-
Articles/Ads
Article To Correspondents. Page 1 of 1 Article Untitled Page 1 of 1 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 1 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 1 Article REVIEWS Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To Correspondents.
To Correspondents .
A . A . —In reply to " A . A ., " who has , however , not sent his address , we beg to say that we feel sure from what we know of the authorities of the distinguished province of whom be complains that he has been treated with all Masonic fairness and justice , and in all they have decided they have been solely actuated by a desire to uphold the best interests of the lodge and the Principles and Constitutions of the Craft . We would not under any circumstances publish his letter .
BOOKS , & c , RECEIVED . " New York Daily News , " " Buffalo Review , " " Keystone , " "Jewish Chronicle , " " Annals of the Grand Lodge of Iowa , 1 SS 3 , " " Broad Arrow , " "Citizen , " "Australian Freemason , " "Hull Packet , " "Speeches of Mr . P . A . Taylor and Mr . C . H . Hopwood on Vaccination , " "Court Circular , " " Bulletin du Grand Orient de France , " " New York Dispatch , " "Die Bauhiitte , " "El Taller , " "Proceedings Grand Communication Maine , " "Canadian Craftsman , " "LaEscuadra , " "Natal Mercantile Advertiser , " "Tricycling Journal , " "The Durban Weekly , " "Triunghiul , " "Allen's Indian Mail . "
Ar00504
SATURDAY , AUGUST 25 , 1883 . +
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in aspirit of fairplay to all to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion , ! ——
STATUS OF PAST MASTERS . . To tlie Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In connection with the question now agitating the Craft as to the Status of Past Masters , can you or any of your readers . point out to me a single provision in the
existing Constitutions by which any rank is given to Past Masters of a lodge as distinguished from Past Masters in a lodge *? In Grand Lodge a Past Master enjoys all the rights and privileges of his rank as such , so long as he is a subscribing member of any lodge , utterly regardless of the particular
lodge of which he may have filled the Master's chair . Although a Past Master's position and rank in the Craft is expressly indicated in the Constitutions , those Constitutions are silent as to the rank he hold in his lodge . As a matter of fact Past Masters , with the exception of Immediate . Past Masters , hold no actual official rank
whatever in the lodge , and their position is really very much what their brethren see fit to accord to them . Among Masons , as among other bodies of gentlemen , custom tacitly prescribes the order of precedence enjoyed by individuals of distinction , and inasmuch as the Master ef a lodge enjoys " the highest rank it is in the power of a
lodge to bestow on any of its members , so a brother who has filled that office is , after his official career has ended , aecorded . by the members of his lodge that consideration md precedence to which in their opinion his past services entitle him . As the law now stands there is nothing to prevent the members of a lodge by resolution or by tacit
understanding according such precedence as they may see fit to any Past Master who may have joined the lodge . It is a matter which concerns the particular lodge , and I fail to see valid reasons for disturbing the existing ordet of things . There is however one advantage which , undet the
existing law , a Past Master in a lodge enjoys over a Past Master of a lodge—he is exempt from liability to take the chair in the absence of the Master and Immediate Past Master , an immunity which cannot fail to be appreciated by many Past Masters whose knowledge of the ritual may
not have improved with the lapse of years . If Past Masters of a lodge hold no official rank at all in the lodge is it not rather absurd for Grand Lodge solemnly to enact that Past Masters in a lodge shall hold a like official rank ?—Yours faithfully and fraternally , E . LETCHWORTH .
To the Editor of the " F ' reemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read with considerable interest your leader of this week on the Status of Past Masters , and , whilst I am Prepared to go a long way with you in your remarks , I yet think there is something to be said in favour of the other
* _ de of the question . As an illustration of this , I will submit to you a case in point—A Mason of 25 years' standing is a Past Master of two lodges and founder of a third , but for the fact of ' being a W . M . at the time this latter lodge came into existence , he would probably have been its first -Master ; as it was , he acted for the first year as its I . P . M .,
* Wd has from the beginning ( seven years ) been its Treasurer . He has never sought to pass the chair , because young and efficient , members have always been at hand aspiring to that Position , and he has felt that he would rather further their advancement tj , ^ j , ar to ; j ^ e ; s now about retir" "_ from the Treasurership , and the question I would ask 8 this-. Is be to be releria ted . tp the standing of the younges
Original Correspondence.
