-
Articles/Ads
Article THE VISIT OF THE GRAND MASTER TO IRELAND. Page 1 of 1 Article NOT VOLUNTARY. Page 1 of 2 Article NOT VOLUNTARY. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Visit Of The Grand Master To Ireland.
THE VISIT OF THE GRAND MASTER TO IRELAND .
WHATEVER may have been the reasons which induced their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to undertake a visit to Ireland , it is certain that their mission is looked upon thi'oughout England as one of peace , or certainly one that it is hoped will
lead to more tranquil times in the Sister Isle . It may perhaps be asked , What is this visit to do with
Freemasonry ? Onr answer to this question , until within the last few days , would have been , —absolutely nothing , but since the title of Grand Master of the English
Freemasons has been introduced into a letter addressed , or supposed to be addressed , by Fenians resident in Paris to His Royal Highness , the matter has assumed a different aspect , and we now look round for the motive which induced these professed opponents of order to address our Grand Master by his official title as Head of the English Craft . Assuming the letter to which we refer , and a copy of which we publish in another column , to be genuine;—to have been written by those who claim it as their own;—by what right , or for what object , do they select the title of Grand Master of the English Freemasons from among the many enjoyed by the Prince of Wales ?
It cannot be that the writers themselves are Freemasons , —active Freemasons we mean—for no member of our
Brotherhood would take part in the work they profess to
be engaged upon ; while , if they were admitted when in a different frame of mind , and have since renounced the Order , it is hardly to be expected they would so far countenance it as to recognise its Grand Master . We are sure , therefore , that the writers of the letter are not members of our Order . Such being the case , we feel there must be some other motive than mere caprice for associating Freemasonry with so unholy a cause . We are among those who think that the Prince and Princess of Wales are acting somewhat unwisely in trusting themselves to the mercy of such miscreants as we have reason to know Ireland has in its midst , but doubtless all risks were weighed before His Royal Highness came to the decision he has arrived at . Still , it is pretty generally recognised that there are
risks , and if it should happen that an attack were attempted on the Royal visitors—which it is to be hoped will not be the case—we feel that the letter to which we have referred would be quoted ; and the Masonic
Brotherhood accused as being participators in , if not instigators of the attack . It is this eventuality which we think has prompted the writers to address our Grand Master by his Masonic title . Its use in this sense will be an excuse for
reproach by the enemies of the Order , even though Freemasons had no hand in using it ; while , as we have said , its use will be accepted as evidence of complicity on the part of Freemasons , in any disturbances in Ireland , should such occur during the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales .
Not Voluntary.
NOT VOLUNTARY .
PERHAPS no phrase employed in connection with the Lodge has been more generally misunderstood than that which is used in the declaration of the candidate indicating that he freely and voluntarily presents himself for
Not Voluntary.
initiation . Upon it is built the startling heresy that every duty performed in Masonry is the result of mere volition , and not the direct sequence of a pledge to perform that duty . The mistake originates in the false premise that
Masonry is a voluntary institution , whereas directly the contrary is the truth . It is voluntary only in the sense that one is free to ask admission , and that he cannot be received if he applies under compulsion ; one is free to assume its obligations , but not to disregard or break
them . Once within its pale it is no longer a mere matter of choice . The contract is a mutual one between the
initiate and the whole body of the Craft , the consideration for the promise of conformity being the reciprocal promise of others to him . It does not depend upon the faithfulness
of others in the performance of their covenants , for if every other Mason in the world should prove false he nevertheless is firmly bound . One has no more moral right
to throw off his obligations to the Craft than he has to
repudiate his promissory note given for a valuable consideration , and the idea that a Mason may dimit from his Lodge without a cause is as bad in morals as it is in Masonic law . The maxim of the church , " Once a priest always a priest , " may be read in Masonry , "Once a Mason
always a Mason . " The tie is indissoluble and there is no absolution from its consequences . There is no Masonic obligation stronger , in words , than that which binds the initiate to the observance of the laws , rules and regulations of the Craft , established from time immemorial , and amongst those rules we find one , in the Ancient Charges , which says that'' every brother ought to belong to a Lodge and be subject to its bye-laws . " When these charges were " extracted from the ancient records , "
the word " ought " was used in the sense of " to be under obligation to pay—the same as owed , " of which Webster gives us three illustrations , as follows , " The due obedience which they ought to the king . "—Tynclale . " The love and
duty I long have ought you . "—Spelman . " That followed , sir , which to myself I ought . " —Dryden . Read in this sense it undoubtedly means , that every brother owes to
the Craft the duty of belonging to a Lodge . Farther on in the same charges , in speaking of the Lodge , we find these words : In ancient times no Master , or Fellow , could be
absent from it , especially when warned to be at it , without
incurring severe censure , until it appeared to tbe Master and Wardens that pure necessity hindered him . " But if this is not enough , there is an old regulation directly in point which reads in this way : " No set or number of
brethren shall withdraw or separate themselves from the Lodge in which they were made brothers or afterward admitted members , unless the Lodge becomes too numerous ;
nor even then without a dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy . And when they are thus separated they must immediately join themselves to such other Lodge
as they like best ****** 0 r else they must obtain the Grand Master ' s warrant to join in forming a new Lodge . "
What language could have been employed to state more plainly the rule that every Mason must be a member of a regular Lodge than is used in these ancient laws , which have everywhere , since the revival of Masonry , been held
in the greatest veneration , and upon what a flimsy basis rests the argument of those who claim that one is free to go , according as his own caprice may dictate ? One writer cites from the charge delivered to the candidate in the first degree the following sentence , as justifying the idea that a
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Visit Of The Grand Master To Ireland.
