Question:

[MRichard]

Thanks - you provably want to dump that pic from your signature, people often complain of such a large signature on this board..

If it doesn't violate the site rules, then it shouldn't be an issue. Some people complain about anything.

 

[MasonicAdept]

So, how and why do you think the story of the Irish Lodge became established lore ?

The origin of the error begin with Jeremy Belknap, Founder of the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1795. The why was to explain how these 15 men were "legitimately" initiated into Freemasonry. It was the PG version of the events surround the African American entrance into Freemasonry.

 

[MasonicAdept]

If it doesn't violate the site rules, then it shouldn't be an issue. Some people complain about anything.

It's all good Brother...Who wants to hear a bunch of complaining anyway?

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?

 

[MRichard]

Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?

Look at post #5 and continue reading from there.

 

[MasonicAdept]

Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?

Was Prince Hall made a mason? You decide...

1. Prince Hall was initiated, passed and raised by John Batt.

2. John Batt was not authorized to confer any degree of Freemasonry on any person.

3. African Lodge operated from 1778-1784 without charter or permit.

4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.

So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons.

 

[Glen Cook]

...Some people complain about anything.

Oh, you've met my mother-in-law then.

 

[Glen Cook]

Was Prince Hall made a mason? You decide...

1. Prince Hall was initiated, passed and raised by John Batt.

2. John Batt was not authorized to confer any degree of Freemasonry on any person.

3. African Lodge operated from 1778-1784 without charter or permit.

4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.

So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons.

What wording of the warrant indicates that he was healed or the lodge's prior acts were ratified?

 

[MasonicAdept]

What wording of the charter indicates that he was healed or the lodge's prior acts were ratified?

Bro. Glen Cook, there is no wording on the charter that would indicate that he was healed, or that the Lodge's prior acts were ratified. The reason being is because England in 1784 were UNAWARE of any interaction between African Lodge and John Batt.

There is no letter between Prince Hall or African Lodge or England that would disclose any prior initiation by John Batt, under the circumstances in which it happened.
The letter written by Prince Hall to William Moody, that enlisted the assistance of William Moody in the cause of securing a charter, he never mentions John Batt. He mentions ONLY the permit that was issued by John Rowe, and the letter would lead the reader to believe that they had worked under that permit from John Rowe the entire time.

There was no investigation of African Lodge by the Grand Lodge of England. They issued the charter on the word of William Moody who actually came into contact with two of the members of African Lodge in England, Prince Reed and John Means.

So why would you think that the charter would indicate either circumstances?

Even when Lodges are officially healed over into regular Jurisdictions, there is nothing in the wording of the new charter that would implicate that the newly healed Lodges was ever irregular or clandestine...

I am interested in why you thought that the charter would provide that information...Have you seen a charter with the wording that would indicate the prior condition of a Lodge before becoming regular?

 

[MasonicAdept]

@Glen Cook here is the transcription of the Prince Hall letter to William Moody. This transcription comes from the United Grand Lodge of England website:


"Mr. Moodey


Most W. Master



Sir,

Permit me to return you my hearty thanks for your brotherly […] to Brothers Reed and Means […] in a strange land, and when in a time of need you were so good as to receive them as brothers and to treat them as kindly as they inform me you did. What you have done to them, I look upon as done to me and the whole of us, for which I give you many thanks and likewise to all the Lodge. I hope they behaved themselves as men and as Masons with you, if not I would be glad if you would be so good as to let me know of it and they shall be dealt with accordingly. Dear Brother, I would inform you that this Lodge has been founded almost this eight years, and had no warrant yet but only a permit from Grand Master Rowe to walk on St. John’s Days and to bury our dead in form which we now enjoy. We have had no opportunity till now of applying for a warrant though we were pressed upon to send to France for one, but we refused it for reasons best known to ourselves. We now apply to the fountain from whom we received lights for this favour and, dear Sir, I must beg you to be our advocate for us by sending this, our request, to His Royal Highness, the Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master and to the Right Honourable Earl of Effingham, Acting Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens and the rest of the Brethren of the Grand Lodge, that they would graciously be pleased to grant us a charter to hold this Lodge as long as we behave up to the spirit of the constitution. This, our humble petition, we hope His Highness and the rest of the Grand Lodge will graciously be pleased to grant us there, though poor yet sincere Brethren of the Craft. And therefore, in duty bound ever to pray, I beg leave to subscribe myself your loving friend and Brother – Prince Hall, Master of the African Lodge No. 1, June 30th 1784 in the year of Masonry 5784, in the name of the whole Lodge. C. Underwood, Secretary."

