rules would be sufficient for that purpose. Their doctrines would be, what they are at this day, that a God of perfect justice and mercy governs the Universe, and that to him all men are accountable for their actions. Their precepts would enjoin religious honour and obedience to the Deity; compassion and forbearance to all the human race; and temperance, sobriety, and chastity to every particular person. These doctrines and precepts are all founded on nature and reason; they are prior to every human institution whatever; they gain the assent of every rational creature as soon as they are clearly proposed.

But when Freemasonry began to spread beyond the land of its nativity into distant countries, it would necessarily decline from its primitive simplicity. The few rules which were sufficient to regulate the society when composed of people belonging to the same nation, would require to be augmented when it came to consist of Members of different nations. Accordingly, the Brethren saw it requisite to add certain words and signs to their sacred doctrines and precepts; and that upon two accounts. First, That they might serve as an universal language, by which a Brother in distress in a foreign country, might make himself understood and known to such of his Brethren there as could relieve and protect him. Many instances might be mentioned here of the tenderness and generosity with which Freemasons have treated one another, even when the public quarrels and religious opinions of their respective countries tended to inspire them with mutual hatred and revenge: but the bounds prescribed to this discourse deny me that pleasure. And secondly, They adopted these words and signs in order to distinguish one another with ease and certainty from the rest of the world, that impostors might not abuse their confidence, nor intercept the fruits of their benevolence. As it was upon these accounts they found it necessary to invent such words and signs, so upon the same they found it necessary to conceal them from every person who was not of the Brotherhood. Hence it is, that they solemnly cause every man to make oath at his admission into a Lodge, that he shall faithfully keep them secret; and, as the words and signs are so framed, as to put him in mind of his oath every time he has occasion to use them, he must be destitute of all sense of religion and honour, if, contrary to both, he can divulge them.

This, my Brethren, is a just and impartial representation of the principles of Freemasonry, so far as I understand them. A Lodge which is duly governed by them, is the delightful abode of friendship and innocent joy. The benevolent and social affections shed their blissful influence among the Brethren: all their thoughts, words, and actions, are full of candour, humanity, and forbearance. Here the virulence and implacability of theological controversy are unknown; here the Papist and the Protestant wish for the salvation of one another; here the Christian and the Mahomedan treat the religious opinions of each other with respect; here the Orthodox sit peaceably by the side of Heretics; here the subjects of contending princes, for getful of their national animosities, are kind to one another; here enemies, suppressing their private sentiments, listen to the voice of

reconciliation; here the elevation of nobility sinks into condescending gentleness and complaisance; here the distressed are sure of finding sympathy and relief; here modesty and merit receive that counte nance which is so often denied them in the invidious world; here all are upon a level, without losing the honour due to their respective ranks; here freedom, simplicity, and decency of manners, always reign; here, in a word, is the habitation of universal benevolence, brotherly love, and temperate mirth.

From the short account, my Brethren, which you have heard of Christianity, and from that now given you of the principles of Freemasonry, you may see how differently these two institutions aim at the removing the cause of those evils which spring from society. These evils, you remember, were shewn to arise from the adjustment between the selfish and benevolent affections being violated; by which men were moved to treat one another with fraud and violence. Allow me to endeavour to set before you the difference between our holy religion and Freemasonry, in their effects on society.

Christianity, it is evident, considers mankind as in a state of depravity. Their continual infringement on the laws of religion, humanity, and temperance, puts this point beyond doubt. In order to restore the adjustment of the affections, and render men gentle, charitable, and beneficent to one another, the Christian Religion commands them to root out of their minds every passion that arises from the excess of self-love, that so they may be united in the unanimous belief of its doctrines and obedience to its precepts, and thus raised as near as may be to the original rectitude of their nature.

Freemasonry too, considers mankind as in a state of depravity; but to adjust their affections, and warm them with benevolence for one another, by the means pointed for these purposes by Christianity, is not its aim nor in its power. It does not pretend to root out the excess of self-love, but to hinder it from breaking out to the hurt of society; not to unite men in an entire coincidence of opinions and conduct, but to bear easily with the particularities of one another; not to raise them to the original rectitude of their nature, but to render their turbulent passions as harmless as possible. It takes them in all their degeneracy, and would so regulate that degeneracy as to restore candour, forbearance, and peace to the world. Christianity, in short, would render mankind pious and virtuous by reforming hu man nature; and Freemasonry would lay a check upon the malicious and unsocial passions of mankind, and encourage their kind affections without changing their nature.

