-
Articles/Ads
Article GREAT PRIORY OF CANADA, 1877 ← Page 2 of 4 Article GREAT PRIORY OF CANADA, 1877 Page 2 of 4 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Great Priory Of Canada, 1877
matters , and without the slightest reference to us , passes resolutions in Convent General of which wo disapprove . Undoubtedly , the general statutes contain a provision for altering them , but it could never havo been contemplated that such alterations were to take p lace without the consent of the other nationalities . Canada joined the Union satisfied with the existing laws , and thus gavo in her
allegiance to tho Convent General , and she cannot be expected to observe any infringement , which , in this case , actually changes the Order to a totally different organisation . If Convent General assumes the right to make rules for us , it is high time we should assert our own rights , and , in my opinion , we neither can nor ought , aa I know our Great Priory will be firm in
refusing to submit to any such assumption . I say so with the deepest loyalty and most profound respect for our Grand Master , a feeling I know to bo eaually shared in by all the members of this Great Priory , and I will uphold hia authority , and bear him true allegiance as long as he ia pleased to rnle over us , but I confess to the samo feeling which actuated the saying of Junius , — " That the
subject , who ia truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate , will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures . " The fact is , that the Great Priory of England haa so long been the autocrat of the Templar Order , that it is difficult to persuade some of its members that it ia now merely ono of a federated ur ion , and they seem to be indisposed to recognise either Ireland or Canada as
independent and co-equal members of tho federation , while it ia equally plain that neither Ireland nor Canada will consent to assert and maintain other than their fullest rights under the same . It is from no captions feeling I object to again returning to the old nomenclature , but because I consider it neither appropriate nor historical , and lam also fully aware many dissent from the opinions I
have long formed and expressed as to the history and practices of the Order . I will , therefore , once more endeavour to give fully my reasons for the views I entertain , and the objections I have to return to the old traditions and distinctive appellations of Modern Tem . plary ; leaving it for yon to consider how far they are correct or feasible .
Our Order haa always claimed traditionally to represent the Knights Templar of the Crusades , preserved intact through its connection with Freemasonry , and while Masonic authors are never weary of asserting this claim , at the same time they seem to do all in their power to perpetuate historical errors , stating as facts improbable surmises , and using titles and recording customs quite foreign to the
true and historical nomenclature and practices of the Order . There is no foundation for believing it grew out of the co-called Masonic Knights of the Temple , supposed to havo been established somewhere about the Babylonish Captivity , or that it was based on Craft Masonry at all . Such legends are now generally looked upon as myths of the past , and arose from the untenable grounds taken
by enthusiastic votaries to enhance tho value of tho Chivalric Orders in the eyes of the Masonic world , by assigning to them a mysterious origin they had not the slightest title to , and which was never thought of by their founders . That there was a connection between the Military Order of the Temple and Freemasonry there is now but little doubt entertained . It originated in the trading community of Masons , who with other
secret associations sprang up and flourished in the East ; appearing in Europe during the dark ages . They established themselves in " Guilds , " from which gradually emanated our present symbolic system . This connection with the Templars led in latter times to the preservation of the Order by the Masonic Society . But what that early connection was still remains a vexed question , and we can at best but theorize according to our own views .
