-
Articles/Ads
Article CORRESPONDENCE ← Page 8 of 10 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence
Master Mateon until elected to the chair of a Lodge , and the Degree of Master Mason was only gi yen in Grand Lodge . Fellow-Craftsmen were appointed to preside over Entered Apprentices' Lodges , and were eligible as Wardens of Fellow-Craft Lodges ; but when elected to preside as Master , were raised to the Master ' s Degree and installed . In those times there were , comparatively speaking , very few Master Masons , the greater part were Entered Apprentices ancl Fellow-Crafts , who never rose higher ; now , however , the Brethren being mostly speculative
Maspns , the custom is different . When a Brother is balloted for , he , if accepted , is initiated , and the Lodge is bound to pass and raise him at intervals of not less than one month ( between each Degree , unless some good and sufficient moral or physical reason should intervene to prevent it . Let us then apply the rule as laid down by Lector , and as quoted by him from the old charges . A Warden can act in the absence of the Master , as Master ; but as a Warden , by his own showing , may be no more than a Fellow-Craft , how can he confer the Degree of M . M . ? If one part of the text from which he quotes he admitted as proof of his deductions , so must all ; otherwise we could not tell which to choose and which to reject .
Lector ' s next argument is the charge to the S . W ., taken from Preston : — " In my [ the Master ' s ] absence you are to govern the Lodge . " This has the same signification as the word " rule " used in the Constitutions , and therefore does not need to be considered here . We come next to the American authorities he adduces to prove his point ; and he is perfectly correct so far as the United States are concerned . There , it is well known , a Warden exercises all the power of a Master in his absence ; but we are
not clearing up a point in American Masonic jurisprudence , but in English . The American Constitution expressly provides for the Warden ' s duties in the Master ' s absence—he is elected to the office and regularly installed into his chair ; but under the English Constitution the Master alone h elected , and he appoints his Wardens to assist him in ruling his Lodge ; and in his absence the Constitution forbids him ( the Warden ) in any case to assume the chair of Master , and allows him to preside , rule , or govern the Lodge only when there is no Past Master present . Tins makes a wonderful difference between the two Constitutions . It does not
therefore follow , that because one method of procedure prevails under one Grand Lodge , and is even provided for by its Constitution , that that fact should be taken as a proof that the same custom should prevail under another Grand Lodge , where the Constitution does not provide for it , and where the duties of the Officers and mode of appointment are different , and where ancient custom , as I contend , proves the very reverse .
Who were the fifteen Fellow-Crafts referred to in the Master Mason ' s Degree , those who for superior merit were chosen to preside over a certain number of Entered Apprentices ?—were they not of the same class as those referred to in the quotation of Lector , who had certain duties to perform , and who had certain privileges ( as Mark Masters know ) attached to their office ; but this is no proof that they were allowed to take Apprentices , or , in other words , to confer Degrees . I recommend a careful perusal of the portion of the Book of Constitutions already ci
so often referred to , —Of the Management of the Craft in working , " bearing in mind the distinction hetween operative and speculative Masonry ; and the reason of the whole matter will , I think , be apparent . These same charges say , " No Master should take an Apprentice unless he has sufficient employment for him ;" the meaning clearly being , that a Master ( that is , a Master of a Lodge , for we have shown already that in ancient times none were called Masters but Masters of Lodges ) took Apprentices , and placed them under certain skilled Craftsmen for instruction ; these Craftsmen thus overseeing , ruling , or governing the Lodges of
Entered Apprentices . After a time , the Entered Apprentices , having made duo progress , were passed by this Master into another class , where all were Fellows , when they were instructed to handle tools of a better description , and to receive wages for their work . Very few , as we have already said , in the earlier times of what may be called modern Masonry , ever went further than ythis , and may in operative Masonry , be called journeymen Masons . " The most expert of the Fellow-Crafts were chosen or appointed the Master or Overseer of the Lord's work , and were to be called Masters by those that work under him . " On this
