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 . " ( Continued from page 21 ) . IN my last contribution I expressed a wish for Bro . Norton ' s opinion on certain points relative to the
nosecession theory propounded in "Masonic Facts and Fictions , " and as I have no desire to overcrowd him with work , I will reserve a few others until he has had time to " consider and report" on those already mentioned ; indeed
it will in some measure depend upon the nature of his reply whether I trouble him again on this subject . It may bo , and I hope ifc will , that on the main question we agree , aud if so I have very little more to say , for if it be any satisfaction to him I will readily concede that the " so-called
Ancients " were not entitled to that distinctive appellation according to the general acceptation of the term in the present day . In my opinion this phase of the subject is
hardly worth serious discussion , for after all it must be admitted thafc fche word " ancient" is not arbitrary and was often used to denote something old , i . e ., not new or modem , as
" A very ancient and fish-like smell . " "I will feed fat tbe ancient grudge I bear him . " Surely my old friend will not deny that Dermott and his
party were perfectly justified in adhering to fche description given of them by the highest authority in the ranks of their opponents , no other than Dr . Anderson to whom
1 have already given credit tor naving nrst used tne words " antient" and "modern" in relation to Freemasonry . On page 96 of the Constitutions of 1738 will be found the paragraph quoted by Bro . Norton in his article of the 20 th
October , commencing " At last the antient Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons in Ireland " which he has attributed to " the editor of tbe Dublin Constitutions of 1751 , " but which really emanated from our oivn learned
historian , and was simply copied verbatim by Bro . Spratt , as was nearly the whole of his book . I do think therefore that the anger of my friendly critic is misplaced in saying " they had no right to pretend to antiquity or to the name of Ancients , " and that he is unnecessarily severe upon the
" seventy or eighty members" who in 1751 decided to organise and consolidate for their mutual benefit ; and as this great and learned authority saw no impropriety in applying the term " modern " to his own party in the
same book in 1738 , 1 fail to see any reason why we of the present day should be either surprised or annoyed with others for so describing it a few years later . I have already noted several instances of the application of the term " modern "
to their own Society by tbe adherents of the Grand Lodge of 1717 , and I could mention others if necessary ; the fact is they were so designated in printed books as well as in
written letters , aud in my opinion no objection would ever have been raised to it had not the authorities discovered that ifc was a source of weakness to them , and thafc their
rivals were getting the best of the battle for supremacy . I sincerely hope Bro . Norton has no fault to find with my method of replying to his " Comments "—that he
has not taken offence where none was intended , for I assure him I have endeavoured to control as far as possible my natural propensity for saying things unpalatable ;
and if I have occasionally indulged in a little mild banter , or a small joke at his expense , I trust he will not bear malice on that score , bufc will permit me to plead in extenuation that " I really couldn't help it , and it was only a very little one after all . " Besides ,
I may remind him that the book he has been finding fault with is my " first-born . " Some little allowance , therefore , ought to be made for parental pride as well as for natural affection , and as Bro . Norton well knows a father ' s protection is of the highest value to his offspring in their early
days , he but ill discharges the duties of a parent who sends them prematurely out to battle with this hard censorious world without being prepared to defend them should
occasion demand it . Now I have every reason to be satisfied with this child of mine . He is doing very well at present , aud although only a little over twelve months old he has got several teeth and takes quite naturally to the toughest crusts wini auie io aione
or , ne , nope , snortiy oe run and even fight his own battles . Until he is able to do so I shall certainly do my best to protect him against all
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
attacks from whatever quarter they may come . I am unaware of the actual number of brethren across the Atlantic who hold the same views as Bro . Norton with regard to
