Ar00902

ffrW-MW- wv *^^

Further Comments On " Facts And Fictions."

FURTHER COMMENTS ON " FACTS AND FICTIONS . "

BY BEO . JACOB NORTON XYTITHOTJT entering into further arguments , I VY frankly confess that I was mistaken about the " Blesington " question , and I thank Bro . Sadler for

proving I was wrong . I further inform him that I am now convinced that I was also wrong in stating that the words " Ahiman Rezon " were invented by Dermott . The fact is , in the English Bible two persons are named respectively with the above words , about which he may learn more hereafter .

Having confessed to what I no longer believe , I will now state with equal frankness what I still believe . I firmly believe that Dermott ' s choice of " Ahiman Rezon " for the

name of his Constitution , together with the meaning of those words , as given by him in either of his editions , is pitre humbug . His motive was simply to make hia dupes believe that he was a Hebrew scholar . Bro . Marvin fas

already hinted in my communication about the " Royal Naval Lodge of Independence" ) showed clearly that Dermott ' s knowledge about armorial matters was just as nonsensical as his pretension to Hebrew knowledge . Now , between pages 101 and 110 of Bro . Sadler ' s book tbe

reader will find numerous quotations from Dermott ' s writings , which contain nothing but brag and bombastic lauding up the Ancients , as counting ninety-nine to one of the Moderns : as beiner able to converse together in presence

of a " Modern " in a most wonderful manner ; and with possessing *• Masonical language , " and what not , unknown to the Moderns . These lying assertions are interspersed

with solemn assurances , viz ., ' * I am so well acquainted with the truths of what I have just now asserted that I have not the least apprehension of being contradicted . " Aud again : " These are sterlina * truths ; will draw the natural inference . "

But although Bro . Sadler has persuaded himself that Dermott really believed that the Ancients numbered one hundred to one of the Moderns , and that Dermott and Co . could converse together ( somewhat after the deaf and dumb

fashion ) with squares and plumbs , yet , on page 111 , Bro . Sadler says : — " -It is scarcely necessary , therefore , to hint that it would be as well not to consider Dermott's description of the rival society as literally true , and I think I may venture to

intimate that he never meant it to be so received . " The fact is , my good Bro . Sadler is so infatuated with Dermottism , he is so steeped over head and ears with

Dermott s virtues , goodness , & c , and sympathises so passionately with Bro . Dermott ' s sufferings and martyrdom from the hands of his opponents , as to have worked himself up into a belief that Dermott was the most pure-minded

aud the most faultless Brother Mason of the last century . In short , unconsciously , and without the least evil design , Bro . Sadler worked himself np into a mere partizan in behalf of Dermott and Co . And here is another instance .

Dermott ' s claim to his concern having descended from York Masonry , is a piece of imposture which I pointed out some years ago . Our Bro . Sadler , however , not only can see

nothing wrong in Dermott ' s humbugging , but he actually admires it , and thinks Dermott wonderfully clever for appropriating the York title . On page 190 he says : —

"Whoever conceived the idea of utilizing this bit of Masonic history in the manner indicated , deserves well of his fellows , if not of his country ; for there is no doubt that it ( Dermott ' s pretension to Yorkism ) did wonders for the

Ancients , especially in America , where to this day we find a vast number of the brethren labouring under the delusion that they are descended from tbe real Ancient York Masons whereas their ( the American ' s ) earlv Lodees were enn .

stituted by a society that never had the remotest connection with the Grand Lodge at York , and , as a matter of fact , that old Lodge ( of York ) wa » in abeyance aud almost

Further Comments On " Facts And Fictions."

defunct when the Ancients started , an independent body . " Now , with all due respect to Bro . Sadler , I could no more compliment the swindler who palms off American

shoddy for genuine Yorkshire manufactured cloth than I can compliment Bro . Dermott for palming off his Irish Masonry for genuine York Masonry ; in my way of thinking , I regard both alike as humbugs .