Questions:

1. Where is the name of John Batt?

2. Where is Irish Military Lodge No. 441 mentioned?

Reading the letter, and the embolden portion would led the reader to believe that the only contact that Prince Hall and African Lodge had with Freemasonry was John Rowe. But the truth is that African Lodge No. 1 was operating long before they received the permit from John Rowe.

 

[MasonicAdept]

@Glen Cook here is the actual copy of the letter preserved in Prince Hall's letter book. If you have the ability to enlarge it and read it, compare this letter to the one transcribed by the UGLE, and notice some differences between the two...

 

[Glen Cook]

Bro. Glen Cook, there is no wording on the charter that would indicate that he was healed, or that the Lodge's prior acts were ratified. The reason being is because England in 1784 were UNAWARE of any interaction between African Lodge and John Batt.

There is no letter between Prince Hall or African Lodge or England that would disclose any prior initiation by John Batt, under the circumstances in which it happened.
The letter written by Prince Hall to William Moody, that enlisted the assistance of William Moody in the cause of securing a charter, he never mentions John Batt. He mentions ONLY the permit that was issued by John Rowe, and the letter would lead the reader to believe that they had worked under that permit from John Rowe the entire time.

There was no investigation of African Lodge by the Grand Lodge of England. They issued the charter on the word of William Moody who actually came into contact with two of the members of African Lodge in England, Prince Reed and John Means.

So why would you think that the charter would indicate either circumstances?

Even when Lodges are officially healed over into regular Jurisdictions, there is nothing in the wording of the new charter that would implicate that the newly healed Lodges was ever irregular or clandestine...

I am interested in why you thought that the charter would provide that information...Have you seen a charter with the wording that would indicate the prior condition of a Lodge before becoming regular?

Because you stated,

"4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.

So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons."

So, it appears there is no wording indicating the charter [sic] "covered" the illegal work and healed Prince Hall.

You appear to rely on the modern practice of healing a lodge over as ratifying the unauthorized acts. What examples do you have of the English constitutions healing an entire lodge? Is this not primarily a Prince Hall practice? Are you aware of any CGMNA GL healing an entire Lodge?

Further, as you indicate the EC had no knowledge of the irregularities, this really was not a healing, was it?

Additionally, under the facts you relate, was he not a clandestine Mason, rather than an irregularly made a mason?

You'll note my concern with the word "charter." Was it not a warrant?

 

[Glen Cook]

@Glen Cook here is the transcription of the Prince Hall letter to William Moody. This transcription comes from the United Grand Lodge of England website:


"Mr. Moodey


Most W. Master



Sir,

Permit me to return you my hearty thanks for your brotherly […] to Brothers Reed and Means […] in a strange land, and when in a time of need you were so good as to receive them as brothers and to treat them as kindly as they inform me you did. What you have done to them, I look upon as done to me and the whole of us, for which I give you many thanks and likewise to all the Lodge. I hope they behaved themselves as men and as Masons with you, if not I would be glad if you would be so good as to let me know of it and they shall be dealt with accordingly. Dear Brother, I would inform you that this Lodge has been founded almost this eight years, and had no warrant yet but only a permit from Grand Master Rowe to walk on St. John’s Days and to bury our dead in form which we now enjoy. We have had no opportunity till now of applying for a warrant though we were pressed upon to send to France for one, but we refused it for reasons best known to ourselves. We now apply to the fountain from whom we received lights for this favour and, dear Sir, I must beg you to be our advocate for us by sending this, our request, to His Royal Highness, the Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master and to the Right Honourable Earl of Effingham, Acting Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens and the rest of the Brethren of the Grand Lodge, that they would graciously be pleased to grant us a charter to hold this Lodge as long as we behave up to the spirit of the constitution. This, our humble petition, we hope His Highness and the rest of the Grand Lodge will graciously be pleased to grant us there, though poor yet sincere Brethren of the Craft. And therefore, in duty bound ever to pray, I beg leave to subscribe myself your loving friend and Brother – Prince Hall, Master of the African Lodge No. 1, June 30th 1784 in the year of Masonry 5784, in the name of the whole Lodge. C. Underwood, Secretary."

Questions:

1. Where is the name of John Batt?

2. Where is Irish Military Lodge No. 441 mentioned?

Reading the letter, and the embolden portion would led the reader to believe that the only contact that Prince Hall and African Lodge had with Freemasonry was John Rowe. But the truth is that African Lodge No. 1 was operating long before they received the permit from John Rowe.

Umm, not the point I was addressing

 

[MasonicAdept]

@Glen Cook the portion I put in bold text (UGLE transcription) can be found in this portion of the copy preserved by Prince Hall, what are the differences that you see?

