-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
loss to know why it should be dragged into the discussion " on subordination in the higher degrees , " and Bro . Yarker ' s conduct in relation thereto . To Bro . Yarker himself let me say one thing : I am heartily sorry that he has acted in such a bitter and hostile manner towards the Supreme Grand Council
because I think he is a Mason who would have done credit to the Ancient and Accepted Rite as one of the few real students of Masonry . I am sorry he should try to run down the S . G . C . —socalled , as he is pleased to term it—because , though his action cannot injure the members of the 33 ,
it only breeds strife amongst the brethren , and many of us would be glad to hold out the righthand of fellowship to Bro . Yarker if be would only make his peace with the S . G . C . With regard to his statements as to the Ne Plus Ultra degree , there is a good deal of truth in them , and this I
have before admitted , The K . H . was formerly given in the old K . T . encampments , and I myself received it , together with the Red Cross degree , in one of the oldest in England , though in a mutilated form . But Bro . Yarker evidently forgets ( I certainly give him credit for knowing the fact ) that there
were six degrees of Kadosh : the Knight Kadosh , Kadosh of the Chapter of Clermont , Philosophical Kadosh , Kadosh Prince of Death , and Kadosh of the A and A . Rite * . Mackey ' s significant remark is worth recording : — "Of these degrees we need pay little attention to any except that ofthe Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite , the most important of the few that continue to he worked . "
As to Bro . Yarker ' s account ofthe origin of the A . and A . Rite , I must beg leave to again draw his attention to Mackey , who I presume will be considered an equal authority even with John Yarker . Mackey says , in his article on " The Emperors of the East and West : — " It is , however , a mistake to suppose , as has been asserted by Thory and
Ragon , that the Council of Emperors of the East and West was the origin of the Ancient and Accepted Rite . The former had originally adopted ( like their successors , the promoters of the Rite of Misraim ) twenty-five of the degrees of the latter rite , but were subsequently re-formed and reorganised by Frederick . " The words italicised are
my own . But supposing it were true that the originators of the A . and A . Rite were—one a tailor , another a dancing-master , as Bro . Yarker asserts , I am yet to learn that these occupations are not as good as that of a rag or yarn merchant , who is dubbed by his friends Grand Commander of the Nc Plus Ultra
and Head of the Council of Rites . Bro . Yarker does not believe that oiir esteemed Bro . Hughan would lend his name and reputation to support the A . and A . Rite , Perhaps not ; and yet I have at my elbow a volume of the Freemason ? Magazine for 1865 where I see Bro Hughan is proud to put 18 " after his name . Perhaps he wanted to bc off with the old love of the A . and A . Rite before he
was on with the new ofthe Order of Constantine ; at all events , I see he has resigned membership of the Rose Croix Chapter to which he belonged . For my own part I am sorry for it , because I feel sure that Bro . Hughan would have risen in time to a high position in the A . and A . Rite , a position
which his Masonic attainments amply deserve . I cannot give the quotation from " Mirabeau " Bro . Yarker asks for , as I have not the work by me . I daresay , however , it is in the library at 33 , Golden-square , and I am quite sure the courteous Secretary-General will gladly give any member of the A . and A . Rite free access to the same .
In conclusion , I must say your readers will bc glad to sec the altered tone of Bro . Yarker's letter , and for my own part , I am sorry if I have been led tn speak harshly of any brother , though I felt bound to support the dignity and character of the Supreme Grand Council against the unjust
aspersions and calumnious statements of some of your correspondents . Permit me to add just one line as to the commonsense view of this question : I take it that it is proved that no body in this country but the S . G . Council has any right to confer the 18 , - ya " , 31 , and 32 ° ; that it is admitted that certain old
encampments , notably Bristol , have given , or do now give , degrees similar , though not identical , with the 18 and 30 ; that these bodies have never given anything approaching to the 31 and 32 ; that the degrees they give are nci'thcr recognised by the Supreme Masonic Bodies in this or any other country ; and that their certificates are so far useless as thev will
not gain the holders admission anywhere . What is the consequence of all this ? Simply that brethren seeking admission and recognition can only do so by joining the A . and A . Rite . Take the Mark
degree , for instance . Is it not worked at York in an irregular lodge ? What are its certificates worth ? Nothing ! I know several Masons who took the Mark there , and who finding it useless joined properly constituted lodgesjand now arc worthy Mark
Original Correspondence.