History tells na that when the Templar Order was politically destroyed in the 14 th century by Philip , King of France , and Pope Clement the 5 th , the number of Templars in Christendom was about 15 , 000 , and it is supposed by many that the remaining Knights in . oorporated themselves with the Masonio body . This is not , however , warranted by facta , but there is every reason
to believe that the greater number , mingling m the world , never lost their identity as Templars , and thus their bond of union continned , although mystical and unrecognised , as that of any other legitimate society . A great mistake is made in considering the Templars a Papal Order . The Order , like that of St . John the Baptist , also called
St . John of Jerusalem , was essentially a military republic which was brought into existence by the will of its own original founders , and in no degree owed its inception or organization to the Head of the Latin Church . At the commencement , this association or brotherhood consisted of nine Knights , whose desire to benefit their fellows prompted them
voluntarily to bind themselves together for the protection of the Pilgrims visiting the Holy Land , then so much exposed to ill-treatment and danger ; and not until some time after their establishment were they sanctioned and acknowledged by the then Pope , but in no sense did they owe their origin to Papal authority . Therefore what legal or moral right had a Pope to destroy what a Pope had not
created . This Papal assumption of undue and unjust authority was not binding upon Christendom , even though the whole Western Church at that time acknowledged the Papal rule , and so the Order of the Temple , not being lawfully destroyed , still lawfully exists . Many are therefore too hasty in assuming because the direct proofs are not
readily forthcoming , that the Templars of the present day have no claim to the title . From Sir Bernard Burke's Book of the Orders of Knighthood , in the article on the Papal States , we find that the Order of the Temple was not onlv never abolished in Portugal , but it seems to have merely
been suspended for seven years in the Papal States . Pope Clement , it is well known , abolished it in 1312 , but this measure w s objected fco br King Dionysius of Portugal , who allowed the Order to exist in his dominions , with all its rights and possessions ; and Pope John 22 nd , successor of Clement , compromised the matter by consenting , iu
Great Priory Of Canada, 1877
1319 , to its existence in Portugal under a new name , " The Knights of Christ , " reserving to himself and his successors the risjht of creating a similar order also in the Papal States , of which right his suecessors avail themselves up to tho present day , by conferring it as a distinction of merit on both native and foreign Roman Catholies . The change of name from the "Templars" to " Knights of Christ , "
was in reality no change , as the Templars had always been known as tho " Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ , " or of the Temple . In both theso countries the Order now exists in its entirety . Is ifc then proper to say that the Order was ever even outwardly abolished ? How can that be abolished , which always has , and still continues to exist ?
The correct state of the Order of the Temple at tho present time is this : —In Portugal and the Papal Stares it exists , never having been abolished . In Scotland it was completely amalgamated with the Order of tho Hospitallers of St . John , and when the latter Order waa abolished at the Reformation , wo are justified in believing , from well-accredited traditions handed down to us , and the general belief
of the country , that the Knights , being without doubt in samo cases Freemasons , preserved both Orders within tho Masonic Fraternity . In England and Ireland , the Temple and Hospital wore partially but not completely amalgamated , still very many of the Knights of the Temple , and a large portion of their estates , were absorbed into the Order of St . John , and afc the Reformation , although we are without
positive proof , used the Masonic Order , like their Fratres in Scotland to preserve their ancient chivalry . Consequently , tbe Masonic body of Great Britain and Ireland is now the lawful custodian of the combined Order of the Temple and St . John . We cannot separate the two Orders as regards the Masonic Prater , nity . If we aro lawfully iu the possession of the one , wo are of the
other , because I contend that although the two original Orders were at variance when at tho height of their military glory they became amalgamated after the political suppression of tho Templars , and there is no reason for supposing that the Freemasons regularly and formally absorbed into themselves , either the Order of the Temple or that of St . John , until after the Reformation , at which time the com .
bined Orders disappeared from public view , and remained hidden until it was considered proper , in tho last century , to permit them to emerge to the light of day . In this view of the case , and I do not see what other can rationally be taken , the English , Scottish , Irish , and American Templars are just as lawfully Knights of tho Temple and Hospital , as ar . y other
now existing . Tho Pope never created the Orders , and the Pope could not destroy them . This is proved by Pope Clement's successor actually conferring the Templar Order himself , and the Order of Malta was never under the ban of Rome . It is of no consequence as regards validity of title , whether the Order continued openly , as in Portugal and Rome , or secretly , as in England and Scotland ; tho
sole fact to be considered is , did it still continue ? and of that we have the amplest proof . And , as regards the legitimacy of what is com . monly called " Masonio Templary , " what are the facts ? The Masonic Fraternity have for over a hundred years openly asserted that they possessed tbe right to enrol certain of their own members Knights of the Temple and of Malta , and can show their connection with symbolic Masonic at the revival , and that this right had been secretly
used and asserted for a considerable time previously . Now , even by prescription , this title is good , and before it can be successfully attacked , it is incumbent upon the parties attacking it to prove that it is bad . This has been attempted , but never with success ; and until it is , the Templar Order attached to the Masonic body must be held as being legitimate , and as such entitled to all the ancient privileges of the Order , amongst which not the least are the correct denomination , nomenclature and customs .
