Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Ought A Mason To Shield A Brother Who Has Committed A Crime?
pated in to favour a party or friend , with no political end in view , it may properly be classed as criminal treason , and as such , subjects the perpetrators to capital punishment . On the contrary , should such a design be executed to rid the people
of a despotic oppression , and to effect a modification in the principles of government , it may be safely placed under the political lfead , and as such , afford a brother the right of extending to another the benefits of the institution . Indeed , the latter
phase of the subject bears so close identity to rebellion , that it is scarcely possible to distinguish between them . This being the case , the subject is rendered still more difficult of solution . Political
revolutions are held as jus tillable by the enlightened portions of the world , and rebellion held as admissible , by the fraternity of Masons . They seem to be one and the same thing in kingly and imperial governments , and differ only in terms in popular
government , where the sovereign power rests in the people . Strictly speaking , the term rebellion can scarcely be appropriately used Avhen applied to a revolution in a federal or confederate government . If there is a difference between reA'olution
and rebellion , au a 3 sthetical student may possibly discover the line separating the two political positions ; but a benevolent heart Avould scarcely pause to thread the labyrinth of such an investigation , were a hunted brother accused of either offence , to approach him , seeking protection . He would
at once , Avifck open arms , take him to his bosom , and shelter him from heartless pursuers . In this act a Mason ivould be perfectly justifiable , under the folioAving old regulation : " That , if a brother should be a rebel against the state , he is not to be
countenanced in his rebellion , hoivever he may be pitied as an unhappy man ; and , if convicted of no other crime , though the loyal brotherhood must and ought to disown his rebellion , and give no umbrage or ground of political jealousy to the
government for the time being , they cannot expel him from the lodge , and his relations to it remain indefeasible . " So , likewise , should a Mason shield a brother fleeing to him for refuge from the fanatical persecutions of any religious sect or society , Avhether such persecutions be sustained by a popular cry , or state laivs , or not .
The above paragraph is introduced to show that Freemasonry guards so very carefully the principles of its universality , ignoring entirely every feature of political partizanship and religious sectarianism ,
Ought A Mason To Shield A Brother Who Has Committed A Crime?
that it is Avilhng to alloiv the most liberal construction of its general regulations , in securing to ' its adherents a full exercise of their individual opinions , predilections , aud natural inherent rights Avhile in lodge fellowship . Freemasonry ,
therefore , stands committed to freedom of political sentiment and action , and to religious tolerance , without regard to country or sect . At the same time , it emphatically discountenances the violation of any law , and reprobates criminal offences of
every hue and character . In abhorring personal crime , it can justify no act by which , the law may be deprived of its power to administer its just award . To construe the fraternal relationship which the brotherhood hold to each other , as warranting a member to intervene between an offender of the
laAV audits operation , would be to prostitute its most sacred principles of virtue and justice . The evil effects need not be reverted to here , but are allowable to show the criminal enormity of such a course . Its tendency would be to reduce the
institution to a band of outlaws , —criminal confederates , ready , under certain circumstances , either by stratagem or intimidation , if needs be , to defend their felloivs from a punishment deserved , ancl which the safety and common weal of
a community demand . If any principle or landmark iu Freemasonry could be so distorted as to give evidence to a doctrine so repugnant to the instincts of our nature aud virtue , the good repute now adorning its honoured frontal , and revered by the pure , the noble , and intellectual of the land ,, would soon become a " bye-ivord and a reproach . "
There is scarcely a Mason ivho may , or not , habitually attend the meetings of the lodge , but is aivare of the tenacity with which any principle of honour and morality is guarded by the brotherhood . The sensitiveness of the brethren in
protecting these delicate points , and in giving their advantages to their fellow craftsmen , and the fastidious care Avith which they adhere to the spirit of those virtues , is well calculated to mislead them while seeking their duty to an erring brother .
