Skip to main content
Museum of Freemasonry

Masonic Periodicals Online

  • Explore
  • Advanced Search
  • Home
  • Explore
  • The Freemason's Chronicle
  • Aug. 25, 1877
  • Page 4
Current:

The Freemason's Chronicle, Aug. 25, 1877: Page 4

  • Back to The Freemason's Chronicle, Aug. 25, 1877
  • Print image
  • Articles/Ads
    Article GREAT PRIORY OF CANADA, 1877 ← Page 2 of 4
    Article GREAT PRIORY OF CANADA, 1877 Page 2 of 4 →
Page 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

“The Freemason's Chronicle: 1877-08-25, Page 4” Masonic Periodicals Online, Library and Museum of Freemasonry, 1 Aug. 2025, django:8000/periodicals/fcn/issues/fcn_25081877/page/4/.
  • List
  • Grid
Title Category Page
MASONIC PORTRAITS. (No. 47.) Article 1
FACTS, SUGGESTIONS AND QUESTIONS Article 2
ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS. Article 3
GREAT PRIORY OF CANADA, 1877 Article 3
THE MASONIC SECTION OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION AT PLYMOUTH. Article 6
CORRESPONDENCE Article 7
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Article 8
Untitled Article 8
OUR WEEKLY BUDGET. Article 8
REVIEWS. Article 10
Old Warrants. Article 11
DIARY FOR THE WEEK Article 12
NOTICES OF MEETINGS Article 12
CONSECRATION OF THE HAMILTON CHAPTER, No. 172. Article 13
PICNIC OF THE THORNTREE LODGE, No. 512 Article 14
MARK MASONRY IN CORNWALL Article 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
SWEDENBORGIAN RITE Article 14
FREEMASONRY IN SOUTH WALES Article 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Page 1

Page 1

2 Articles
Page 2

Page 2

3 Articles
Page 3

Page 3

3 Articles
Page 4

Page 4

2 Articles
Page 5

Page 5

2 Articles
Page 6

Page 6

3 Articles
Page 7

Page 7

2 Articles
Page 8

Page 8

8 Articles
Page 9

Page 9

2 Articles
Page 10

Page 10

3 Articles
Page 11

Page 11

2 Articles
Page 12

Page 12

3 Articles
Page 13

Page 13

3 Articles
Page 14

Page 14

10 Articles
Page 15

Page 15

22 Articles
Page 16

Page 16

18 Articles
Page 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

  • Prev page
  • 1
  • 3
  • You're on page4
  • 5
  • 16
  • Next page
  • Accredited Museum Designated Outstanding Collection
  • LIBRARY AND MUSEUM CHARITABLE TRUST OF THE UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER 1058497 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2025

  • Accessibility statement

  • Designed, developed, and maintained by King's Digital Lab

We use cookies to track usage and preferences.

Privacy & cookie policy