In my circular of the 19 th March , I quoted from Addi . son ' s "Reliable History of the Knights Templar" ( English edition , 1853 ) , pages 19 , 46 , and 61 , that the proper designation of tho officer presiding over the Order of the Temple for each Nation ia that of Grand or Great Prior , and by natural consequence the body so presided over is Grand or Great Priory ; and also showing the
organization of the early Order in England to prove that the lowest organised body of Knights Templar is Preceptory , and as these r ' re . ceptories in Scotland and Ireland were dependent on the Temple iu London , hence the precedent for our " Convent General . " The term " Commandery , " and the title " Commander , " Were never used by the Templars . Singularly enough , the Order of St . John of
Jerusalem used both " Commander and " Preceptor" indifferently for the same officer , which can be seen by reference to old documents , A . D . 1500 , or thereabouts . As they succeeded to the Templar possessions in England after the outward suppression of the Older , they probably adopted the old name of the religious houses , and used
it in common with their own term of Commandery . All other Milltary Orders seem to have used the title " Commander , ' excepting the Templars , who wero always called " Priors or Pi eceptors . " There - fore , the title " Commander " has no Templar meaning in connection with a Preceptory .
The name " Encampment" is quite a modern and most inappropriate innovation , not known to tho early Order—a military Monastic body dwelling in fixed places of abode , having > their Receptions in their chapels , never in the field . The English lexicons say an " Encampment" is ground on which an army , a body of gypsies , or marching party pitches " tents , " and therefore cannot , with any propriety , be applied to places of meeting in the rooms or halls of houses in a city or town .
There is no valid reason for the assertion that the promoters of the changes made in 1873 , when the Order was re-organised , wero actuated by any desire to sever its connection with the Masonic fraternity . This , I am satisfied , is nofc the case , and I wish most clearly to be understood that it was never contemplated by me to support such a measure , or to repudiate the connection with the Cr » ft , for without the fostering care of the Masonic body our Chivalric Order would never ha-e bad its existence continued , and we could
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Great Priory Of Canada, 1877
matters , and without the slightest reference to us , passes resolutions in Convent General of which wo disapprove . Undoubtedly , the general statutes contain a provision for altering them , but it could never havo been contemplated that such alterations were to take p lace without the consent of the other nationalities . Canada joined the Union satisfied with the existing laws , and thus gavo in her
allegiance to tho Convent General , and she cannot be expected to observe any infringement , which , in this case , actually changes the Order to a totally different organisation . If Convent General assumes the right to make rules for us , it is high time we should assert our own rights , and , in my opinion , we neither can nor ought , aa I know our Great Priory will be firm in
refusing to submit to any such assumption . I say so with the deepest loyalty and most profound respect for our Grand Master , a feeling I know to bo eaually shared in by all the members of this Great Priory , and I will uphold hia authority , and bear him true allegiance as long as he ia pleased to rnle over us , but I confess to the samo feeling which actuated the saying of Junius , — " That the
subject , who ia truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate , will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures . " The fact is , that the Great Priory of England haa so long been the autocrat of the Templar Order , that it is difficult to persuade some of its members that it ia now merely ono of a federated ur ion , and they seem to be indisposed to recognise either Ireland or Canada as
independent and co-equal members of tho federation , while it ia equally plain that neither Ireland nor Canada will consent to assert and maintain other than their fullest rights under the same . It is from no captions feeling I object to again returning to the old nomenclature , but because I consider it neither appropriate nor historical , and lam also fully aware many dissent from the opinions I
have long formed and expressed as to the history and practices of the Order . I will , therefore , once more endeavour to give fully my reasons for the views I entertain , and the objections I have to return to the old traditions and distinctive appellations of Modern Tem . plary ; leaving it for yon to consider how far they are correct or feasible .
