Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's

- _____¦__¦_——¦^ — ¦ i--i------ _»^ - _—— - — - — and experienced Masonic authors , and , wishing to ascertain his views on the subject , I mildly asked , " Did you ever hear of any other theory for the origin of the Ancients than thafc of secession from the regular Grand Lodge ?"

He was utterly astounded afc the absurdity of the question , aud when he had sufficiently recovered I found it necessary to explain ; ultimately he did grasp my meaning , and his answer was , " of course not , why they mtist have

seceded ; where could tbey have come from if they did nofc ? " For certain private reasons I did nofc deem ifc worth while to discuss tho question contained in his answer , and I think from that time the subject has never been mentioned

between us . But to return to Bro . Hughan , who , I find , has done me the honour of quoting one of my fictions in support of the secession theory in his introduction to the recently published History of the Royal Union Lodge ,

although I notice that he has totally ignored all my fresh evidence . I may say at one * , and for all , that so long as I can hold a pen and find a paper willing to print what I write I shall continue to protest most emphatically against

the stigma implied in the term " schismatics" being applied to the branch of our Order commonly called the " Ancients . " And I challenge the talented and worthy author to show the evidence on which he founds his assertion that " a number of schismatics met in London" in

1751 . In the first place I should like to bo perfectly clear that we agree as to the definition of the word " schismatic . " As I understand it , it implies one who having withdrawn or seceded from any particular class or body , assists in

establishing a society of a similar character in the same neighbourhood , but without previous secession such society could not properly be styled " Schismatics . " Whether this accords with Bro . Hughan ' s view I know nofc , but I contend that

we are no longer justified in using this epithet in the way it has been used for upwards of a hundred years , there being no real evidence of a schism having occurred anywhere near the periods indicated by different writers ; and

that I have adduced abundant evidence to satisfy any but the most sceptical that the secession story was a combination of ignorance and malice and unworthy of credence . If , therefore , nothing more reliable than Dermotfc's record

in December 1752 , " that so many of them withdrew from Lodges ( under the Modern sanction ) to support the true Ancient System , " can be advanced by Bro . Hughan , I am

sorry to say I must describe it as 1 have described many of Bro . Norton ' s assertions , viz ., " that it is contrary to evidence . " We have no trace of Dennett's connection

with the " Ancients till a few days prior to his election as Grand Secretary on the 5 th February 1752 , and this date agrees with the entry of his name in their first register , in which the members' names appear in numerical

an historical fact . At present I must beg leave to doubt its accuracy , as it is not supported by authentic evidence . In the column before mentioned , " No . 26 Dublin , " is written against his name ; he is described in the first

order , his number being 114 , so that it is clear he could nofc have been one of the original seventy or eighty who met in July 1751 and agreed to establish a Grand Lodge ;

indeed , the whole of the early records of this body tend to show that he had bufc recently come amongst them , consequently his actual knowledge of their antecedents is not likely to have been very extensive . The passage

quoted by Bro . Hughan is simply a record by Dermott of what appears to have been an all-round gossip iu the Grand Committee , indulged in by some of the old Masons

present . I attach no importance to it , for this reason , " many " may have meant five or six , or a dozen or two , and is therefore too indefinite to be of any value . Now , what I consider reliable evidence is to be found in Morgan ' s

Register , and this , I regret to say , Bro . Hughan has seen very little of ; had he been better acquainted with it I think it extremely probable that there would have been

very little difference between ns as to the " origin and nationality of the ' Ancients . ' " In the column headed "From Whence" in this

register , FIVE names only are recorded to December 1752 , with the words " Modern" or " From y ° Moderns " appended to them . I think these people might properly

be termed seceders , but that we should , on their account , apply this epithet to the whole body is , in my opinion , unreasonable . Brother Hughan ' s next assertion that 'Dermott was himself a seceder from the regular

