{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13759/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13759","id":"gutenberg_13759","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13759","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Secret societies"],"text":"SECRET SOCIETIES\n\nA Discussion of Their Character and Claims\n\nby\n\nREV. DAVID MACDILL, JONATHAN BLANCHARD, D. D., AND EDWARD BEECHER, D. D.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n      'Have no fellowship with the\n      unfruitful works of darkness, but\n      rather reprove them.' --EPH. v: 11.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nI.   A TREATISE BY REV. D. MACDILL.\n\n       CHAPTER I.          THEIR ANTIQUITY.\n       CHAPTER II.         THEIR SECRECY.\n       CHAPTER III.        OATHS AND PROMISES.\n       CHAPTER IV.         PROFANENESS.\n       CHAPTER V.          THEIR EXCLUSIVENESS.\n       CHAPTER VI.         FALSE CLAIMS.\n\nII.  SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?\n     BY JONATHAN BLANCHARD, D. D.\n\nIII. REPORT TO CONGREGATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS.\n     BY EDWARD BEECHER, D. D.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHEIR ANTIQUITY.\n\n\n1. Secret associations are of very ancient origin. They existed among\nthe ancient Egyptians, Hindoos, Grecians, Romans, and probably among\nnearly all the pagan nations of antiquity. This fact, however is\nneither proof of their utility nor of their harmlessness. Slavery,\ndespotism, cruelty, drunken falsehood, and all sorts of sins and\ncrimes have been practiced from time immemorial, but are none the less\nto be reprobated on that account.\n\n2. The facts that these associations had no existence among the\nIsraelites, who, alone of all the ancient nations, enjoyed the light of\nDivine revelation, and that they originated and flourished among the\nheathen, who were vain in their imaginations; whose foolish heart was\ndarkened, and whom God gave up to uncleanness through the lusts of\ntheir own hearts (Rom. i: 21-24), is a presumptive proof that their\nnature and tendency are evil. We do not claim that all the\ninstitutions among God's ancient people were right and good; nor that\nevery institution among the heathen was sinful and injurious; still,\nthat which was so popular among those whom the Bible declares to have\nbeen filled with all unrighteousness; that which was so pleasing to\nmen whom God had given over to a reprobate mind and to vile affections\n(Rom. i: 26-28); that which made a part of the worship which the\nignorant heathen offered up to their unclean gods, and which was\nunknown among God's chosen people, is certainly a thing to be viewed\nwith suspicion. A thing of so bad origin and so bad accompaniments we\nshould be very slow to approve. The fact that many good men see no\nevil in secret societies, and that many good men have been and are\nmembers of them, is more than counterbalanced by the fact that many\ngood men very decidedly disapprove of them, and that, from time\nimmemorial, men of vile affections and reprobate minds, men whose\ninclinations and consciences were perverted by heathenish ignorance\nand error, and by a corrupt and abominable religion, have been very\nfond of them.\n\n3. Doubtless the authors and conductors of the ancient _mysteries_\nmade high pretensions, just as do the modern advocates of secret\nsocieties. Perhaps the original design of the ancient mysteries was to\ncivilize mankind and promote religion; that is, pagan superstition.\nBut whatever may have been the _design_ of the authors of them, it is\ncertain that they became schools of superstition and vice. Their\npernicious character and influence were so manifest that the ancient\nChristian writers almost universally exclaimed against them. (Leland's\nChr. Rev., p. 223.) Bishop Warburton, who, in his \"Divine Legation,\"\nmaintains that the ancient mysteries were originally pure, declares\nthat they \"became abominably abused, and that in Cicero's time the\nterms mysteries and abominations were almost synonymous.\" The cause of\ntheir corruption, this eminent writer declares to be the _secrecy_\nwith which they were performed. He says: \"We can assign no surer cause\nof the horrid abuses and corruptions of the mysteries than the\n_season_ in which they were represented, and the profound silence in\nwhich they were buried. Night gave opportunity to wicked men to\nattempt evil actions, and the secrecy encouragement to repeat them.\"\n(Leland's Chr. Rev., p. 194.) It seems to have been of these ancient\nsecret associations that the inspired Apostle said, \"_It is a shame\neven to speak of those things which are done in secret_.\" (Eph. v:\n12.)\n\n4. In view of these facts, the antiquity of secret societies is no\nargument in their favor; yet it is no uncommon thing to find their\nmembers tracing their origin back to the heathenish mysteries of the\nancient Egyptians, Hindoos, or Grecians. (See Webb's Freemason's\nMonitor, p. 39.) Since the ancient mysteries were so impure and\nabominable, those who boast of their affinity with them must be\nclassed with them of whom the Apostle says, \"_Their glory is in their\nshame_\" (Phil, iii: 19.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHEIR SECRECY.\n\n\n1. One of the objectionable features of all the associations of which\nwe are writing is their secrecy. We do not say that secrecy is what is\ncalled an _evil or sin in itself_. Secrecy may sometimes be right and\neven necessary. There are family secrets and secrets of State.\nSometimes legislatures and church courts hold secret sessions. It is\nadmitted that secrecy in such cases may be right; but this does not\nprove that secrecy is _always_ right. The cases above-mentioned are\nexceptional in their character. For instance, a family may very\nproperly keep some things secret; but were a family to act on the\nprinciple of secrecy, they would justly be condemned, and would arouse\nsuspicions in the minds of all who know them. Were a family to\nendeavor to conceal every thing that is said and done by the fireside;\nwere they to invent signs, and grips, and passwords for the purpose of\nconcealment; were they to admit no one under their roof without\nexacting a solemn oath or promise that nothing seen or heard shall be\nmade known, every one would say there is something wrong. So, too, if\na church court would always sit in secret; were none but members at\nany time admitted; were all the members bound by solemn promises or\noaths to keep the proceedings secret, and were they to employ signs,\ngrips, and passwords, and to hold up horrid threats, in order to\nsecure concealment, such a church court would lose the confidence of\nall men whose esteem is of any value. Such studious and habitual\nconcealment would damage the reputation of any family or church court\nin the estimation of all sensible people. The same result would follow\nin case a Legislature would endeavor, as a general thing, to conceal\nits proceedings. As to State secrets, they generally pertain to what\nis called diplomacy; and even in straightforward, manly diplomacy\nthere is generally no effort at concealment. In our own country,\nCongress very often asks the President for information in regard to\nthe negotiations and correspondence of the Executive Department with\nforeign governments, and almost always the whole correspondence asked\nfor is laid before Congress and published to the country. It is very\nseldom that the President answers the call with a declaration that the\npublic welfare requires the correspondence to be kept secret. Besides\nthis, the concealment is only temporary. It is never supposed that the\nsecrecy must be perpetual. It is true that many diplomatists--perhaps\nnearly all the diplomatists of Europe--do endeavor to cover up their\ndoings from the light of day. It is also true that the secrecy and\ndeceit of diplomatists have made diplomacy a corrupt thing. Diplomacy\nis regarded by many as but another name for duplicity. Talleyrand, the\nprince of diplomatists, said \"the design of language is to conceal\none's thoughts.