Posts
 |
Mr. Cole Tomas Allen of California, an unhappy man, is in custody after a failed attempt on President Donald Trump’s life hours ago at the White House Correspondents’ Association’s annual dinner in Washington, DC. |
Bro. Thomas of Thornton Lodge 486 in Texas asks:
“Can someone please explain whether or not the 3rd paragraph of the EA Charge is actually a charge or a suggestion?”
Knowing nothing about any ritual(s) promulgated by the Grand Lodge of Texas, I didn’t know what might be communicated in the third paragraph of his lodge’s Entered Apprentice Charge, but the abundant replies to his question clarified that for me. In New York, we actually have two charges from which to choose to instruct the youngest Entered Apprentice. The first charge includes the following (although it’s the fourth graf):
In the State you are to be a quiet and peaceable citizen, true to your government and just to your country. You are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but are patiently to submit to legal authority, and conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live.
As an aside, I’ll point out how this echoes in our Installation of Officers. In seating the new Worshipful Master, he must agree to fifteen commands, including:
II. You agree to be a peaceful citizen, and cheerfully conform to the laws of the country in which you reside.III. You promise not to be concerned in plots or conspiracies against the government, but patiently submit to the law and the constituted authorities.IV. You agree to pay a proper respect to the civil magistrates, to work diligently, live creditably, and act honorably by all men.
None of the above are Masonic secrets. The EA Charge is not protected by oath; the Ancient Charges and Regulations for the lodge’s new Master can be heard by all who witness the ceremony, which often is attended by our families and friends. What wisely was kept confidential were Thomas’ reasons for asking, as he did not reveal personal political opinions or why he might take being a peaceable citizen as merely a suggestion for Masons.
Anyway, here is my long form Magpie answer:
I wouldn’t think any part of a charge would be discretionary, but that [third paragraph] part most definitely is a command that reverberates through history.
The idea enters Masonic ritual via The Rev. James Anderson’s book The Constitutions of the Free-Masons from 1723, the jurisprudence (although it contains other content) of the premier Grand Lodge of England.
The best known, most frequently cited portion of that book is “The Charges of a Free-Mason.” Not only is this section kept current by the United Grand Lodge of England, but also we find this section reproduced in the pages of grand lodges’ law books all over the world. We New Yorkers can read it on page 57 of Masonic Law of New York. Freemasons who don’t know Anderson’s Constitutions should read it because it informs much of what we think, say, and do in our lodges. (This will be covered in what I’ll present to the Observant lodges of Oklahoma when I step to the lectern on St. John’s Day.)
Charge I, “Concerning God and Religion,” is credited by some historians for partly inspiring the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but Charge II is our topic today, to wit (spelling modernized):
II. Of the Civil Magistrate supreme and subordinate.
A Mason is a peaceable Subject to the Civil Powers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be concerned in Plots and Conspiracies against the Peace and Welfare of the Nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior Magistrates; for as Masonry has been always injured by War, Bloodshed, and Confusion, so ancient Kings and Princes have been much disposed to encourage the Craftsmen, because of their Peaceableness and Loyalty, whereby they practically answered the Cavils of their Adversaries, and promoted the Honor of the Fraternity, whoever flourished in Times of Peace. So that if a Brother should be a Rebel against the State, he is not to be countenanced in his Rebellion, however 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 Relation to it remains indefeasible.
 |
| Click to enlarge. |
You see the similarities to the charges shown above. This is whence they came.
Anderson’s book also contains a legendary history of Freemasonry, some of which is factual, some fanciful. Among the reliably accurate notes is mention of English laws dating to the Middle Ages. In England, the various Statutes of Laborers regulated stone masons’ qualifications, remuneration, ability to meet, and other details, but the statute of 1405 specifically compelled such workers to take an annual oath to comply with the law. Anderson writes (spelling modernized):
Now though in the third Year of the said King Henry VI, while an Infant of about four Years old, the Parliament made an Act, that affected only the WORKING Masons, who had, contrary to the Statutes for Laborers, confederated not to work but at their own Price and Wages; and because such Agreements were supposed to be made at the General Lodges, called in the Act: Chapters and Congregations of Masons, it was then thought expedient to level the said Act against the said Congregations: Yet when the said King Henry VI arrived to Man’s Estate, the Masons laid before him and his Lords the above-mentioned Records and Charges, who, tis plain, reviewed them, and solemnly approved of them as good and reasonable to be holden: Nay, the said King and his Lords must have been incorporated with the Free-Masons, before they could make such Review of the Records; and in this Reign, before King Henry’s Troubles, Masons were much encouraged. Nor is there any Instance of executing that Act: in that, or in any other Reign since, and the Masons never neglected their Lodges for it, nor ever thought it worthwhile to employ their NOBLE and EMINENT BRETHREN to have it repealed; because the working Masons, that are free of the Lodge, scorn to be guilty of such Combinations; and the other free Masons have no Concern in Trespasses against the Statutes for Laborers.
