History Of Freemasonry.

while those of Jacques and Soubise restrict membership to Koman Catholics . It fnrthcr appears that iu the case of the last two , a Companion on becoming a Master resigns his ^ membership , a general assembly , at which a demit or certificate of hononrable conduct during membership is granted , being held , bnt the Sons of Solomon never resisrn

membership . This completes the sketch of the features , distinctive or in common , of the several sab-divisions of the Companionage , as derived by Bro . Gonld principally from the work of Perdi guier . That it is a most interesting sketch even those who have been at the pains of following us will admit .

In subsequent pages we have described to us some idea of the ceremonies of the societies of Maitre Jacques , for which , it seems , we are indebted to the apostasy of the Shoemakers , which took place between 1648 and 1651 , or rather prior to the former of the two years mentioned , the

climax of the apostasy belonging to the period itself . A Companion Shoemaker , of a religions turn of mind , took offence at some of tbe more questionable practices of his fellows , and abjured them . He next instituted a body of lay brothers , composed of journeymen shoemakers , adopted

a particular dress , and enjoined on his fellows to enter the various shops of the craft , and , by instruction and good example , to reform the manners of their folk . They called themselves Brothers of St . Crispin , and obtained ecclesiastical authority for their proceedings . The result of all

this was , that in 1648 the Municipality of Paris interdicted the assemblies . The ecclesiastical law was also brought to bear upon the Companionage Societies , and more revelations , followed by renewed attacks from the clergy , were the

consequence . The Bailh of the Temple , a separate jurisdiction , in which in 1648 they had taken refuge , expelled them , in consequence of a riot they caused , and though many of the Societies refused to follow the example thus set , others were less scrupulous , and divulged their secret ? . The proceedings , ceremonies , and the views of the Church

on the question , as delineated in Bro . Gould ' s work , are derived " from three documents attached to an agreement , made the 21 st September 1571 , between the Shoemakers and Cobblers of Eheims , " fhe date of the documents beinc .

however , much more recent than that of the agreement . The first of the three gives a " Summary of the impious , sacrilegious , and superstitious practices which tako place among the Companions—Sadlers , Shoemakers , Tailors , Cutlers , and Hatters , when they admit one a Companion of the Charge ( clu devoir ) , as they call it . " . For the details

of this Summary we must refer our readers to the pages of the work itself . The second of the three documents contains the- " Resolutions of the Doctors on the above questions , " and is to the following- fvffV > ct , : — " Wo tfm

undersigned doctors in the sacred faculty of theology at Paris , are of opinion—Lst . That these practices combine the sins of sacrilege , impurity , and blasphemy against the mysteries of our religion . 2 d . That the oath which they take , not to reveal these practices , even in confession , is

neither good nor valid , and is not obligatory on them ; on the contrary , they are bound to accuse themselves of these crimes , and of this oath , at confession . 3 d . In case this evil continues , and they are not otherwise able to remedy it , they are bound in conscience to declare these

practices to the ecclesiastical judges , and even , if need be , to the secular , who will be able to remedy it . 4 th . That the Companions who cause themselves to be received in the above form may not , without mortal sin , use the watchword , in order to recognise each other as Companions , and

engage in the evil practices of this Companionage . 5 th . That those who are of the Companionage are not in suret y of conscience so long as tbey are desirous of continuing their bad practices , which they ought to renounce . 6 th . That the journeymen who are not of the Companionage cannot enter it without mortal sin . Deliberated at Paris

the 14 th clay of March , 1655 . Signed . I . Cbarton , Morel , N . Cornet , J . Quoquerel , M . Grandin , Grenet , C . Gobinet , I Peron , Chamillard , M . Chamillard . " The third of the documents is headed " Observations on the above Practices and Eesolutions , " but is given in part only . Enough ,

howover , is quoted for the purposes of the reader . In the next section of this Chapter , Bro . Gould , after referring to the charcoal burners , and having enumerated certain postulates , with a view to ascertaining if it is

possible to form an independent judgment , goes on to hazard sundry conjectures , which , however , when taken together , he is careful to point out , though not constituting an " unassailable " theory , make one which is in agreement