Not even a mention of John Rowe....Hmmm. The initial letter written by Prince Hall omitted the name of John Rowe, then the letter that was actually received by William Moody has the same wording, but only the mention of the name John Rowe...Why do you think John Rowe's name was ommitted from the copy preserved by Prince Hall, but mentioned in the letter that he actually sent to William Moody?

Where is the name of John Batt or Irish Military Lodge mentioned in the letter preserved by Prince Hall?

 

[Glen Cook]

Was Prince Hall made a mason? You decide...

1. Prince Hall was initiated, passed and raised by John Batt.

2. John Batt was not authorized to confer any degree of Freemasonry on any person.

[/QUOTE]

How do you know John Batt was not authorized?

 

[MasonicAdept]

Because you stated,

"4. The charter covered the Lodge and all of the illegal work done on Prince Hall.

So, technically, no, he wasn't regularly made a mason. But the illegal work conferred on him was covered and healed by the 1784 charter from the Grand Lodge of England. 1784 African Lodge became a just and duly constituted Lodge of Freemasons."

So, it appears there is no wording indicating the charter [sic] "covered" the illegal work and healed Prince Hall.

@Glen Cook NO CHARTER or WARRANT will indicate that a Lodge was clandestine or regular prior. So, you need to see the wording of a charter indicate such is a stretch. You are asking for something that isn't even done in Freemasonry. The charter did heal the illegal work, because from that point, African Lodge was no longer a clandestine Lodge, but a regular one. And without England RE-CONFERRING ANY DEGREES, it sounds like a healing (in the technical sense).

You appear to rely on the modern practice of healing a lodge over as ratifying the unauthorized acts. What examples do you have of the English constitutions healing an entire lodge? Is this not primarily a Prince Hall practice? Are you aware of any CGMNA GL healing an entire Lodge?

Now, you're SPLITTING HAIRS Glen. What I stated was that the charter healed the illegal acts, not the Grand Lodge of England. African Lodge's reception of the charter made them regular. That is the bottom line, unless you are saying that the charter didn't impact their prior condition.
By all records and facts, African Lodge No. 1 was clandestine. Yet, in 1784 the were on the rolls of a Regular Grand Lodge. The charter CHANGED the condition of African Lodge. England didn't make them masons and then give them a charter, they chartered a whole lodge of, what we NOW KNOW were clandestine masons.

Further, as you indicate the EC had no knowledge of the irregularities, this really was not a healing, was it?

Not in the formal sense, No. as there was really no formal healing between the members of the Modern and Antient GLs in England either when the members and lodges would switch allegiances, hence an example you asked for....

Additionally, under the facts you relate, was he not a clandestine Mason, rather than an irregularly made a mason?

Yeah, you can say clandestine. In fact I use the term clandestine in my book.

You'll note my concern with the word "charter." Was it not a warrant?

Just so we can discontinue the attempt to cloud up the thread with technicalities, yes it was called a warrant...The results were the same, a clandestine lodge was made regular with the warrant/charter.

 

[MasonicAdept]

How do you know John Batt was not authorized?[/QUOTE]

@Glen Cook , Because the Grand Lodge of Ireland, whom I had been in constant contact with for documentation and other things, stated that Ireland at no time in their history had ever allowed any ONE mason to confer the degrees without aid of a Lodge, and especially to confer the degree on 15 people at one time was UNAUTHORIZED.

There is no record of John Batt being WM of Irish Military Lodge, and even if he was, he still would not have the authority to confer the degrees on any ONE person, let alone 15 by himself...John Batt was not a member of St. Andrew's Lodge, St. John's Lodge or any of the Lodge around Boston. That angles was investigated to through RW Walter Hunt and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

So, if Ireland says they didn't give him authority, he was no member of any Lodge in Boston in March of 1778, please let me know who would have give one man authority, without aid of the Lodge to confer the degrees on 15 people at one time?

I am interested to hear your theory...

 

[Glen Cook]

@Glen Cook NO CHARTER or WARRANT will indicate that a Lodge was clandestine or regular prior. So, you need to see the wording of a charter indicate such is a stretch. You are asking for something that isn't even done in Freemasonry. The charter did heal the illegal work, because from that point, African Lodge was no longer a clandestine Lodge, but a regular one. And without England RE-CONFERRING ANY DEGREES, it sounds like a healing (in the technical sense).




Now, you're SPLITTING HAIRS Glen. What I stated was that the charter healed the illegal acts, not the Grand Lodge of England. African Lodge's reception of the charter made them regular. That is the bottom line, unless you are saying that the charter didn't impact their prior condition.
By all records and facts, African Lodge No. 1 was clandestine. Yet, in 1784 the were on the rolls of a Regular Grand Lodge. The charter CHANGED the condition of African Lodge. England didn't make them masons and then give them a charter, they chartered a whole lodge of, what we NOW KNOW were clandestine masons.



