been guilty of immoral or un-Masonic conduct .... may be arraigned .. ^ ( 0 < competent Masonic tribunal , and be made amenable to the Masonic comniu " any breach of the duties incumbent upon every good and true Freemason . ^ . j Bro , Chalmers J . Paton . from the Scotch standpoint , treating of exp