THE BUILDER JANUARY 1916

THE PERFECT YOUTH

BY BRO. GEO. W. WARVELLE, ILL.

Our action of last year, confirming the decision of the year
preceding relative to the eligibility of maimed candidates, has
attracted much attention and produced widely varying opinions. In
the main, however, the opinions are favorable and it is certain
that the precedent we have set will be followed in many
jurisdictions. I use the word "precedent" advisedly, for no
jurisdiction had before then taken so radical a position with
respect to physical requirements. Rut, all that was needed was a
leader. Illinois, to its honor, assumed the office,
and many will follow.

In Pennsylvania candidates must be physically faultless. In
Washington, it would seem, much the san1e rule prevails, but in
most of the jurisdictions an imperfection of the body or loss of a
member will not debar a candidate if by artificial aid he is able
to "conform to the requirements of the ritual." Last year the Grand
Chapter of Washington approved a decision to the effect that "a
brother with one foot off at the ankle, otherwise a sound man,
although he has an artificial foot" is not eligible for the Chapter
degrees.

Where this rigid rule of exclusion prevails the palpably
unfraternal character thereof is usually defended by a recourse to
the "ancient landmarks." It seems almost unnecessary to say that
there are no ancient landmarks of Royal Arch Masonry and about the
only ancient requirement for exaltation is, that the candidate must
"have regularly passed the chair." In fact, the present rule of
physical perfection, as applied in the Lodge, is mainly due to the
strict interpretation by American ritualists of the old laws of the
operative society. In England physical defects or deformities
create no bar to the admission of candidates whose moral character
is sound. And this is in consonance not only with fraternal spirit
but with reason. To deny admission to a maimed candidate, however
worthy he may otherwise be, is an act utterly at variance with the
principles of Freemasonry as a speculative institution.

NEW AGE, NEW TESTS

Commenting upon this subject, Comp. J. L. Seward, of New Hampshire,
makes the following pertinent remarks:

"Capitular Masonry has no landmark aside from its dependence upon
symbolic Masonry. It simply requires that an applicant shall be a
Master Mason. It leaves the requirements for symbolic Masonry in
the hands of that branch of Freemasonry.

"At the same time, we believe that the landmarks with respect to
physical qualifications in symbolic Masonry should be interpreted
with regard to the age in which they were originated, and with
respect to the original purpose. The purpose was to initiate men
who were most fit for the work in hand. At that time it was
operative stone work, requiring strength, muscle and excellent
bodily development. How is it today? What do we require of a modern
Mason ? We should still require that he be qualified for our work.
But what is our work ? It is wholly of a moral, charitable and
intellectual character. Physical perfection, as it is called,
develops good athletes, pugilists, ball players and circus
performers. Even our modern colleges and universities are greatly
overvaluing men of this stamp. Do Freemasons wish to be understood
as placing the emphasis of the qualifications upon a standard so
low and so grossly coarse? Doubtless a certain regard should be had
for the physical condition of an applicant, but that should be
minimized in comparison with the emphasis which we ought to place
upon the moral and intellectual qualifications."

UNFRATERNAL REQUIREMENTS

About the best argument for the abolition of this useless and
unfraternal requirement, that has come to my notice, is made by
Comp. Arthur E. Stevens, G. H. P. of Michigan. Commenting thereon
he says:

"What is this law of physical perfection and from whence did it
derive its origin ?

"The law of the old charges which declares that a candidate must be
a perfect youth, 'having no maim or defect in his body,' was a
practical rule adopted by operative Masons, not for any symbolic
reason, I take it, but merely for utilitarian reasons.

"The medieval guild of Catholic builders for whom the old charges
were made was a body of superior workmen jealous of its position.
It considered itself better than any local guild or ordinary
masons, as it was, for its members constructed works of stone which
the average mason of this day could not undertake. It did not want
any apprentice who, when he had learned his trade and arrived at
manhood, was not the equal in skill and physical ability of his
fellows. From their viewpoint physical perfection was as important
or more so than moral perfection. This was practical and operative,
not symbolical or mystical.