Masters , and some of them , I dare say , members of the Mark Grand Lodge . I feel assured that the Supreme Grand Council would , if properly approached , gladly meet the brethren half-way , and would , where it could bc proved beyond doubt that
these degrees had been worked from " time immemorial , " establish chapters and lend their authority to their establisnment on a proper and Masonic basis . I am , dear Sir and Brother , fraternally yours , A MASON WHO BELIEVES IN HIS O . B .
KNIGHT TEMPLARISM AND MASONRY
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Upon this subject Bro . Forsyth , at page 293 , is again at fault . He takes hold of a "broken reed , " and thinks it a " strong cable , " viz ., the pretended charter of transmission . After what has been said about it , he
ought to have been careful before alluding to it , for it has been denounced as a modern forgery , and I have never heard the slightest proof of its being aught else . Ignorant brethren may believe in and be imposed upon by it , or it may be a brother to the pretended Malcolm Canmore Charter . Yet as
to both , all Masonic students would do well to ponder the remarks of Bro . Hughan at page 172 , March 18 th . Bro . Forsyth also asserts that I gave him no information , but merely designated certain statements as " dreams , '" " fancies , " or " moonshine . " Now supposing I did use these terms , that itself
was information so far . However , I did more ; I referred him to the past pages of THE FREEMASON , where he will get lots of information if he chooses to take the trouble . Probably , however , this is not what he , and others like him , want . They wish some " Royal road to learning , " by which they might become possessed of all Masonic knowledge by simply paying 2 d . for a single copy of THE FREEMASON ! I am , yours fraternally ,
W . P . BUCHAN . THE GRAND CONCLAVE OF KNIGHTS TEMPLAR .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Permit me to make one slight correction in your report of Grand Conclave published in last week ' s impression . You say that the tripartite treaty was carried by a majority of two—whereas it should have been nearly two to one .
The numbers were : —For the amendment ( that the question bc adjourned till the next Conclave ) , 32 ; against , 53 . And on the original motion : For , 53 ; against , 29 . I am sure your desire that the truth should prevail will lead you to give this a place in your columns . I am , yours fraternally , ONE WHO WAS PRESENT .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am really quite shocked at the undignified and absurd procedure of the Grand Conclave magnates ! One would have thought the testimony of the much-rcspcctcd Deputy Grand Master , the Rev . John Huyshe ,
would have opened the eyes of even the Grand Chancellor to the position and importance of the Red Cross Degree ; but , no ! the Supreme Grand Council and the Grand Conclave must ( to meet the former ) endeavour to keep the " Red Cross " out in the cold ! The treaty between the Mark Degree
and the Red Cross was made prior to the ill-advised decision of the Grand Conclave , and it is mainly due to the energy and representations of those two grand bodies that these treaties have been made . For the Grand Conclave and Supreme Grand Council to thus unite , in my opinion , indicates a
coining storm , and it therefore behoves iheBaldwyn Encampment , and others such , to look afler their ancient privileges and rights respecting the Rose Croix and K . II . degrees , for , depend upon it , if it is a treaty at all , it will ' ultimately lead Io all Knights Templar being prohibited from working any ofthe
degrees worked by the " Ancient and Accepted Rite . " 1 am disgusted myself with the management of the " higher degrees ' " ( so-called ) but the "Red Cross , " for there are more " bickerings , heartburnings , and unchristian deeds" in their puny
organisations than in all the Craft lodges put together ? I trust the capital notice of the meeting in THE FREEMASON will lead to an organisation throughout the country among the Knights Templar to proceed to the Grand Conclave next December , and oppose successfully the confirmation of the minutes
so far as regards this most obnoxious one-sided treaty . No doubt , we shall soon hear of the expulsion of some Hath and Manchester Knights Templar because of their opposition to the 33 " . I therefore beg to ask the attention of the Fraternity to this abuse of power , and I trust ' that , ere long ,
Original Correspondence.
