Knight Templar Jottings.

KNIGHT TEMPLAR JOTTINGS .

BY WILLIAM J AMES HTJOHAN , Honorary Member of the- "Immemorial Antient Yorh . ' Conclave ' of Redemption , Hull , " SJC . According to the Calendar of the Order of the Temple for 1868-9 , there are six " Immemorial " Encampments in England , viz . : —

A . Abbey Chapter ... ... Nottingham . B . Antient York Conclave of Redemption Hull . C . Baldwyn . ... Bristol . D . Mount Calvary London . E . Observance London . F . Union , or Rougemont ... Exeter .

There are also seven Encampments said to have been warranted during the last century . They are thus described : — 1 . Antiquity , Bath 1791 , March 11 . 2 . Royal Naval , Portsmouth ... 1791 , March 11 .

3 . Plains of Rama , Keighley ... 1792 , March 17 . 4 . Hope , Huddersfield ... 1793 , Oct . 5 . 5 . Jerusalem , Manchester ... 1795 , May 20 . 6 . St . George ' s , London ... 1795 , Oct . 27 . 7 . Loyal Encampment of

Volunteers , Ashton-under-Lyne 1796 , Aug . 12 . Thus making 13 , in all , in existence before the nineteenth century . We think the above arrangement , however , to be unsatisfactory with respect to the Jerusalem

Encampment , as on turning to the admirable history of that conclave written by Bro . John Yarker ( " Notes on the Orders of the Temple and St . John , " 18 G 9 ) , we find it first commenced its labours A . D . 1786 , by virtue of a warrant

( still preserved ) , dated 17 th day of October in the same year . The above classification did not come into use until this last year , for previously the Encampments were not numbered in the Calendar . Judging from the evidence given , the "

Jerusalem Encampment " is entitled to a higher position on the roll , and should have been classified under the letter F , at least . It is to be regretted that but little is known of the others-With the exception of the Encampments B , G

1 , and 5 , we know not even when the earliest records preserved commence , and why they have been selected to occupy so prominent a position ( except in some few instances ) we are equally at a loss to explain . Surel y it is hi g h time we should

know publicly on what grounds the other Encampments claim precedence or " Immemorial " designations . None , however , have produced any tlocumentary evidence of their existence anterior to A . D . 1779 , so that the Masonic Knights

Templar would wisel y leave out any claim to be considered of much antiqnity . The 18 th century not only must have witnessed the revival of Freemasonry early in that period , the fabrication of the Royal Arch about 1740 ,

and tho innovations on " pure and ancient Freemasonry " from that date to 17 G 0 , but also have seen tho birth of the Masonic arrangement of the Order of the Temple at a still later date . Some of the most enlig htened and illustrious

Masons of the last century were connected with the Order , and certainly now , each succeeding year seems to witness a fresh increase of numbers and influence to this chivalric organization . Wc have been much interested in tho perusal

of Bro . John Yarker ' s "Notes , and have been p leased to see the care ho has generally taken as to their accuracy and fidelity . A few errors , we

think , have been made . In a work , however , on such an intricate subject , we do not wonder at their being some mistakes ; the real wonder is , how it has been written with so few unhistorical

statements . Bro . Yarker , whilst alluding to tho " seceding or Ancient Grand Lodge of England , " says , " This bod y was recognized by the Grand Lodge

Knight Templar Jottings.

of All England at York , as the representative of what was termed ' Ancient Masonry' in the south" ( page 14 ) . This is not correct , for the onl y Grand Lodge formally recognized at any time by the authorities at York was the Lodge

of Antiquity , when it seceded from the Regular Grand Lodge of England . It was then termed the "Grand Lodge of England south of the Trent . " The Grand Lodge at York never recognized the Grand Lodge of the " Ancients , " and

there has never been a fact produced to prove its having done so at any period . Brother Yarker states that "English Freemasonry was a speculative system before Scottish Freemasonry . " This I deny , and would be glad

to know on what grounds such an opinion is based . Bro . Yarker has "been told , on respectable authority , that at Eastwood , near Todmorden , they have separate York warrants authorizing

them to confer a Red Cross degree , as also the K . T ., the Priestly Order , Rose Croix , and other degrees . " This , also , I demur to ; and as I have copies of the said warrants which are not of a "York" ori g in , I maybe permitted to declare

my disbelief of such pretensions as to authority from the Grand Lodge of York to work any such degrees at Todmorden . What authority can be produced for the

existence of a Knights Templar ritual in connection with Freemasonry of A . D . " 1735 , if not beyond 1 " Such a statement ought not to be mentioned without good foundation , and as it is of a much earlier date than has been claimed for Masonic

Knights Templar generally , surely the ritual should be examined b y some neutral parties , so as to decide approximatel y as to its age . For my part , I doubt its being earlier than 1780 .

