-
Articles/Ads
Article BROTHER SADLER'S ANSWER TO BRO. JACOB NORTON'S ← Page 2 of 3 Article BROTHER SADLER'S ANSWER TO BRO. JACOB NORTON'S Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
October , tbat his publication was a " true copy of Freemasonry . " It seems to me most unlikely that he should have taken this extraordinary step unless under the fear thab his
book was in danger of being discredited in consequence of some important alteration having taken place in the recognised ceremonies . " I would also direct Bro . Norton ' s
attention to page 156 , where he may read , " I have already noticed the sensation created by the publication of Pritchard ' s pamphlet in 1730 , when the D . G . M . recommended several things to the consideration of the Grand Lodge ; " and I
will now state , without fear of contradiction , that in no part ; of the records is there a passage so capable of being interpreted as forming a prelude to an alteration in the recognised forms as the one referred to . A second edition
of a rather curious , and now scarce book on Masonry , was published in London in 1766 , which professes to show the difference between the " Ancient" and " Modern " systems .
The writer states that the E . A . ' s word was formerly the F . C . ' s , till a pretended discovery of Freemasonry came out , wrote by Samuel Pritchard , and still continues fco be published to this time But in order to prevent
being imposed upon by cowans or impostors , who might want to gain admittance , from his performance , the
Fraternity held a general Council , and the E . A . ' s and F . C . ' s words were reversed , and Private Accounts transmitted to each Lodge , though there are some unconstituted Lodges still retain the former Custom . " I am unable to give the
period of the first edition of this book , but it was probably some years earlier , leaving an interval of about thirty years only from the first appearance of Pritchard's pamphlet , it is therefore easy to conceive that the writer had good grounds for his statement .
On page 145 1 give " The following extract , from an original letter dated 15 th October 1776 , " which appears to have been written at the instigation of the Duke of Athole , Grand Master of the " Ancients , " by a Captain Smith ,
himself a "Modern . " I need only give two of the four questions in the book which " His Grace , & c , would wish to know . " " 2 . Why tho G . L . of England has thought propper to
alfcer fche mode of Initiation ; also the Word , Pas-word and Grip of the different Degrees in Masonry . " " 3 . Whether Dermot constitutes Lodges in his own Name or in the name and Authority of the Duke of Athol ,
and whether anything can be laid fco his charge inconsistent with the character of an honest man and a Mason . " The following is a portion of a letter from Major Shirreff ( an " Ancient" ) , dated 27 th Juno 1785 , and in order to
save Bro . Norton the trouble of searching for it I may mention that it is to be found on page 153 . " I was Introduced into this Noble Institution according fco the moafc Antient manner , and that you may understand me more clearly , when a Candidate is presented to me , my firsfc instruction
to him springs from tho Second Le ' r of the Alphabet , and I never knew but one Lodge since I have been a Bro ' r that ever began with the ninth Le ' r , I have met with several Brothers that have been Initiated so , but all such I was from the first told were call'd Modern Masons . " These letters were addressed to the Grand Secretary of the " Moderns , " and , in all probability , have never been read since they were endorsed and put away , until 1 turned them out in searching for materials for "Masonic Facts and Fictions . " However , should any one feel so disposed , he is at liberty to satisfy himself that they are genuine " records , "
and are not manipulated for my own purposes . I will now ask Bro . Norton to read the following extracts ( he will find them on pp 161 and 162 ) , from the minutes of the Lodge of Promulgation , to the proceedings of which he appears to attach so little importance , although I cannot
help remarking that in his " Comments " he has been exceedingly careful in avoiding whatever portions of them appear to support my views ; however , I freely forgive him , for I honestly believe he has done his best . " At the next
meeting , on the 28 fch December , eighteen members of the Lodge and forty Masters of other Lodges attended , and the ' R . W . M . took a retrospective view of the proceedings of the Lodge of Promulgation . ' I need nofc reproduce everything
that was said and done on this occasion , no doubfc the following extract will be sufficient for our present purpose : — ' The R . W . M . therefore proceeded to point out the material parts in and between the several Degrees to which the
attention of the Masters of Lodges would be requisite in preserving the Ancient Landmarksof the Order—such as the form of the Lodge , the number and situation of the Officers —their different distinctions in the different Degrees—the
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
restoration of the proper words to each Degree , and the making of the Pass words between one Degree and another , instead of in the Degree . " Knowing how sceptical Bro . Norton sometimes is as to the reliability of printed
history , and justly so , I will here remind him that I quote from tho original minutes , and that the words in italics are so distinguished in the minute book . Although Bro . Norton and I differ materially in our
