decorated with an astronomical picture. Moreover, he was enabled to detect in the mural paintings.a majestic concordance with the Poem of Penta-our, and to decipher in several legends dedicated to the great Deity, Ammon-Ra, these characteristic words, "The habitation of Rameses Mei Ammon in the Oph of Thebes."

3000

From all these great historical facts, entombed for more than years, and providentially recovered from the misty grasp of oblivion, and spread out before us, under the auspicious beams of the glorious orb of day, heightened by the intelligence and progress of the nineteenth century, shall we learn nothing? Shall we like the whippowil, bat, or owl, prefer darkness to light, and night to day? If faith is the soul's organ of light, truth is her only source of illumination.

Our Spiritual Heavenly Father never requires us to lay violent and murderous hands on the reason he has so munificently given us, for fear it will lead us to know something of Him and of ourselves. He did not create the light, and these eyes of ours that we should keep them shut or tear them out, but open them on the bright scenes of glory and majesty which surround us, and through which he makes himself known to us. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness, BECAUSE THAT WHICH MAY BE KNOWN OF KOD is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made even His eternal power and godhead." (Rom. I.)

*

Truly did Paul say: "That which may be known of God is manifest in man," as well as in the universe. How closely is that man related to the lower order of beings, who heholds the many manifestations of the Deity, in and around himself, and still entertains no emotions of veneration toward him. Intelligent men have ever held the Supreme Being in reverence, though scattered over every land, and every isle of the swelling sea. Though they have differed in forms of worship, their devotion has been much the same. No one will call in question the sincerity of devotion, even among the rude, and barbarous men of our race.

We oppose the limited idea that all who differ with us are idolators and ignorant of God. To discard this narrow theology Freemasonry admonishes us. We are charged with the guilt of acknowledging a Mahometan to be a brother! Does he not believe in the god of the

* Greek datẞsta-From A. negative, and ΣEBQ to venerate, literally irreverent. No appellation of Deity is found in the word, as it is in the English.

Hebrews? Do not we who call ourselves Christians, also adore the god of Abraham? Is there not as wide a difference between our forms of worship and those of the Hebrews, as there was between theirs and those of the Egyptians or Hindoos? Still we believe in the god of the Hebrews. Perhaps if we knew all we should find that we believe in the same supreme power which the Egyptians and Hindoos worshipped. Who knows but what their God is our God?

Where is the man whose penetrating eye can look down deep into the soul of the Hindoo, and ascertain that in that soul there exists no reverence, no affection for the Deity? Omniscience alone can scrutinize the heart. Who shall presume to know that that spirit has no fellowship, no sympathy with the father of spirits? Who? The man who asserts his knowledge in this regard, sits in judgment on the soul of a fellow being. More than this, he pretends to scan the operations of the Divine Spirit, and trace its mysterious influences. Charity, and humanity, broad and deep as the race of man, are far better qualities of mind than proscription and condemnation.

"For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight,

He can't be wrong whose life is in the right.”

More love and less bigotry would much improve the world.

To accomplish this desideratum so devoutly to be wished, Freemasonry extends her limitless and kindly aid. She, the venerable herald of peace and concord among men, unites in indissoluble ties of friendship, men of every language and clime, and religion, upon the firm foundation of human fraternity, and God's paternity. To Him, therefore, we all with reverence most humbly bow.

LODGE JURISDICTION.

"HAS a subordinate Lodge the right to prefer charges and try a member, who is also a member of the Grand Lodge; or has the Grand Lodge exclusive original jurisdiction?"

This question has beeen asked by the Grand Lodge of a sister State, and has been referred to its Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence for a reply at its next annual communication.

The question is one of much importance and demands a thorough and careful examination. If such right exist in the subordinate Lodges without restriction or exception, then it is evident that it may occur that the Grand Master may be tried and expelled from all the rights of Masonry, while in the exercise of the duties of his office, or he may be suspended as the case may be, for the non-payment of dues, or other

offense not involving moral obliquity. But if it should occur that the Grand Master should be guilty of gross unmasonic conduct why may not the Lodge of which he is a member try him, and if found guilty administer Masonic discipline?

It will be seen at a glance that the question divides itself into these two considerations:

1st. Has a subordinate Lodge the right to prefer charges and try a member who is also the Grand Master?

2d. Has such subordinate Lodge the right to prefer charges and try a member who is also a member of the Grand Lodge, but who is not the Grand Master?

There is no principle of Masonic law better settled than that a Lodge can not try its own Master. All the reasons which apply to the law, that a Lodge can not try its Master, apply with much stronger force to the case of the trial of the Grand Master by a subordinate Lodge. He has the right to preside over the Lodge when present, to order what work shall be brought before it; and in case he should not choose to be present and preside at the trial of himself, he could appeal from the judgment and sentence of the Lodge to himself and set the same aside.

Such an anomoly in our jurisprudence does not exist. A subordinate Lodge has no power to prefer charges and try the Grand Master. It is self evident that he who has power to preside over the Lodge, to order its work, to set aside its decisions, and who holds in his hands the power to arrest its charter until the next Grand Communication of the Grand Lodge, cannot be put upon trial by such a body. He does not hold his office during the will and pleasure of a subordinate Lodge. Experience teaches us that subordinate Lodges, (in common with all human organizations,) are liable to err, in the trial of offenses. Hence the provisions for appeal to the Grand Lodge, or Grand Master for the time being.