initiate , or has the lodge power to confer upon him the status of a Past Master of that lodge in consideration of suit and service rendered ? The Grand Registrar seems to think that it possesses that power ; but you say that you are startled that either he or Bro . John Havers should have expressed such an opinion . Iii
With regard to the amendment passed at the last Special Grand Lodge , and to which you take such strong exception , it seems to me a mistake that the worthy brother who proposed it did not make it optional instead of compulsory . How would the following rendering have answered ? " In thc case of a joining member being a Past Master , he may ( if the lodge so will it ) have the rank and position of a
Past Master of the lodge , ranking next after the then junior Past Master and the Worshipful Master of that lodge , provided he has not ceased to subscribe to a lodge for 12 months . " Apologising for this long epistle , wliich I trust you will be able to find space for in your next issue , —I am , dear sir and brother , very fraternally yours , G . E ., August 31 st . P . M . and P . Z ,
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , I take exception to your opinion that " it seems a ' paradox' and 'fad' gravely to argue that once a P . M . always a P . M . " As I said in my previous letter I took my honours in East Lancashire , and business compelled
me to remove from that province to West Yorkshire ; am I then to lose my position on account of circumstances over which I had no control necessitating my change of residence ? " Amongst those certain consequences " you name , I totally disagiee with you , that any P . M . will join a lodge simply to rank as a P . M of that lodge . There may be exceptional
cases , I think they will be very tew j and 1 have a better opinion of my brethren who have risen to the honourable position of P . M . than to think they would join another lodge to satisfy a " fad . " At the consecration of a lodge , after the Installation of the W . M ., he is asked to appoint his I . P . M . ; having done so , what rank does that brother
hold in the lodge—is he not a P . M , of said lodge ? As to " well-to-do " members I am sorry to say it has too much weight already ; I have seen many brethren pitchforked into office simply from their length of purse . This applies to both provincial and private lodges , but I cannot see how it will apply in this case . You have a very poor opinion of
our Order when you say "this will lead to blackballing . 1 know not what it may do in London , but in our northe rn provinces it will not have such an effect . I suppose , according to your logic , a P . M . of East Lancashire would not be eligible to pass the chairs in the Royal Arch of any other province , simply because he was nota P . M . of a lodge in
that province , although a subscribing member to a lodge of said province . We happily do not hold such views in our district . Will you kindly inform me what is a " bogus " P . M . —is it a Masonic term or merely a " fad " of your own to imagine there are such people ? In conclusion I beg of you not to try to swamp the provincial brethren by
advising the London brethren to muster in force and outvote we far-away provincials who have not time to devote to attending Grand Lodge . Had I time I might have gone more lucidly into this subject , therefore any imperfections of expression must be overlooked . —I am , dear sir and brorher , yours faithfully and fraternally ,
JOHN W . TURNER , P . M ., P . Z ., Water-street , Huddersfield , Secretary 521 August 22 nd .
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I read with much interest an article in your journal advising the brethren not to adopt a proposal of which notice had bcen given to alter the Book of Constitutions so as to make those Past Masters who should join another lodge
Past Masters of such lodge and take precedence of the S . W . I must say I approve and endorse the opinions there expressed , and was surprised and disappointed to find that the brethren assembled in the Grand Lodge adopted the alteration in the Constitutions , and that they did so despite the advice of the President of thc Board of General
Purposes and the observations of thc Grand Registrar and of Bro . Havers , all of which were so clearly and forcibly made and explained that the disadvantage and impolicy of the change was manifest . I greatly fear the alteration will prove unsatisfactory in working , and , in fact , defeat the object of the promoters ,
so that , instead of a Past Master being rendered happier and more honoured in a new lodge which , under present circumstances , he may desire to join , he would be regarded as taking precedence of the brethren , and so induce the members to exclude him , and foster an unmasonic spirit amongst the brethren . It is not too late to return to the
paths of goodwill and prudence , and I do hope you will fully and impartially discuss the question in all its bearings in your columns , and use your Influence to induce the brethren nottoconfirmsomuchof theminutesof Grand Lodge as refer to Constitution No . 186 , which affects the status of Past Masters in lodges which they may hereafter join . The
brethren of the Surrey Lodge , No . 416 , and other lodges in the Province of Surrey , are unanimous in the disapproval of the change proposed . —I am , dear sir and brother , yours fraternally , JOHN LEES , P . P . G . W . Surrey . P . M . and Sec . Surrey Lodge , No . 416 . Reigate , Surrey , August 14 th .