interpretation of the word "Ancient , and I fear we must agree to differ , there ought to be no difference between ns as to the meaning of the word " records , " he will , therefore , I make no doubt , on reconsideration , readily admit thafc he is mistaken in saying that my theory is not derived from fche records ; and as for the " something he read here and something there , " I would remind him that ifc is by careful
research and the simple process of putting " this and thafc together " that I have been able to deduce conclusions which although not acceptable to him are perfectly clear and satisfactory to some hundreds of other readers . If Brother
JNorton , ivut preter the unsupported and partial assertions of Preston I cannot help it , bufc I think , in common fairness , he ought to show some reliable grounds for his preference ; I readily admit fche truth of his somewhat sarcastic remarks , that my " veneration does nofc extend to Preston , " and I think I have already given several good and tangible
reasons for my disbelief in him , one of which would satisfy most thoughtful persons , i . e ., that he was a malicious and partizan writer . I was certainly under the impression that I had dealt very leniently with him iu my book , only
saying enough , indeed , to show that he was not a reliable historian , and this , it appears , has entirely escaped fche notice of Bro . Norton , for he makes no allusion to it . As a matter of principle I prefer to" Let the dead Paat bury its dead . " but since he makes such wonderment of my want of
veneration for Preston , I feel constrained to present him with a brief sketch of the Masonic career of that Brother , from my point of view , and in so doing I shall refrain from ' imputing motives , bufc confine myself to historical facts gleaned from his biography and the Grand Lodge records ;
William Preston was initiated in a Lodge under the sanction of the " Ancients . " In less than two years he deserted ' that body and went over to the enemy taking his Lodge , or as many of the members , as he could of it with him ; In the rival society he soon came to the front , and tried his
utmost , by misrepresentation , to annihilate the . body that had first received him into Masonry . Having entered the service of fcho Grand Lodge , he obtained access to the records , and was thereby enabled to write what he called a History of Masonry , which was printed in the Freemasons ' Calendar . He obtained the sanction of the Grand Master
for publishing his " Illustrations of Masonry , " and the book was extensively advertised in the Grand Lodge Circular , along with the Book of Constitutions . After a while , he and a few others rebelled against the constituted authorities , and were very properly expelled ; whereupon they started a schismatic society and called it a " Grand Lodge , " which ignominiously failed , after a precarious ex . isfcence of about ten years . They then apologised for their
misconduct , and petitioned to be restored to their Masonic privileges ; and their petition was eventually granted . We do not find his name amongst those of the worthy Brethren who worked long and patiently to heal the differences
between the two rival societies in England , and who ultimately succeeded in cementing what has justly been described as the "Glorious Union of 1813 , " but we do know that in 1812 he issued another edition of his book , which , together with the mendacious statements concerning the
" Ancients , " previously formulated , contained fresh matter of an irritating nature , or , at all events , such as would not be likely to assist in consummating the desires of the leading members of the two Fraternities . There can be no doubt
difficulties , which " can better be imagined than described , " —after several years of patient labour—agreed upon a system of ceremonies and lectures which were to be recognised as orthodox for the future , and which had only been arrived at by mutual conciliation , Preston died , and ifc was found fchafc he had left two legacies to the Grand Lodge ,
that Preston possessed abilities of no mean order , and , in my opinion , had he devoted them fco this laudable object , the Union might have been brought about ; some years
earlier than ifc was . However , this is a mere matter of opinion . But to return to historical facts . Shortly after the former rival bodies had , in the face of enormous
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
October , tbat his publication was a " true copy of Freemasonry . " It seems to me most unlikely that he should have taken this extraordinary step unless under the fear thab his
book was in danger of being discredited in consequence of some important alteration having taken place in the recognised ceremonies . " I would also direct Bro . Norton ' s
attention to page 156 , where he may read , " I have already noticed the sensation created by the publication of Pritchard ' s pamphlet in 1730 , when the D . G . M . recommended several things to the consideration of the Grand Lodge ; " and I
will now state , without fear of contradiction , that in no part ; of the records is there a passage so capable of being interpreted as forming a prelude to an alteration in the recognised forms as the one referred to . A second edition
of a rather curious , and now scarce book on Masonry , was published in London in 1766 , which professes to show the difference between the " Ancient" and " Modern " systems .