" Masonic Facts and Fictions , but there ia certainly as many as one besides himself . If , therefore , he thinks I have at any time hit him too hard , he has only to remember that a
blow loses much of its force by expansion or distribution , and if he will share it with his colleague , and do so with his usual liberality in dealing out blows , he will scarcely feel
its effects himself . I now allude to the editor of the Keystone , Philadelphia , who says , in that journal of the 3 rd __ - *•? ATr \ TraYifiKa i « loaf . ** "Rf » n . Too / VK "NTn-nf-. fm / vP "Rnaf . rtn ' rlnaa riXSt 1 4 f \
_ _ \ J 1 . A 1 UIUU 1 MU 1 JI _*__ . U -L- VUUVU AUIUUU VC . _ L _>«_ r _ -Ujr AJ _ lAl / Uk ? not agree' with Bro . Sadler in his * - Facts and Fictions . ' In other words he thinks his facts are fiction and his fiction facts . Bro . Norton , ' shake / since for once we are agreed . " I hope that " shake " has come off , and that it
has been a source of mutual enjoyment to fche parties concerned . If the writer intended this paragraph as a gratuitous advertisement I am extremely obliged to him , and if ifc was meant merely as a sample of Yankee
smartness he is heartily welcome to all tho credit he is likely to get by it . Some people have found Bro . Norton alone quite enough to tackle single-handed , and it would have been perhaps as well to have heard the other side before coming to a decision . However , as our brother has thought proper
to rush uninvited to the fray , he will , I doubt not , readily divide the spoils of the battle with his companion in arms . Whenever I hear fche words " Masonry nnifces men of every country , sect and opinion" I shall be reminded of the
wonder worked by my little book in reconciling two distinguished members of our Order , who never had agreed before , and the picture of Bro . Norton and bis life-long . •¦ •¦ i « ¦ - ¦ - _ - « - _ # '
_ antagonist fraternizing and snaking , actually snamng , over " Masonic Facts and Fictions " will amply repay me for all my toil and trouble in writing the book , and be a consolation in my darkest hours . Kicking a dead man is a comparatively safe and easy mode of fighting , bufc afc best
it can only result in an inglorious victory ; now it these valiant champions of misrepresentation are not yet satisfied , I shall at any time be most happy to " run a tilt " with them , either in defence of the memory of Laurence
Dermott , or of my own arguments in " Masonic ! _ acts and Fictions . " I am almost as much in the dark as to the number of unbelievers in my new theory to be found in this country , but I will take this opportunity for mentioning a few who did or do believe in ifc , and whose opinions
should have some weight . Amongst the former I am happy in being able to include the late Rev . A . F . A . Woodford , Past Grand Chaplain of England , for many years editor of the Freemason , and every one who knew
him must admit that he would not readily abandon an old tradition unless perfectly satisfied thafc it had no foundation , nor adopt a new theory unless convinced of its
soundness . Ifc affords me much pleasure to record the fact thafc a favourable view of my theory has been expressed by Sir Albert W . Woods , C . B ., Garter , King at Arms , P . G . W ., & c , who has held the office of Grand Director of Ceremonies for thirty years out of his forty as a Mason .
In a letter ( unsolicited ) Bro . F . A . Philbrick , Q . C ., Grand Registrar of England , says , You have , I think , made out your case , you have put it very clearly and succinctly and have carried conviction to my mind Your
success is not only gratifying as showing a desire to get at the truth in the Craft , bat also a testimony to fcho fairness and ability with which fche work has been executed . " The opinion of Bro . Thomas Fenn , President of the
Board of General Purposes , can be seen in the Preface of the book , and Colonel Shadwell H . Gierke , Grand Secretary of England , has given me permission to say that he is fully satisfied that my theory is correct . The brethren I have named are nofc at all likely to have been influenced by
merely personal considerations , and were it necessary or even deemed advisable I could mention a large number of others who are of the same opinion . I am sorry I cannot include amongst them my valued and highly
esteemed friend , Brother W . J . Hughan , Past Grand Deacon ; however , I do not despair even in that quarter , for " time is on my side . " Indeed , it would have been
little short of a miracle if had I succeeded in one single effort in convincing every one of our historians that they have been wrong on this question all their lives . The
difficulty of my task may be well illustrated by the following anecdote . While the compilation of " Masonic Facts , & c . " waa in progress I accidentally met with one of our most cautious