Our Order haa always claimed traditionally to represent the Knights Templar of the Crusades , preserved intact through its connection with Freemasonry , and while Masonic authors are never weary of asserting this claim , at the same time they seem to do all in their power to perpetuate historical errors , stating as facts improbable surmises , and using titles and recording customs quite foreign to the
true and historical nomenclature and practices of the Order . There is no foundation for believing it grew out of the co-called Masonic Knights of the Temple , supposed to havo been established somewhere about the Babylonish Captivity , or that it was based on Craft Masonry at all . Such legends are now generally looked upon as myths of the past , and arose from the untenable grounds taken
by enthusiastic votaries to enhance tho value of tho Chivalric Orders in the eyes of the Masonic world , by assigning to them a mysterious origin they had not the slightest title to , and which was never thought of by their founders . That there was a connection between the Military Order of the Temple and Freemasonry there is now but little doubt entertained . It originated in the trading community of Masons , who with other
secret associations sprang up and flourished in the East ; appearing in Europe during the dark ages . They established themselves in " Guilds , " from which gradually emanated our present symbolic system . This connection with the Templars led in latter times to the preservation of the Order by the Masonic Society . But what that early connection was still remains a vexed question , and we can at best but theorize according to our own views .
History tells na that when the Templar Order was politically destroyed in the 14 th century by Philip , King of France , and Pope Clement the 5 th , the number of Templars in Christendom was about 15 , 000 , and it is supposed by many that the remaining Knights in . oorporated themselves with the Masonio body . This is not , however , warranted by facta , but there is every reason
to believe that the greater number , mingling m the world , never lost their identity as Templars , and thus their bond of union continned , although mystical and unrecognised , as that of any other legitimate society . A great mistake is made in considering the Templars a Papal Order . The Order , like that of St . John the Baptist , also called
St . John of Jerusalem , was essentially a military republic which was brought into existence by the will of its own original founders , and in no degree owed its inception or organization to the Head of the Latin Church . At the commencement , this association or brotherhood consisted of nine Knights , whose desire to benefit their fellows prompted them
voluntarily to bind themselves together for the protection of the Pilgrims visiting the Holy Land , then so much exposed to ill-treatment and danger ; and not until some time after their establishment were they sanctioned and acknowledged by the then Pope , but in no sense did they owe their origin to Papal authority . Therefore what legal or moral right had a Pope to destroy what a Pope had not
created . This Papal assumption of undue and unjust authority was not binding upon Christendom , even though the whole Western Church at that time acknowledged the Papal rule , and so the Order of the Temple , not being lawfully destroyed , still lawfully exists . Many are therefore too hasty in assuming because the direct proofs are not
readily forthcoming , that the Templars of the present day have no claim to the title . From Sir Bernard Burke's Book of the Orders of Knighthood , in the article on the Papal States , we find that the Order of the Temple was not onlv never abolished in Portugal , but it seems to have merely
been suspended for seven years in the Papal States . Pope Clement , it is well known , abolished it in 1312 , but this measure w s objected fco br King Dionysius of Portugal , who allowed the Order to exist in his dominions , with all its rights and possessions ; and Pope John 22 nd , successor of Clement , compromised the matter by consenting , iu
Great Priory Of Canada, 1877
1319 , to its existence in Portugal under a new name , " The Knights of Christ , " reserving to himself and his successors the risjht of creating a similar order also in the Papal States , of which right his suecessors avail themselves up to tho present day , by conferring it as a distinction of merit on both native and foreign Roman Catholies . The change of name from the "Templars" to " Knights of Christ , "
was in reality no change , as the Templars had always been known as tho " Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ , " or of the Temple . In both theso countries the Order now exists in its entirety . Is ifc then proper to say that the Order was ever even outwardly abolished ? How can that be abolished , which always has , and still continues to exist ?