This appears to me, as far as I am able to judge, to be the vast dif ference between Christianity and Freemasonry. The first of these institutions is, beyond all dispute, worthy of the wisdom and goodness of God, its great author: the second does honour to the wisdom and goodness of man, to which it owes its origin. It is the glory of this last, that it falls in with our heavenly religion, in promoting human happiness, though by means less noble and sublime.

The very best things may be misrepresented: and when an outery is once made against them, few people have either the candour to examine them impartially, or the courage to appear in their defence, on finding them injured in the opinion of the public. They are afraid to patronize what is generally condemned, lest the singularity of their judgment should be misconstrued into an affection for the bad qualities imputed to the thing, whose worth and utility they would assert; as a man who vindicates his neighbour from the imputation of drunkenness, for instance, runs some hazard of being accused of a propensity to that vice himself. Nothing ever suffered, or continues to suffer, more unjustly by misrepresentation than Freemasonry. Upon this account, I shall endeavour, my Brethren, to remove some of the objections that ignorance and prejudice usually throw out against it.

It is objected against Freemasonry, that all who are to be initiated into it, must swear to conceal certain secrets before they are communicated to them, or have it in their power to examine into their nature and tendency. This practice they condemn as unlawful. This objec tion would indeed be of force, if they were obliged by their oath to keep secrets or perform actions contrary to the great laws of piety, humanity, or temperance; but the very reverse is the case. It has been already shewn, that the doctrines and precepts of Freemasonry are agreeable to the reason of all men, and confirmed by the Christian religion; and that its words and signs are no more than marks by which Freemasons may know one another, and hinder impostors from imposing on their brotherly affection. These marks are the only secrets they pretend to possess; and, considering their importance, no body surely can with justice condemn the Brethren for taking the ut, most care to preserve them from being discovered. Now, an oath, or something equivalent to it, has been found the strongest method that mankind have been yet able to devise, for securing the honesty and fidelity of one another; and that method Freemasons have thought proper to follow: Besides, the practice is common, and prudence justifies it, to obtain a promise of secrecy, before we reveal to any person a thing which we would keep from the knowledge of the world. It may be necessary upon many occasions that another, and no body besides, should know our secrets, either for our own sake or for his; but if we opened them to him, without securing his secrecy by a promise or an oath beforehand, he might divulge them if he pleased, and involve us in ruin. Now, if it is lawful to convey a secret under the security of a promise of secrecy, I can see no reason why it should be declared unlawful to secure it under the obligation of an oath. 'Tis true, there is a difference between a simple promise and a solemn oath; but that difference is, perhaps, not so great as it is commonly imagined. A promise, like every other moral action, supposes the existence of a God, to whom the promiser acknowledges himself accountable, whom he invokes as witness of the honesty of his intentions, and whose wrath he imprecates on himself, if he carelessly or fraudulently violates his engagement. All these particulars seem to be implied in the na ture of a promise; but in an oath they are all expressed, with the ad

dition of some arbitravy ceremony. An oath, therefore, properly considered, is little more than a promise unfolded and displayed in all its parts; and, on this account, the one is by far more awful and tremenduous than the other: for in an oath, a person sees distinctly the strict ties he comes under, but they appear more obscurely to him in a promise. If then a promise of secrecy may be lawfully exacted before we communicate our secrets to any person, Freemasons may lawfully demand an oath of secrecy from all who want to be initiated into theirs, and these may lawfully swear it.

