But a Mason, having been rejected, on his application for affiliation, by a lodge, is not thereby debarred from subsequently making a similar application to any other.
In some few jurisdictions a local regulation has of late years been enacted, that no Mason shall belong to more than one lodge.

It is, I presume, competent for a Grand Lodge to enact such a regulation; but where such enactment has not taken place, we must be governed by the ancient and general principle.
The General Regulations, adopted in 1721, contain no reference to this case; but in a new regulation, adopted on the 19th February, 1723, it was declared that "no Brother shall belong to more than one lodge within the bills of mortality." This rule was, therefore, confined to the lodges in the city of London, and did not affect the country lodges.

Still, restricted as it was in its operation, Anderson remarks, "this regulation is neglected for several reasons, and now obsolete."[92] Custom now in England and in other parts of Europe, as well as in some few portions of this country, is adverse to the regulation; and where no local law exists in a particular jurisdiction, I know of no principle of masonic jurisprudence which forbids a Mason to affiliate himself with more than one lodge.
The only objection to it is one which must be urged, not by the Order, but by the individual.

It is, that his duties and his responsibilities are thus multiplied, as well as his expenses.

If he is willing to incur all this additional weight in running his race of Masonry, it is not for others to resist this exuberance of zeal.