Reviews
REVIEWS
ALLOCUTION OF THE GREAT PRIOR OF CANADA , 1 SS 3 . Though the " sayings" and " doing . " of Masonic Knights Templar hardly come under the "purview " of a Craft newspaper , yet we are glad to note the reappearancc of an "Allocution" ( though wc do not like the word ) , by our old and esteemed friend Bro . Lieut .-
Colonel Macleod Moore . We know his worth , his loyalty , and bis many valuable services to Freemasonry , and though we cannot profess honestly to agree either with his elaborate statements or his dogmatic declarations in respect of Craft and Templar history , we are pleased to hold out the hand of fraternal fellowship and goodwill , though distance separates us all but entirely from one another .
Into the peculiar questions agitating the Templar bod y in Canada we do not enter for many reasons ; the principal being that we think they ( the Templars ) had better far manage their own concerns . But the "Grand Prior , " resting apparently upon Bro . Carson , reproduces certain allegations in respect of Alasonic history generally , which we have proved to be absurd , several statements
which are absolutely unhistorical , and some favourite theories which are positively pure "fads ; " and as he invests them with his sanction and authority , and repeats them as truth , it becomes necessary , in the interests of scientific accuracy and historical criticism and reliability , again to " slay the twice slain . " Bro . Carson , in his zeal Ior Templary , took up this position : that Anderson against
the wishes of a portion of the Grand Lodgeof 1723 introduced a Monotheistic instead of a Christian and Trinitarian basis for Freemasonry , that discontents arose , that hence Dermott ' s schism , and that the Templar brothers were then formed to perpetuate the Christian and runitarian Formulae . We pointed out at the time , and Bros . Gould and Hughan , ( two of our leading authorities ) , fully agreed with us ,
that there is no trace historically of any such idea or fact , that whatever was the originating cause of the " schism , " such a theory is never alluded to , and that Templary is very late in the eighteenth century , and owes whatever it does of prestige and popularity to Dunckerley ' s activity and propagation . It is useless to cull selections from later writers ; it is idle to create a " post hoc propter hoc "
explanation ot chance words and sentences . All contemporary evidence , as far as we are aware , demonstrates that any such theory is a pure " willo * the wisp , " leading us we know not where , and that it is simply ridiculous in 1 S 8 3 to go back to 1723 as the starting point of Templary in consequence of the alterations of Anderson and the discontent thereby occasioned . It is in truth as pretty a bit of
moonshine as ever was pictured or presented to the Masonic mind . But we must even say a little more . The Grand Prior gives us , as the derivation for Masons and Masonry , a word which he writes Mesourance ! Is it a printer ' s error ? We think it must be' as there is no such word , and the meaning attributed to it is equally absurd , " waiters and seekers in the Temple . " There is a word " mesouranesis , "
" mid-heaven , " and "mesouraneo , " "to be in midheaven , " and we believe Oliver , or some one equally erratic , once derived " Mason " from " mesouraneo . " But such a derivation has long since been laughed out of court , and we could not have supposed that in 1 SS 3 any Masonic writer would gravely reproduce it . Where out gallant brother found the statement we know not , but we recommend him to discard such an absurdity once and for
ever . Such uncritical statements do harm to Masonic science and worry Masonic students . In some of Dr . Oliver's vague and hasty statements , as we just said , we fancy we remember a hint of " mesouraneo , " but it is as equally sensible and real as his late assertion , ( not his earlier ) , that the Master's Degree fiist appeared in 1717 , and was based on " Tales of the Jewish Targums . " Lond ..