"The working tools of the operative mason have become to us
symbolic of spiritual truths and the physical perfection required
of the ancient apprentice should become to us but a symbol of that
moral and spiritual perfection which we demand in our candidates,
with due allowance for the essential imperfection of human nature.
But even this view need not be considered in Royal Arch Masonry.
Those who apply to us for further light are of necessity Master
Masons, and if they have proven themselves to be morally such as we
are authorized to receive what right have we to debar them from
Capitular Masonry?

"The argument has often been made that a man should be able to
prove himself a Mason in all the ways provided.

"Presuming a brother maimed has become a Royal Arch Masonr and
granting that he could not in all the ways provided prove himself
one, does Capitular Masonry suffer. Is the brother forced from the
companionship of his own Chapter, where he undoubtedly will find
the most pleasure to be derived from his membership ? Or will he
not be incited by the fact of his physical disability to so perfect
himself in Masonic knowledge that if necessary he can make himself
known as a Royal Arch Mason to the satisfaction of the most
critical examiners? Or if he can not, will not the loss be his and
his alone ?

"Companions, can we think that we are bound to deprive our
unfortunate brother of the privilege of such additional light in
Masonry as we are able to furnish, because in ancient times
operative masons chose only those who were sound and capable of
handling and setting stones? Or even, if in our conscience we
believe that Master Mason Lodges are bound to take physical
disability into consideration, are we also bound to believe that
Chapters should do the same ? I do not believe that you so think
and I therefore recommend that Article 10 of the Constitution be
amended by striking out Section 4, and that Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8
be renumbered as 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively."

THE OLD CHARGES

I am pleased to report that Grand Chapter rose to the occasion and
effected the reform the G. H. P. recommended.

The foundation for the modern theory of faultless physical
condition of candidates, is based on that part of Anderson's
compilation of the Ancient Charges which reads as follows:

"No Master should take an Apprentice unless he be a perfect youth,
having no maim or defect in his body, that may render him incapable
of learning the art, of serving his Master's lord and of being a
brother."

The development of the theory into what we may call the "American
rule," is largely due to the comments and interpretations of the
late Cornelius Moore. His edition of the Old Charges was for years
received by American Lodges with the reverence paid to Holy
Writings and his commentary was regarded as almost inspired.

To be consistent, however, the advocates of th perfect youth
doctrine should exclude from the congregation of the faithful all
old, infirm and maimed Craftsmen. That is, the same rule that
debars the admission of the "imperfect" youth, should work the
exclusion of the worn-out, disabled or maimed within the fold. The
reasons which apply in the former case are equally cogent in the
latter. There are many aged brethren who, by reason of physical
infirmity, are utterly unable to give the signs, or even to see
them, or, perhaps, to hear the word. They are quite as incapable of
"proving themselves" as the candidate without hands or feet or who
has lost "the end of the little finger of the left hand." How can
they practice the "art" or "serve their Master's lord." Out upon
them for a parcel of imposters.

THE GIFTS OF GOD

When God at first made Man,
Having a glass of blessings standing by;
Let us (said he) pour on him all we can.
Let the world's riches, which dispersed lie, 
Contract into a span.

So Strength first made a way;
Then Beauty flow'd, then Wisdom, honour, pleasure
When almost all was out, God made a stay
Perceiving that alone, of all his treasure, Rest in the bottom lay.

For if I should (said he)
Bestow this jewel also on my creature,
He would adore my gifts instead of me,
And rest in Nature, not the God of Nature, 
So both should losers be.

Yet let him keep the Rest,
But keep them with repining restlessness;
Let him be rich and weary, that at least,
If goodness lead him not, yet weariness 
May toss him to my breast.
--George Herbert.


The-one great lesson taught in Masonry is to do something, and in
doing that something, bless somebody else.
--T. S. Parvin.