such arbitrary conduct will meet with its just reward , and be opposed most successfully . ii * . JJJ
( To ihe Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Wc should be glad of further information in regard to the Templar treaty with the Mark and the S . S . G . G . I . I . G . C . ( under forged powers ) . Has the same passed into law ? Most assuredly if the provinces had been
aware of this proposed treaty , it would never have been allowed ; and the Grand Master is bound in justice and honour to have the treaty submitted to a special Grand Conclave before he risks a large secession from the Order . We trust you will give us further information upon this matter .
There are at least five High Grade Chapters also claiming under the following law which passed Grand Conclave December 14 th , 1866 . These are Baldwin , Bristol ; Observance , London ; Antiquity , Bath ; Redemption , Hull ; Jerusalem , Manchester ; and perhaps many others , whose names we should
be glad to know , as all warrants bearing date prior to about 1 S 50 are for H . M ., R . H . The present Grand Conclave is just twenty years old , and has no history to fall back upon when these chapters withdraw from them . What is to be done , then , with the chapters
claiming hereunder ?— " That in the case of any Encampment of Knights Templar , holding a warrant granted prior to 179 1 , and which warrant gives power to confer degrees not connected with the Order of Knights Templar and Knights of Malta , a warrant of confirmation shall , on proper
application , be granted by the M . E . and S . G . M . assuring to such encampment all the powers it possessed under the original warrant , so far as the Orders of Knights Templar and Knights of Malta are concerned , leaving to the members , holding such original warrant , the discretionary
exercise of the powers therein contained , so long as they are kept separate and distinct in every respect from the Order of Knights Templar and Knights of Malta . " The suggestion of the Gavel , page 316 , is a very good one . There is an Ancient Royal Grand Council of Antient Rites—time
immemorial—( recently revised ) , the certificate of which includes all the 33 , Ark Mariners , Red Cross of Constantine , Babylon , Palestine , Jerusalem , Order of Misraim , Phillippi , & c , & c , and it would be well if the more modern Orders of Constantine and Misraim could be united therewith giving us everything under one certificate .
Fraternally yours , LIBERTAS . QUALIFICATION FOR THE MARK CHAIR .
To the Editor of the Freemason . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am glad that I have had the pleasure of reading Bro . Jas , Stevens ' letter in last week ' s FREEMASON . I cordially agree in his statement that " to have refused the worthy brother his preferment" to the Mark chair '' would have been an act of injustice to him and discouragement to other zealous Mark Master Masons .
As to the absolute necessity of obtaining a "dispensation , " I humbly think there ought not to be any necessity for making such an application , which is attended with trouble and expense ; for however small the latter may be , strict economy is very essential in many' Mark lodges just now .
I hope ere much further time passes away , that we shall find our Mark lodges relieved from the incubus of requiring the W . M . to have first occupied the W . M . chair in a Craft lodge . I know ( as no doubt Bro . James Stevens also knows ) that many Mark Masons who would be ornaments and honours
in any chair , have but a slight chance in large Craft lodges of attaining the Craft W . M . chair . If a dispensation be necessary , it implies a power of refusal ; and although the G . M . M . might in all cases grant it , yet he has the opportunity of rejecting such application if he felt so disposed . Yours fraternally , A CRAFT AND MARK P . M .
