-
Articles/Ads
Article BROTHER SADLER'S ANSWER TO BRO. JACOB NORTON'S Page 1 of 1 Article BROTHER SADLER'S ANSWER TO BRO. JACOB NORTON'S Page 1 of 1 Article THE LION'S PAW. Page 1 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
BROTHER SADLER'S ANSWER TO BRO . JACOB NORTON'S
"COMMENTS ON FACTS AND FICTIONS . "
SEEING that Brother Norton has started a fresh subject in the FREEMASON ' - . CURONICLE , I may fairly assume that for the present he has finished his " Comments " on my recently published work . If that be really so , I am rather sorry , for al" hough our critical brother has been most unsparing
in his denunciation of the " Ancients , " and Laurence Dermott in particular , his observations on the contents of the book are like angels' visits , "few and far between . " I shall hereafter direct his attention to one or two points on
which I particularly wish for his opinion , but I have first to thank him for having acceded to my request , —although contrary to his own inclination , —aud the simple fact that I am now endeavouring to answer his arguments should
sufficiently evince that I am not in tho least offended with him for his inability to agree with me in this matter . He , I am sure , will not take amiss anything I may say in so doing , for while condemning his logic I cannot help
admiring his pluck . Being pretty familiar with Brother Norton ' s views on the subjecb of the " Ancients , " and also his antipathy to their leader , I felfc some little curiosity as to how be would dispose of some of my " facts , " although I was not
much surprised when he informed me that he was not a convert to my theory , but when I afterwards learnt that he had only read a portion of the book , it seemed to me that he was scarcely doing himself , or even the author , justice in
thus expressing a decided opinion on the merits of a theory with which he had only a partial acquaintance . Indeed , it savoured so much of prejudice , and so nearly resembled a verdict of guilty without having heard the evidence , that
I strongly urged him to read the book carefully through , and then let me know his views . He says he has now done as I wished him , but his opinion is unchanged , and I am bound to believe him , although I must confess to some little doubt
as to his having kept in view the adjective in my request . However , assuming that he has given the book a fair amount of attention , his mode of disposing of the facts
referred to has evidently been the very common one of shutting his eyes to them , or , at all events , he has not thought them worthy of notice .
After reading Brother Norton ' s first " Comments , " in the CHBONICLE , NO . 719 , I was forcibly reminded of the practice popularly imputed to gentlemen of the legal profession when they have a weak case to defend , i . e ., abuse the
plaintiff s witnesses ; and having now read the whole of his dissertation , I am of opinion that he has adhered to this practice most assiduously . Ifc is not unlikely that my inexperience as a writer has led to some misunderstanding as
to the exact nature of the theory with which Brother Norton is unable to agree , for he appears to have entirely lost sight of it . It is not that " Dermott and his seventy or more associates of 1751 and 1752 " were " Masonic saints
of the highest standard , not even that Dermott himself was a Hebrew scholar and au educated gentleman , who never under any circumstances deviated from " the vantage ground of truth . " I cannot therefore quite see how I have " totally
failed " in doing that which I never attempted . I say that when elected Grand Secretary he was a journeyman painter , and I have plainly shown that those who aided him in forming a Grand Lodge were chiefly mechanics , shopkeepers and labourers , but I must beg to differ most strongly
with Brother Norton in his estimation of Dermott ' s character , especially when he would have us believe that he
was a forger , as well as " the most shameless , impudent , and unscrupulous story-teller of all" Masonic historians or writers . In order to prevent misconception in future , I will state
as briefly as possible what my theory is , although I was certainly under the impression that I had already made it sufficiently clear on pp 4 , 128 and 197 of the work under discussion . I feel somewhat diffident about quoting
verbatim passages out of my own book , and should prefer to avoid so doing wherever possible . Under present circumstances it will doubtless be sufficient if I state that one of the two Masonic bodies which in 1813 formed the United
Grand Lodge of England has been credited by every one who has written on the subject since the year 1776 with having originally seceded from the other body ( but the how , when and wherefore of this occurrence has hitherto been an open question ) , and that they have been invariably referred to as " Seceders" " Schismatics , " or " so-called Ancients . "
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
This , I say , is " the greatest fiction in the history of English Masonry . " My contention is that we have no right to apply these epithets to them , for there is not the shadow of a proof , nor has there ever been , thafc any considerable
number of them at any time owned allegiance to the regular Grand Lodge of England established in 1717 ; that in fact they were Irish Masons , who in consequence of the doors of the English Lodges being closed against them had assembled
in Lodges of their own formation , perfectly independent of any authority but that of their own selection until they felt themselves strong enough , and circumstances being favourable , to organise themselves into a Grand Lodge , which
they did in the year 1752 . Therefore , in my opinion , we are no more justified in stigmatising them as " Seceders " or " Schismatics" than we should be in applying these appellations to certain tradesmen who , coming from a distant