1715 , from a MS . in the University of Cambridge . Wc have the high authority of the late learned librarian o £ the University Library , Cambridge , that such a statement is an absolute fiction , that any such work appeared . It is undoubtedly true that the latest Gild Constitutions ( 16 S 6 , as so far known ) , are Christian and Trinitarian , but what the Templars had to do with them we fail to see . The northern
Templars were all absorbed into the Monasteries , the southern also to some extent , and the idea of a Templar perpetuation has long been given up . There is not the slightest historical evidence forthcoming that , except by adaptation , the modern Templars preserve in any way the " secreta receptio" of the real Knights Templar ; and whether , as has been alleged , they
are nothing but another form of the old " Rose Croix , " is a matter on which much might be said ; but unfitly and unprofitably true . The book of Bishop Miinter , to which Colonel Macleod Moore unfortunately refers , is now admitted to be a literary fabrication , no such MS . as thc " Codex Vaticanus , " therein professed to be transcribed , existing . The learned German editor trives it uo . We
fear that our worthy Bro . D . M . Lyon will hardly endorse the gallant Grand Prior's words as to the " Lodge of Builders " and the " Cross-legged Masons " at Stirling , in 1590 , or the further astouding statement that " from the period of the Reformation the combined Orders of the Temple and Hospitalers of St . John in Scotland appear only as belonging to the Masonic Society . " At the
suppression of the templars in Scotland very few were founder forthcoming , and we are inclined to think that our gallant brother is unconsciousl y falling back on the fables of the " Strict Observance . " Though there is great evidence that the Templars had , as wesaid before , a " secreta receptio , " there is none that the Knights of St . John had , and though the latter obtained a portion of the temporalities of the lemplars , they certainly never adopted their ritual . Very few
1 emplars entered the Order of St . John . We , therefore , dismiss for ever , like many other hopeless anachronisms and unhistoric assertions , the allegations that Templary arose out of the discontent at Anderson ' s alterations in 1713 . So far , the only historic evidence of English Templary we know of is 1780 , 50 years later . We trust that our remarks will be taken in good part , as in this age of revived Masonic scholarship no good can be gained , though much harm may accrue , from dogmatic assertions which are not critically sound , nor historically correct .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To Correspondents.
To Correspondents .
A . A . —In reply to " A . A ., " who has , however , not sent his address , we beg to say that we feel sure from what we know of the authorities of the distinguished province of whom be complains that he has been treated with all Masonic fairness and justice , and in all they have decided they have been solely actuated by a desire to uphold the best interests of the lodge and the Principles and Constitutions of the Craft . We would not under any circumstances publish his letter .
BOOKS , & c , RECEIVED . " New York Daily News , " " Buffalo Review , " " Keystone , " "Jewish Chronicle , " " Annals of the Grand Lodge of Iowa , 1 SS 3 , " " Broad Arrow , " "Citizen , " "Australian Freemason , " "Hull Packet , " "Speeches of Mr . P . A . Taylor and Mr . C . H . Hopwood on Vaccination , " "Court Circular , " " Bulletin du Grand Orient de France , " " New York Dispatch , " "Die Bauhiitte , " "El Taller , " "Proceedings Grand Communication Maine , " "Canadian Craftsman , " "LaEscuadra , " "Natal Mercantile Advertiser , " "Tricycling Journal , " "The Durban Weekly , " "Triunghiul , " "Allen's Indian Mail . "
Ar00504
SATURDAY , AUGUST 25 , 1883 . +
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in aspirit of fairplay to all to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion , ! ——
STATUS OF PAST MASTERS . . To tlie Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In connection with the question now agitating the Craft as to the Status of Past Masters , can you or any of your readers . point out to me a single provision in the
existing Constitutions by which any rank is given to Past Masters of a lodge as distinguished from Past Masters in a lodge *? In Grand Lodge a Past Master enjoys all the rights and privileges of his rank as such , so long as he is a subscribing member of any lodge , utterly regardless of the particular
lodge of which he may have filled the Master's chair . Although a Past Master's position and rank in the Craft is expressly indicated in the Constitutions , those Constitutions are silent as to the rank he hold in his lodge . As a matter of fact Past Masters , with the exception of Immediate . Past Masters , hold no actual official rank
whatever in the lodge , and their position is really very much what their brethren see fit to accord to them . Among Masons , as among other bodies of gentlemen , custom tacitly prescribes the order of precedence enjoyed by individuals of distinction , and inasmuch as the Master ef a lodge enjoys " the highest rank it is in the power of a
lodge to bestow on any of its members , so a brother who has filled that office is , after his official career has ended , aecorded . by the members of his lodge that consideration md precedence to which in their opinion his past services entitle him . As the law now stands there is nothing to prevent the members of a lodge by resolution or by tacit
