fraternity. Conscious of the disadvantages under which Free Masons labour, their adversaries have fabricated the most frightful and foolish ceremonies, and imposed them upon the world as the ceremonies of Masonry. Among this number, may be reckoned those rites and oaths which Barruel ascribes to the Templars and their posterity, but which, we solemnly aver, have no connection either with the one or the other; and, were we permitted to divulge to the world the whole of our ritual system, many who have duped the public by deceitful information, would stand abashed at their conduct, while others, who have confided in such information, would be astonished at the extent of their credulity. Then might Free Masons defy, as they have done in every other point, the fabrications of the malicious, and the conjectures of the ignorant: Then, too, might they mock at the ingenuity of the wise. But, as they are bound to preserve from public view the rites of their order, it is highly disingenuous to assail them in a quarter where resistance is impossible, and where every unprincipled man may triumph with impunity. Is not this to assassinate an enemy with his hands tied behind his back? Is not this to reproach a foe who is deprived of the organs of utterance? BUT there is another important consideration, which, while it points out in a more striking manner the disingenuity of such conduct, should, at the same time, incite the candid enquirer to reject reject every calumny against secret associations, arising from reports concerning their rites and ceremonies. If ever the secrets of Free Masonry were betrayed, they must have been betrayed by men who were completely destitute of religious principle; who paid no respect to those ties which unite the members of civil, as well as secret associations; who, in short, neither feared God, nor regarded man. Suppose, then, that a person, pretending to be a Free Mason, offered to communicate, either to an individual, or to the public, the rites and ceremonies of his order. What degree of credit should men of probity attach to the information which they might in this way receive? A person addresses them under the character of a perjurer, offering to violate the most solemn engagements, and to divulge mysteries which have been concealed for ages. He may give them accurate information, or he may not. If the secrets which he offers to betray, have been hitherto unknown, there is no possible way of ascertaining the truth of his deposition. And it is rather to be suspected, that he will dupe his auditors by false information, than trample upon an engagement, guarded by the most awful sanctions. He might, indeed, confirm by an oath, the truth of his asseveration; but, as he must have violated an oath equally solemn, no man of sense will give him the smallest credit. But, supposing that he really diyulges the secrets and ceremonies of Free Ma sonry, sonry, it is clear that he has not understood their true import, or, at least, that they have made no impression upon his mind. It is almost certain, therefore, that, from ignorance, or misapprehension of their meaning, he will exhibit, under an aspect calculated to excite ridicule, those rites and ceremonies, which, if properly explained, would command admiration. If then it be so difficult for the uninitiated to discover the secrets of Free Masonry, and still more so to ascertain their signification, if they should discover them, What must we think of those men who open their ears to every slanderous tale against Free Masons, which unprincipled men may impose upon their credulity? What must we think of those who reproach and vilify our order, upon the uncertain reports of cunning and interested men? We appeal to the impartial reader, if they are not equally base with the informers themselves. SUCH are the considerations by which we would attempt to repel those charges and distorted facts,, with which Barruel has calumniated the character, and disfigured the history of the Templars. They will be sufficient, we hope, to remove those erroneous impressions which the perusal of the Memoirs of Jacobinism may have left upon the reader's mind. Although we have adopted the opinion of those who maintain the innocence of that unfortunate order, we cannot coincide with them them in believing, that, as individuals, they were free from blame. The Templars were possessed of the same corrupted nature, and influenced by the same passions as their fellow men; and they were, unquestionably, exposed to more strong and numerous temptations. Some of the knights, therefore, may have been guilty of crimes, and these too of an aggravated kind, which, by a strange, though not uncommon mistake, might have been transferred to their order. But it was never proved that they were traitors, child-murderers, regicides, and infidels. A certain class of historians, indeed, have imputed to them such iniquities, and, when unable to establish their assertions, have fixed upon their order the more probable crimes of drunkenness and debauchery. But, amidst all these accusations, we hear nothing of that valour which first raised the Templars to pre-eminence; nothing of that charity and beneficence which procured them the respect of contemporaries; nothing of that fortitude and patience which most of them exhibited on the rack, and in the flames. In their case it has been too true, that The evil which men do lives after them: BUT, allowing the Templars to be as guilty as their enemies have represented them. Upon what principles of sound reasoning, or of com mon mon sense, does Barruel transfer their guilt to the fraternity of Free Masons? Is it absolutely necessary, that the son should inherit the bodily diseases, and the mental debility of his forefathers; or is it fair, that one order, proposing to itself the same object, and instituted upon the same principles as another, should be charged also with the same crimes? Certainly not. If virtue and vice were hereditary qualities, we might arrogate to ourselves much honour from our connection with the Templars: But, as we have not been applauded for a Templar's virtues, we should not be reproached for a Templar's crimes. But the reasoning of Barruel is as repugnant to the dictates of experience, as it is to those of common sense. Were not the inhabitants of England, at one period, fanatics, rebels, and regicides? But where now is the nation that is more liberal in its religion, and more steady in its loyalty! Did not the French, at one time, torture, burn, and massacre their fellow citizens, from the fury of their religious zeal, and the strength of their attachment to the catholic communion? But what nation under heaven is at present less influenced by religious principles, and less attached to the church of Rome! Did not the rulers of France, at one time, torment and assassinate hundreds of the Templars, because they deemed them infidels, traitors, and regicides? And have we not seen, in these latter days, the very rulers of France themselves, in fidels, |