\" This terse sentence gives a correct idea of the\npractice of secret negotiators. With regard, then, to State secrets,\nwe remark that real statesmen do not endeavor to cover up their doings\nin the dark, and that the practices of diplomatists, and the\nreputation they have for duplicity, are not such as should encourage\nindividuals or associations to endeavor to conceal their proceedings.\nWe see nothing in the fact that there may be secrets of State to\njustify studied and habitual secrecy either in individuals or\nassociations.\n\n2. The impropriety of habitual concealment may be further illustrated.\nAn individual who endeavors to conceal the business in which he is\nengaged, or the place and mode of carrying it on, exposes himself to\nthe suspicion of his fellow-men. People lose confidence in him. They\nfeel that he is not a safe man. They at once suspect that there is\nsomething wrong. They do not ask or expect him to make all his\nbusiness affairs public. They are willing that he should say nothing\nabout many of his business operations. But habitual secrecy, constant\nconcealment, unwillingness to tell either friend or foe what business\nhe follows, or to speak of his business operations, will cause any man\nto be regarded as destitute of common honesty. This fact shows that,\nin the common judgment of men, constant concealment is suspicious and\nwrong. Wherever it is practiced, men expect the development of some\nunworthy purpose.\n\nWe regard secrecy just like homicide and other actions that in general\nare very criminal. To take human life, as a general thing, is a very\ngreat crime; but it is right to kill a man in self-defense, and to\ntake the life of a murderer as a punishment for his crime. The\nhabitual concealment of one's actions is wrong, but it may be right at\nparticular times and for special reasons. It is not a dreadfully\nwicked thing, like the causeless taking of human life, and may be\njustifiable much oftener and for less weighty reasons. Still habitual\nsecrecy, or secrecy, except at particular times and for special\nreasons, is, according to the common judgment of men, suspicious and\nunjustifiable. Now, with secret societies secrecy is the general rule.\nThey practice constant concealment. At all times and on all occasions\nmust the members keep their proceedings secret. If an individual would\nthus studiously endeavor to conceal his actions; were he to throw the\nveil of secrecy over his business operations, refusing to speak to any\nof his fellow-men concerning them, he would justly expose himself to\nsuspicion. His fellow-men would lose all confidence in his integrity.\nIf habitual secrecy on the part of an individual, in regard to\nbusiness matters, is confessedly suspicious and wrong, it must be so,\nalso, on the part of associations of men. There is less excuse,\nindeed, for concealment on the part of a number of men banded together\nthan on the part of an individual. An individual working in the dark\nmay do much mischief, but an association thus working can do much\nmore. All those considerations which forbid individuals to shroud\ntheir actions in secrecy and darkness, and require them to be open,\nfrank, and straightforward in their course, apply with equal or\ngreater force to associations.\n\n3. In the case of secret societies, the reasons for concealment set\nthe impropriety of it in a still stronger light. So far from there\nbeing any necessity or special reason to justify habitual secrecy in\ntheir case, we believe the very _design_ of their secrecy to be\nimproper and sinful. We present the following quotation from a book of\nhigh authority among those for whose benefit it was specially\nintended:\n\n\"If the secrets of Masonry are replete with such advantages to\nmankind, it may be asked, Why are they not divulged for the general\ngood of society? To which it may be answered, were the privileges of\nMasonry to be indiscriminately bestowed, the design of the institution\nwould be subverted, and, being familiar, like many other important\nmatters, would soon lose their value and sink into disregard.\"\n--_Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 21_.\n\nThe same author intimates that the secrecy of Masonry is designed to\ntake advantage of \"a weakness of human nature.\" He admits that Masonry\nwould soon sink into disregard if its affairs were generally known.\nAlthough this remark is made with special reference to the giddy and\nunthinking, yet it is certainly not the contempt of such persons which\nMasons fear. They would not care for the contempt of the giddy and\nunthinking, if they could retain the esteem of the thoughtful and\nwise. The real reason, then, for concealing the doings of Masons in\ntheir lodges, is to recommend things which, if generally known, would\nbe regarded with contempt. The design of concealment in the case of\nother secret associations, we understand to be the same. The following\nis an extract from an address delivered at the national celebration of\nthe fortieth anniversary of Odd-fellowship, in New York, April 26,\n1859, and published by the Grand Lodge of the United States:\n\n\"But even if we do resort to the aid of the mysterious, to render our\nmeetings attractive, or as a stimulant to applications for membership,\nsurely this results, in no injury to society or individuals.\"\n--_Proceedings of Grand Lodge of United States_, 1859, _Ap., p. 10._\n\nHere, again, it is pretty plainly hinted that the design of secrecy in\nthe case of Odd-fellowship, is to invest it with unreal attractions,\nor, at least, with attractions which it would not possess, were the\nveil of concealment withdrawn. Here, again, as in Masonry, it is\nvirtually admitted that secrecy is designed to take advantage of \"a\nweakness in human nature,\" and to recommend things which, if not\ninvested with the attractions which secrecy throws around them, would\nsink into contempt.\n\nDoubtless the design of concealment in the case of other secret\nassociations is the same. We are not aware that Good-fellows, Good\nTemplars, Sons of Temperance, and other similar associations, have any\nbetter reason for working, like moles, in the dark than Masons and\nOdd-fellows. There is, then, as it respects secret societies, no\nnecessity for concealment--nothing to justify it. The real motive for\nit is itself improper and sinful.\n\n4. That the concealment of actions and principles, either by\nindividuals or associations, is inconsistent with the teachings of the\nBible, is, we think, easily shown. Thus our Savior, on his trial,\ndeclared: \"_I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the\nsynagogue, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said\nnothing_.\" (John xviii: 20.) An association which claims to be\nlaboring in behalf of true principles, and for the moral and\nintellectual improvement of men, and yet conceals its operations under\nthe impenetrable veil of secrecy, is certainly practicing in direct\nopposition to the example and teaching of the Son of God.\n\nAgain: The concealment of our actions is condemned in the words of the\nMost High, as recorded by the prophet: \"_Woe unto them that seek deep\nto hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark;\nand they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us_?\" (Is. xxix: 15.)\nThose on whom a divine curse is thus pronounced are described as\nendeavoring to _hide their works in the dark_. This description\napplies, most assuredly, to those associations which meet only at\nnight, and in rooms with darkened windows, and which require their\nmembers solemnly to promise or swear that they will never make known\ntheir proceedings.\n\nAgain: The inspired apostle incidentally condemns secret societies in\ndenouncing the sins prevalent in his own day: \"_And have no fellowship\nwith the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; for it\nis a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret_.