Stone masons’ literature of the 1400s, namely the Regius Poem, communicates the same thinking. The marvelous website of the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon still shows the poem and the modern translation, from 1923 by Bro. Roderick Baxter of Quatuor Coronati Lodge 2076, including:
In 1799, with the bloodbath of the French Revolution in mind, the British government devised the Unlawful Societies Act. The law, which remained enforceable until 1967, banned groups, that met in secret and that required oaths, out of fear of organized political subversion. Freemasonry, being loyal and peaceful in its activities, was exempted from the law. (If you’ll be in London on May 14, get to QC 2076 at Freemasons’ Hall to hear Bro. Paul Calderwood present his paper on this law.)
 |
| New book available from Lewis Masonic. |
In more recent years, Masons’ practice of being peaceable citizens has proven valuable in inoculating the Craft from suspicion. For example, when the Irish Republican Army seized the headquarters of the Grand Lodge of Ireland in Dublin exactly 104 years ago, they relinquished control of the property (after six weeks) because Michael Collins and Arthur Griffiths were satisfied that Irish Freemasonry was apolitical and nonsectarian, despite its fraternal connection to England. More information on that here.
 |
| National Archives |
What about the Declaration of Independence? The American Revolution placed Freemasons here in rebellion and war against their king. That’s not very peaceful! How did our Masonic ancestors, the famous and the obscure alike, square their commitment to the Craft with their revolution? Benjamin Franklin knew about Anderson. The first Masonic book printed in the New World was Franklin’s reprint of Anderson’s Constitutions in 1734.
Perhaps Anderson’s Charge II sometimes must be a romantic ideal, something aspirational, that has to be suspended when considering “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” for yourself and your posterity. Then again, on the practical side, America’s Founders, whether Masons or not, did not see the distant British king as their civil authority. After all, the colonists had no representation in Parliament. There were sympathizers (Bro. Edmund Burke and others), but that’s not the same as electing your own MPs. Meanwhile, the colonists here did elect local representatives and were used to having their say in government. Therefore, a rebellion against the government across the ocean could be outside the boundaries of Anderson’s charge.
In addition, we would be wise to consider that Anderson wrote for his time. (He’d be stunned to hear us talking about him 300 years later.) 1723 was early in the Hanoverian era, the dawn of which finally concluded decades of political violence in England. Think about what happened there between 1640 and 1721. Some of the major points:
➢ The Long Parliament
➢ Civil War
➢ Regicide of Charles I
➢ Cromwell
➢ The Restoration
➢ Glorious Revolution
➢ Bill of Rights
➢ The Act of Union
➢ The Hanoverian Succession
➢ Bro. Walpole as Prime Minister
There’s stability by 1723. The Grand Lodge, desiring royal patronage, wants to be known as being supportive of the constitutional monarchy, and so codifies its peaceful intentions, noting their historical basis.
Other replies to Bro. Thomas’ question on Thursday placed the Declaration of Independence at odds with the EA Charge, and even hinted it may be time to knock off this peaceful citizen business. (It appears those remarks have vanished.) But that is a valid question Thomas poses. How should we today reconcile Anderson’s “unhappy Man” and Jefferson’s “pursuit of Happiness?”
3 comments:
There might have been Masons who participated in the "Boston Tea Party? Maybe they were considered "Unlawful" to their Oaths as Masons in Communication to the Grand Masonic Lodge of England?
I believe there were Masons involved in the Boston Tea Party, which wouldn’t necessarily entail boarding the ship and tossing the cargo. It can’t be proven either way, though, because the evidence would have gotten the rebels hanged, so everyone kept their mouths shut.
The Masonic authorities in Massachusetts then were Provincial Grand Lodges, one established by England and the other by Scotland. Any Mason involved in the Tea Party surely would have been from St. Andrew’s Lodge, which was Scottish in origin.
But, to your point, the Patriots in Massachusetts viewed themselves as citizens of Massachusetts. Maybe not in total independence, but in a greater sense than they might have thought themselves subjects of Great Britain. So, being unlawful and doing illegal things has to be weighed in that context. Whose laws were they transgressing? The king’s, who they didn’t consider their head of state.
Thank you for reading The Magpie Mason.
The patriots in the revolution saw themselves as British subjects who had been wronged by their king. A brief read of the declaration of independence makes that perfectly clear. In no way until that moment had they seen themselves as non-citizens or not as owing their loyalties to the crown, until they had shed them. Without that fact, indeed, the declaration makes no sense whatsoever.
What is perfectly clear is that when several of our obligations conflict, we must make a decision which obligations we will continue, and moral men do not do so by the wooden application of predetermined rules. We can simultaneously allow that Washington was a hero, and Lee a traitor, without succumbing to empty statements about "history belonging to the victors". That trite point about history can offer no moral help; at best it would tell us that we must try to win, which is either obvious or morally bankrupt depending on what sense you give it.
The duty of all men to be peaceable citizens can come into conflict with others of their duties. This a simple fact. There is no solid resting place where we can be sure that we will not be judged negatively by history; there is no calculus which will absolve us of the ultimate moral responsibility for our choices. "I was only doing my duty" is either the humble words of a hero, or it is the pathetic excuse of a coward, and it takes judgment to know the difference.
So yes, Washington did not heed to this part of his masonic obligation, because in his view it had become impossible to heed to all of it, and he had to make a choice.
Post a Comment