THE 1717 THEORY .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —AS your highlyesteemed correspondent , Bro . " Lupus , " expresses his intention , at page 316 , not lo prolong this discussion , I shall now withdraw from it , at the same time desiring to return my most respectful thanks
both to yourself and him for the courtesy displayed towards myself in it . I may also mention that since this discussion took place , I have had sent mc some most interesting and valuable documents , going back to 1670 , and in which arc some rare remarks ,
rules , and regulations included . Consequently , until they are published , it will be just as well for any opponents of tbe 1717 theory to keep quiet , seeing they would be placing themselves at a disadvantage , as I know the contents of these rare old
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
loss to know why it should be dragged into the discussion " on subordination in the higher degrees , " and Bro . Yarker ' s conduct in relation thereto . To Bro . Yarker himself let me say one thing : I am heartily sorry that he has acted in such a bitter and hostile manner towards the Supreme Grand Council
because I think he is a Mason who would have done credit to the Ancient and Accepted Rite as one of the few real students of Masonry . I am sorry he should try to run down the S . G . C . —socalled , as he is pleased to term it—because , though his action cannot injure the members of the 33 ,
it only breeds strife amongst the brethren , and many of us would be glad to hold out the righthand of fellowship to Bro . Yarker if be would only make his peace with the S . G . C . With regard to his statements as to the Ne Plus Ultra degree , there is a good deal of truth in them , and this I
have before admitted , The K . H . was formerly given in the old K . T . encampments , and I myself received it , together with the Red Cross degree , in one of the oldest in England , though in a mutilated form . But Bro . Yarker evidently forgets ( I certainly give him credit for knowing the fact ) that there
were six degrees of Kadosh : the Knight Kadosh , Kadosh of the Chapter of Clermont , Philosophical Kadosh , Kadosh Prince of Death , and Kadosh of the A and A . Rite * . Mackey ' s significant remark is worth recording : — "Of these degrees we need pay little attention to any except that ofthe Ancient and Accepted Scotch Rite , the most important of the few that continue to he worked . "
As to Bro . Yarker ' s account ofthe origin of the A . and A . Rite , I must beg leave to again draw his attention to Mackey , who I presume will be considered an equal authority even with John Yarker . Mackey says , in his article on " The Emperors of the East and West : — " It is , however , a mistake to suppose , as has been asserted by Thory and
Ragon , that the Council of Emperors of the East and West was the origin of the Ancient and Accepted Rite . The former had originally adopted ( like their successors , the promoters of the Rite of Misraim ) twenty-five of the degrees of the latter rite , but were subsequently re-formed and reorganised by Frederick . " The words italicised are
my own . But supposing it were true that the originators of the A . and A . Rite were—one a tailor , another a dancing-master , as Bro . Yarker asserts , I am yet to learn that these occupations are not as good as that of a rag or yarn merchant , who is dubbed by his friends Grand Commander of the Nc Plus Ultra
and Head of the Council of Rites . Bro . Yarker does not believe that oiir esteemed Bro . Hughan would lend his name and reputation to support the A . and A . Rite , Perhaps not ; and yet I have at my elbow a volume of the Freemason ? Magazine for 1865 where I see Bro Hughan is proud to put 18 " after his name . Perhaps he wanted to bc off with the old love of the A . and A . Rite before he
was on with the new ofthe Order of Constantine ; at all events , I see he has resigned membership of the Rose Croix Chapter to which he belonged . For my own part I am sorry for it , because I feel sure that Bro . Hughan would have risen in time to a high position in the A . and A . Rite , a position
which his Masonic attainments amply deserve . I cannot give the quotation from " Mirabeau " Bro . Yarker asks for , as I have not the work by me . I daresay , however , it is in the library at 33 , Golden-square , and I am quite sure the courteous Secretary-General will gladly give any member of the A . and A . Rite free access to the same .
In conclusion , I must say your readers will bc glad to sec the altered tone of Bro . Yarker's letter , and for my own part , I am sorry if I have been led tn speak harshly of any brother , though I felt bound to support the dignity and character of the Supreme Grand Council against the unjust
aspersions and calumnious statements of some of your correspondents . Permit me to add just one line as to the commonsense view of this question : I take it that it is proved that no body in this country but the S . G . Council has any right to confer the 18 , - ya " , 31 , and 32 ° ; that it is admitted that certain old
encampments , notably Bristol , have given , or do now give , degrees similar , though not identical , with the 18 and 30 ; that these bodies have never given anything approaching to the 31 and 32 ; that the degrees they give are nci'thcr recognised by the Supreme Masonic Bodies in this or any other country ; and that their certificates are so far useless as thev will
not gain the holders admission anywhere . What is the consequence of all this ? Simply that brethren seeking admission and recognition can only do so by joining the A . and A . Rite . Take the Mark
degree , for instance . Is it not worked at York in an irregular lodge ? What are its certificates worth ? Nothing ! I know several Masons who took the Mark there , and who finding it useless joined properly constituted lodgesjand now arc worthy Mark
Original Correspondence.