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 . " ( Continued from page 21 ) . IN my last contribution I expressed a wish for Bro . Norton ' s opinion on certain points relative to the
nosecession theory propounded in "Masonic Facts and Fictions , " and as I have no desire to overcrowd him with work , I will reserve a few others until he has had time to " consider and report" on those already mentioned ; indeed
it will in some measure depend upon the nature of his reply whether I trouble him again on this subject . It may bo , and I hope ifc will , that on the main question we agree , aud if so I have very little more to say , for if it be any satisfaction to him I will readily concede that the " so-called
Ancients " were not entitled to that distinctive appellation according to the general acceptation of the term in the present day . In my opinion this phase of the subject is
hardly worth serious discussion , for after all it must be admitted thafc fche word " ancient" is not arbitrary and was often used to denote something old , i . e ., not new or modem , as
" A very ancient and fish-like smell . " "I will feed fat tbe ancient grudge I bear him . " Surely my old friend will not deny that Dermott and his
party were perfectly justified in adhering to fche description given of them by the highest authority in the ranks of their opponents , no other than Dr . Anderson to whom
1 have already given credit tor naving nrst used tne words " antient" and "modern" in relation to Freemasonry . On page 96 of the Constitutions of 1738 will be found the paragraph quoted by Bro . Norton in his article of the 20 th
October , commencing " At last the antient Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons in Ireland " which he has attributed to " the editor of tbe Dublin Constitutions of 1751 , " but which really emanated from our oivn learned
historian , and was simply copied verbatim by Bro . Spratt , as was nearly the whole of his book . I do think therefore that the anger of my friendly critic is misplaced in saying " they had no right to pretend to antiquity or to the name of Ancients , " and that he is unnecessarily severe upon the
" seventy or eighty members" who in 1751 decided to organise and consolidate for their mutual benefit ; and as this great and learned authority saw no impropriety in applying the term " modern " to his own party in the
same book in 1738 , 1 fail to see any reason why we of the present day should be either surprised or annoyed with others for so describing it a few years later . I have already noted several instances of the application of the term " modern "
to their own Society by tbe adherents of the Grand Lodge of 1717 , and I could mention others if necessary ; the fact is they were so designated in printed books as well as in
written letters , aud in my opinion no objection would ever have been raised to it had not the authorities discovered that ifc was a source of weakness to them , and thafc their
rivals were getting the best of the battle for supremacy . I sincerely hope Bro . Norton has no fault to find with my method of replying to his " Comments "—that he
has not taken offence where none was intended , for I assure him I have endeavoured to control as far as possible my natural propensity for saying things unpalatable ;
and if I have occasionally indulged in a little mild banter , or a small joke at his expense , I trust he will not bear malice on that score , bufc will permit me to plead in extenuation that " I really couldn't help it , and it was only a very little one after all . " Besides ,
I may remind him that the book he has been finding fault with is my " first-born . " Some little allowance , therefore , ought to be made for parental pride as well as for natural affection , and as Bro . Norton well knows a father ' s protection is of the highest value to his offspring in their early
days , he but ill discharges the duties of a parent who sends them prematurely out to battle with this hard censorious world without being prepared to defend them should
occasion demand it . Now I have every reason to be satisfied with this child of mine . He is doing very well at present , aud although only a little over twelve months old he has got several teeth and takes quite naturally to the toughest crusts wini auie io aione
or , ne , nope , snortiy oe run and even fight his own battles . Until he is able to do so I shall certainly do my best to protect him against all
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
attacks from whatever quarter they may come . I am unaware of the actual number of brethren across the Atlantic who hold the same views as Bro . Norton with regard to