Are the Fraternity then left remediless? By Art. 19 of the "Old Regulations" it is provided: "If the Grand Master should abuse his power, and render himself unworthy of the obedience and subjection of the Lodges, he shall be treated in a way and manner to be agreed upon in a new Regulation; because hitherto the Ancient Fraternity have had no occasion for it, their former Grand Masters having all behaved themselves worthy of that honorable office.

So that the power to deal with the Grand Master was reserved by the Grand Lodge of England to itself.

The question when applied to other members of the Grand Lodge admits of a wider range of discussion. The reasons why the Grand

Master can not be disciplined by his Lodge arise from the nature and prerogatives of his office; they do not apply to any other member of the Grand Lodge.

From what sources do the particular or subordinate Lodges derive their power of discipline over their own members?

By the "Old Charges," sometimes called the Ancient Constitutions of Free and Accepted Masons, it is provided by Art. VI, " Of behaviour in the Lodge while constituted," "If any complaint be brought, the brother found guilty shall stand to the award and determination of the Lodge, who are the proper and competent judges of all such controversies (unless you carry it by appeal to the Grand Lodge) and to whom they ought to be referred," &c. And again in the final charge, "If any brother do you injury, you must apply to your own or his Lodge, and from thence you may appeal to the Grand Lodge, as has been the ancient laudable conduct of our forefathers in every nation."

This is the fundamental law, from which it appears that subordinate Lodges have always of right exercised disciplinary control over their members, those same members being also members of the Grand Lodge. For it must be remembered that at the time when these "Ancient Constitutions" were first published in 1722, by Anderson, all Masons, even the youngest entered apprentice, were members of the Grand Lodge, and entitled to a seat and vote therein. The Grand Lodge then, as now, had appellate jurisdiction.

There is nothing in the "Ancient Constitutions" which indicate that the Grand Lodge has original jurisdiction to try even their own members-indeed it is expressly stated that "you must apply to your own, or his Lodge, and from thence you may appeal to the Grand Lodge."

This shows that the Grand Lodge did not assume original jurisdiction much less exclusive jurisdiction. The law quoted above from the "Ancient Constitutions" or "Old Charges," is not the language of the Grand Lodge directing the proper course, but is a landmark of the order which the Grand Lodge itself can not alter.

As before stated in the nature of things, the Grand Master could not be tried by a subordinate Lodge and hence we see that by the "Old Regulations," of 1721, the Grand Lodge of England expressed themselves in reference to the Grand Master. In a certain contingency they proposed to assume jurisdiction, original and exclusive, founded upon the necessities of the case. Nowhere else in the "Regulations" old or new, is there any assumption of the power to exercise original jurisdiction by the Grand Lodge of England, with respect to Masonic offenses. And if the "Ancient Constitutions," above referred to, do express the ancient landmarks of our Order, which no Grand Lodge

has a right to alter, change, or modify, it is plain that a Grand Lodge has no original jurisdiction whatever, and for the punishment of Masonic offenses you must apply to your own, or his Lodge in the first instance.

A Grand Lodge is said to be the highest Masonic authority within its own jurisdiction. It has also been thought that, as a Grand Lodge is possessed of certain legislative, executive and judicial powers, which are supreme within its own jurisdiction, it has power to prefer charges and try its own members for Masonic offenses. The Grand Lodge of Michigan at its last session resolved "That this Grand Lodge has original jurisdiction of Masonic offenses committed by its members, and may make complaint and try the offender. Yet the Grand Lodge of Michigan did not resolve that it had exclusive jurisdiction over its own members. On the contrary this Grand Lodge, with reference to a complaint against one of its own members, declined to proceed with the complaint, because the member complained of was then being tried by the subordinate Lodge of which he was a member. From which it may be inferred that in this State, the Grand Lodge exerercises original and concurrent jurisdiction with its subordinate Lodges, over members of the Grand Lodge.

No case has however occurred where the Grand Lodge of Michigan has exercised original jurisdiction over its own members to charge and try them in the formal manner contemplated by this resolution, and I apprehend that when this question comes more fully to be considered by them, they will rescind the foregoing resolution, and refer all cases of Masonic trial to the proper subordinate Lodge in the first instance, as was the ancient usage of the Fraternity.

It seems to me that the question proposed at the head of this article must be answered in the affirmative as to the first clause, and in the negative as to the latter clause; except as to the Grand Master.

C.

Without the time to quote authorities or to enter into elaborate argument, we give, very succinctly, our opinions on the subject discussed in this article.

We agree, with our correspondent "C," that a Lodge can not try a member who, for the time being, is the Grand Master of the jurisdiction. When, however, he ceases to be Grand Master, and as P. G. M. is (so to speak) an emeritus member of the Grand Lodge, the jurisdiction over him is original and concurrent in both Lodge and Grand Lodge; that is, he may be tried for certain offenses in his Lodge in the usual way, with the right of appeal to Grand Lodge; or, for certain