\"\n(Eph. v: 11, 12.) It is not without reason that commentators\nunderstand the shameful things done in secret, of which the apostle\nspeaks, to be the \"mysteries\" of the \"secret societies\" which\nprevailed among the ancient heathen. They maintained religious rites\nand ceremonies in honor of their imaginary deities, just as most\nmodern \"secret societies\" make a profane use of the word and worship\nof God in their parades and initiations. He says it would be a shame\nto speak of the rites performed by the heathen in their secret\nassociations in honor of Bacchus and Venus, the god of wine and the\ngoddess of lust, and of their other abominable deities. But whether\nthe apostle refers to the Eleusinian, Samothracian, and other pagan\nmysteries, or not, the _principle of secrecy_ comes in for a share of\nhis condemnation.\n\nThe concealment practiced by \"secret societies\" is inconsistent, also,\nwith such declarations of the Bible as the following: \"_For every one\nthat doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest\nhis deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the\nlight, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in\nGod_.\" (John iii: 20, 21.) \"_Let your light so shine before men that\nthey may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in\nheaven_.\" These are the words of our Savior, and they certainly\ncondemn the concealment practiced by secret associations, and all the\nmeans employed for that purpose--their signs, grips, and passwords;\ntheir shunning the light of day; their secret gatherings in the night,\nand in rooms with darkened windows; the terrible oaths and solemn\npromises with which they bind their members to perpetual secrecy; the\ndisgraceful punishments which they threaten to inflict on any member\nwho will expose their secret doings--all these things are inconsistent\nwith the spirit, if not the very letter, of the commands of our Savior\nquoted above.\n\n5. Besides, if the doings of these associations, in there secret\nmeetings, are _good_, then it is in the violation of the express\ncommand of our Savior to keep them concealed; for he tells us to let\nothers see our good works. In case their doings are bad, it is,\nperhaps, no violation of Christ's command to keep them hid; but, most\ncertainly, such things ought not to be done at all. So far as the\nmoral character of secret societies is concerned, it matters not\nwhether the transactions which they so studiously conceal are good or\nbad, sinless or wicked. If such transactions are good, the Savior\ncommands that they be made known; if they are improper and sinful, he\ncommands us to have no fellowship with them. In either case secret\nassociations are to be condemned as practicing contrary to the\nteachings of the Bible.\n\nHence, we conclude that the concealment so studiously maintained and\nrigidly enforced by the associations whose moral character we are\nconsidering is condemned both by the common judgment of men and by the\nWord of God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHEIR OATHS AND PROMISES.\n\n\n1. Another serious objection to secret associations is the profanation\nby them of the oath of God. We regard such profanation as the natural\nresult of their secrecy. When associations of men endeavor to keep\nsecret their operations from generation to generation, they will not\nbe willing to trust to the honor and honesty of their members. A\nsimple promise of secrecy will not be deemed sufficient. Oaths or\npromises, with dreadful penalties, will very likely be required of all\nthose who are admitted as members. Secret societies may, perhaps,\nexist without such oaths and promises. If the members of an\nassociation are few in number, or if the publication of its secrets\nwould not be regarded as very injurious to its interests, perhaps a\nsimple promise of secrecy will be regarded as sufficient; but whenever\nan association endeavors to secure a numerous membership, and regards\na disclosure of its secrets as likely to damage its reputation or\nhinder its success, something more than a simple promise of secrecy\nwill very likely be required at the initiation of members.\nAccordingly, some secret associations, it is known, do employ awful\nsanctions in order to secure concealment. Even when the members of a\nsecret order claim that they are not bound to secrecy by oath, but\nonly by a simple promise, it will, perhaps, be found on examination\nthat that promise is, in reality, an oath. An appeal to God or to\nheaven, whether made expressly or impliedly, in attestation of the\ntruth of a promise or declaration, is an oath. Such an appeal may not\nbe regarded as an oath in our civil courts, the violator of which\nwould incur the pains and penalties of perjury; yet certainly it is an\noath according to the teachings of the Bible. Our Savior teaches that\nto swear by the temple, is to swear by God who dwelleth therein; and\nthat to swear by heaven, is to swear by the throne of God, and by him\nthat sitteth thereon. (Matt. xx: 23.) We find, also, that the words,\n\"As the Lord liveth,\" is to be regarded as an oath. King David is\nrepeatedly said to have sworn, when he used this form of expression,\nin attestation of his sincerity. (1 Sam. xx: 3; 1 Kings i: 29.) An\nappeal to God, whether direct or indirect, in attestation of the truth\nof a declaration or promise, is an oath. As we have already said, a\nsecret association may exist without an oath. But we are not sure that\nany does. Odd-fellows have declared that they have no initiatory oath.\nIn the address published by the Grand Lodge of the United States,\nreferred to before, the following declaration is made: \"No oath, as\nwas once supposed, is administered to the candidate.\" (App. to\nProceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, p. 10.) Yet Grosch, in his\nOdd-fellows' Manual, speaks of an \"appeal to heaven\" in the\ninitiation, at least, into one of the degrees. (P. 306.) Perhaps the\ncontradiction arises from a difference of opinion in regard to what it\ntakes to constitute an oath, or, perhaps, from the fact that an oath\nis required in initiations into some degrees, but not in others.\nHowever this may be, we know that some secret societies have\ninitiatory oaths, and that nearly all administer what, in the sight of\nGod, is an oath, though they may not so view it themselves. Nor do we\nsee any reason to discredit the declaration of Grosch that the\ncandidate \"appeals to heaven.\"\n\n2. Now, the taking of an initiatory oath is, to say the very least of\nit, of doubtful propriety. Every one who does so swears by the living\nGod that he will forever keep secret things about which he knows\nnothing. The secrets of the association are not imparted to him until\nafter he has sworn that he will not reveal them. He is kept ignorant\nof them until the \"brethren\" are assured by his appeal to heaven that\nthey can trust him. Now, the inspired apostle lays down the principle\nthat a man sins when he does any thing about the propriety of which he\nis in doubt. He declares that the eating of meats was in itself a\nmatter of indifference, but that if any man esteem any thing unclean,\nto him it is unclean. He then makes the following declaration: \"But he\nthat doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for\nwhatsoever is not of faith is sin.\" (Rom. xiv: 22, 23.) According to\nthis most emphatic declaration, we must have faith and confidence that\nwhat we do is right, else we are blameworthy. We sin whenever we do\nany thing which is, according to our own judgment, of doubtful\npropriety. The man who is initiated into an oath-bound society, swears\nthat he will keep secret things about which he knows nothing--things\nwhich, for aught he knows, ought not to be kept secret. If the apostle\ncondemned, in most emphatic language, the man who would do so trivial\na thing as eat meat without assuring himself of the lawfulness of his\ndoing so, what would he have said had the practice existed in his day\nof swearing by the God of heaven in regard to matters that are\naltogether unknown? To say the very least, such swearing is altogether\ninconsistent with that caution and conscientiousness which the\nScriptures enjoin. The apostle also condemns the conduct of those who\n\"_understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm_\" (1 Tim.