Not in the formal sense, No. as there was really no formal healing between the members of the Modern and Antient GLs in England either when the members and lodges would switch allegiances, hence an example you asked for....



Yeah, you can say clandestine. In fact I use the term clandestine in my book.



Just so we can discontinue the attempt to cloud up the thread with technicalities, yes it was called a warrant...The results were the same, a clandestine lodge was made regular with the warrant/charter.

Correct, from the point of the warrant (the correct term), the lodge's acts were regular from that point forward. That does not remedy the prior unauthorized acts. You have pointed to no evidence that this was either meant to be a healing, or even acted as a healing, or that healing was even practiced by English GLs. A Ratification requires specific language to act in an ex post facto manner.

No, the merger of the two GLs was not a healing process.

Note, I've not quarreled with the historical facts of Prince Hall's initiation, but the other conclusions you are drawing about Masonic Jurisprudence which are not warranted, as it were, in m view.

 

[Glen Cook]

How do you know John Batt was not authorized?

@Glen Cook , Because the Grand Lodge of Ireland, whom I had been in constant contact with for documentation and other things, stated that Ireland at no time in their history had ever allowed any ONE mason to confer the degrees without aid of a Lodge, and especially to confer the degree on 15 people at one time was UNAUTHORIZED.

There is no record of John Batt being WM of Irish Military Lodge, and even if he was, he still would not have the authority to confer the degrees on any ONE person, let alone 15 by himself...John Batt was not a member of St. Andrew's Lodge, St. John's Lodge or any of the Lodge around Boston. That angles was investigated to through RW Walter Hunt and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts.

So, if Ireland says they didn't give him authority, he was no member of any Lodge in Boston in March of 1778, please let me know who would have give one man authority, without aid of the Lodge to confer the degrees on 15 people at one time?

I am interested to hear your theory...[/QUOTE]
Well, we know that Alfred Lodge in England (since erased) deputized officers to make Masons. Has a search been made of the lodge's records to see if such a deputation was granted? We know that the haute grades were disseminated in the 18-19th C in a less formal manner than now used. I quite believe you accurately quote what you were told by the grand Lodge of Ireland; that doesn't mean I believe they were accurate. I would suggest a better statement is that there is no current evidence that he had authority to confer the degrees

Control of lodge activities by GL was much more fluid in the 18th century ( though, to be fair, there are lots of things that Grand Lodge is don't know now!).

 

[MasonicAdept]

That does not remedy the prior unauthorized acts. You have pointed to no evidence that this was either meant to be a healing, or even acted as a healing, or that healing was even practiced by English GLs.

@Glen Cook England, I think you are attempting to be a bit too technical, and you're missing a very simple point. African Lodge No. 459 from the time of the issuing of the charter despite their prior condition, were then REGULAR. You are attempting to inject terminology that I haven't used at all, neither the concept thereof. I SIMPLY STATED, that the charter and its reception healed all the illegal work, because they went from being clandestine to regular by way of the charter. There is ample examples of the transfer of allegiances between the Modern and Antient GLs (both Lodges and members) and I am surprised that this isn't more clear to you. Let me say this again, so you can stop building straw men...I am not saying that the Grand Lodge of England provided African Lodge a charter as an act of healing them, because they were unaware that they were clandestine at the time. WHAT I AM SAYING is that the reception of the charter covered/healed/fixed/did away with/dispensed with/removed/changed the condition of all the illegal work conferred on those Brothers. They were accepted as a regular Lodge despite their prior circumstances.

A Ratification requires specific language to act in an ex post facto manner.

Glen, please stop using the word, RATIFICATION. I NEVER USED IT. There was no need for a ratification, because there was nothing, in England's mind, to ratify. They gave a charter to a group of Masons who, they thought, were operating under a permit from John Rowe for several years. What the charter did do, beyond any technical verbiage that could be mustered, is do away with the prior condition of African Lodge, whether England knew it or not, they made African Lodge a REGULAR LODGE.

No, the merger of the two GLs was not a healing process.

Glen, I am not speaking on the merger of 1813, I am talking about the change of allegiance of some members and Lodges prior to the merger. You do know that did occur, right? Can you explain how that was dealt with?

Note, I've not quarreled with the historical facts of Prince Hall's initiation, but the other conclusions you are drawing about Masonic Jurisprudence which are not warranted, as it were, in m view.

Glen, enlighten me on what Jurisprudence was codified in 1778-1784?