In Bro . Hughan ' s Introduction to the " History of Royal Union Lodge , No . 246 , Cheltenham , he says : — " It is curious to note the variety of titles by which this body ( the Ancients ) was known . The Warrants contain numerous designations , one of the earliest being * Ancient

Grand Lodge' ( 18 th June 1755 , now No . 11 ) , - Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons' ( 14 th April 1757 , then and now No . 63 ) , ' Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons *

( 65 , & c , Nova Scotia , 27 th December 1757 ) , ' Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted York Masons' ( No . 15 of 17 th May 1758 ) , * Grand Lodge , & c , According to Old Constitutions , granted by His Royal Highness Prince Edwin of York ,

Anno Domini Nine Hundred Twenty and bix ( No . 44 , now No . 47 ) . The latter apparently being ultimately the favoured title . To which I will add * This Right

Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted York Masons , London ( Deputation to [ Halifax ] , Nova Scotia , Twentyseventh day of December 1757 ) . '" And now about Masonic Ancientness . Strictly speaking

the Masonic Society is not very ancient . Professor James E . Thorold Rogers , in his Lecture on the " Guilds , " says , that apprenticeship was unknown before the middle ages :

if so , then , neither Adam , Moses , Solomon , nor the Sainta John , could have been E . A . Freemasons . I will therefore place the dividing limit between ( comparatively speaking ) ancient and modern Masonry to the 24 th June 1717 .

The brethren who then formed the Grand Lodge were ancients in the morning of the above date , but were transformed into modems in the afternoon or evening of the

same day . Now , the " Melrose Lodge " is no doubt older than the Grand Lodge of England , and if it had retained its pre-1717 forms and ceremonies , a Melroser might consistentlv have said to Bro . D . M . Lvon , " You are onlv a

modern Mason , but I am an ancient . " But as Bro . Macbean inform us that the Melrosers have now three riRo-rfifis . thfiv cannotthereforeclaim to nossess w

, , *~ t 3 - * J ' ' t ancient Masonry , bufc they may still boast of having retained the ancient form of Masonic government . If , however , the Melrosers had formed an independent Grand

Lodge , I could not indeed designate them as secessionists or rebels ¦ but if they then presumed to call themselves " ancients , " and called the other Masons " moderns" they would deserve to be laughed at .

Now , the six Lodges that organised a Grand Lodge in 1752 , never laid claim to being older than the Grand Lodge of England , and there is not a particle of evidence that they were older . It is certain that their forms and ceremonies

were modern . Their code of laws was copied from Anderson's Constitutions . Nay , they even naturalised a new degree : a degree unknown to Anderson and Desaguliers ; and yet with modern forms , ceremonies , degrees , & c , and

with the modern form of Masonic government . Bro . Dermott had the impudence to call himself an " ancient Mason ; " and stigmatised Anderson , Desaguliers , and all the other successive members of the Grand Lodge of

England as " moderns . ' The question , however , is , where did Bra Dermott get his wonderful ancient Masonry ? The answer is , " In Dublin . " Ancl whence have Dublinites got their Masonry ?

Answer : " From the G . L . of England of 1717 . " The next question is , how Dermott could consistently call his new concern of 1752 " Ancient" ? Now , Dermott ' s own reason is , because the London brethren of 1717 did not know what

the Master ' s word was , so they invented a new word , but the brethren in the country and iu Scotland retained the genuine Master ' s word , hence Dermott's Masonic ancientness consisted only in knowing the true , genuine , and

original Master Mason ' s word . Now Dermott s own reason for his claim to ancientness did not satisfy Bro . Sadler , so he went to work and actually ouUlermotted Dermott himself , and gave reasons for Dermott ' s Masonic ancientness which

Dermott himself never dreamt of . On page 4 Bro . Sadler says : — " Several reasons have been given for their ( Dermott and

Co . 's ) withdrawal from parental authority , none of which , ia my opinipu , are satisfkefcpry , or sufficiently conclusive .