\ni: 7.) Does not his condemnation fall on those who know not about what\nthey swear, nor whereof they appeal to heaven?\n\n3. There is another objection to taking an initiatory oath. We are\nexpressly forbidden to take God's name in vain. To pronounce God's\nname without a good reason for doing so is to take it in vain.\nCertainly, to swear by the name of the living God demands an important\noccasion. To make an appeal to the God of heaven on some trifling\noccasion is a profanation of his oath and name. If the secrets of\nMasonry, Odd-fellowship, Good Templars, and similar associations, are\nunimportant, their oaths, appeals to heaven, and solemn promises made\nin the presence of God are profane and sinful. Perhaps their boasted\nsecrets are only signs, grips, pass-words, and absurd rites of\ninitiation. To swear by the name of the Lord about things of this kind\nis certainly a violation of the third commandment. The candidate does\nnot _know_ that the secrets about to be disclosed to him are of any\nimportance, and he runs the risk of using God's name and oath about\nlight and trivial things. He must be uncertain whether there is any\nthing of importance in hand at the time of swearing, and how can he\nescape the disapproval of God, since the inspired Paul declares that\nthe doubtful eater of meat is damned? (Rom. xiv: 23.)\n\n4. We have already adverted to the fact that concealment is resorted\nto in order to take advantage of \"a weakness in human nature,\" and to\nrecommend things which, if known generally, would be disregarded. Is\nit right to use the name and oath of God for the accomplishment of\nsuch purposes? Is it right to use the name and oath of God in order to\ntake advantage of \"a weakness in human nature,\" and to invest with\nfictitious charms things which, if seen in the clear light of day,\nwould be regarded with indifference or contempt? The taking of oaths\nfor such purposes, and under such circumstances will generally be\navoided by those who give good heed to the command, \"Thou shalt not\ntake the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold\nhim guiltless that taketh his name in vain.\"\n\n5. While we do not claim that there is any passage of Scripture which\nexpressly declares the initiatory oaths under consideration to be\nprofane and sinful, at the same time there are many passages which\nrequire us to beware how and when we swear:\n\n\"_But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven,\nneither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be\nyea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation_.\" (James v:\n12.) Does not this command condemn those who swear to keep secret they\nknow not what, and to fulfill obligations which devolve upon them as\nmembers of an association, before they know fully what that\nassociation is, or what those obligations are? Should not every one\nconsider himself admonished not to swear such an oath lest he fall\ninto condemnation? Again: Our Savior says, \"Swear not at all; neither\nby heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his\nfootstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.\nNeither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one\nhair white or black; but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay;\nfor whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil.\" These words were\nspoken in condemnation of those who employed oaths frequently and on\nimproper occasions. They should make every one hesitate in regard to\nswearing, in any form, on his initiation into an order the obligations\nand operations of which have not yet been revealed to him. Once more:\n\"_Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to\nutter any thing before God, for God is in heaven and thou upon earth;\ntherefore, let thy words be few_.\" (Eccl. v: 2.) Is it not a rash\nthing to bind one's self by the oath of God to keep secret things as\nyet unknown, or to bind one's self to conform to unknown regulations\nand usages? In view of these declarations of the Word of God, it\ncertainly would be well to avoid taking such oaths as generally are\nrequired of the members of secret associations at their initiation.\n\n6. The _promise_ required of candidates at their initiation, whether\nthere be an oath or not, is also, at least in many cases, improper and\nsinful. For instance, the \"candidate for the mysteries of Masonry,\"\nprevious to initiation, must make the declaration that he \"will\ncheerfully conform to all the ancient established usages and customs\nof the fraternity.\" (Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 34.) Grosch, in\nhis Odd-fellows' Manual, directs the candidate at his initiation as\nfollows: \"Give yourself passively to your guides, to lead you\nwhithersoever they will.\" (P. 91.) Again, in regard to initiation into\na certain degree, he says: \"The candidate for this degree should be\nfirm and decided in his answers to all questions asked him, and\npatient in all required of him,\" etc. (P. 279.) In the form of\napplication for membership, as laid down by Grosch, the applicant\npromises as follows:\n\n\"If admitted, I promise obedience to the usages and laws of the Order\nand of the Lodge.\" (P. 378.)\n\nThese declarations, by reliable authors, plainly show that both in\nMasonry and Odd-fellowship obligations are laid on members of which,\nat the time, they are ignorant. Candidates for Masonry must promise to\nconform, yes, \"cheerfully conform to all the ancient established\nusages and customs of the fraternity.\" The application for membership\nin the association of Odd-fellows must be accompanied by a promise of\nobedience to the usages and laws both of the whole Order and of the\nlodge in which membership is sought. No man has a right to make such a\npromise until he has carefully examined the usages, and customs, and\nlaws referred to. While he is ignorant of them, he does not know but\nsome of them or all of them may be morally wrong. Before the candidate\nhas been initiated, he has not had an opportunity of acquainting\nhimself with all the laws, usages, and customs which he promises to\nobey. Is not such a promise condemned by the divine injunction, \"Be\nnot rash with thy mouth?\" Is not the man who promises to obey\nregulations, customs, and usages before he knows fully what they are\nas blameworthy as the doubtful eater of meats, who, the inspired\napostle tells us, is damned for doing what he is not confident is\nright? The candidate for initiation into Odd-fellowship must \"give\nhimself passively to his guides.\" Such demands indicate the spirit\nwhich secret associations require of their members. They must\nsurrender the exercise of their own judgment, and permit themselves to\nbe blindly led by others. No man has a right thus to surrender himself\npassively to the guidance of others. Every man is bound to act\naccording to his own judgment and conscience. Before a man promises to\nobey any human regulations, or to conform to any usage or custom, he\nis bound to know what that regulation, usage, or custom is, and to see\nthat it is morally right. To do otherwise is to sin against conscience\nand the law of God.\n\n7. Besides this, the promise to \"preserve mysteries inviolate,\" made\nbefore they have been made known to the promiser, is condemned by\nsound morality. He may have heard the declaration of others that there\nis nothing wrong in \"the mysteries,\" but this is not sufficient to\njustify him. A man is bound to exercise his own reason and conscience\nin regard to all questions of morality.