self, at that particular period when there was such a free communication between the two kingdoms. That the French received Free Masonry from Scotland, may be presumed also from the singular pre-eminence which was always given by foreigners to Scotish Masonry, and from the degree of Chevalier Maçon Ecossois, which, as a mark of respect to Scotland, the French had added to the three symbolical degrees of masonry, about the beginning of the eighteenth century, Had Free Masonry not been introduced into France till after the revolution in 1688, as Dr Robison affirms, it is wonderful how such a fact should have been so quickly forgotten; for it was unknown about thirty or forty years afterwards, at what period the French received it from Britain; and, if the exiled family had employed Free Masonry for overturning the Hanoverian succession, it is still more strange that such a circumstance should be unknown in a country, where concealment was certainly unnecessary. When any new custom is introduced into a nation, the time of its introduction may be remembered for seventy or eighty years by one individual, without being committed to writing; and, though it be not of sufficient importance, tradition will preserve it from oblivion for a much greater length of time. If Free Masonry, therefore, never existed in France till after the revolution in 1688, is it not absurd to suppose, that the period when such a singular. institution was esta established, should be utterly forgotten at the distance of thirty or forty years from its establishment, though, during that time, it was never persecuted by the French government? BUT, at whatever period, and from whatever source Free Masonry was introduced into France, it assumed there a very remarkable form. The attachment of that people to innovation and external finery, produced the most unwarrantable alterations upon the principles and ceremonies of the order. A number of new degrees were created; the office-bearers of the craft were arrayed in the most splendid and costly attire; and the lodges were transformed into lecturing rooms, where the wiser brethren sported the most extravagant opinions, discussed the abstrusest questions in theology and political economy, and broached opinions which were certainly hostile to true religion and sound government. In the other countries of the continent, similar innovations, in a greater or less degree, prevailed, while the British lodges preserved the principles of the craft in their primitive simplicity and excellence. Such dangerous innovations have not the smallest connection with the principles of Free Masonry. They are unnatural excrescences formed by a warm imagination, and fostered by the interference of designing men. Those who reprehend Free Masonry, therefore, for the changes which it underwent in the hands of foreigners, may throw throw equal blame upon religion, because it has been a cloak for licentiousness and hypocrisy; or, upon science, because it has been converted into an instrument of iniquity. The changes of which we have been treating, arose altogether from the political condition of the countries where they were made. In France, and the other kingdoms of Europe, where popery was the ecclesiastical establishment, or where absolute power was in the hands of their monarchs, the most slavish restraints were imposed upon the conduct, and conversation of the people. None durst utter his own sentiments, or converse upon such metaphysical subjects as militated against the theology and politics of the times. Under such restraints, speculative men, in particular, were highly dissatisfied: Those powers which heaven had bestowed, and on the exercise of which their happiness depended, were fettered by human laws; and that liberty of speech restrained, which tyranny had no right to controul. For these reasons, the lodges were frequented by men of philosophical habits, who eagerly embraced an opportunity of declaring their sentiments, and discussing the favourite objects of their study, without dreading the threats of government, or the tortures of the Inquisition. In this view, the lodges may be compared to little republics, enjoying the rational liberties of human nature, in the midst of an extensive empire, enslaved by despotism and superstition. In the course of time, however, that liberty was abused, and doc trines were propagated in the French and German lodges, which it is the duty and policy of every government to discover and suppress. But these corruptions had, by no means, a necessary connection with Free Masonry: They arose wholly from the political condition of the continental kingdoms. In Britain, where the order subsisted much longer than in any other country, its history is stained by no glaring corruptions, or offensive innovations; more attention was paid to the intrinsic value of the order, than to its external observances; and the British lodges had a greater resemblance to charitable meetings, than to pompous and splendid assemblies. Blessed with a free constitution, and allowed every innocent liberty of our nature, we can divulge our sentiments with the greatest freedom, we can mark even the errors of administration without any to make us afraid. In such circumstances, Britons are under no temptation to introduce into the lodges religious and political discussions. The liberty of the press enables them to give the widest circulation to their opinions, however new or extravagant; and they are liable to no punishment, by publicly attacking the established religion of their country. The British lodges, therefore, have retained their primitive purity; they have been employed in no sinister cause; they have harboured in their bosom neither traitors, nor atheists, nor French philosophers. WHILE the French were busily engaged in the decoration of their lodges, and in the invention of new degrees and trifling ceremonies, the masons in England were more wisely employed in extending the boundaries of the royal art. About the beginning of the eighteenth century, during the reign of Queen Anne, Free Masonry seems to have rapidly declined in the South of England. Four lodges only existed in the south, and few hopes could be entertained of a revival, while the seat of the grand lodge was at such a distance as the city of York. In such circumstances, the four lodges met in 1717, and, in order to give vigour to their declining cause, and advance the interests of the fraternity in the south, they elected themselves into a Grand Lodge, and chose Anthony Sayer, Esq. for their first Grand-Master. Thus was instituted the Grand Lodge of England, which has now attained to such a pitch of prosperity and splendour. The motive which suggested this institution, was certainly laudable and useful; but every person must be aware, that the four lodges were guilty of a considerable impropriety in omitting to request the countenance of the Grand Lodge of York. Notwithstanding this negligence, the greatest harmony subsisted between the two Grand Lodges till 1734; and under the auspices of both, the order flourished in every part of the kingdom, but particularly in the South of England, where it had for |