understanding according such precedence as they may see fit to any Past Master who may have joined the lodge . It is a matter which concerns the particular lodge , and I fail to see valid reasons for disturbing the existing ordet of things . There is however one advantage which , undet the
existing law , a Past Master in a lodge enjoys over a Past Master of a lodge—he is exempt from liability to take the chair in the absence of the Master and Immediate Past Master , an immunity which cannot fail to be appreciated by many Past Masters whose knowledge of the ritual may
not have improved with the lapse of years . If Past Masters of a lodge hold no official rank at all in the lodge is it not rather absurd for Grand Lodge solemnly to enact that Past Masters in a lodge shall hold a like official rank ?—Yours faithfully and fraternally , E . LETCHWORTH .
To the Editor of the " F ' reemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read with considerable interest your leader of this week on the Status of Past Masters , and , whilst I am Prepared to go a long way with you in your remarks , I yet think there is something to be said in favour of the other
* _ de of the question . As an illustration of this , I will submit to you a case in point—A Mason of 25 years' standing is a Past Master of two lodges and founder of a third , but for the fact of ' being a W . M . at the time this latter lodge came into existence , he would probably have been its first -Master ; as it was , he acted for the first year as its I . P . M .,
* Wd has from the beginning ( seven years ) been its Treasurer . He has never sought to pass the chair , because young and efficient , members have always been at hand aspiring to that Position , and he has felt that he would rather further their advancement tj , ^ j , ar to ; j ^ e ; s now about retir" "_ from the Treasurership , and the question I would ask 8 this-. Is be to be releria ted . tp the standing of the younges
Original Correspondence.
initiate , or has the lodge power to confer upon him the status of a Past Master of that lodge in consideration of suit and service rendered ? The Grand Registrar seems to think that it possesses that power ; but you say that you are startled that either he or Bro . John Havers should have expressed such an opinion . Iii
With regard to the amendment passed at the last Special Grand Lodge , and to which you take such strong exception , it seems to me a mistake that the worthy brother who proposed it did not make it optional instead of compulsory . How would the following rendering have answered ? " In thc case of a joining member being a Past Master , he may ( if the lodge so will it ) have the rank and position of a
Past Master of the lodge , ranking next after the then junior Past Master and the Worshipful Master of that lodge , provided he has not ceased to subscribe to a lodge for 12 months . " Apologising for this long epistle , wliich I trust you will be able to find space for in your next issue , —I am , dear sir and brother , very fraternally yours , G . E ., August 31 st . P . M . and P . Z ,
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , I take exception to your opinion that " it seems a ' paradox' and 'fad' gravely to argue that once a P . M . always a P . M . " As I said in my previous letter I took my honours in East Lancashire , and business compelled
me to remove from that province to West Yorkshire ; am I then to lose my position on account of circumstances over which I had no control necessitating my change of residence ? " Amongst those certain consequences " you name , I totally disagiee with you , that any P . M . will join a lodge simply to rank as a P . M of that lodge . There may be exceptional
cases , I think they will be very tew j and 1 have a better opinion of my brethren who have risen to the honourable position of P . M . than to think they would join another lodge to satisfy a " fad . " At the consecration of a lodge , after the Installation of the W . M ., he is asked to appoint his I . P . M . ; having done so , what rank does that brother
hold in the lodge—is he not a P . M , of said lodge ? As to " well-to-do " members I am sorry to say it has too much weight already ; I have seen many brethren pitchforked into office simply from their length of purse . This applies to both provincial and private lodges , but I cannot see how it will apply in this case . You have a very poor opinion of
our Order when you say "this will lead to blackballing . 1 know not what it may do in London , but in our northe rn provinces it will not have such an effect . I suppose , according to your logic , a P . M . of East Lancashire would not be eligible to pass the chairs in the Royal Arch of any other province , simply because he was nota P . M . of a lodge in
that province , although a subscribing member to a lodge of said province . We happily do not hold such views in our district . Will you kindly inform me what is a " bogus " P . M . —is it a Masonic term or merely a " fad " of your own to imagine there are such people ? In conclusion I beg of you not to try to swamp the provincial brethren by
advising the London brethren to muster in force and outvote we far-away provincials who have not time to devote to attending Grand Lodge . Had I time I might have gone more lucidly into this subject , therefore any imperfections of expression must be overlooked . —I am , dear sir and brorher , yours faithfully and fraternally ,
JOHN W . TURNER , P . M ., P . Z ., Water-street , Huddersfield , Secretary 521 August 22 nd .