town , set up in business in one where there was already a firm carrying on a similar concern . This is my principal argument . Now , with regard to the term " Ancients , " whioh former writers have applied iu the kind of left-handed way
indicated , I look upon this as a matter of merely secondary importance , and have so treated it in my book . What I say on this point , on page 196 , in referring to the Ancients is , thafc " having kept alive and continued to observe so
many of the old customs of the Order they had a stronger title to the appellation of ' Ancients' than has been generally accorded them ; " and on page 140 " I am inclined to think that undue importance is attached to those designations ,
and that when the ' Ancients , ' or Irish Masons , first applied the term ' Moderns' to the adherents of fche regular Grand Lodge they were actuated more by a desire of making what fchey doubtless considered a just and necessary distinction between the two societies than of using the words
in a derogatory sense . It was not till their prosperity and influence attracted notice , and the officials of the rival community were called upon by their own members to answer rather awkward questions , that the bitterness of
strife began , and the words 'Ancient' and 'Modern ' became really important expressions . " I must take exception to one or two of Brother Norton ' s " Comments " which seem to me to require some explanation . For
instance , he says the first five or six lodges of the " Ancients '' were dubbed " Time Immemorial . " May I ask him who so described them ? I certainly did not ; neither can I find that they themselves claimed any such distinction . Again
he says : " they had no right to pretend to antiquity , or to the name of " Ancients . ' " With Bro . Norton s definition of what strictly speaking should be "the line of
demarcation between Ancient and Modern Masons " I quifca agree , but I think he will concede thafc Dermott and his associates had , at any rate , as good a title to call themselves " Ancient Masons " as their rivals had to call themselves
"Most Ancient , and as many other Masonic bodies of much more recent formation have to arrogate to themselves the name of Ancient . And as for their having " no right , " & c , I fancy a good many of us do that which we
have no right to do even in these enlightened days . For instance , Bro . Norton has no right to say : " Bro . Sadler , however , never saw a Warrant of the ' Ancients' older than 1772 : " but he has said it nevertheless , and more than
that he has printed it , an evident proof that he has not carefully read " Masonic Facts and Fictions , " or he would have seen , on page 189 , these words , " I have before me two
original Warrants of the ' Ancients , ' one granted in 1757 , the other in 1759 , and they contain no mention of Prince Edwin , nor even the ' Old Constitutions . ' "
If my old friend will remind me when next we meet I shall have much pleasure in showing him these two documents . For the present he must content himself with the transcript appended , and if he finds the word " Tork " in it I will readily forgive him the false accusation . ( To be continued ) .
The Lion's Paw.
THE LION'S PAW .
( Concluded from page 339 . )
THUS far I have repeated very briefly an explanation of the Lion ' s Paw . Our ancient brethren , when they saw the clouds moving in opposite directions , imagined that the gods above were pulling the cows home by their tails . So I see in this emblem a reference even to the sun itself .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
BROTHER SADLER'S ANSWER TO BRO . JACOB NORTON'S
"COMMENTS ON FACTS AND FICTIONS . "
SEEING that Brother Norton has started a fresh subject in the FREEMASON ' - . CURONICLE , I may fairly assume that for the present he has finished his " Comments " on my recently published work . If that be really so , I am rather sorry , for al" hough our critical brother has been most unsparing
in his denunciation of the " Ancients , " and Laurence Dermott in particular , his observations on the contents of the book are like angels' visits , "few and far between . " I shall hereafter direct his attention to one or two points on
which I particularly wish for his opinion , but I have first to thank him for having acceded to my request , —although contrary to his own inclination , —aud the simple fact that I am now endeavouring to answer his arguments should
sufficiently evince that I am not in tho least offended with him for his inability to agree with me in this matter . He , I am sure , will not take amiss anything I may say in so doing , for while condemning his logic I cannot help
admiring his pluck . Being pretty familiar with Brother Norton ' s views on the subjecb of the " Ancients , " and also his antipathy to their leader , I felfc some little curiosity as to how be would dispose of some of my " facts , " although I was not
much surprised when he informed me that he was not a convert to my theory , but when I afterwards learnt that he had only read a portion of the book , it seemed to me that he was scarcely doing himself , or even the author , justice in
thus expressing a decided opinion on the merits of a theory with which he had only a partial acquaintance . Indeed , it savoured so much of prejudice , and so nearly resembled a verdict of guilty without having heard the evidence , that
I strongly urged him to read the book carefully through , and then let me know his views . He says he has now done as I wished him , but his opinion is unchanged , and I am bound to believe him , although I must confess to some little doubt
as to his having kept in view the adjective in my request . However , assuming that he has given the book a fair amount of attention , his mode of disposing of the facts
referred to has evidently been the very common one of shutting his eyes to them , or , at all events , he has not thought them worthy of notice .
