Thoughts On The New History.

THOUGHTS ON THE NEW HISTORY .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON - . ( Con tinned from page 68 ) . SOME few weeks after my return from England , Bro . Nickereon ordered several sets of the new History—one sofc was for mo ; the volumes came slowly , bv dribs and drabs . T was about to mail the first part of this series bpforo the second volume came , and ns T had not then read through the firgt volume , I pnt the second aside ,

withont knowing abonfc its contents . I som « how neglected reading the criticisms or comments on the new History whioh appeared in the Masonic papers . I . therefore , supposed that the author gave all he had to tell about the MSS . and Statutes ; and as I fnnnd the ordinances by the Mayor and City of London authorities of 1336 were not mentioned I , therefore , called attention to the said ordinances .

I have since thpp , however , received a hint that the author resumed the subject of MSS . and St atutes in tho second volume , and T jnst looked at the inside long enough to find the ordinances of 1356 . If , therefore , 1 had known that the said ordinances would appear in the second volume , I might either have omitted mentioning the subject , or wonld have referred to the second volume .

It is more pleasant to agree than to differ , especially so when the party happens to be a friend whose friendship is highly prized . Withont farther circumlocution I am in duty boond to find fault with some of Bro . Gould ' s theories , and I do not mean to let him down easily either . Bro . Gould found thnt the Martel legend was known to some

Frenoh Masons . Thereupon he remarks , " All the English Masonic MSS . but one retained that legend " ( or words somewhat like ) , and then proceeds to give a reason why that "one" omitted it . The above remark implies that , whereas we have over fifty MSS ., con . seqneutly we have fifty witnesses testifying to one who is silent . The trnth , however , is only one witness testifies , viz ., the Cooke MS .,

and all the rest are mere repeaters . Bro . Gould assumes thot beennse Martel gnve offence to the church , and the author of the first MS . having been a priest , h " , therefore , omitted the name of MarW . I think his theory is farfetched . The poet was not at all a well-informed man ; he was ignorant of Bible history , otherwise he would have known that " Nahogodonozor " did

not build the Tower of Babel . The only book he specifies in the poem is "The Lives of Saints . " from which he copied the legend of the four martyrs ; as far as I know he may never have heard of the name of Charles Martel . I will , however , hazard a theory how the Martel legend might have found its way into the Cooke MS . According to Bro . Woodford , the poem was written in 1390 , and

the Cooke MS . in 1490 . During the interim Henry V . and Edward IV . invaded France ; England was invaded by Edward IV ., by the Queen of Henry VI ., and by Henry VII . Some of the foreign troops enlisted by the invading or returning parties may have been French stonpcniters , who eventually gave up soldiering , nnd found work in an English stonecutter ' s workshop , and from the said Frenchman the

author of the Cooke MS . may have directly or indirectly obtained the Martel legend . If , therefore , we must have a theory , I prefer the above to Bro . Gould ' s theory . Bnt I mnst now proceed to Bro . Gould ' s theory that our speculative Masonry was derived from , or was in some way at one time connected with , tho French Compagnons .

Coming events cast their shadows before . " On page 58 our author casts forth the shadow of the Compagnonago : and , somehow , bis reasoning thereupon failed to make an impression on me ; be says , "The points of similarity are so varied and distinct , that if it be conceded that the present legends of the two bodies have been faithfull y transmitted from their ancestors in the Middle Ages , the

inference is irresistible , either that the Masons borrowed from the Compagnonage , or that the traditions of both associations are inhented from a common original . " Here the question suggested itself to my mind , Why conld not the Compagnonage have stolen their legends from the Masons ? However , as I know that a whole chapter of the book was devoted to the Com .

pignonage , I did not immediately trouble myself about it , but on proceeding farther with the history , I came across other passages where his theories jar with each other . Tims , in the above quotation Bro . G . bases his argument upon " points of similarity" between the two bodies , but on page 11 he maintains that similitude is no proof of identity . Again , on page 148 , when combating Bro . Fort ' s theory , the author cites with applause Mr . Hyde Clarke's remark , viz ..

_ the doctrine of chance coincidences , " and says , " we may safely infer that whatever resemblances may appear to exist . between the Masonic ceremonial and the attitndes to which Fort has alluded , are as much the product of chance as the ' suppositious Masonry' of our own time , which has evoked the excellent definition of Mr . Clark . " "hy the similitudes between the Compagnons and our Masonry cannot also be imputed to chance coincidences is more than I can understand .

In order to make myself fully acquainted with the question at issue , I consulted the Masonic Cyclopaedias to which Bro . Gould refers . Dr . Mackey ' s account of the Compagnons is full and fair . It Heerned , however , strange , that while Dr . Mackey , who was always prone to " magnify a molehill into a mountain , " who could deduce « om a book called " Long Livers , " that the English Masons had high

agrees in 1722 , would see no Freemasonry in the Compagnonage . . !? lear -nPaded Bro . Gould , who so cleverly drags our Fraternity out of several swamps , becomes himself fascinated with the Cornpasmonage swamp . There is no evidence , says Brother Gonld , of the German Masons n if J mysteries ( or words t ( > thnt effect ) , while the Compag-^•J- * J my 8 teries » legends , symbolisms , & c . These are some of the •MUitudes between Freemasons and the Compagnons . Now , symism signifies the art of making one something mean another some-

Thoughts On The New History.

thing ; the question is , was symbolism coufiued to Masons aud Com . pagnons only ? Surely not . Why , tho Christian Chnrch is made np of Symbolism . Look for instance at the headings of tho chapters of the Old Testament iu Christian Bible ? , aud one is led to suppose that tbe writers of the Old Testament were all Chiistians .

