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.
Thanks - you provably want to dump that pic from your signature, people often complain of such a large signature on this board..
So, how and why do you think the story of the Irish Lodge became established lore ?
If it doesn't violate the site rules, then it shouldn't be an issue. Some people complain about anything.
Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?
Okay, so where was PH made a mason, and who made him one ?
Oh, you've met my mother-in-law then....Some people complain about anything.
What wording of the warrant indicates that he was healed or the lodge's prior acts were ratified?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 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?
Umm, not the point I was addressing@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.
[/QUOTE]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.
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 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.
How do you know John Batt was not authorized?
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.