Masters , and some of them , I dare say , members of the Mark Grand Lodge . I feel assured that the Supreme Grand Council would , if properly approached , gladly meet the brethren half-way , and would , where it could bc proved beyond doubt that
these degrees had been worked from " time immemorial , " establish chapters and lend their authority to their establisnment on a proper and Masonic basis . I am , dear Sir and Brother , fraternally yours , A MASON WHO BELIEVES IN HIS O . B .
KNIGHT TEMPLARISM AND MASONRY
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Upon this subject Bro . Forsyth , at page 293 , is again at fault . He takes hold of a "broken reed , " and thinks it a " strong cable , " viz ., the pretended charter of transmission . After what has been said about it , he
ought to have been careful before alluding to it , for it has been denounced as a modern forgery , and I have never heard the slightest proof of its being aught else . Ignorant brethren may believe in and be imposed upon by it , or it may be a brother to the pretended Malcolm Canmore Charter . Yet as
to both , all Masonic students would do well to ponder the remarks of Bro . Hughan at page 172 , March 18 th . Bro . Forsyth also asserts that I gave him no information , but merely designated certain statements as " dreams , '" " fancies , " or " moonshine . " Now supposing I did use these terms , that itself
was information so far . However , I did more ; I referred him to the past pages of THE FREEMASON , where he will get lots of information if he chooses to take the trouble . Probably , however , this is not what he , and others like him , want . They wish some " Royal road to learning , " by which they might become possessed of all Masonic knowledge by simply paying 2 d . for a single copy of THE FREEMASON ! I am , yours fraternally ,
W . P . BUCHAN . THE GRAND CONCLAVE OF KNIGHTS TEMPLAR .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Permit me to make one slight correction in your report of Grand Conclave published in last week ' s impression . You say that the tripartite treaty was carried by a majority of two—whereas it should have been nearly two to one .
The numbers were : —For the amendment ( that the question bc adjourned till the next Conclave ) , 32 ; against , 53 . And on the original motion : For , 53 ; against , 29 . I am sure your desire that the truth should prevail will lead you to give this a place in your columns . I am , yours fraternally , ONE WHO WAS PRESENT .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am really quite shocked at the undignified and absurd procedure of the Grand Conclave magnates ! One would have thought the testimony of the much-rcspcctcd Deputy Grand Master , the Rev . John Huyshe ,
would have opened the eyes of even the Grand Chancellor to the position and importance of the Red Cross Degree ; but , no ! the Supreme Grand Council and the Grand Conclave must ( to meet the former ) endeavour to keep the " Red Cross " out in the cold ! The treaty between the Mark Degree
and the Red Cross was made prior to the ill-advised decision of the Grand Conclave , and it is mainly due to the energy and representations of those two grand bodies that these treaties have been made . For the Grand Conclave and Supreme Grand Council to thus unite , in my opinion , indicates a
coining storm , and it therefore behoves iheBaldwyn Encampment , and others such , to look afler their ancient privileges and rights respecting the Rose Croix and K . II . degrees , for , depend upon it , if it is a treaty at all , it will ' ultimately lead Io all Knights Templar being prohibited from working any ofthe
degrees worked by the " Ancient and Accepted Rite . " 1 am disgusted myself with the management of the " higher degrees ' " ( so-called ) but the "Red Cross , " for there are more " bickerings , heartburnings , and unchristian deeds" in their puny
organisations than in all the Craft lodges put together ? I trust the capital notice of the meeting in THE FREEMASON will lead to an organisation throughout the country among the Knights Templar to proceed to the Grand Conclave next December , and oppose successfully the confirmation of the minutes
so far as regards this most obnoxious one-sided treaty . No doubt , we shall soon hear of the expulsion of some Hath and Manchester Knights Templar because of their opposition to the 33 " . I therefore beg to ask the attention of the Fraternity to this abuse of power , and I trust ' that , ere long ,
Original Correspondence.