Grand Lodge , having become a joining member from the Grand Lodge of Ireland in 1748 , but retired soon afterwards " requires confirmation before I can accept it as

Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's

Minutes or " Transactions of the Grand Committee" as "Past Master of No . 26 Dublin , " and this description was verified by two of the former members of that Lodge at a meeting of the Grand Lodge in 1757 . So far as I

know there is not a word in the records on either side to support the statement thafc he ever joined a " Modern " Lodge ; not that it would affect my theory if he had , as the " Ancients " had organised before he joined them , as

their second Grand Secretary , so that his coming amongst them could nofc have made them " Schismatics . " I understand from Bro . Hughan that his authority for the statement is the following passage by Dermott himself in

Ahiman Eezon : — " Several eminent Craftsmen residing in Scotland , Ireland , America , and other parts both abroad and at homo , have greatly importuned me to give them some account of what is called Modern Masonry in London . I cannot be displeased with such importunities ,

because I had the like curiosity myself in 1748 , when I was first introduced into that society . " Now , I cannot see my way to accept this statement as conclusive evidence of Dermott having joined a "Modern " Lodge , for several reasons . In the first place I think if

he had joined one of those Lodges he would have said so explicitly , and we should have found some corroborative evidence in the records of his own

Grand Lodge , or his detractors on the other side would have charged him with it ; and from the absence of his name from the list of original members of the " Ancients " I should infer that he was not in London at the time of their organization or he would , doubtless , have

taken a prominent part in it . In the absence of other evidence I think a reasonable construction of the passage quoted would be thafc wishing to gratify his curiosity he

got some brother to introduce him as a visitor into one or more of the modern Lodges in the same way as we introduce visitors now , and by his using the words " first introduced " I am inclined to think that he was a visitor on

more than one occasion . Bro . Hughan also mentions a letter which Dermott sent to somebody in America lie thinks , in which he states that he joined a Modern Lodge .

When I have some knowledge of the existence of this letter I shall be willing to give it due consideration , bufc until then I shall prefer the evidence afc hand .

I see nothing new in Bro . Hughan ' s references to the York phase of the " Ancient" question , and having already discussed this part of the subject at considerable length with Bro . Norton I shall only say that if Bro . Hughan will

prefer the unfounded assertion of the partizan Preston to the straightforward statement of Dermott I cannot help it , however much I may be disappointed . For my part I am content with the explanation given by this much abused ,

and , at present , little appreciated , brother in the second edition of Ahiman Bezon , viz ., " They are called York Masons , because the first Grand Lodge in England was congregated at York A . D . 926 , by prince Edwin , who ( at

the same time ) purchased a free charter from king Athelstan for the use of the fraternity . " This was always my view of the reason why the " Ancients " adopted the title of York Masons , although until a few days ago I was

unaware of the existence ot the paragraph just quoted . I see nothing unreasonable or inconsistent in it , and although it is in no way relevant to my theory of the origin of the

" Ancients" I shall be most happy to discuss it more fully with any brother who objects to it , either publicly or privately .

I fear thafc I have severely taxed fche patience of my venerable and respected opponent by the time I have occupied in responding to his criticisms , but he must remember that he gave me plenty to do , and ifc would have been of no use or

advantage whatever had I been content with simply expressing dissent from his views . I had to prove thafc fchey were wrong , and this I could not do without producing evidence .. Doubtless he has experienced no little difficult y

m restraining his natural ardour and is impatient to resume the fight , and I must say that I shall be glad to hear from him as soon as it may be convenient . Still I should not have the least objection to a respite of a few weeks'

duration , other matters requiring my attention just now . I trust it will not be deemed very presumptuous on my part if I appeal to him , and also to our mutual friend Bro .

Hughan , to review this matter seriously , calmly and judiciously , by the light of the evidence I have adduced ; to entirely discard the Prestonian spectacles as being worse than useless , tending rather to distort than make clear ; but to depend on their own unbiassed judgment and