\n\nNo man has a right, at any time, to lay aside his reason and\nconscience and allow himself to be \"guided passively\" by others. Every\nman is bound to see and decide for himself in every case of duty and\nmorals. We should not let the church of Christ even decide for us in\nsuch matters, much less some association, composed, it may be, of\ninfidels, Mormons, Jews, Mohammedans, and all sorts of men except\natheists. (See pages 37, 31.) A band of such men may have secrets very\nimmoral in character, and which it would be a violation of God's law\nto preserve inviolate. To promise beforehand that any \"mysteries\"\nwhich they may see fit to enact and practice shall be forever\nconcealed, is to trifle with conscience and morality. It is useless to\nplead that a member can withdraw as soon as he discovers any thing\nwrong in the regulations and usages which he is required to obey.\nEvery one who joins such an association as those under consideration\nmust make up his mind to do so before he knows what \"the mysteries\"\nare, and he must promise (either with or without an oath) that he will\npreserve them inviolate before \"the brethren\" will intrust them to\nhim. The possibility of dissolving his connection with the association\nafterward does not exonerate him of promising to do he knows not\nwhat--of laying aside his own conscience and reason, and yielding\nhimself \"passively\" to others. The promise of secrecy and of obedience\nto unknown regulations and customs, required at the initiation of\ncandidates into such associations as we are considering, is,\ntherefore, a step in the dark. It involves the assuming of an\nobligation to do what _may be_ morally wrong, and is, therefore,\ninconsistent with the teachings of the Word of God and the principles\nof sound morality.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHEIR PROFANENESS.\n\n\n1. Another evil connected with secrecy, as maintained by the\nassociations the character of which is now under consideration, is the\nprofane use of sacred things in ceremonies, celebrations, and\nprocessions. This evil has, perhaps, no _necessary_ connection with\nsecrecy, but has generally in _fact_. The \"secret societies\" of\nantiquity dealt largely in religious ceremonies. It is the frequent\nboast of Masons, Odd-fellows, and others, that their associations\ncorrespond to those of ancient times. There is, indeed, a\ncorrespondence between them in the use of religious rites. Those of\nancient times employed the rites of heathenish superstition; those of\nmodern times are, perhaps, as objectionable on account of their\nprostituting the religion of Christ. The holy Bible, the word of the\nliving God, is used by Masons as a mere emblem, like the square and\ncompass. The pot of incense, the holy tabernacle, the ark of the\ncovenant, the holy miter, and the holy breastplate are also employed\nas emblems, along with the lambskin and the sword pointing to a naked\nheart. At the opening of lodges and during initiations, passages of\nScripture are read as a mere ceremony, or as a charge to the members\nin regard to their duty as Masons. Thus a perverse use of holy\nScripture is made in the application of it to matters to which it has\nno reference whatever. (Freemason's Monitor, pp. 92, 19-181). Even the\ngreat Jehovah is represented in some of their ceremonies by symbols.\nHis all-seeing eye is represented by the image of a human eye.\n(Freemason's Monitor, pp. 85, 290.) Masonry also profanes the name and\ntitles of God. God alone is to be worshiped; he alone should be\naddressed as the _Most Worshipful Being_. But Masonry requires the use\nof such language as follows: \"The Most Worshipful Grand Master,\" and\n\"The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge.\" God alone is Almighty, but Masons\nhave their \"Thrice Illustrious and Grand Puissant,\" and their \"Thrice\nPotent Grand Master.\" God alone is perfect, but Masons have a \"Grand\nLodge of Perfection\" and a \"Grand Elect Perfect and Sublime Mason.\"\n(Monitor, pp. 187, 219; Monitor of Free and Accepted Rite, pp. 52.)\nChrist is the great High Priest, and Aaron and his successors were his\nrepresentatives, but Masons have a \"High Priest,\" a \"_Grand_ High\nPriest,\" yea, a \"_Most Excellent_ Grand High Priest.\" At the\ninstallation of this so-called High Priest, various passages of\nScripture treating of the priesthood of Melchisedec and of Christ are\nused. (Webb's Monitor, pp. 178-181, 187.)\n\nWe regard these high-sounding titles as ridiculous, and as well\ncalculated to excite derision and scorn; but we do not now treat of\nthem in that regard. We call attention, at present, to the emblems and\ntitles used by Masons as profane. God did not intend his holy Word,\nand the Tabernacle, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the Breastplate,\nto be used as the symbols of Masonry. These and other holy things were\nintended only for holy purposes. To use them as the Masons do is to\npervert and profane them. The visible representation of the all-seeing\neye of God is certainly a species of idolatry, and is forbidden by the\nsecond commandment. Such, also, are the triangles, declared to be \"a\nbeautiful emblem of the eternal Jehovah.\" (Monitor, p. 290.) The\nIsraelites, of course, did not understand that the Divine Being was\nreally like their golden calf; they considered it a symbol of Deity.\nHow much better is it to assimilate God to a _triangle_ than to a\ncalf? The difference is just this: the latter idea is more gross than\nthe former. The sin of idolatry--that is, of representing God under a\nvisible figure--is involved in both cases. The profaneness of the\ntitles mentioned above must at once be evident to every reverent,\nconsiderate mind. They are such as in the Bible are ascribed only to\nGod and to Christ. Indeed, Masons give more exalted titles to their\nsham priest than the Scriptures employ to describe the character and\noffice of the great High Priest who is \"made higher than the heavens.\"\nIf this is not profane, we are at a loss to know what can be profane.\n\n2. The Odd-fellows in profanation of holy things go about as far as\nthe Masons. They employ \"the brazen serpent,\" \"the budded rod of\nAaron,\" \"the Ark of the Covenant,\" \"the breastplate for the high\npriest,\" and other holy things as emblems of their order, along with,\n\"the shining sun,\" \"the half moon,\" etc. They have their \"Most Worthy\nGrand Master,\" and their \"Most Excellent Grand High Priest,\" and other\nofficers designated by titles which should be given to God and Christ\nalone. Indeed, as it respects emblems and titles, Masonry seems to be\nthe example which other secret associations have followed. In regard\nto the profanation of holy things, the difference between most of the\nsecret associations in our land is one merely of degree. This\nprofanation of the word, name, and titles of God is certainly sinful\nin itself, and very injurious in its effects. What kind of ideas of\nGod, and Christ, and heaven must persons have who conceive and think\nof God under the figure of three triangles; of Christ and his\npriesthood as symbolized by \"the Most Excellent Grand High Priest,\"\nofficiating amid the tomfooleries of Masonry and Odd-fellowship; and\nof heaven as a Grand Lodge-room. What ideas of the Divine Majesty and\nGlory must they have who are accustomed to give to the officers of a\nsecret association, and to men who are, perhaps, destitute of faith\nand holiness, and who may be Jews, Turks, or infidels, as grand titles\nas the Scriptures give to the God of heaven and the Savior of the\nworld. Besides it is very improper and sinful to give to mere men the\ntitles and glory which are due to God alone. We learn that it was\nprecisely for this sin that the Divine displeasure was visited upon\nking Herod. On a certain occasion having put on his royal apparel, he\nsat on his throne and made a public oration. The people who heard him\nshouted and said, \"_It is the voice of a God and not of a man; and\nimmediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God\nthe glory; and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost_.