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I read with much interest an article in your journal advising the brethren not to adopt a proposal of which notice had bcen given to alter the Book of Constitutions so as to make those Past Masters who should join another lodge
Past Masters of such lodge and take precedence of the S . W . I must say I approve and endorse the opinions there expressed , and was surprised and disappointed to find that the brethren assembled in the Grand Lodge adopted the alteration in the Constitutions , and that they did so despite the advice of the President of thc Board of General
Purposes and the observations of thc Grand Registrar and of Bro . Havers , all of which were so clearly and forcibly made and explained that the disadvantage and impolicy of the change was manifest . I greatly fear the alteration will prove unsatisfactory in working , and , in fact , defeat the object of the promoters ,
so that , instead of a Past Master being rendered happier and more honoured in a new lodge which , under present circumstances , he may desire to join , he would be regarded as taking precedence of the brethren , and so induce the members to exclude him , and foster an unmasonic spirit amongst the brethren . It is not too late to return to the
paths of goodwill and prudence , and I do hope you will fully and impartially discuss the question in all its bearings in your columns , and use your Influence to induce the brethren nottoconfirmsomuchof theminutesof Grand Lodge as refer to Constitution No . 186 , which affects the status of Past Masters in lodges which they may hereafter join . The
brethren of the Surrey Lodge , No . 416 , and other lodges in the Province of Surrey , are unanimous in the disapproval of the change proposed . —I am , dear sir and brother , yours fraternally , JOHN LEES , P . P . G . W . Surrey . P . M . and Sec . Surrey Lodge , No . 416 . Reigate , Surrey , August 14 th .
Reviews
REVIEWS
ALLOCUTION OF THE GREAT PRIOR OF CANADA , 1 SS 3 . Though the " sayings" and " doing . " of Masonic Knights Templar hardly come under the "purview " of a Craft newspaper , yet we are glad to note the reappearancc of an "Allocution" ( though wc do not like the word ) , by our old and esteemed friend Bro . Lieut .-
Colonel Macleod Moore . We know his worth , his loyalty , and bis many valuable services to Freemasonry , and though we cannot profess honestly to agree either with his elaborate statements or his dogmatic declarations in respect of Craft and Templar history , we are pleased to hold out the hand of fraternal fellowship and goodwill , though distance separates us all but entirely from one another .
