Origin Of Freemasonry In Ireland.

ORIGIN OF FREEMASONRY IN IRELAND ,

BY BBO . JACOB NORTON , in the " Masonic Eeview , " July 1895 . THE Grand Lodge of Ireland had never published its proceedings and hence , with the exception of the dates of its Constitutions , very littlo was known of the history of Irish Masonry . Bro . W . J . Chetwode Crawley , the present Senior Grand Deacon of tho Grand Lodgo of Ireland , seems to

have broken the ice for the first time . I was very much pleased to receive from the said Brother a pamphlet , divided into four parts , altogether containing- about eighty pages of printed matter . The first part is called

" Caemtaria Hibernica . " The second part is headed , " Grand Lodge ol Munster , 1726 . " Tho third part he calls , " Our Lost Archives " ; and the fourth part he names " Irish Constitutions , 1730 , " & c , & c . Inclosed in the pamphlet I found the following very flattering letter :

GEAND LODGE OF INSTEUCTION . Freemasons' Hall , Dublin . From W . J . Chetwode Crawley S . G . D ., Secretary Grand Lodge of Instruction : With fraternal compliments from the Senior Grand Deacon of Ireland , whose opinions differ widely , on many points , from thoso of Brother Jacob

Norton , but who gladly seizes the opportunity of testifying in this small way his warm appreciation of the services rendered by Bro . Jacob Norton , master of the Craft . 5 th May 1895 , 11 Merrion Square , Dublin , Ireland .

The author's introduction to the first part shows that he was naturally reluctant to discard old traditions , but common sense had mastery over him , on some points . He says : " The tradition which places a general assembly at York under Prince

Edwin , as Grand Master , A . D . 926 , is so ancient and sowide-spread , that we would fain accept it , but we are reluctantly compelled to admit that the most diligent historical research has found no contemporary evidence to confirm it . On the other hand no fact , absolutely inconsistent with tho tradition , has come to light . ' '

I must , however , remind my good Brother that no fact absolutely inconsistent with tho stories in the Arabian Nights has ever come to light , and is that-any reason why we should believe in the said stories ? On page 5 , bur Brother remarks : " Some of these visionary historians , like Lawrie , begin with tho

Chasidin ; rnany , like Fellows , begin with the pagan mysteries ; some , like Oliver , and Coppih , connect our symbolism with the Tower of Babel ; some , like Holland , with the Pyramids ; some , like Anderson himself , with the First Man , —and , at last , finds the principles of Freemasonry pre-ordained before the creation of the Universe . Their common ground lies in a mode of

reasoning that runs on all fours with the immortal arguments by which Captain Fluellen proved that Alexander the Great was a Welshman . Such speculations have drawn from Hallam , the most judicial of all historians ,

the chilling and contemptuous criticism that the curious subject of Freemasonry has unfortunately heen treated only by panegynists and calumniators , both equally mendacious . To attempt a summary of these fanciful hypotheses would be worse than useless .

" The authentic school , submitting itself to . the ordinary canons of criticism , takes no fact for granted until proved , and less grandiose in its methods , tries to piece out in these verified facts the story of tho oldest and noblest Brotherhood that the world has ever seen . This school is yet in its infancy , and may be said to have been founded within the present century . "

Here again we see that Bro . Crawley is not quite cured from the hankering desire to make the Masonic organisation older than it is ; and while eulogising the " authentic school " for not taking anything for granted until

it is proved , he seems , however , to take things for granted without any proof . For instance : I opened promiscuously his pamphlet , and found on page 15 ( first part ) where , referring to the operative pre-1717 Lodges which have never joined the Grand Lodge of England , he says : **¦

" They seemed to have called themselves , and to have beon called by others , St . John ' s Lodges . " Now , with all due respect , I venture to say , that our good Brother had no authority or reason for making the above statement . For , in thc first place , I have stated again and again that not in a solitary pre-1717 Masonic

ritual is tho name of St . John mentioned . And it is certain that neither of the Saints John were regarded by Masons as patron saints of tho Masonic Craft . For instance : I havo before me a book called Sacred Archceology , by Mackenzie 0 . Walcott , D . D ., in which I find more particulars about Patron Saints , of Guilds , of countries , and of certain classes of individuals

than I found in any other book . I found in that book that St . Eloi was patron saint of hangmen . That Saints Bride and Apa were patron saints of common women , and that St . Mathurin was the patron saint of fools . But Dr . Walcott evidently did not know that the Saints John were patron saints

of Masonry , for on page 433 I find that " IV . Coronati ( were the patron saints ) of Masons and builders . " Even Dr . Oliver did not know that the pre-1717 Lodges either called themselves , or were called by others , " St . John's Masonry , " for , in his Dictionary of Symbolic Masonry , he says :

" Originally there was only one kind of Freemasonry , but when the Scottish and other higher degrees were introduced , the three first degrees received the name of St . John ' s Masonry . "—Godicke . And in Konning's Cyelopcedia , I find as follows : " St . John's Masonry . The name given by the Lodge of Scotland to the threo first degrees . "

Origin Of Freemasonry In Ireland.