\" (Acts\nxii: 23.) It was for the same spirit of self-glorification that the\nking of Babylon was punished with madness and disgrace. Nebuchadnezzar\nwalked in his palace, and said: \"Is not this great Babylon, which I\nhave built for the house of my kingdom by the might of my power, and\nfor the honor of my majesty?\" The same hour he was driven from men,\nand did eat grass as oxen; and his body was wet with the dew of\nheaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails\nlike birds' claws. (Dan. iv: 30-33.)\n\n2 [sic]. Another objectionable feature of many secret societies is,\nthat they profane the _worship_ of God. They claim (at least those\nwhich seem to embrace the most numerous membership) to be, in some\nsense, religious associations. They maintain forms of worship; their\nrituals contain prayers to be used at initiations, installations,\nfunerals, consecrations, etc. They receive into membership, as we\nshall afterward see, almost all sorts of men except atheists. Being\ncomposed of Jews, Turks, Mohammedans, Mormons, and infidels, as well\nas of believers in Christianity, they endeavor to establish such forms\nas will be acceptable to their mongrel and motley membership. Hence\ntheir prayers and other forms of worship are such as may be\nconsistently used by the irreligious and by infidels, and only by\nthem. We do not say that no Christian prayers are offered up in\nMasonic lodges. No doubt some godly men, as chaplains, offer up\nextempore prayers in the name of Christ; but such prayers are not\nMasonic. They are not authorized by the Masonic ritual; they are\ncontrary to the spirit if not to the express regulations of Masonry.\nAny member would have a right to object to them, and his objections\nwould have to be sustained. The only prayers which Masonry does\nauthorize, and can consistently authorize, are Christless--infidel\nprayers and services. The proof of this declaration can be found in\nevery Masonic manual. (See Webb's Monitor, pp. 36, 80, 189, and\nCarson's Monitor, of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, pp. 47, 61, 95,\n99.) In all the prayers thus presented, the name of Christ is\nexcluded; it is excluded even from the prayers to be offered at the\ninstallation of the \"Most Excellent Grand High Priest.\" (Webb's Mon.,\npp. 183, 189.) The idea of human guilt is, also, almost entirely\nexcluded from these prayers; the idea of pardon through the atonement\nof Christ is never once presented in them. In the prayer to be used at\nthe funeral of a \"Past Master,\" it is declared that admission unto\nGod's \"everlasting kingdom is the just reward of a pious and virtuous\nlife.\" Every true Christian, on reflection, must see that such prayers\nare an insult to the Almighty. They are just such as infidels and all\nobjectors of Christ may offer.\n\nThe prayers of the society of Odd-fellows are equally objectionable.\nIn respect to the character of their religious services, they are to\nbe classed with the Masons. Odd-fellowship knows no God but the god of\nthe infidel; it recognizes the Creator of the Universe and the Father\nof men, but not the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The\nname of Christ has no more a place in the religion of Odd-fellowship,\naccording to its principles and regulations, than in a heathen temple\nor an infidel club-room. It is quite likely that sometimes chaplains,\nofficiating in the lodge-room, pray in the name of Christ; but a Turk,\naccording to the principles and regulations of Odd-fellowship, would\nhave just as much right to pray in the name of Mohammed, or a Mormon\nin the name of Joe Smith. These are facts which, we presume, all\nacquainted with the forms and ceremonies in use among Odd-fellows will\nadmit. Grosch, in his Manual, makes the following declaration: \"The\ndescendants of Abraham, the divers followers of Jesus, the Pariahs of\nthe stricter sects, here gather round the same altar as one family,\nmanifesting no differences of creed or worship; and discord and\ncontention are forgotten in works of humanity and peace.\" (Pp. 285,\n286.) This declaration has reference, of course, to _all_ the members\nof the associations--believers in Christianity, Jews, Mohammedans,\nIndians, Hindoos, and infidels. How do they manage to worship so\nlovingly together in the lodge-room? Our author asserts that they\n\"leave their prejudices at the door.\" Of course their forms of worship\nembody no \"prejudices.\" The thing is managed in this way: Whatever is\npeculiar to Judaism is excluded from the ritual and worship of\nOdd-fellows; whatever is peculiar to Hindooism is excluded; whatever\nis peculiar to Mohammedanism is excluded; whatever is peculiar to\nChristianity is excluded; whatever is peculiar to any form of religion\nis excluded. Only so much as is held in common by Jews, Hindoos,\nMohammedans, and Christians is allowed a place in the ritual and\nworship of Odd-fellows. But how much is held in common by these\nvarious classes? After every thing peculiar to each class has been\nthrown overboard, how much is left? Nothing but _deism_ or\n_infidelity_. The only views held in common by the Jew, Mohammedan,\nChristian, and others are just those held by infidels. The religion of\nOdd-fellowship is _infidelity_, and its prayers are _infidel_ prayers.\n\nNot only such are the prayers and religion of Masonry and\nOdd-fellowship, but such _must_ be the religion and prayers of all\nassociations organized on their principles. The only way to welcome\nall of every creed, Jew, Mohammedan, Hindoo, etc., and make them feel\nat home in an association, is to exclude every thing offensive to the\nconscience or prejudices of any one of them. And when every thing of\nthat sort has been excluded, the residuum, in every case, as every one\nmust see, will be deism or infidelity. This is a serious matter.\nChristians are not free from guilt in countenancing such prayers and\nservices. The tendency of such religious performances must be very\ninjurious. Whoever adopts the religious, or rather irreligious, spirit\nand principles of Masonry, Odd-fellowship, and other similar\nassociations must discard Christianity and the Bible. No doubt there\nare _some_, perhaps there are _many_ Christians in connection with\nsuch associations, but they certainly do not and can not approve the\nChristless prayers of the lodge-room, much less join in them. Is it\nright for the disciples of Jesus, or even for believers in\nChristianity, as the great majority of people in this country are, to\nsustain any association which puts Christianity on a level with pagan\nsuperstition, which treats Jesus Christ with no more regard and\nveneration than it does Mohammed, Confucius, or Joe Smith, and whose\nonly religion is the religion of infidels?\n\nIf secret associations did not pretend to have _any_ religion or _any_\nreligious services, but would, like bank and railroad companies,\nconduct their affairs without religious forms, it would be infinitely\nbetter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHEIR EXCLUSIVENESS.\n\n\n1. Another objection which may be urged against secret societies in\ngeneral, is their selfish exclusiveness.\n\nIt is well known that the Christian religion has often been subjected\nto reproach by the bigotry and sectarianism of its professors. If the\n_Bible_ inculcated bigotry and sectarianism, it would be a\nwell-founded objection to Christianity itself; but Christianity is\neminently catholic and democratic, and is diametrically opposed to an\nexclusive and partisan spirit. The command of Christ to his church is\nto make no distinction on account of class or condition, but to\nreceive all, and especially to care for the poor, the unfortunate, the\noppressed, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and the diseased.