antient charges
by Author Unknown
Short Talk Bulletin May 1933
"Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old have set
in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land the Lord thy God
hath given thee
-- Deuteronomy XIX:14
The Masons "of old time set thine inheritance" (Masonry) certain fundamental
principles which are named as "Landmarks" as early as the Constitutions of 1723.
Men have quarreled about the stone markers set up as boundaries for land ever
since sections of the earth were claimed as property; in like manner have Masons
differed about what are and what are not Landmarks of the Order.
In this country particularly, with forty- nine Jurisdictions, each sovereign
within its own territory, arguments about Landmarks are never ending. This
Bulletin attempts not to settle any of these numerous controversies, but only to
bring before the average Lodge Member some of the reasons why his neighbor's
Masonic Landmarks may differ from those his own Grand Lodge may have set up for
him to follow.
In 1858 Albert Gallatin Mackey, the great Masonic jurist and authority, listed
twenty-five fundamental principles as the true Landmarks of Freemasonry.
Although critical scholarship has since riddled the list as to accuracy,
Mackey's ideas of what constitute the essential qualities of a Landmark -
antiquity, universality and irrevocability - are still respected. This
definition excludes from the classification of Landmarks any principle which is
any two of these but no the third, It is by his own standards that many critics
have measured Mackey's Landmarks and found them wanting. As an example of what
is meant; it is "ancient," in the sense that it was recognized in the
"Constitutions" of the Grand Lodge in 1723, that a Grand Master appoints own
Deputy Grand Master. But the practice is by no means universal. Lodges are now
universally governed by Grand Lodges, but the practice has antiquity of only two
hundred and sixteen years.
According to Mackey's dicta, neither the manner of creating a Deputy Grand
Master not the fundamental governing body of the Craft can be considered as
Landmarks. A few principles are so universally recognized that they are freely
admitted to be essentials, even in Jurisdictions which have no pronouncements as
to the Landmarks. Belief in a Supreme Being, the Volume of sacred Law as a
necessary part of the furniture of the Lodge, that a Masons must be a man are
essentials all over the world, though not necessarily listed in all
Jurisdictions.
On the validity of certain principles all authorities agree, but differ as to
their antiquity, universality and irrevocability. A substantial minority of
American Grand Jurisdictions have Officially adopted Mackey's twenty-five
Ancient Landmarks, but a majority either follow other compilations, use other
Old Charges, or decline to specify what are and what are not the Landmarks of
the Craft.
The right and power of any Grand Lodge to determine for itself just what is and
what is not "law" in its Jurisdiction is unquestioned. Therefore, when a
Jurisdiction sets forth any list of Landmarks in its Code, they have all the
force of Ancient Landmarks in that Jurisdiction, whether they are actually so or
not. "Actually so" refers to inherent nature; that which cannot be altered by
law, no matter what the lawmaking authority. The National Legislature has the
undoubted "right" to enact a law that unsupported objects must fall. "Per
contra," it then has the right to repeal the law of gravity, and forbid things
to fall when no longer supported. But it has not the "power" to enforce, change
or suspend the law of gravity!
A Grand Lodge which says "Thus and such is an Ancient Landmark "in that
Jurisdiction," give that pronouncement the full force and effect of an Ancient
Landmark "in that Jurisdiction, but its edict does not "actually" make it such.
One Jurisdiction follows Lockwood's list of nineteen landmarks, of which number
8 reads: "That every Lodge has an inherent right to be represented in Grand
Lodge by its first three officers, or their proxies." This is good Masonic law
in most Jurisdictions, but not all; the Mason from this Jurisdiction
(Washington, D.C.) who moves to New York or Texas and there affiliates finds
that this is not a Landmark in either of these Jurisdictions, since neither New
York nor Texas admit Wardens to Grand Lodge.
In the General Assemblies of Ancient times each Mason, Craftsman or Entered
Apprentice, represented himself. In Grand Lodges Masons are represented by their
officers. Evidently a change has been made in the manner of governing the Craft.
As a Landmark is not subject to change, this particular principle of law does
not conform to Mackey's definition of a Landmark. No wonder his neighbor's
landmark is a matter of confusion to brethren from neighboring but differing
Jurisdictions!
Mackey's fourteenth Landmark asserts that every Mary Mason has the right of
visitation. Just what is a "right?" Until that word is defined this so-called
Landmark cannot be discussed intelligently. If it here means "power superior to
all other powers," then it is merely nonsense. If it here means "privileged
until a higher privilege overcomes it," how may it be considered to conform to
the requirements of a Landmark? Even so, how can the word "right" be translated
"privilege?" A privilege may be withdrawn; an inherent right cannot! as many
Jurisdictions rule on the "right of visit" in different ways - even those which
have adopted Mackey's list - it can hardly be considered a true Landmark, "if"
we judge by Mackey's own pronouncement on what constitutes a Landmark and "if"
the word "right" means what it says.
In some jurisdictions a Mason cannot visit without a good standing card; in
others any member may object to any visitor and the Master must exclude; in
still others, some Masters close the doors of their lodges to all visitors on
election nights, and so on. Occasionally there is a conflict between ritual and
Landmarks as adopted. A certain Jurisdiction lists fifty-four Landmarks, of
which Number 18 reads: "Every Lodge, Grand or Subordinate, when lawfully
congregated, must be regularly clothed, tyled and opened before it can proceed
to work." Many other Jurisdictions agree that it is a Landmark that a Lodge must
be "duly tiled." Our ancient brethren met on high hills and low vales to observe
the approach of cowans and eavesdroppers. Did they "truly tile?" California
Lodge No. 1 of the District of Columbia was chartered to go to California during
the gold rush of 1849. Had that Lodge (now California No.1 on the register of
the Grand Lodge of California) been wrecked going around the horn; had only the
members of the Lodge, with their charter, been saved upon an otherwise
uninhabited island; if they then held meetings with no tiler - since there were
no cowans or eavesdroppers against whom to tile - would they have violated the
so-called Landmark?