True , there is no direct mention in either of its books about Christianity , but our Christian commentators claim that some things therein mean other somethings . For instance , Christians believe that the pictnro of a lion on Jndah ' s banner was not a real lion at all , bnt a representation of the founder of Christianity , and a 3 the tribe of Jndah was marshalled under » Christian banner the tribe must have

consisted of Christians . Hence , while to the benighted mind of Jews the tribe of Judah was Jewish , to the mind of the profound Christian , enlightened by symbology , the said tribe was Christian . Upon such basis of reasoning Mr . Miller , founder of the Millorite Church , in a sermon preached by him in Boston iu 1844 , proved from the Bible that the Hebrew prophets foresaw the coming events up to

his own time ; ample texts were furnished by him to show that the prophets knew all about the doings of Julius Cassar , Pompey , Antony and Cleopatra , and of course the coming of Christ . And after proving from Bible texts tho coming of every king and ruler , and what they would do , aud what they did , the doings of Washington , Napoleon and so on , aud so on , were all shown to have been foretold by

the prophets . And I havo no doubt that had Mr . Miller been alive today ho would have proved that Isaiah foretold that General Butler would be governor of Massachusetts in the year 1883 . Well , then , the Millentes are symbolisers , and Masons are symbolisers ; bub yet Milleritesare not Masons and Masons are not Millerites . The same may be said about mysteries aud legends—quite a number of secret

societies have had mysteries and legends , but these did not make them into Masons . And now for the Compagnons . Well , it was known that for many years French work people belonged to several secret factions , all were known as "Compagnons , " but whenever members of opposite factions happened to meet , a battle ensued , and sometimes

many of them were killed . It was also known that similar organisations were prohibited to hold meetings by Francis I . And , furthermore , in the seventeenth century , owing to a religious shoemaker having become disgusted with their mysteries , he , therefore , exposed them , which brought down upon the Compagnons the wrath of the Church , and the thunder of the doctors of Sorbonne . The said

mysteries consisted in representing the cruoifixion , the resurrection , the ascension , the five wounds , and other matters appertaining to Christ . They also administered baptism , the " Lord's Supper , " & c . The said mysteries are not unlike the mysteries described by Hone in his work npon " Ancient Mysteries . " They resemble still more strongly the mysteries of onr so-called " Masonio Knight Templars , "

and some other so-called Christian degrees where the crucifixion , the resurrection , the ascension , the " Lord's Supper , " and baptism form part , if not the whole , of the ceremonies . * Some writers supposed that the mysteries of all the factions were founded on the New Testament . But strange to say , what the mystery of the Mason Com . pagno s was Bro . Gould could not find out ; all that he says about the Mason's mysteries is derived from conjecture and inference .

In 1841 , Agricol Perdignier , a joiner by trade , and a Compngnon , in ovder to put a stop to this enmity among tbe factions , and to teach them common sense , published a small book , which furnishes a certain amount of information about the Compagnons . I most here add that with the exception of the expose furnished by the shoemaker already referred to , Perdignier ' s book is the first of the kind ever

published by a Compagnon , and , as far as I know , it is the l * st one . These organisations , though doubtless old , are not in possession as far as we know of a scrap of MS . Now Mr . Perdignier informs us , that the Compagnons are divided into three distinct parties , and are respectively known as " Sons of Solomon , " " Sons of Jacques , " and " Sons of Soubise . " When they became so divided no one knows .

Perdignier furnished a legend of the Jacquesites , but withheld the legends of Solomonites and Soubisites ; he is indeed provokingly reticent about the Solomonites ; he soys , however , that the Sons of Solomon had a legend about Hiram or Adoniram . Now , had Perdignier claimed that the Freemasons obtained a Hiram legend from the Compagnons , even then there would be reason to doubt his assertion ;

had he said nothing at all about Freemasons , there would be room for conjecture . But Pedignie * does say—and says to the purpose ; and here is what he says : — He says , in answer to a letter of Bean Desir Gascon : — " As to this history of Hiram ' s , I regard it as a mere fable , ingennous enough , but of which the consequences are horrible , for it tends

to separate those who take it seriously . f The Bible—the only book of any real authority concerning the construction of Solomon's Temple —says nothing ahont Hiram ' s murder ; and for my part , I do not believe it . The Compagnons titrangers , and those of Liberty , have no authentic details of this fable , which is quite new to them , and I fancy that the Compagnons of tho other Societies are not more advanced . I look upon it , therefore , in the light of a Masonic invention ,

introduced into the Compagnonage 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 Compagnonage is indisputably anterior ; nevertheless , from the day it was introduced into this country , our Compagnons frequented it , and found in its bosom useful truths , but ako numerous errors . " ( Vol . I . p 241 . )