such arbitrary conduct will meet with its just reward , and be opposed most successfully . ii * . JJJ
( To ihe Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Wc should be glad of further information in regard to the Templar treaty with the Mark and the S . S . G . G . I . I . G . C . ( under forged powers ) . Has the same passed into law ? Most assuredly if the provinces had been
aware of this proposed treaty , it would never have been allowed ; and the Grand Master is bound in justice and honour to have the treaty submitted to a special Grand Conclave before he risks a large secession from the Order . We trust you will give us further information upon this matter .
There are at least five High Grade Chapters also claiming under the following law which passed Grand Conclave December 14 th , 1866 . These are Baldwin , Bristol ; Observance , London ; Antiquity , Bath ; Redemption , Hull ; Jerusalem , Manchester ; and perhaps many others , whose names we should
be glad to know , as all warrants bearing date prior to about 1 S 50 are for H . M ., R . H . The present Grand Conclave is just twenty years old , and has no history to fall back upon when these chapters withdraw from them . What is to be done , then , with the chapters
claiming hereunder ?— " That in the case of any Encampment of Knights Templar , holding a warrant granted prior to 179 1 , and which warrant gives power to confer degrees not connected with the Order of Knights Templar and Knights of Malta , a warrant of confirmation shall , on proper
application , be granted by the M . E . and S . G . M . assuring to such encampment all the powers it possessed under the original warrant , so far as the Orders of Knights Templar and Knights of Malta are concerned , leaving to the members , holding such original warrant , the discretionary
exercise of the powers therein contained , so long as they are kept separate and distinct in every respect from the Order of Knights Templar and Knights of Malta . " The suggestion of the Gavel , page 316 , is a very good one . There is an Ancient Royal Grand Council of Antient Rites—time
immemorial—( recently revised ) , the certificate of which includes all the 33 , Ark Mariners , Red Cross of Constantine , Babylon , Palestine , Jerusalem , Order of Misraim , Phillippi , & c , & c , and it would be well if the more modern Orders of Constantine and Misraim could be united therewith giving us everything under one certificate .
Fraternally yours , LIBERTAS . QUALIFICATION FOR THE MARK CHAIR .
To the Editor of the Freemason . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I am glad that I have had the pleasure of reading Bro . Jas , Stevens ' letter in last week ' s FREEMASON . I cordially agree in his statement that " to have refused the worthy brother his preferment" to the Mark chair '' would have been an act of injustice to him and discouragement to other zealous Mark Master Masons .
As to the absolute necessity of obtaining a "dispensation , " I humbly think there ought not to be any necessity for making such an application , which is attended with trouble and expense ; for however small the latter may be , strict economy is very essential in many' Mark lodges just now .
I hope ere much further time passes away , that we shall find our Mark lodges relieved from the incubus of requiring the W . M . to have first occupied the W . M . chair in a Craft lodge . I know ( as no doubt Bro . James Stevens also knows ) that many Mark Masons who would be ornaments and honours
in any chair , have but a slight chance in large Craft lodges of attaining the Craft W . M . chair . If a dispensation be necessary , it implies a power of refusal ; and although the G . M . M . might in all cases grant it , yet he has the opportunity of rejecting such application if he felt so disposed . Yours fraternally , A CRAFT AND MARK P . M .
THE 1717 THEORY .
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —AS your highlyesteemed correspondent , Bro . " Lupus , " expresses his intention , at page 316 , not lo prolong this discussion , I shall now withdraw from it , at the same time desiring to return my most respectful thanks
both to yourself and him for the courtesy displayed towards myself in it . I may also mention that since this discussion took place , I have had sent mc some most interesting and valuable documents , going back to 1670 , and in which arc some rare remarks ,
rules , and regulations included . Consequently , until they are published , it will be just as well for any opponents of tbe 1717 theory to keep quiet , seeing they would be placing themselves at a disadvantage , as I know the contents of these rare old