The writer states that the E . A . ' s word was formerly the F . C . ' s , till a pretended discovery of Freemasonry came out , wrote by Samuel Pritchard , and still continues fco be published to this time But in order to prevent
being imposed upon by cowans or impostors , who might want to gain admittance , from his performance , the
Fraternity held a general Council , and the E . A . ' s and F . C . ' s words were reversed , and Private Accounts transmitted to each Lodge , though there are some unconstituted Lodges still retain the former Custom . " I am unable to give the
period of the first edition of this book , but it was probably some years earlier , leaving an interval of about thirty years only from the first appearance of Pritchard's pamphlet , it is therefore easy to conceive that the writer had good grounds for his statement .
On page 145 1 give " The following extract , from an original letter dated 15 th October 1776 , " which appears to have been written at the instigation of the Duke of Athole , Grand Master of the " Ancients , " by a Captain Smith ,
himself a "Modern . " I need only give two of the four questions in the book which " His Grace , & c , would wish to know . " " 2 . Why tho G . L . of England has thought propper to
alfcer fche mode of Initiation ; also the Word , Pas-word and Grip of the different Degrees in Masonry . " " 3 . Whether Dermot constitutes Lodges in his own Name or in the name and Authority of the Duke of Athol ,
and whether anything can be laid fco his charge inconsistent with the character of an honest man and a Mason . " The following is a portion of a letter from Major Shirreff ( an " Ancient" ) , dated 27 th Juno 1785 , and in order to
save Bro . Norton the trouble of searching for it I may mention that it is to be found on page 153 . " I was Introduced into this Noble Institution according fco the moafc Antient manner , and that you may understand me more clearly , when a Candidate is presented to me , my firsfc instruction
to him springs from tho Second Le ' r of the Alphabet , and I never knew but one Lodge since I have been a Bro ' r that ever began with the ninth Le ' r , I have met with several Brothers that have been Initiated so , but all such I was from the first told were call'd Modern Masons . " These letters were addressed to the Grand Secretary of the " Moderns , " and , in all probability , have never been read since they were endorsed and put away , until 1 turned them out in searching for materials for "Masonic Facts and Fictions . " However , should any one feel so disposed , he is at liberty to satisfy himself that they are genuine " records , "
and are not manipulated for my own purposes . I will now ask Bro . Norton to read the following extracts ( he will find them on pp 161 and 162 ) , from the minutes of the Lodge of Promulgation , to the proceedings of which he appears to attach so little importance , although I cannot
help remarking that in his " Comments " he has been exceedingly careful in avoiding whatever portions of them appear to support my views ; however , I freely forgive him , for I honestly believe he has done his best . " At the next
meeting , on the 28 fch December , eighteen members of the Lodge and forty Masters of other Lodges attended , and the ' R . W . M . took a retrospective view of the proceedings of the Lodge of Promulgation . ' I need nofc reproduce everything
that was said and done on this occasion , no doubfc the following extract will be sufficient for our present purpose : — ' The R . W . M . therefore proceeded to point out the material parts in and between the several Degrees to which the
attention of the Masters of Lodges would be requisite in preserving the Ancient Landmarksof the Order—such as the form of the Lodge , the number and situation of the Officers —their different distinctions in the different Degrees—the
Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's
restoration of the proper words to each Degree , and the making of the Pass words between one Degree and another , instead of in the Degree . " Knowing how sceptical Bro . Norton sometimes is as to the reliability of printed
history , and justly so , I will here remind him that I quote from tho original minutes , and that the words in italics are so distinguished in the minute book . Although Bro . Norton and I differ materially in our
