Correspondence.

under that jurisdiction , but he did assume to be , and issued a warrant of confirmation , as the Grand Master of Masonic Knights Templar . The former Order has but one Grand Master for the world , the latter generally elects a Grand Master for each nationality . As to the question of costume . It would seem that because the Baldwynite Encampment has been latterly

received back into association , and wear no aprons , we are all to imitate them , or be considered as " unsightly" or . d incorrect , I suppose upon the principle that " the greater the sinner the greater the saint , " and their sanctity is so great , now , with some members of the Grand Conclave , that the mention of their perverse schism is almost looked upon as Masonic treason . "Scrutator" hazards the following assertion : —

" The word K . D . S . H .,-in the original Hebrew , signifies holy , and Knight Templar K . D . S . H ., Holy or Priestly Knight , was an appellation commonly borne by the early companions of the Order ; and although these letters still remain in the charter , they are never used in Templarism , and when met with , mean the 30 ' of the Ancient and Accepted Kite , or the philosophical College of Princes K . D . S . H . ; it is a very high distinction , seldom attained , even by eminent Freemasons , and the Templar who is entitled to it is not allowed to wear the jewel , either in his private encamvnnent or in Grand Conclave . "

Now how it was possible for the early Companions of the Order cf tho Temple to be termed " holy or priestly knights , " seeing that they had no orders , I cannot conceive . That they were a military order of monks , under a rule of St . Bernard , I , of course , admit ; hut monkery in no wise gave them sacerdotal functions or privileges , nor does it appear from any concurrent

testimony that they were so regarded . Their Grand Master ' s titles were " Most Eminent Highness , Most Powerful and Excellent Prince , Most Serene Lord , Most Holy Father , Pontiff , and Patriarch" and curiously enough his case proves that in him only resided certain spiritual powers . At his enthrouization "he was anointed , consecrated , and received episcopal imposition

of hands , conferring the power of absolution on him , in these words , ' whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted . ' " Had the knights been "Holy" or " priestly , " as "Scrutator" alleges , then this delegation of spiritual power would have been useless , for the Grand Master had always been a Knight before his elevation , and the

old rule of the church , " once a priest a priest for ever , " must have rendered any further imposition of hands useless , if not sinful . " Scrutator" must be very ignorant indeed if he moans

to assert that no Masonic Templars lay claim to confer the degree cf K . D . S . H ., for I know of two Encampments in London that claim to do so , and in one a debate is uow going on as to whether or not the } ' will relinquish it , some of its members maintaining they have an anterior ri ght , to confer it as being of that degree , before the Supreme Grand Council was formed .

The wearing of the jewel is not forbidden , by the Statutes of Masonic Knights Templar , to those who have taken it under the Ancient and Accepted Rite , or otherwise . It is true the D . G . M . of Masonic Knights Templar did request the Grand Vice-Chancellor to remove it , which the latter complied with ; but that is no law , aud the assertion of such a fact proves nothing in the

shape of law . As well mi ght any one request a Sir Kni ght to remove any other Masonic medal or decoration . ( And it is not such a vast matter of importance if all were abandoned , for gentlemen will always be gentlemen without the frippery of ornament ; the wearingsuch toys do not prove the wearer to be anything ; they are only prima facie ' evidence that he claims to

belong to the Order , or rank , of the jewel he assumes ) . There are some few more assertions in the subjoined quotation from " Scrutator ' s" letter , which require a word or two of comment ; but , even at the risk of being tedious , I cannot separate his sentences so as to point

out the errors , and must quote the paragraph entire . He writes : — "The only pleas , indeed , that can be advanced for the continued connection between the Order and the Craft are , that out of gratitude to the brethren who so generously succoured the Templars when ungrateful Christendom abandoned them to their fate . Freemasons only were admitted into their revived

encampments , and that , except as Masons , the meetings of the Templars as a secret armed society would be illegal ; but this is a mistake—the Duke of Sussex obtained the same privileges for the Templars as he did for the Masons . The Scotch Priories have for many years admitted the uninitiated ; there is nothing inherent in their constitution to prevent the English Encampments from following their example ; and it would also approximate them still nearer to each other . It is , therefore , to be

hoped that when Grand Conclave sanctions the proposed alterations in the statutes , now under revision by Sir Knight Hinxman , the very eminent and indefatigable Provincial Grand Commander for Kent , the unknightly as well as unsightly apron may be abolished , and the word Masonic be also obliterated from the ritual and certificates ; and if the annual reports of Sir Knight Shuttleworth , the Grand Vice-Chancellor , are correct , the orders of Knight Templar and Hospitallers of St . John of Jerusalem need no adventitious aid , but can well afford to stand upon their own merits , as there is a steady increase of members , both in numbers and rank , and new encampments are continually formed both at home and abroad . "

The first sentence of the above has already been refuted when it was shown , from the Statutes , that every Encampment requires its candidates to be Royal Arch Masons . Will " Scrutator" inform us what privileges the Duke of Sussex ever obtained for the Masonic Kni ghts Templar or any other body of Freemasons ?

Even if Scotch Encampments have admitted the uninitiated , that is no reason why we should follow their example ; but I believe the truth of this to be , that they are in connection with the Order of the Temple ; and if they ever did so admit non-Masons , they have long since abandoned the practice . Why " Scrutator " should wish the word " Masonic "

to be obliterated from the ritual , and certificates , is part of his programme ; but it seems to me he must be ashamed of being a Freemason , or desirous of sailing under false colours . I heartily concur with him . that the Orders of Kni ghts Templar , Chivalric or Masonic , the Hospitallers and St . John of . Jerusalem , either Papal or Masonic , need no

adventitious aid , and least of all such aid ( I call it drawback ) , as " Scrutator " recommends . A few words more and I have done . I hope to show that the Masonic Order of Knights Templar and the Order of

the Temple are two distinct societies . If they are not , why did we have to concoct a ritual for the installation of the M . E . Supreme Grand Master when that of the Order of the Temple is open to all ? Clearly that did not belong to us . If we are , or ought to be , Knights of Malta , why were certain persons so anxious to get from me the ritual of that degree ? If we belong to the Order of the

Temple , is every candidate required to furnish proof of his descent of four degrees of nobility before he can be admitted ? Very few Freemasons could do this , and so we cannot claim under that head . If we are of the Chivalric Order , cau any one point out a single instance of a Sir Knight paying obedience to his vows , and once during his life going on a pilgrimage to Palestine , and

visiting the Holy Sepulchre ? I believe no one can be so identified , so that is no part of our system . Where are the female members of the Order of the Temple to be found amongst us—the Equitissa—feminine of Eques a knight ? Such we have not . The revision of the Statutes is a work , in the Order of the Temple , for the Convent-General and not deputed to one knight , as with us ; so

that there is no similtude there . And lastly , does our costume at all correspond with that of the Order of the Temple ? No ; it is as widely different as possible , and the cost of the various articles of clothing amounts to a