Many rituals give "three" as the irreducible minimum for a Master Mason's Lodge;
a Lodge must have a Master and two Wardens. If under some strange circumstances,
three and only three met as a Lodge, what becomes of the so-called Landmark
which requires a Tiler? Secrecy undoubtedly conforms to the classification of
the three essentials of a Landmark; but about "the means" of securing secrecy is
at least room for argument.
Other Masonic laws, good where in force but not necessarily Landmarks, are
Mackey's 8th: "The prerogative of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight" and
the 11th Landmark of a Western Grand Lodge which reads: "Every person, to be
made a Mason must be a man of lawful age, free born and; hale and sound, as a
man ought to be." Several Grand Jurisdictions have enacted legislation
preventing a Grand Master from convening an Emergent Lodge for the purpose of
Making a Mason "at sight." Others consider that it is an inherent right of Grand
Masters to convene Emergent Lodges (that is, give a certain number of brethren a
dispensation to hold a Lodge) and that no law can take this right from him.
If a Landmark cannot be changed, and this "has been" changed, is it truly a
Landmark, or merely a matter of common law? All will agree that no woman can be
made a Mason. But what becomes of the "lawful age" provision in the face of the
fact that Washington - and many another man - was made a Mason before he was
twenty-one? He would be a daring debater who argued that the Father of His
Country was not regularly and legitimately initiated.
The "hale and sound" provision is by no means universal; many Jurisdictions
stick to the strict letter of the "doctrine of the perfect youth" while others
admit the lame and the halt under a Grand Master's dispensation, Worshipful
Master's judgment or even Grand Lodge law relaxing restrictions in favor of men
of the Army or Navy who had arms or legs shot off in the war!
A number of Grand Jurisdictions have never adopted any list or classification of
Landmarks. The thought back of such absence of legislation may be understood
from the following, from R.W. Charles C. Hunt, Grand Secretary and Grand
Librarian of the Grand Lodge of Iowa. "We hold that the power of the Grand Lodge
of Iowa in the Jurisdiction of Iowa is limited only by the Ancient Landmarks. We
do not attempt to make a list of the Landmarks. "We believe it as unnecessary to
adopt an official list of scientific laws, such as the law of gravitation. The
Landmarks. like scientific laws, are valid only in so far as they are true and
their adoption by any so-called body has no effect whatever on their validity.
Individual scientists may list what they conceive to be the laws of nature, but
no scientific society would undertake officially to adopt these laws as the
official laws of the science in which they are interested. "The very definition
of a Landmark is a fundamental law or principle of Masonry which no body of men
or Masons can change or modify. Anything that can be adopted can be repealed. If
a Grand Lodge has the power to adopt, it has the power to modify or repeal. It
is the very fact that they unalterable that makes them similar to scientific
laws which cannot be changed or altered by any man or body of men."
Some authorities have attempted to formulate lists of Ancient Landmarks which no
Mason would question. For instance, one very old Jurisdiction states that the
Landmarks are:
a. Monotheism, the sole dogma of Freemasonry.
b. Belief in immortality.
c. The Volume of Sacred Law, an indispensable part of the furniture of a
Lodge.
d. The legend of the Third Degree.
e. Secrecy.
f. The symbolism of the operative art.
g. A Mason must be a freeborn male adult."
But then adds "The above list of Landmarks is not declared to be exclusive."
Dr. Joseph Fort Newton suggests five fundamentals on which all Masons can agree:
"The Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the moral law, the Golden Rule
and the hope of a life everlasting." Those who question these as Landmarks
usually qualify by agreeing that they are teachings of the Order, but are in
doubt as to just how old all of them may be, as such.
Dean Roscoe Pound, whose "Masonic Jurisprudence" is generally considered to be
among the most profound analyses of Landmarks, thinks seven are unquestionable:
(
1) Belief in God;
(2) Belief in the persistence of personality;
(3) a Book of the Law as an indispensable part of the furniture of every
Lodge;
(4) The legend of the Third Degree;
(5) Secrecy;
(6) The symbolism of the operative art; and,
(7) That a Mason must be a man free born and of age."
Of thirty-nine Jurisdictions of our forty-nine, eighteen either have adopted,
recognized or follow Mackey's list of twenty-five Landmarks; two use the Old
charges, or Old Charges and General Regulations as Landmarks; eight have
adopted, recognized or follow lists of Landmarks of their own, and eleven either
have not adopted, do not recognize, or do not follow any special compilation of
Landmarks, preferring to leave the question untouched.
Reduced to a percentage basis, Mackey is followed in 46.1% plus of these
thirty-nine Jurisdictions; Old charges and Regulations in 5.1%; own Landmarks in
20.5% plus and no special list in 28.2% plus. Obviously there is no universality
of opinion as to what is and what is not a Landmark, and yet all Jurisdictions
agree there "are" Landmarks. Many "Laws of Nature" recognized in former times
are believed in no longer; knowledge of science and of nature is in a state of
flux. What appears to be the truth today may be the error of tomorrow.
Possibly this is true also of our conception of the ancient Landmarks, and that
no list of all those fundamentals of the Craft which are "actually" Landmarks is
possible. Both that statement and this bulletin are without prejudice to the
undoubted fact that in those Jurisdictions which have adopted any list of
Landmarks, whether all inclusive or not, the principles there denominated as
Landmarks have the force of Landmarks within the borders of those Jurisdictions.
back to top |