" Masonic Facts and Fictions , but there ia certainly as many as one besides himself . If , therefore , he thinks I have at any time hit him too hard , he has only to remember that a
blow loses much of its force by expansion or distribution , and if he will share it with his colleague , and do so with his usual liberality in dealing out blows , he will scarcely feel
its effects himself . I now allude to the editor of the Keystone , Philadelphia , who says , in that journal of the 3 rd __ - *•? ATr \ TraYifiKa i « loaf . ** "Rf » n . Too / VK "NTn-nf-. fm / vP "Rnaf . rtn ' rlnaa riXSt 1 4 f \
_ _ \ J 1 . A 1 UIUU 1 MU 1 JI _*__ . U -L- VUUVU AUIUUU VC . _ L _>«_ r _ -Ujr AJ _ lAl / Uk ? not agree' with Bro . Sadler in his * - Facts and Fictions . ' In other words he thinks his facts are fiction and his fiction facts . Bro . Norton , ' shake / since for once we are agreed . " I hope that " shake " has come off , and that it
has been a source of mutual enjoyment to fche parties concerned . If the writer intended this paragraph as a gratuitous advertisement I am extremely obliged to him , and if ifc was meant merely as a sample of Yankee
smartness he is heartily welcome to all tho credit he is likely to get by it . Some people have found Bro . Norton alone quite enough to tackle single-handed , and it would have been perhaps as well to have heard the other side before coming to a decision . However , as our brother has thought proper
to rush uninvited to the fray , he will , I doubt not , readily divide the spoils of the battle with his companion in arms . Whenever I hear fche words " Masonry nnifces men of every country , sect and opinion" I shall be reminded of the
wonder worked by my little book in reconciling two distinguished members of our Order , who never had agreed before , and the picture of Bro . Norton and bis life-long . •¦ •¦ i « ¦ - ¦ - _ - « - _ # '
_ antagonist fraternizing and snaking , actually snamng , over " Masonic Facts and Fictions " will amply repay me for all my toil and trouble in writing the book , and be a consolation in my darkest hours . Kicking a dead man is a comparatively safe and easy mode of fighting , bufc afc best
it can only result in an inglorious victory ; now it these valiant champions of misrepresentation are not yet satisfied , I shall at any time be most happy to " run a tilt " with them , either in defence of the memory of Laurence
Dermott , or of my own arguments in " Masonic ! _ acts and Fictions . " I am almost as much in the dark as to the number of unbelievers in my new theory to be found in this country , but I will take this opportunity for mentioning a few who did or do believe in ifc , and whose opinions
should have some weight . Amongst the former I am happy in being able to include the late Rev . A . F . A . Woodford , Past Grand Chaplain of England , for many years editor of the Freemason , and every one who knew
him must admit that he would not readily abandon an old tradition unless perfectly satisfied thafc it had no foundation , nor adopt a new theory unless convinced of its
soundness . Ifc affords me much pleasure to record the fact thafc a favourable view of my theory has been expressed by Sir Albert W . Woods , C . B ., Garter , King at Arms , P . G . W ., & c , who has held the office of Grand Director of Ceremonies for thirty years out of his forty as a Mason .
In a letter ( unsolicited ) Bro . F . A . Philbrick , Q . C ., Grand Registrar of England , says , You have , I think , made out your case , you have put it very clearly and succinctly and have carried conviction to my mind Your
success is not only gratifying as showing a desire to get at the truth in the Craft , bat also a testimony to fcho fairness and ability with which fche work has been executed . " The opinion of Bro . Thomas Fenn , President of the
Board of General Purposes , can be seen in the Preface of the book , and Colonel Shadwell H . Gierke , Grand Secretary of England , has given me permission to say that he is fully satisfied that my theory is correct . The brethren I have named are nofc at all likely to have been influenced by
merely personal considerations , and were it necessary or even deemed advisable I could mention a large number of others who are of the same opinion . I am sorry I cannot include amongst them my valued and highly
esteemed friend , Brother W . J . Hughan , Past Grand Deacon ; however , I do not despair even in that quarter , for " time is on my side . " Indeed , it would have been
little short of a miracle if had I succeeded in one single effort in convincing every one of our historians that they have been wrong on this question all their lives . The
difficulty of my task may be well illustrated by the following anecdote . While the compilation of " Masonic Facts , & c . " waa in progress I accidentally met with one of our most cautious