himself to its performance who is not a free agent and the master of his own actions.  That the restriction is extended to those who were originally in a servile condition, but who may have since acquired their liberty, seems to depend on the principle that birth, in a servile condition, is accompanied by a degradation of mind and abasement of spirit, which no subsequent disenthralment can so completely efface as to render the party qualified to perform his duties, as a Mason, with that “freedom, fervency, and zeal,” which are said to have distinguished our ancient Brethren.  “Children,” says Oliver, “cannot inherit a free and noble spirit except they be born of a free woman.”

The same usage existed in the spurious Freemasonry or the Mysteries of the ancient world.  There, no slave, or men born in slavery, could be initiated; because, the prerequisites imperatively demanded that the candidate should not only be a man of irreproachable manners, but also a free-born denizen of the country in which the mysteries were celebrated.

Some masonic writers have thought that, in this regulation in relation to free birth, some allusion is intended, both in the Mysteries and in Freemasonry, to the relative conditions and characters of Isaac and Ishmael.  The former—­the accepted one, to whom the promise was given—­was the son of a free woman, and the latter, who was cast forth to have “his hand against every man, and every man’s hand against him,” was the child of a slave.  Wherefore, we read that Sarah demanded of Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son.”  Dr. Oliver, in speaking of the grand festival with which Abraham celebrated the weaning of Isaac, says, that he “had not paid the same compliment at the weaning of Ishmael, because he was the son of a bondwoman, and, consequently, could not be admitted to participate in the Freemasonry of his father, which could only be conferred on free men born of free women.”  The ancient Greeks were of the same opinion; for they used the word [Greek:  douloprepeia] or, “slave manners,” to designate any very great impropriety of manners.

The Grand Lodge of England extends this doctrine, that Masons should be free in all their thoughts and actions, so far, that it will not permit the initiation of a candidate who is only temporarily deprived of his liberty, or even in a place of confinement.  In the year 1782, the Master of the Royal Military Lodge, at Woolwich, being confined, most probably for debt, in the King’s Bench prison, at London, the lodge, which was itinerant in its character, and allowed to move from place to place with its regiment, adjourned, with its warrant of constitution, to the Master in prison, where several Masons were made.  The Grand Lodge, being informed of the circumstances, immediately summoned the Master and Wardens of the lodge “to answer for their conduct in making Masons in the King’s Bench prison,” and, at the same time, adopted a resolution, affirming that “it is inconsistent with the principles of Freemasonry for any Freemason’s lodge to be held, for the purposes of making, passing, or raising Masons, in any prison or place of confinement.”