\nSometimes men calling themselves Christians act so directly contrary\nto the impartial, catholic spirit and teachings of Christ as to render\nthemselves unworthy of all sympathy and encouragement; but the\nexclusiveness of secret societies is, we think, unparalleled in our\nday for its selfishness and meanness. They claim to be charitable and\nbenevolent institutions; they assert that membership in them confers\ngreat honors and advantages; they profess (at least many of them) to\nact on the principle of the universal brotherhood of men and\nfatherhood of God. (Moore's Con. of Freemasonry, p. 125; Webb's\nMonitor, pp. 21, 51; Proceedings of Odd-fellows' Grand Lodge of United\nStates, 1859, App., p. 6.) We say nothing now about the falsity of\nthese claims and professions; but we assert that, even admitting the\nboasted honors and advantages enjoyed by members of secret\nassociations, such associations are eminently exclusive and selfish.\nOf this proposition there is abundant proof.\n\n2. The Masons utterly refuse to admit as members women, slaves,\npersons not free-born, and persons having any maim, defect, or\nimperfection in their bodies; or, at least, the principles of Masonry\nforbid the admission of all such persons. (Masonic Constitutions,\npublished by authority of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, Art. 3 and 4.)\nMoore, editor of the Masonic Review, in his Ancient Charges and\nRegulations of Freemasonry, in commenting on the articles above\nreferred to, makes the following declarations: \"The rituals and\nceremonies of the order forbid the presence of women;\" and \"the law\nproclaiming her exclusion is as unrepealable as that of the Medes and\nPersians.\" (P. 145.) Again: \"Masonry requires candidates for its\nhonors to have been free by birth; no taint of slavery or dishonor\nmust rest upon their origin.\" (P. 143.) Once more this author remarks:\n\"A candidate for Masonry must be physically perfect. As under the\nJewish economy no person who was maimed or defective in his physical\norganism, though of the tribe of Aaron, could enter upon the office of\na priest, nor a physically defective animal be offered in sacrifice,\nso no man who is not 'perfect' in his bodily organization can legally\nbe made a Mason. We have occasionally met with men having but one arm\nor one leg, who in that condition had been made Masons; and on one or\ntwo occasions we have found those who were _totally blind_ who had\nbeen admitted! This is so entirely illegal, so utterly at variance\nwith a law which every Mason is bound to obey, that it seems almost\nincredible, yet it is true.\" (P. 152.) It is, hence, seen that Masonry\nis very exclusive. No woman can be a member. This regulation excludes\nat once one half of mankind from its boasted advantages. The oppressed\nslave is excluded; the man born in slavery, though now free, is\nexcluded; the lame man is excluded; the man who has lost an eye is\nexcluded; the man who has lost a hand is excluded; the man who has\nlost a foot is excluded; the man on whose birth any taint of dishonor\nrests is excluded; the man who is imperfect in body is excluded. No\nmatter how good, patriotic, and wise such persons are, still they are\nexcluded; no matter how needy such persons are, still they are\nexcluded; no matter though a man have lost a hand, or foot, or eye in\ndefense of his country and liberty, still he is excluded; no matter\nthough a freedman, exhibiting bravery, and piety, and every virtue,\nstill the \"taint of slavery rests on his birth,\" he is excluded.\nWidows and orphans are excluded.\n\n\"If a brother should be a rebel against the state, the loyal\nbrotherhood can not expel him from the lodge, and his relation to it\nremains indefeasible.\" (Moore's Constitutions, Art. 2.) A Mason may be\nengaged in a wicked rebellion, and may stain his soul and hands with\ninnocent blood, and still he must be recognized as \"a brother\" and\nmust continue to enjoy all the boasted rights and advantages of the\norder; but the patriot soldier who has been disabled for life in\ndefense of his country and liberty is excluded. The widows and orphans\nof rebel Masons slain in battle, or righteously executed on the\nscaffold, must receive \"the benefits;\" but the widows and orphans of\npatriot soldiers who did not choose to join the Masons, or were\nexcluded by some bodily imperfection, or by wounds received in battle,\nare left to the charities of \"the ignorant and prejudiced.\" The Jew,\nthe Turk, the Hindoo, the American savage, and the infidel (provided\nthey are not atheists), are eligible to the boasted honors and\nadvantages of Masonry. (Moore's Constitutions, pp. 119, 123.) But if a\nman have every intellectual gift and every moral virtue, and have some\nbodily imperfection, he is excluded. A man may be as gifted and as\nlearned as Milton, as incorruptible and patriotic as Washington, and\nas benevolent as Howard, but if he is physically imperfect he is\nexcluded from this association, which claims to be no respecter of\npersons, but to be the patron of merit, and which professes to act on\nthe principle of the universal brotherhood of men.\n\n3. Exclusiveness in about the same degree characterizes other secret\nsocieties. The Constitution of the Odd-fellows' Grand Lodge of Ohio\nprovides that the candidate for membership must be \"a free white\nperson possessed of some known means of support and free from all\ninfirmity or disease.\" (Art. 6, Sec. 1.) Substantially the same\nqualifications for membership are required by the constitutions and\nlaws of other secret associations. (Constitution of Ancient Order of\nGood-fellows, Art. 6, Sec. 1; Constitution of Improved Order of Red\nMen, Art. 5, Sec. 1; Constitution of United Ancient Order of Druids,\nArt. 8, Sec. 1.)\n\n4. Not only are these associations exclusive and selfish in regard to\nreceiving members; not only do they utterly refuse to admit a man,\nhowever good, and wise, and patriotic he may be, in case he is\ndiseased or infirm, or is disabled by wounds in the service of his\ncountry, and is too poor and feeble to maintain himself and his\nfamily; not only do they exclude all such persons from membership and\nfrom the boasted privileges, and honors, and pecuniary benefits\npertaining thereto, but also their regulations in regard to their\ninternal affairs manifest an unchristian, anti-republican, exclusive,\nselfish spirit. For instance, Masons will not, and, indeed, according\nto their regulations, can not, bestow funeral honors upon deceased\nmembers who had not advanced to the third degree. Those of the first\nand second degree can not thus be honored. They are not entitled to\nfuneral obsequies, nor are they allowed to attend a Masonic funeral\nprocession. (Webb's Monitor, pp. 132-133.)\n\nAgain: Though Masonry makes professions of universal benevolence on\nthe ground \"that the radiant arch of Masonry spans the whole habitable\nglobe;\" though it declares that every true and worthy brother of the\norder, no matter what be his language, country, religion, creed,\nopinions, politics, or condition, is a legitimate object for the\nexercise of benevolence, (Masonic Constitutions, by Grand Lodge of\nOhio, p. 80); still it is declared that \"Master Masons only are\nentitled to Masonic burial or relief from the charity fund.\" (Masonic\nConstitutions by Grand Lodge of Ohio, p. 39.) The rulers of Masons can\nnot be chosen from the members of the first or second degree. It is\nthus seen that the first two degrees serve as a sort of substratum on\nwhich the other degrees rest, and the \"honors and benefits\" are not\nintended for persons of the former.\n\nThe exclusiveness and selfishness of other secret associations are\nalso apparent from their regulations. As shown above, they exclude all\ndiseased and infirm persons from membership, and of course from all\nthe \"benefits.