After reading Brother Norton ' s first " Comments , " in the CHBONICLE , NO . 719 , I was forcibly reminded of the practice popularly imputed to gentlemen of the legal profession when they have a weak case to defend , i . e ., abuse the
plaintiff s witnesses ; and having now read the whole of his dissertation , I am of opinion that he has adhered to this practice most assiduously . Ifc is not unlikely that my inexperience as a writer has led to some misunderstanding as
to the exact nature of the theory with which Brother Norton is unable to agree , for he appears to have entirely lost sight of it . It is not that " Dermott and his seventy or more associates of 1751 and 1752 " were " Masonic saints
of the highest standard , not even that Dermott himself was a Hebrew scholar and au educated gentleman , who never under any circumstances deviated from " the vantage ground of truth . " I cannot therefore quite see how I have " totally
failed " in doing that which I never attempted . I say that when elected Grand Secretary he was a journeyman painter , and I have plainly shown that those who aided him in forming a Grand Lodge were chiefly mechanics , shopkeepers and labourers , but I must beg to differ most strongly
with Brother Norton in his estimation of Dermott ' s character , especially when he would have us believe that he
was a forger , as well as " the most shameless , impudent , and unscrupulous story-teller of all" Masonic historians or writers . In order to prevent misconception in future , I will state
as briefly as possible what my theory is , although I was certainly under the impression that I had already made it sufficiently clear on pp 4 , 128 and 197 of the work under discussion . I feel somewhat diffident about quoting
verbatim passages out of my own book , and should prefer to avoid so doing wherever possible . Under present circumstances it will doubtless be sufficient if I state that one of the two Masonic bodies which in 1813 formed the United
Grand Lodge of England has been credited by every one who has written on the subject since the year 1776 with having originally seceded from the other body ( but the how , when and wherefore of this occurrence has hitherto been an open question ) , and that they have been invariably referred to as " Seceders" " Schismatics , " or " so-called Ancients . "
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
This , I say , is " the greatest fiction in the history of English Masonry . " My contention is that we have no right to apply these epithets to them , for there is not the shadow of a proof , nor has there ever been , thafc any considerable
number of them at any time owned allegiance to the regular Grand Lodge of England established in 1717 ; that in fact they were Irish Masons , who in consequence of the doors of the English Lodges being closed against them had assembled
in Lodges of their own formation , perfectly independent of any authority but that of their own selection until they felt themselves strong enough , and circumstances being favourable , to organise themselves into a Grand Lodge , which
they did in the year 1752 . Therefore , in my opinion , we are no more justified in stigmatising them as " Seceders " or " Schismatics" than we should be in applying these appellations to certain tradesmen who , coming from a distant
town , set up in business in one where there was already a firm carrying on a similar concern . This is my principal argument . Now , with regard to the term " Ancients , " whioh former writers have applied iu the kind of left-handed way
indicated , I look upon this as a matter of merely secondary importance , and have so treated it in my book . What I say on this point , on page 196 , in referring to the Ancients is , thafc " having kept alive and continued to observe so
many of the old customs of the Order they had a stronger title to the appellation of ' Ancients' than has been generally accorded them ; " and on page 140 " I am inclined to think that undue importance is attached to those designations ,
and that when the ' Ancients , ' or Irish Masons , first applied the term ' Moderns' to the adherents of fche regular Grand Lodge they were actuated more by a desire of making what fchey doubtless considered a just and necessary distinction between the two societies than of using the words
in a derogatory sense . It was not till their prosperity and influence attracted notice , and the officials of the rival community were called upon by their own members to answer rather awkward questions , that the bitterness of
strife began , and the words 'Ancient' and 'Modern ' became really important expressions . " I must take exception to one or two of Brother Norton ' s " Comments " which seem to me to require some explanation . For
instance , he says the first five or six lodges of the " Ancients '' were dubbed " Time Immemorial . " May I ask him who so described them ? I certainly did not ; neither can I find that they themselves claimed any such distinction . Again
he says : " they had no right to pretend to antiquity , or to the name of " Ancients . ' " With Bro . Norton s definition of what strictly speaking should be "the line of
demarcation between Ancient and Modern Masons " I quifca agree , but I think he will concede thafc Dermott and his associates had , at any rate , as good a title to call themselves " Ancient Masons " as their rivals had to call themselves
"Most Ancient , and as many other Masonic bodies of much more recent formation have to arrogate to themselves the name of Ancient . And as for their having " no right , " & c , I fancy a good many of us do that which we
have no right to do even in these enlightened days . For instance , Bro . Norton has no right to say : " Bro . Sadler , however , never saw a Warrant of the ' Ancients' older than 1772 : " but he has said it nevertheless , and more than
that he has printed it , an evident proof that he has not carefully read " Masonic Facts and Fictions , " or he would have seen , on page 189 , these words , " I have before me two
original Warrants of the ' Ancients , ' one granted in 1757 , the other in 1759 , and they contain no mention of Prince Edwin , nor even the ' Old Constitutions . ' "
If my old friend will remind me when next we meet I shall have much pleasure in showing him these two documents . For the present he must content himself with the transcript appended , and if he finds the word " Tork " in it I will readily forgive him the false accusation . ( To be continued ) .
The Lion's Paw.
THE LION'S PAW .
( Concluded from page 339 . )
THUS far I have repeated very briefly an explanation of the Lion ' s Paw . Our ancient brethren , when they saw the clouds moving in opposite directions , imagined that the gods above were pulling the cows home by their tails . So I see in this emblem a reference even to the sun itself .