We desire to give an especial prominence to the following statement by Bro : Yarker , which is somewhat new to us , and deserves to be well examined : —

" Owing lo the documents of the Grand Lodge at York having been conveyed to the Duke of Suffolk by Brother Godfrey Higgins . there arc but a few stray papers left at York . " We would ask , where are these documents

now ? To whom do they belong , if not to the " Union Lodge " at York 1 and certainl y they should be at once restored to their lawful owners . But wo never heard the statement before , and feel much surprised at not having heard of any

attempt being made to recover the documents , or to ascertain their character , & c . We quite agree with the remarks of the author of tho "Notes" ( page 36 ) on the question of the surrender of certain degrees to the " Ancient and

Accepted Kite b y some old Encampments . The Baldwyn , however , still continues to work the following degrees at Bristol , as heretofore , viz ., "Knights of tho Nine Elect , " "Knights of Kilwinning , " "Kni g hts of tho East , Sword , and

Eagle , " and "Kni ghts Rosa ) Crucis , " and we know of no Masonic authority than can prevent their doing so , while they keep them distinct from tho Knights Templars and Masonic lodges , & c . We sincerel y wish that this Encampment

had a qualified historian in its midst , like Bro Yarker , who would undertake to write its history . We know of one eminent Mason in Bristol who would do so were tho necessary information afforded him , and no doubt there are others also .

Wc think if the " Notes on the Temple and St . John " were widely circulated they would act as an incentive to further research , and be a model for subsequent endeavours to chronicle the facts relating to tho Order . ( To he continued . )

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents . ] ROYAL ARCH MASONRY .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR . —Being a constant reader of your valuable paper , I took great interest in the perusal of the papers on Royal Arch Masonry just concluded , written by the Son of Salathiel , and am much pleased at the able manner in which he treats tho subject ; the object of

my writing you I am sorry to say is to take exception to certain passages relating to the Tau and the emblem of our Christian faith . I feel convinced they have been inadvertently used , especially as in one instance the passage occurs in a transcript from a work on mythology , and is consequently not his own composition .

The first , quotation I take is as follows : — " The Tau having been regarded in the light of a mystical sign by various nations of the ancient world , this superstition pervaded the minds of many of the early Christians , particularly those of the Roman Catholic communion , which belief mi ^ ht have given rise to a

superstitious reverence of this symbol especially as connected with the event of our Saviour's crucifixion . Had not this notion of it prevailed before the establishment of Christianity , it is probable that the cross , so far from being venerated as a sacred symbol , would have been held in detestation as the instrument of a

most cruel and sanguinary punishment , more particularly as it was unjustly inflicted on the Saviour of the World . " The second quotation states that " A like veneration is bestowed upon this figure—that is , the cross—by Roman Catholics , which like other customs of the ancients , has probably been adopted by them

without understanding its origin , and which they attribute to a different source . " The fact of the Tau being in the form of a cross , I attribute to accident ; indeed , it is not shown that that was the real form . The Tau may be seen marked on the foreheads of Hindoos at the present day to distinguish their caste . Then , what connection can be

shown between the cross of the early Christians and the nilometre of the Egyptians , other than the convenience of that form of instrument for marking the rise and fall of the waters , the same as a surveying instrument of the present day for taking lovels ? As in like manner , the cross would be the most convenient form of instrument on which to affix the human frame

with arms outstretched . Also , were not the early Christians of one mind , these unhappy dissentions not having taken place , which separated the Eastern and Western churches ? If this particular form of instrument was so much venerated , how comes it that

it was used as a means of punishing malefactors as the most ignominous death they could suller , and that its use was forbidden as an instrument of death , solely on account of the veneration shown towards it b y reason of the Son of God bavin ? nailed our sins on his

own most blessed body to the tree ? Ithinkitisamostunjustand cruel assertion to say that thefigureofthecrossis adopted by "Catholics , " whether Roman or not , without understanding its origin and which they attribute to a different source . The Christian builds his church in the form of a

cross , he surmounts it with a cross , he places a cross on his altar , he carries it in procession , he is marked with it at his baptism , he wears it on his person , and places it in various parts of his house , and when he is laid to rest a cross is placed over his mortal remains . In all these and many other ways the cross is used as

an outward and visible sign of his belief in the truths of his holy religion , and for no other conceivable cause . Fancy telling a woman that the cross she wearson her breast , was originally venerated on account of its being the instrument used to mark the rise and fallof the watersof the Nile ! No , let us reverence Royal

Arch Masonry , and thelessons it teaches , but let usnot try to pervert the symbols used iu the ceremony to the purpose of throwing ridicule on the faith and practice of Catholics , more especially at a time like the present , when the chief Bishop of the sister Isle has been

denouncing freemasonry , but let us show by brotherly love and real charity , that Freemasonry and Christianity are not antagonistic . The following beautiful lines show ihe efl ' ect . the sight of the emblem of a Christian ' s faith has upon him : —

" It makes the coward spirit brave , And nerves the feeble arm fur light , It takes its teirors from the grave , And gilds tin ; bud of death with light . " Apologising for tho space I have taken up in your valuable paper , and hoping that the Son of Salathiel will take this eflusion in no unkind spirit , I am , yours fraternally , CATHOLIC US .

HOSPITALLARIA etc . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAK Silt AND HKOTIIKR ,- -At page 71 , of 14 th inst ., I read the following : — " But though the political importance of the Order ( Kni ghts Templar ) was thus annihilated , its suppression as a fraternity was no *