The correct state of the Order of the Temple at tho present time is this : —In Portugal and the Papal Stares it exists , never having been abolished . In Scotland it was completely amalgamated with the Order of tho Hospitallers of St . John , and when the latter Order waa abolished at the Reformation , wo are justified in believing , from well-accredited traditions handed down to us , and the general belief
of the country , that the Knights , being without doubt in samo cases Freemasons , preserved both Orders within tho Masonic Fraternity . In England and Ireland , the Temple and Hospital wore partially but not completely amalgamated , still very many of the Knights of the Temple , and a large portion of their estates , were absorbed into the Order of St . John , and afc the Reformation , although we are without
positive proof , used the Masonic Order , like their Fratres in Scotland to preserve their ancient chivalry . Consequently , tbe Masonic body of Great Britain and Ireland is now the lawful custodian of the combined Order of the Temple and St . John . We cannot separate the two Orders as regards the Masonic Prater , nity . If we aro lawfully iu the possession of the one , wo are of the
other , because I contend that although the two original Orders were at variance when at tho height of their military glory they became amalgamated after the political suppression of tho Templars , and there is no reason for supposing that the Freemasons regularly and formally absorbed into themselves , either the Order of the Temple or that of St . John , until after the Reformation , at which time the com .
bined Orders disappeared from public view , and remained hidden until it was considered proper , in tho last century , to permit them to emerge to the light of day . In this view of the case , and I do not see what other can rationally be taken , the English , Scottish , Irish , and American Templars are just as lawfully Knights of tho Temple and Hospital , as ar . y other
now existing . Tho Pope never created the Orders , and the Pope could not destroy them . This is proved by Pope Clement's successor actually conferring the Templar Order himself , and the Order of Malta was never under the ban of Rome . It is of no consequence as regards validity of title , whether the Order continued openly , as in Portugal and Rome , or secretly , as in England and Scotland ; tho
sole fact to be considered is , did it still continue ? and of that we have the amplest proof . And , as regards the legitimacy of what is com . monly called " Masonio Templary , " what are the facts ? The Masonic Fraternity have for over a hundred years openly asserted that they possessed tbe right to enrol certain of their own members Knights of the Temple and of Malta , and can show their connection with symbolic Masonic at the revival , and that this right had been secretly
used and asserted for a considerable time previously . Now , even by prescription , this title is good , and before it can be successfully attacked , it is incumbent upon the parties attacking it to prove that it is bad . This has been attempted , but never with success ; and until it is , the Templar Order attached to the Masonic body must be held as being legitimate , and as such entitled to all the ancient privileges of the Order , amongst which not the least are the correct denomination , nomenclature and customs .
In my circular of the 19 th March , I quoted from Addi . son ' s "Reliable History of the Knights Templar" ( English edition , 1853 ) , pages 19 , 46 , and 61 , that the proper designation of tho officer presiding over the Order of the Temple for each Nation ia that of Grand or Great Prior , and by natural consequence the body so presided over is Grand or Great Priory ; and also showing the
organization of the early Order in England to prove that the lowest organised body of Knights Templar is Preceptory , and as these r ' re . ceptories in Scotland and Ireland were dependent on the Temple iu London , hence the precedent for our " Convent General . " The term " Commandery , " and the title " Commander , " Were never used by the Templars . Singularly enough , the Order of St . John of
Jerusalem used both " Commander and " Preceptor" indifferently for the same officer , which can be seen by reference to old documents , A . D . 1500 , or thereabouts . As they succeeded to the Templar possessions in England after the outward suppression of the Older , they probably adopted the old name of the religious houses , and used
it in common with their own term of Commandery . All other Milltary Orders seem to have used the title " Commander , ' excepting the Templars , who wero always called " Priors or Pi eceptors . " There - fore , the title " Commander " has no Templar meaning in connection with a Preceptory .
The name " Encampment" is quite a modern and most inappropriate innovation , not known to tho early Order—a military Monastic body dwelling in fixed places of abode , having > their Receptions in their chapels , never in the field . The English lexicons say an " Encampment" is ground on which an army , a body of gypsies , or marching party pitches " tents , " and therefore cannot , with any propriety , be applied to places of meeting in the rooms or halls of houses in a city or town .
There is no valid reason for the assertion that the promoters of the changes made in 1873 , when the Order was re-organised , wero actuated by any desire to sever its connection with the Masonic fraternity . This , I am satisfied , is nofc the case , and I wish most clearly to be understood that it was never contemplated by me to support such a measure , or to repudiate the connection with the Cr » ft , for without the fostering care of the Masonic body our Chivalric Order would never ha-e bad its existence continued , and we could