History Of Freemasonry.

with the facts that havo come down to ns . As to the Hiramic legend , he combats the statement by Perdiguier , that the Companionage derived it from Freemasonry . Perdiguier says— " As to this history of Hiram ' s , I regard it as a mere fable , ingenious enough , but of which the

consequences are horrible ; for it tends to separate those who take it seriously . The Bible—the only book of any real authority concerning tlie constructors of Solomon ' s Temple—says nothing about Hiram ' s murder ; aud , for my part , I do not believe it . The Compactions Strangers

and those of Liberty have no authentic details of this fable , which is quite new to them , ancl I fancy that the Companions of the other Societies are not more advanced . I look upon it , therefore , in the light of a Masonic invention , introduced into the Companionage by persons

initiated into both of these Secret Societies . Freemasonry , according to the most zealous historians—and M . Bazot is of the number—was only introduced into France in 1715 . The Companionage is indisputably anterior ; nevertheless , from the day it was introduced into this country ,

our Companions frequented it , and found in its bosom useful truths , but also numerous errors . " As regards the view thns expressed , we agree with Bro . Gould that Perdiguier , though generally worthy of credence , has jumped to an illogical conclusion ; for the grounds on

which he bases this belief , we refer onr readers to pp 242-3 , as well as for the supposed affinity between our Masonic term Lewis and the Companionage use of the nickname " Wolf "—loup , a Companion ' s sons being called Louvefeauai , or little wolves . All this will be found most

interesting , as well as Avhat follows respecting the personality of Maitre Jacques . So , too , are the coincidences traceable both in the Masonic and Companionage systems , which are as follow , and which , as the author suggests , are well worthy of attention :

" 1 . 'Sons of Solomon ' certainly reminds us in general terms of our own fraternity . 2 . Compagnons de Liberie , free companions of Freemasons . 3 . Devoir is a literal translation of our English Charge , and the documents appear to be very similar in form . 4 . 'General Assembly '

is a term common to both societies . 5 . Accepted Companion and Initiated Companion sound strangely familiar . 6 . Passed Companion presents a remarkable coincidence with our own expression . 7 . The identity of idea and expression between the Lewis and the Louvetean can scarcely be a mere chance coincidence .

" The above are similarities of expression and phraseology ; let us now pass on to those of procedure preparatory to initiation . In both societies we

find" 8 . A previous inquiry into the candidate's character . 9 . An absence of compulsion , and a' perfect freedom of choice . 10 . A preliminary exposition of the general tendency of the Society . 11 . Perfect liberty to withdraw up to the last possible moment . 12 . Sponsors , represented in Freemasonry by the proposer and seconder .

"As regards the government of the societies , it will have been observed that" 13 . Each particular society was thoroughly

independent , bnt welded into uniformity with the other societies by the various charges . Previously to 1717 this was generally the status of Freemasonry . 14 . Each society exercised the powers of petty justice over its own members .

" 15 . Punishments took the form of fines , and , m grave

cases , of expulsion . " 16 . Amongst the Sons of Solomon there was a perfect equality of membership . 17 . All the members took part in the election of officers . 18 . Every Companion was eligible for office .

" 19 . The officers were a president , elders , and secretary . If we regard the president as Master , and the elders as Wardens , the exact counterpart is met Avith in the three principal officers of a Freemason ' s Lodge . The Steinmetzen had only one Warden , the Companions evidently had more . "

Other coincidences are pointed out m respect of " the acknowledged princip les of the two institutions , " " the Ceremonies , " & c , & c , which it would occupy too much

space to reproduce , more especially as they appear to us to be of secondary importance compared with those we have quoted . But without pausing to weigh the comparative merits of the different coincidences which Bro . Gould has

noted , and having given them our best consideration , we are unable to lean towards the opinion which has evidently found favour with him , that Freemasonry is , iu any way , indebted for its origin to the Companionage . The coincidences are most remarkable , but a large number of them