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence
Master Mateon until elected to the chair of a Lodge , and the Degree of Master Mason was only gi yen in Grand Lodge . Fellow-Craftsmen were appointed to preside over Entered Apprentices' Lodges , and were eligible as Wardens of Fellow-Craft Lodges ; but when elected to preside as Master , were raised to the Master ' s Degree and installed . In those times there were , comparatively speaking , very few Master Masons , the greater part were Entered Apprentices ancl Fellow-Crafts , who never rose higher ; now , however , the Brethren being mostly speculative
Maspns , the custom is different . When a Brother is balloted for , he , if accepted , is initiated , and the Lodge is bound to pass and raise him at intervals of not less than one month ( between each Degree , unless some good and sufficient moral or physical reason should intervene to prevent it . Let us then apply the rule as laid down by Lector , and as quoted by him from the old charges . A Warden can act in the absence of the Master , as Master ; but as a Warden , by his own showing , may be no more than a Fellow-Craft , how can he confer the Degree of M . M . ? If one part of the text from which he quotes he admitted as proof of his deductions , so must all ; otherwise we could not tell which to choose and which to reject .
Lector ' s next argument is the charge to the S . W ., taken from Preston : — " In my [ the Master ' s ] absence you are to govern the Lodge . " This has the same signification as the word " rule " used in the Constitutions , and therefore does not need to be considered here . We come next to the American authorities he adduces to prove his point ; and he is perfectly correct so far as the United States are concerned . There , it is well known , a Warden exercises all the power of a Master in his absence ; but we are
not clearing up a point in American Masonic jurisprudence , but in English . The American Constitution expressly provides for the Warden ' s duties in the Master ' s absence—he is elected to the office and regularly installed into his chair ; but under the English Constitution the Master alone h elected , and he appoints his Wardens to assist him in ruling his Lodge ; and in his absence the Constitution forbids him ( the Warden ) in any case to assume the chair of Master , and allows him to preside , rule , or govern the Lodge only when there is no Past Master present . Tins makes a wonderful difference between the two Constitutions . It does not
therefore follow , that because one method of procedure prevails under one Grand Lodge , and is even provided for by its Constitution , that that fact should be taken as a proof that the same custom should prevail under another Grand Lodge , where the Constitution does not provide for it , and where the duties of the Officers and mode of appointment are different , and where ancient custom , as I contend , proves the very reverse .
Who were the fifteen Fellow-Crafts referred to in the Master Mason ' s Degree , those who for superior merit were chosen to preside over a certain number of Entered Apprentices ?—were they not of the same class as those referred to in the quotation of Lector , who had certain duties to perform , and who had certain privileges ( as Mark Masters know ) attached to their office ; but this is no proof that they were allowed to take Apprentices , or , in other words , to confer Degrees . I recommend a careful perusal of the portion of the Book of Constitutions already ci
so often referred to , —Of the Management of the Craft in working , " bearing in mind the distinction hetween operative and speculative Masonry ; and the reason of the whole matter will , I think , be apparent . These same charges say , " No Master should take an Apprentice unless he has sufficient employment for him ;" the meaning clearly being , that a Master ( that is , a Master of a Lodge , for we have shown already that in ancient times none were called Masters but Masters of Lodges ) took Apprentices , and placed them under certain skilled Craftsmen for instruction ; these Craftsmen thus overseeing , ruling , or governing the Lodges of
Entered Apprentices . After a time , the Entered Apprentices , having made duo progress , were passed by this Master into another class , where all were Fellows , when they were instructed to handle tools of a better description , and to receive wages for their work . Very few , as we have already said , in the earlier times of what may be called modern Masonry , ever went further than ythis , and may in operative Masonry , be called journeymen Masons . " The most expert of the Fellow-Crafts were chosen or appointed the Master or Overseer of the Lord's work , and were to be called Masters by those that work under him . " On this