Of the two above quoted theories , I think that Godicke's opinion is the most probable ; for , as the Grand Lodge of Scotland never adopted the Saints John ' s days as Masouic festivals , I therefore can see no reason for its naming tho three first degrees as " St . John's Masonry . " But , anyhow ,

unless Brother Crawley can give a reason for his theory , that the operative Lodges , who remained independent of the Grand Lodges , called themselves " St . John ' s Masonry , " I must place his theory side by side with the Prince Edwin of York story .

But here is another question , viz : Cm Bro . Crawley prove that any English pre-1717 Lodges whatever failed to enroll themselves under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England after the said Grand Lodge was organised in 1717 ? We havo records of two operative Lodges which were

organised after the Grand Lodge was organised in 1717 , but I doubt whether either of tho said independent Lodges adopted the name of St . John's Masonry , or St . John ' s Lodges . On pago 7 ( first part ) , Bro . Crawley says :

" The earliest written records of our English organisation consist of two manuscripts , which were written about 1400 A . D . —the Halliwelt ( or Begins ) MS ., and tho Matthew Cooke MS . These appellations they derive from the names of their first editors , though tho reproductions of fac-simile , issued under the auspices of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge , have quite superseded

the original editions . In this series , the Eegius or Halliwell MS ., edited by Bro . E . F . Gould , with all critical apparatus that had long been supposed to be the exclusive property of the Scholiast and the Ancient Classics ; nay , in right classical fashion , he added to his commentary more than the Excursors of the elaborate edition . Owing to the mis-reading of a crucial passage by

its first editor , the Cooke MS . was long assumed to be the junior of the two ; yet , for all practical purposes , these two MSS . may be taken to have been transcribed about the same period of our literary history . ' This much , at least , has been settled by the dictum of the highest living authority on

British paleography , Mr . A . E . Bond , late Librarian of the British Museum , as well as by the convergence of all the internal and other evidence we have on tho point . Both documents are transcripts , and though indicating a far away common original , are perfectly independent of each other , in form , style and treatment of subject . "

Now , with all due respect to Bro . Crawley , I differ with him as to the period when the MSS . were written . He says that both MSS . were written about the year A . D . 1400 . I am of the opinion that neither of the MSS . were written as early as A . D . 1400 . I also believe that the poem , known as the Halliwell MS ., is older than the Matthew Cooke MS . Thus , the poet

begins his history of Masonry from the time of Euclid—that is , about seven hundred years after Solomon built his Temple ; but the author of the Matthew Cooke MS . begins the history of Masonry with Lemach , a grandson of Adam , which was about two thousand years before Solomon was born .

Again , our Masonic poet was totally ignorant of Bible history , and he may never have heard that such a person as King Solomon had ever existed . He seems , however , to have heard a priest say something about " Nebuchadnezzar , King of Babel , " aud ho also had heard about a " Tower of Babel , ' and , in accordance with true Masonic-author fashion , he jumped to the

conclusion that " Nobocodonozcr built the Tower of Babylon . " We may , therefore , conclude that tho Masonic poem was written before the Bible was printed . But tho author of the Cooke MS . wrote after the Bible was translated into English , and hence , in beginning his history of Masonry from Lemach , he refers to the 4 th chapter of Genesis , and when he comes to

Nimrod , ho mentions that it may bo found in the 10 th chapter of Genesis . Tho Masonic poet doubtless wrote before the religious reformation , and the author of the Cooke MS . was evidently a Protestant . Thus , the poet gives a full account about the four holy martyrs , or Quatuor Coronati ( as they were called ) , who were the patron saints of Masonry , and his Masonic prayer was

addressed " to God the Almighty and his moddor Mary bright" 1 But the author of the Cooke MS . makes no allusion to any patron saints whatever , nor to the Virgin . In the Charges of the poet the Mason is told to love God and the Holy Church , but thc author of the Cooke MS . makes no

allusion to tho " Holy Church . " I could point out many other facts whioh , I think , clearly prove that the two oldest Masonic MSS . were not written by contemporary authors , and that the author of the Masonic poem wrote his poem about seventy years before the Cooke MS . was . written .

About the age of the Halliwell poem opinions differ . Thus , 0 . W . Moore , in 1843 , made the poem five hundred years old . The late Eev . Bro . Woodford , for some years claimed that the Masonic poem was written in 1390 A . D . Mr . Halliwell thought that the poem was written at the close of the fourteenth century , & c , & c , but the keeper of the MS . in the British

Museum said that the Masonic poem was written about A . D . 1450 . True , that the poem , as well as the Cooke MS ., are transcripts . But what of it ? We may naturally suppose that both authors wrote in an ordinary style of handwriting , but thS poem , as well as the Cooke MS ., were written by artistic

penmen , thc words and letters are decorated with ornamental flourishes , made with black , blue , or red ink ; hence , the artistic penman must have transcribed the MSS . from the original written copies of said MSS ., and it does not , therefore , follow that the transcripts were written long after the authors wrote the original copies .

But I shall call attention to another fact , viz .: The poem contains a code of thirty regulations or laws , all which laws the poet imagined were written by King Athelstan or Prince Edwin at York , in the tenth century , Fifteen of the said regulations he calls " Articles , " and fifteen laws he calls " Points . " All which laws tho poet ascribed to King Athelstan or Prince