THE VISIT OF THE GRAND MASTER TO IRELAND .
WHATEVER may have been the reasons which induced their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to undertake a visit to Ireland , it is certain that their mission is looked upon thi'oughout England as one of peace , or certainly one that it is hoped will
lead to more tranquil times in the Sister Isle . It may perhaps be asked , What is this visit to do with
Freemasonry ? Onr answer to this question , until within the last few days , would have been , —absolutely nothing , but since the title of Grand Master of the English
Freemasons has been introduced into a letter addressed , or supposed to be addressed , by Fenians resident in Paris to His Royal Highness , the matter has assumed a different aspect , and we now look round for the motive which induced these professed opponents of order to address our Grand Master by his official title as Head of the English Craft . Assuming the letter to which we refer , and a copy of which we publish in another column , to be genuine;—to have been written by those who claim it as their own;—by what right , or for what object , do they select the title of Grand Master of the English Freemasons from among the many enjoyed by the Prince of Wales ?
It cannot be that the writers themselves are Freemasons , —active Freemasons we mean—for no member of our
Brotherhood would take part in the work they profess to
be engaged upon ; while , if they were admitted when in a different frame of mind , and have since renounced the Order , it is hardly to be expected they would so far countenance it as to recognise its Grand Master . We are sure , therefore , that the writers of the letter are not members of our Order . Such being the case , we feel there must be some other motive than mere caprice for associating Freemasonry with so unholy a cause . We are among those who think that the Prince and Princess of Wales are acting somewhat unwisely in trusting themselves to the mercy of such miscreants as we have reason to know Ireland has in its midst , but doubtless all risks were weighed before His Royal Highness came to the decision he has arrived at . Still , it is pretty generally recognised that there are
risks , and if it should happen that an attack were attempted on the Royal visitors—which it is to be hoped will not be the case—we feel that the letter to which we have referred would be quoted ; and the Masonic
Brotherhood accused as being participators in , if not instigators of the attack . It is this eventuality which we think has prompted the writers to address our Grand Master by his Masonic title . Its use in this sense will be an excuse for
reproach by the enemies of the Order , even though Freemasons had no hand in using it ; while , as we have said , its use will be accepted as evidence of complicity on the part of Freemasons , in any disturbances in Ireland , should such occur during the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales .
Not Voluntary.
NOT VOLUNTARY .
PERHAPS no phrase employed in connection with the Lodge has been more generally misunderstood than that which is used in the declaration of the candidate indicating that he freely and voluntarily presents himself for
Not Voluntary.
initiation . Upon it is built the startling heresy that every duty performed in Masonry is the result of mere volition , and not the direct sequence of a pledge to perform that duty . The mistake originates in the false premise that
Masonry is a voluntary institution , whereas directly the contrary is the truth . It is voluntary only in the sense that one is free to ask admission , and that he cannot be received if he applies under compulsion ; one is free to assume its obligations , but not to disregard or break
them . Once within its pale it is no longer a mere matter of choice . The contract is a mutual one between the
initiate and the whole body of the Craft , the consideration for the promise of conformity being the reciprocal promise of others to him . It does not depend upon the faithfulness
of others in the performance of their covenants , for if every other Mason in the world should prove false he nevertheless is firmly bound . One has no more moral right
to throw off his obligations to the Craft than he has to
repudiate his promissory note given for a valuable consideration , and the idea that a Mason may dimit from his Lodge without a cause is as bad in morals as it is in Masonic law . The maxim of the church , " Once a priest always a priest , " may be read in Masonry , "Once a Mason
always a Mason . " The tie is indissoluble and there is no absolution from its consequences . There is no Masonic obligation stronger , in words , than that which binds the initiate to the observance of the laws , rules and regulations of the Craft , established from time immemorial , and amongst those rules we find one , in the Ancient Charges , which says that'' every brother ought to belong to a Lodge and be subject to its bye-laws . " When these charges were " extracted from the ancient records , "
the word " ought " was used in the sense of " to be under obligation to pay—the same as owed , " of which Webster gives us three illustrations , as follows , " The due obedience which they ought to the king . "—Tynclale . " The love and
duty I long have ought you . "—Spelman . " That followed , sir , which to myself I ought . " —Dryden . Read in this sense it undoubtedly means , that every brother owes to
the Craft the duty of belonging to a Lodge . Farther on in the same charges , in speaking of the Lodge , we find these words : In ancient times no Master , or Fellow , could be
absent from it , especially when warned to be at it , without
incurring severe censure , until it appeared to tbe Master and Wardens that pure necessity hindered him . " But if this is not enough , there is an old regulation directly in point which reads in this way : " No set or number of
brethren shall withdraw or separate themselves from the Lodge in which they were made brothers or afterward admitted members , unless the Lodge becomes too numerous ;
nor even then without a dispensation from the Grand Master or his Deputy . And when they are thus separated they must immediately join themselves to such other Lodge
as they like best ****** 0 r else they must obtain the Grand Master ' s warrant to join in forming a new Lodge . "
What language could have been employed to state more plainly the rule that every Mason must be a member of a regular Lodge than is used in these ancient laws , which have everywhere , since the revival of Masonry , been held
in the greatest veneration , and upon what a flimsy basis rests the argument of those who claim that one is free to go , according as his own caprice may dictate ? One writer cites from the charge delivered to the candidate in the first degree the following sentence , as justifying the idea that a