It is further urged against Freemasons, that their society is not founded on universal Benevolence, because they oblige themselves to be kindest and most generous to their own members. This indeed is the case; but it would be the greatest injustice if it were otherwise. Might not this objection be used, with equal force, against Christianity itself? A great teacher of our excellent religion exhorts us, as we have opportunity to do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. That is, we are to perform good offices to all men without distinction: but, were a Pagan and a Christian in distress to solicit our assistance at the same time, we ought to give the preference to the latter in our benevolence. Freemasonry requires nothing more to be done for those who profess it; and to this they certainly have a right; for every person, at his admission into a regular lodge, puts a certain sum of money into the hands of the treasurer for charitable purposes; and, while he continues a member, pays certain riodical sums for the same purposes. Ifunavoidable misfortunes should afterwards reduce him to a state of indigence, that called for the generosity of his brethren, he would surely have a stronger claim to their assistance, than a man who had never contributed to the support of the society. This particular attention, however, which Freemasons pay to the necessities of one another, does not lock up their hearts against the distresses of the rest of mankind; they look on all their fellow-creatures as entitled to their humanity; and are ready to give such proofs of it as their several circumstances will permit.

pe

A third objection against Freemasonry is, that if it had a good tendency, irreligion, profligacy, and folly, would not form the character of so many of its professors. But nothing can be more unfair and unjust, than to depreciate and abuse any institution, good in itself, on account of the faults of those who pretend to adhere to it. This objection would hold against the most innocent comforts of life: Thus, wine must not be tasted, because many have been intoxicated by it'; animal food is certainly pernicious to the health, because many have died by surfeits of it; and fire ought to be extinguished all over the world, because it has occasioned numberless mischiefs. Nay, if Christianity itself, the most excellent institution that ever mankind were favoured with, were to be judged only by the lives of many who call themselves Christians; our holy religion, instead of being brought from heaven, would appear to an untutored Pagan, to be contrived by some wicked spirit, and published for the destruction of the human race. Hence you see the malice or folly of those who argue against the intrinsic VOL. II.

C

worth of Freemasonry, from the disorderly and vicious conduct of many who rank themselves among its friends and supporters. When, therefore, my Brethren and Fellow-christians, you observe any member of the Brotherhood throwing away his character of a rational creature by drunkenness, or the madness of rage; when you hear him invidiously backbiting his neighbour, whose reputation he is bound to treat charitably, or at least not to abuse; or when he either impiously or wantonly profanes, in your presence, that great and sacred name, which ought to be the object of his humblest adorations, then you may boldly conclude that he is a Freemason and a Christian only in name, not in deed and in truth. Nor is it to be wondered, that the person should venture to break through the engagements of Freemasonry, who dares, by committing these atrocious crimes, to violate the infinitely more holy obligations of baptism, which bind him to live soberly, righteously, and godly, throughout every part of his deportment; obligations too, which he has, perhaps, made the appearance of renewing and confirming at the table of the Lord, that most endearing ordinance of our divine religion.

Again, those who object that Freemasonry must either give occasion, or have a tendency to irreligion, profligacy, and folly, because these qualities prevail in the characters of many of its adherents; in order to give weight to their objection, urge further, that they advance nothing but what they heard from some of the Brethren, whom all the world acknowledged to be men of strict probity and just discernment. I wish it could be denied, that any of our Brethren ever drew such a horrible picture of the most amiable institution that the wit of man ever invented; but surely it ought not to be regarded, as an evidence of the probity or discernment of those who have done it, in how high soever a degree they may possess these qualities in other cases. Where, I would wish to know, is their probity in calumniating a body of men, with whom they should think it their honour to be connected? Where is their discernment in charging an institution with irreligion, which enjoins the worship of the great Architect of heaven and earth? Is it discernment to accuse that of profligacy which enjoins temperance, sobriety, and chastity? Is it discernment to censure that for folly, which is designed for an universal bond of union among mankind? It is indeed astonishing, that these respectable qualities of probity and discernment should be ascribed to people whose malicious misrepresentations shew them to have neither.

More objections against Freemasonry might be laid before you, my Brethren; but they are of the same stamp with those already mentioned; and though they may appear conclusive to weak minds, they are really so insignificant, or so malicious, as to fall below the attention of people of judgment and good-nature. I shall only observe to you, before I leave this head of the difcourse, that those who are loudest against the brotherhood, are either people who never had any opportunity of learning its principles, or people who, having this opportunity, never took the trouble of examining them with care and impartiality. As to the first; What weight can the opinion of those have, which is formed