FREE BORN

Canadian Masons have all heard the Inner Guard's reply to the W. Master's question: 'How does he hope to obtain those privileges', when he states on behalf of the candidate 'By being a man, free-born . . . etc.' The question begs others. Are we not all free-born. Is there more to this necessary qualification than the obvious?

Slavery has been an all too recently accepted practice, and was only abolished in England in the year 1772 (1), and was bitterly contested in the American Civil War (1861 -1865). Therefore, it was in earlier times considered necessary that a candidate must be able to swear, and to prove through investigation, that he was 'free-born'. These early regulations have been altered over time, and the changes have not been universal. There is much available on the subject going well back into the earliest portions of our history. It must be remembered that our modern rules are largely inheritances or speculative interpretations of rules laid down in the ANCIENT CHARGES as set forth with some variations in the GOTHIC CONSITUTIONS. Since they were not precisely the same originally and have not been interpreted with entire uniformity, there are some differences of opinion in the many jurisdictions as to what the 'exclusions' are. Most originated from the14th to the 17th century A.D. as follows: REGIUS M.S., c. 1390; COOKE M.S., early 1 5th century; GRAND LODGE M.S., dated 1583; HARLEIAN M.S., No. 1942, c. 1670; ANTIQUITYM.S.,17thcentury;andBUCHANANM.S., 17th century. All of the GOTHIC CONSTITUTIONS confined the qualifications for apprentices to two categories, those relating to family, political, or social position and those relating to physical capacity. As a sample of one of the texts in full, ANTIQUITY M.S. stated: * * * 'and that the Apprentice be free-born and of Limbs whole as a Man ought to be and no Bastard. * * * Thirdly that he that shall be made, be able in all degree that is free-born of good kindred true, and no Bondsman, and that he have his right Limbs as a man ought to have.'

The difference between FREE-BORN, meaning free at the time of birth, and NO BONDSMAN, meaning free at the time of entering the Fraternity, will be observed. All, except REGIUS, say FREE-BORN, and the COOKE, HARLEIAN, and ANTIQUITY stop there, while GRAND LODGE and BUCHANAN cover both aspects. This difference was brought into prominence by action of the Grand Lodge of England in the 19th century. On Sept. 1, 1847, the United Grand Lodge changed the requirement that the petitioner be FREE-BORN to read FREE MAN, not both. Literally, a petitioner before 1847 in England had to be born-free but might be in bondage but, thereafter, one might have been born in slavery, yet, would not be excluded if free at the time of his petition. Unfortunately these and other changes became mingled some years ago with those of ANCIENT LANDMARKS. Because there were in the Old Charges certain provisions relating to the admission of apprentices, the idea became pretty well disseminated in the United States that these were irremovable LANDMARKS. Mackey's 18th LANDMARK, which has been expressly adopted by 4 Grand Lodges and is followed more or less by 13 other Grand Lodges in the United States, provides that the candidate 'shall be a man -unmutilated, free-born, and of mature age. That is to say, a woman, a cripple, or a slave or one born into slavery, is disqualified.' Happily, present practice, common sense and civil statute have shaped today's practical application of requirements in each jurisdiction. (Returning combat veterans seeking admission to the craft are not refused on the basis of physical impairments.)

The disqualification of a slave seems to have been based on the reasoning that each candidate involves himself in a solemn moral contract, and that anyone not a free agent or master of his own will and actions could not undertake the necessary obligations. Even those who had originally been in a servile state and had later acquired their liberty were considered unsuitable because it was thought that having been born into slavery and the constant domination thus submitted to, would have made clear decisions difficult, as all slavery included such a degrading of mind and abasement of spirit that no subsequent freedom could render such a candidate qualified to perform his duties as a mason. It was even stated in the past that children could not inherit a free and noble spirit except they be born of a free woman. Such thinking does not find much place with us today, and for the uninformed, the question 'are you free by birth' comes as a mild surprise.

There is a reference in the Bible where Sara demanded of Abraham, asking that he cast out this bondswoman and her son, or ‘the son of this bondswoman shall not be heir with my son’. Also, at the Grand Festival at which Abraham celebrated the weaning of Isaac, it is said that he had not paid the same compliment in the weaning of Ishmael because he was the son of a bondswoman, and consequently could not be admitted to the Freemasonry of his Father which could only be conferred upon a free-born child of a free woman.

But what is free-born? Its definition is, 'to be in a state of exemption from the control of another'. The doctrines as taught by Masons are that one should enjoy unrestricted liberty and be free in all thoughts and actions. This is carried so far in Masonry that the Grand Lodge of England will not carry out the initiation of a candidate who is only confined temporarily or has only for a short time been deprived of his liberty.

From these definitions it can be seen that the word free-born as used today by Masonry has a different meaning than that of the original interpretations. We use it in a metaphysical sense, implying that, we should be free not to act only as we wish and possibly at the expense of another, but free from the domination of passion, pride and prejudice, and from all other follies of human nature. We should be free from the delusion that we need not be obedient to the laws of nature or the civil laws of our own Country. In this sense the word freeborn is equivalent in meaning to that of integrity.

The foregoing article was prepared from a presentation made by W. Bro. Larry Burke, Harmony Lodge, No. 57, G.R.C., Binbrook, Ont. for Masonic Education, Oct. 12/88. Additional historical information was taken from Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. (Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, Inc.).

(1) Originally this article had a mistake, 1721 -- Updated to 1772. 26/10/2009  KD
--
Free E-mail Masonic Newsletter
If you enjoy our website and newsletter, then please e-mail your lodge Brethren and let them know about us too. Thank you!

Check out the Masonic Store -- Thousands of items!