Into the peculiar questions agitating the Templar bod y in Canada we do not enter for many reasons ; the principal being that we think they ( the Templars ) had better far manage their own concerns . But the "Grand Prior , " resting apparently upon Bro . Carson , reproduces certain allegations in respect of Alasonic history generally , which we have proved to be absurd , several statements
which are absolutely unhistorical , and some favourite theories which are positively pure "fads ; " and as he invests them with his sanction and authority , and repeats them as truth , it becomes necessary , in the interests of scientific accuracy and historical criticism and reliability , again to " slay the twice slain . " Bro . Carson , in his zeal Ior Templary , took up this position : that Anderson against
the wishes of a portion of the Grand Lodgeof 1723 introduced a Monotheistic instead of a Christian and Trinitarian basis for Freemasonry , that discontents arose , that hence Dermott ' s schism , and that the Templar brothers were then formed to perpetuate the Christian and runitarian Formulae . We pointed out at the time , and Bros . Gould and Hughan , ( two of our leading authorities ) , fully agreed with us ,
that there is no trace historically of any such idea or fact , that whatever was the originating cause of the " schism , " such a theory is never alluded to , and that Templary is very late in the eighteenth century , and owes whatever it does of prestige and popularity to Dunckerley ' s activity and propagation . It is useless to cull selections from later writers ; it is idle to create a " post hoc propter hoc "
explanation ot chance words and sentences . All contemporary evidence , as far as we are aware , demonstrates that any such theory is a pure " willo * the wisp , " leading us we know not where , and that it is simply ridiculous in 1 S 8 3 to go back to 1723 as the starting point of Templary in consequence of the alterations of Anderson and the discontent thereby occasioned . It is in truth as pretty a bit of
moonshine as ever was pictured or presented to the Masonic mind . But we must even say a little more . The Grand Prior gives us , as the derivation for Masons and Masonry , a word which he writes Mesourance ! Is it a printer ' s error ? We think it must be' as there is no such word , and the meaning attributed to it is equally absurd , " waiters and seekers in the Temple . " There is a word " mesouranesis , "
" mid-heaven , " and "mesouraneo , " "to be in midheaven , " and we believe Oliver , or some one equally erratic , once derived " Mason " from " mesouraneo . " But such a derivation has long since been laughed out of court , and we could not have supposed that in 1 SS 3 any Masonic writer would gravely reproduce it . Where out gallant brother found the statement we know not , but we recommend him to discard such an absurdity once and for
ever . Such uncritical statements do harm to Masonic science and worry Masonic students . In some of Dr . Oliver's vague and hasty statements , as we just said , we fancy we remember a hint of " mesouraneo , " but it is as equally sensible and real as his late assertion , ( not his earlier ) , that the Master's Degree fiist appeared in 1717 , and was based on " Tales of the Jewish Targums . " Lond ..
1715 , from a MS . in the University of Cambridge . Wc have the high authority of the late learned librarian o £ the University Library , Cambridge , that such a statement is an absolute fiction , that any such work appeared . It is undoubtedly true that the latest Gild Constitutions ( 16 S 6 , as so far known ) , are Christian and Trinitarian , but what the Templars had to do with them we fail to see . The northern
Templars were all absorbed into the Monasteries , the southern also to some extent , and the idea of a Templar perpetuation has long been given up . There is not the slightest historical evidence forthcoming that , except by adaptation , the modern Templars preserve in any way the " secreta receptio" of the real Knights Templar ; and whether , as has been alleged , they
are nothing but another form of the old " Rose Croix , " is a matter on which much might be said ; but unfitly and unprofitably true . The book of Bishop Miinter , to which Colonel Macleod Moore unfortunately refers , is now admitted to be a literary fabrication , no such MS . as thc " Codex Vaticanus , " therein professed to be transcribed , existing . The learned German editor trives it uo . We
fear that our worthy Bro . D . M . Lyon will hardly endorse the gallant Grand Prior's words as to the " Lodge of Builders " and the " Cross-legged Masons " at Stirling , in 1590 , or the further astouding statement that " from the period of the Reformation the combined Orders of the Temple and Hospitalers of St . John in Scotland appear only as belonging to the Masonic Society . " At the
suppression of the templars in Scotland very few were founder forthcoming , and we are inclined to think that our gallant brother is unconsciousl y falling back on the fables of the " Strict Observance . " Though there is great evidence that the Templars had , as wesaid before , a " secreta receptio , " there is none that the Knights of St . John had , and though the latter obtained a portion of the temporalities of the lemplars , they certainly never adopted their ritual . Very few
1 emplars entered the Order of St . John . We , therefore , dismiss for ever , like many other hopeless anachronisms and unhistoric assertions , the allegations that Templary arose out of the discontent at Anderson ' s alterations in 1713 . So far , the only historic evidence of English Templary we know of is 1780 , 50 years later . We trust that our remarks will be taken in good part , as in this age of revived Masonic scholarship no good can be gained , though much harm may accrue , from dogmatic assertions which are not critically sound , nor historically correct .