interpretation of the word "Ancient , and I fear we must agree to differ , there ought to be no difference between ns as to the meaning of the word " records , " he will , therefore , I make no doubt , on reconsideration , readily admit thafc he is mistaken in saying that my theory is not derived from fche records ; and as for the " something he read here and something there , " I would remind him that ifc is by careful
research and the simple process of putting " this and thafc together " that I have been able to deduce conclusions which although not acceptable to him are perfectly clear and satisfactory to some hundreds of other readers . If Brother
JNorton , ivut preter the unsupported and partial assertions of Preston I cannot help it , bufc I think , in common fairness , he ought to show some reliable grounds for his preference ; I readily admit fche truth of his somewhat sarcastic remarks , that my " veneration does nofc extend to Preston , " and I think I have already given several good and tangible
reasons for my disbelief in him , one of which would satisfy most thoughtful persons , i . e ., that he was a malicious and partizan writer . I was certainly under the impression that I had dealt very leniently with him iu my book , only
saying enough , indeed , to show that he was not a reliable historian , and this , it appears , has entirely escaped fche notice of Bro . Norton , for he makes no allusion to it . As a matter of principle I prefer to" Let the dead Paat bury its dead . " but since he makes such wonderment of my want of
veneration for Preston , I feel constrained to present him with a brief sketch of the Masonic career of that Brother , from my point of view , and in so doing I shall refrain from ' imputing motives , bufc confine myself to historical facts gleaned from his biography and the Grand Lodge records ;
William Preston was initiated in a Lodge under the sanction of the " Ancients . " In less than two years he deserted ' that body and went over to the enemy taking his Lodge , or as many of the members , as he could of it with him ; In the rival society he soon came to the front , and tried his
utmost , by misrepresentation , to annihilate the . body that had first received him into Masonry . Having entered the service of fcho Grand Lodge , he obtained access to the records , and was thereby enabled to write what he called a History of Masonry , which was printed in the Freemasons ' Calendar . He obtained the sanction of the Grand Master
for publishing his " Illustrations of Masonry , " and the book was extensively advertised in the Grand Lodge Circular , along with the Book of Constitutions . After a while , he and a few others rebelled against the constituted authorities , and were very properly expelled ; whereupon they started a schismatic society and called it a " Grand Lodge , " which ignominiously failed , after a precarious ex . isfcence of about ten years . They then apologised for their
misconduct , and petitioned to be restored to their Masonic privileges ; and their petition was eventually granted . We do not find his name amongst those of the worthy Brethren who worked long and patiently to heal the differences
between the two rival societies in England , and who ultimately succeeded in cementing what has justly been described as the "Glorious Union of 1813 , " but we do know that in 1812 he issued another edition of his book , which , together with the mendacious statements concerning the
" Ancients , " previously formulated , contained fresh matter of an irritating nature , or , at all events , such as would not be likely to assist in consummating the desires of the leading members of the two Fraternities . There can be no doubt
difficulties , which " can better be imagined than described , " —after several years of patient labour—agreed upon a system of ceremonies and lectures which were to be recognised as orthodox for the future , and which had only been arrived at by mutual conciliation , Preston died , and ifc was found fchafc he had left two legacies to the Grand Lodge ,
that Preston possessed abilities of no mean order , and , in my opinion , had he devoted them fco this laudable object , the Union might have been brought about ; some years
earlier than ifc was . However , this is a mere matter of opinion . But to return to historical facts . Shortly after the former rival bodies had , in the face of enormous