be exhibited to this effect, the great point is fully accomplished. The ignorant and superstitious will be constrained to behold the LIGHT. The sober and discreet will rejoice in Masonry as a compendious system of moral and religious instruction; while the pious and devout will embrace it as an auxiliary to human happiness, and a guide to a blessed immortality.

This truth, being well understood, would present a powerful motive before men of sobriety and worth to solicit the benefits of the Institution.

As we, my brethren, have a special attachment to the principles of Speculative Free-Masonry, why should we feel indifferent to the clear manifestation of so important a truth as that contained in the proposition, and one which may be subservient to the great good of mankind? Why submit to the calumnies of the illiberal, without attempting a refutation?

The learned Doctor Robertson has laboured to identify Masonry with Illuminism. No plan could have been more fatally concerted to fix deep rooted prejudices in the mind. Illuminism, in Europe, was justly considered the bane of

empire, the secret and skulking enemy of all civil and ecclesiastical institutions, and the very school of licentiousness. The writings of this man, therefore, from his character and high literary fame, were peculiarly calculated to raise alarms, and excite odious denunciations against FreeMasonry. Charity, however, inclines us to believe that the doctor thought his opinion well founded, though it has since appeared to the world he was greatly deceived. Time, and a regular exhibition of unimpeachable conduct in the great body of the fraternity, have nearly, or quite obliterated those unjust impres

sions.

It is now manifest to the world, from the history of the Institution, that Masonry has never been the exciting cause of evil in governments, policy or religion. Can a single charge of this nature be substantiated? How astonishing, that a world which cannot bring and maintain one charge of this kind, either of a public or private nature, as an authorized act of the Institution, should stand aloof, and still harbour unfounded suspicions! Has not the experience, say of two hundred years, been sufficient for an experiment? Faithful records have most

surely been preserved during that period. Is not the testimony of thousands of individual members, persons of religion, probity and truth, to be credited? Can no confidence be reposed in those of our friends with whom we are on terms of the utmost intimacy? Has not the institution been patronized by kings, princes and presidents, as well as men in every station of civil authority?Would such men take to their bosoms, and cherish and recommend what was aiming to dethrone them, or in any way subvert their governments or disturb the peace of society? The thing is incredible in its nature, and carries a plain contradiction in terms.

Have not many holy ministers of the altar, and a multitude of meek, humble, pious and devout christians embraced the Institution, frequented the regular communications, promulgated the principles, and lived and died recommending them to the world? How can this practice be reconciled with a profane, irreligious, demoralizing establishment? Those pious ministers of the gospel spend their days in declaiming against vice and irreligion, in preaching the unsearchable riches of righteousness, and their lives

testify to the sincerity of their hearts. The private christian, also, gives strong, if not indubitable proof of the same truth by his daily deportment. Does not the same contradiction, therefore, most manifestly appear in this case, as in the former, if the society be instituted for vicious purposes? If it does, the institution must necessarily be good, or all those patrons who claim to be considered pious, are mere hypocrites.

Do not great numbers of our acquaintance now belong to the Masonic institution, who in all things are considered men of approved integrity, men of sound judgment, and whose character for honesty and truth was never suspected?And do they not, by the very fact of continuing their membership, and frequenting our assemblies, bear public testimony to the propriety, as well as the utility of the institution? How shall we reconcile such conduct in those persons on the supposition that the Masonic society is, in its nature, immoral ?

But we will name one example, familiar to almost every person.

The great and immortal WASHINGTON was a FREE-MASON:-that father of his country's salvation was our brother. In

him was combined every excellence of character, in the field, in the cabinet, and in the church. He was one of our fairest, brightest, greatest ornaments.→ The weight of his talents and character was never withholden from Masonic support. This man could have no motive in deceiving the world, no motive in patronizing Masonic assemblies, unless, in his view, the institution ought to be encouraged and maintained. Suffice it to say, therefore, as Free-Masonry was countenanced and approved by this great and good man, it could be on no other ground than that of its own intrinsic worth, and consequent importance to mankind. If such men have not only honored the society with their presence, but sanctioned the institution by precept and example, who shall presume to condemn it? If the testimony of men, first in the affections of their countrymen, is valid in relation to other matters, why not equally so in the case before us?

But there is one more consideration to be noticed.-Those who denounce the institution are certainly ignorant of its true nature and principles, and of consequence, in that state cannot be competent judges. It is necessary first to un