There are not a few of the brethren who believe that in fulfilling their obligations to the institution , they are expected to shield a brother , guilty of any crime , if called upon by him , under the signals ol distress , to do so . This is evidently an
error , a fallacy , an infatuation , growing out of a morbid idea of Masonic duty . A Mason who , by his own willful act , places himself beyond the pata
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Ought A Mason To Shield A Brother Who Has Committed A Crime?
pated in to favour a party or friend , with no political end in view , it may properly be classed as criminal treason , and as such , subjects the perpetrators to capital punishment . On the contrary , should such a design be executed to rid the people
of a despotic oppression , and to effect a modification in the principles of government , it may be safely placed under the political lfead , and as such , afford a brother the right of extending to another the benefits of the institution . Indeed , the latter
phase of the subject bears so close identity to rebellion , that it is scarcely possible to distinguish between them . This being the case , the subject is rendered still more difficult of solution . Political
revolutions are held as jus tillable by the enlightened portions of the world , and rebellion held as admissible , by the fraternity of Masons . They seem to be one and the same thing in kingly and imperial governments , and differ only in terms in popular
government , where the sovereign power rests in the people . Strictly speaking , the term rebellion can scarcely be appropriately used Avhen applied to a revolution in a federal or confederate government . If there is a difference between reA'olution
and rebellion , au a 3 sthetical student may possibly discover the line separating the two political positions ; but a benevolent heart Avould scarcely pause to thread the labyrinth of such an investigation , were a hunted brother accused of either offence , to approach him , seeking protection . He would
at once , Avifck open arms , take him to his bosom , and shelter him from heartless pursuers . In this act a Mason ivould be perfectly justifiable , under the folioAving old regulation : " That , if a brother should be a rebel against the state , he is not to be
countenanced in his rebellion , hoivever he may be pitied as an unhappy man ; and , if convicted of no other crime , though the loyal brotherhood must and ought to disown his rebellion , and give no umbrage or ground of political jealousy to the
government for the time being , they cannot expel him from the lodge , and his relations to it remain indefeasible . " So , likewise , should a Mason shield a brother fleeing to him for refuge from the fanatical persecutions of any religious sect or society , Avhether such persecutions be sustained by a popular cry , or state laivs , or not .
The above paragraph is introduced to show that Freemasonry guards so very carefully the principles of its universality , ignoring entirely every feature of political partizanship and religious sectarianism ,
Ought A Mason To Shield A Brother Who Has Committed A Crime?
that it is Avilhng to alloiv the most liberal construction of its general regulations , in securing to ' its adherents a full exercise of their individual opinions , predilections , aud natural inherent rights Avhile in lodge fellowship . Freemasonry ,
therefore , stands committed to freedom of political sentiment and action , and to religious tolerance , without regard to country or sect . At the same time , it emphatically discountenances the violation of any law , and reprobates criminal offences of
every hue and character . In abhorring personal crime , it can justify no act by which , the law may be deprived of its power to administer its just award . To construe the fraternal relationship which the brotherhood hold to each other , as warranting a member to intervene between an offender of the
laAV audits operation , would be to prostitute its most sacred principles of virtue and justice . The evil effects need not be reverted to here , but are allowable to show the criminal enormity of such a course . Its tendency would be to reduce the
institution to a band of outlaws , —criminal confederates , ready , under certain circumstances , either by stratagem or intimidation , if needs be , to defend their felloivs from a punishment deserved , ancl which the safety and common weal of
a community demand . If any principle or landmark iu Freemasonry could be so distorted as to give evidence to a doctrine so repugnant to the instincts of our nature aud virtue , the good repute now adorning its honoured frontal , and revered by the pure , the noble , and intellectual of the land ,, would soon become a " bye-ivord and a reproach . "
There is scarcely a Mason ivho may , or not , habitually attend the meetings of the lodge , but is aivare of the tenacity with which any principle of honour and morality is guarded by the brotherhood . The sensitiveness of the brethren in
protecting these delicate points , and in giving their advantages to their fellow craftsmen , and the fastidious care Avith which they adhere to the spirit of those virtues , is well calculated to mislead them while seeking their duty to an erring brother .
There are not a few of the brethren who believe that in fulfilling their obligations to the institution , they are expected to shield a brother , guilty of any crime , if called upon by him , under the signals ol distress , to do so . This is evidently an
error , a fallacy , an infatuation , growing out of a morbid idea of Masonic duty . A Mason who , by his own willful act , places himself beyond the pata