\" They generally provide that, in case of sickness or\ndisability, a member shall receive three dollars per week, and in case\nof the death of a member, the sum of thirty dollars shall be\ncontributed toward defraying his funeral expenses. But all the\nassociations making such regulations also provide that a member who is\nin \"arrears for dues\" shall receive no aid in case of sickness or\ndisability; and in case of the death of a member who is \"in arrears\nfor dues\" nothing shall be contributed to defray his funeral expenses,\nand his wife and children, however destitute they may be, can receive\nno aid. In such cases, the destitute widow and orphans must not look\nto \"the _charitable_ association\" of which the departed husband and\nfather was a member, but to outsiders--yes, to \"prejudiced and\nignorant\" outsiders--for aid to bury his dead body with decency.\nGrosch says, \"The philosopher's stone is found by the Odd-fellow in\nthree words, _Pay in advance_. There are few old members of the order\nwho can not relate some case of peculiar hardship caused by\nnon-payment of dues. Some good but careless brother, who neglected\nthis small item of duty until he was suddenly called out of this life,\nwas found to be not beneficial, and his widow and orphans, when _most_\nin need, were left destitute of all _legal_ claims on the funds he had\nfor years been aiding to accumulate.\" (Monitor, p. 198, 199.) Such\nfacts as these prove secret associations to be exclusive, heartless,\nselfish concerns. (See Constitution of Druids, Art. 2, Sec. 1, and\nBy-laws, Art. 11, Sec. 1; Constitution of Good-fellows, Art. 16, Sec.\n1; Constitution of Amer. Prot. Asso., Art. 9, Sec. 1-5.)\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nFALSE CLAIMS.\n\n\n1. Another very serious objection to secret societies is that they set\nup false claims. No doubt a secret association may exist without doing\nso, but the setting up of false claims is the legitimate result and\nthe usual accompaniment of secrecy. The object of secrecy is\ndeception. When a man endeavors to conceal his business affairs, it is\nwith the design of taking advantage of the ignorance of others.\nNapoleon once remarked, \"The secret of majesty is mystery.\" This keen\nobserver knew that the false claims of royalty would become\ncontemptible but for the deception which kings and queens practice on\nmankind. We have quoted above from a book, the reliability of which\nwill not be called in question, to show that the design of secrecy, on\nthe part of Masons, is to take advantage of \"a weakness in human\nnature,\" and to invest with a charm things which, if generally known,\n\"would sink into disregard.\" So, also, \"the aid of the mysterious\" is\nresorted to by Odd-fellows to render their \"meetings attractive,\" and\nto \"stimulate applications for membership.\" (Proceedings of Grand\nLodge, 1859, App., p. 10.) It will scarcely be disputed that such is\nthe design of the concealment practiced by secret associations in\ngeneral. It is thus shown that secrecy is the result of an\nunwillingness to rely upon real merit and the sober judgment of\nmankind for success, and of a desire, on the part of associations\npracticing it, to pass for what they are not. Hence, the design of\nsecrecy involves hypocrisy, or something very much like it.\n\n2. But, whatever may be the _design_ of secrecy, secret associations\ndo set up false claims. They all, or almost all, claim to be\ncharitable institutions. This is the frequent boast of Masons and\nOdd-fellows. Moore, in his \"Constitutions,\" declares that \"charity and\nhospitality are the distinguishing characteristics\" of Masonry. (P.\n71.) In the charge to a \"Master Mason,\" at his initiation, it is\ndeclared that \"Masonic charity is as broad as the mantle of heaven and\nco-extensive with the boundaries of the world.\" (Masonic\nConstitutions, published by the Grand Lodge of Ohio, p. 80.) \"The\nRight Worthy Grand Representative,\" Boylston, in his oration delivered\nin New York, April 26, 1859, declared that Odd-fellowship is \"most\ngenerally known and commended by its charities.\" (Proceedings of Grand\nLodge, 1859, App., p. 6.) Such is the style in which secret\nassociations glorify themselves. Such boasting, however, is not good.\nIt is contrary to the command of our Savior: \"Therefore, when thou\ndoest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the\nhypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have\nglory of men.\" The boasting of secret associations about their\ncharities is precisely what our Savior not only forbids, but also\ndeclares to be characteristic of hypocrites. And such boasting is,\nindeed, generally vain. When a man boasts of any thing, whether of his\nwealth, pedigree, bravery, wisdom, or honesty, there is good reason to\nsuspect that his claims are not well founded. Hence, the very boasting\nof secret associations about their benevolence and charities is\npresumptive evidence that their claims to the reputation of being\ncharitable institutions are hypocritical and false.\n\n3. In the first place, \"the benefits\" are confined to their own\nmembers. The excuse for secrecy, in some instances, is that it is\nnecessary in order that aid may not be obtained by persons who are not\nmembers. In the \"charge\" delivered to a Master Mason at his\ninitiation, he is enjoined to exercise benevolence toward \"every true\nand worthy brother of the Order.\" In Boylston's address which we have\nalready quoted from several times, \"the well-earned glory of\nOdd-fellows\" is declared to consist in this: that \"no _worthy\nOdd-fellow_ has ever sought aid and been refused.\" (Proceedings of\nGrand Lodge, 1859, App., p. 9.) It is provided in the Constitution of\nOdd-fellows, Good-fellows, etc., that aid shall be given to members\nunder certain circumstances; but it will be in vain to search in them\nfor any regulation providing for relief to any but members and their\nfamilies. The provision found in the constitution or by-laws of almost\nevery secret association that members \"in arrears for dues\" shall not\nbe entitled to \"benefits,\" plainly shows that their vaunted \"charity\"\nis restricted to their own members. This would not be so bad were it\nnot for the fact that they carefully exclude from membership all who\nneed aid or are likely to need aid. The Masons, according to their\nConstitutions, must not receive as a member any man who is not\n\"physically perfect.\" The constitutions of other secret orders exclude\nall who are diseased or infirm in body, or who have no means of\nsupport. They exclude the blind, the lame, the maimed, the diseased,\nthe destitute, the widow and the orphan, and all who are wretchedly\npoor or can not support themselves, and they cut off all such persons,\ntogether with their own members who \"are in arrears,\" from the\n\"benefits.\" Yet they talk about the universal brotherhood of men, and\nclaim for themselves the possession of universal benevolence!\n\n4. Still further: The relief afforded to members is not to be regarded\nas a charity. The amount granted in all cases is the same. The\nconstitutions of most secret associations that give aid to members\nprovide that three dollars a week shall be given in case of sickness,\nand thirty dollars in case of death. The amount given does not\ncorrespond to the condition of the recipient. The rich and the poor\nfare alike. The member \"in arrears\" is not entitled to any aid. It is\nonly the _worthy brother_ who is entitled to aid, and in order to be a\nworthy brother a member must punctually pay his \"dues.\" Hence, the\namount bestowed in case of the sickness or death of a member is to be\nregarded as a debt. The \"Druids,\" in their Constitution, expressly\ndeclare that the aid given to sick members is not to be regarded in\nany other light than as the payment of a _debt_. \"All money paid by\nthe grove for the relief of sick members shall not be considered as\ncharity, but as the just due of the sick.\" (Art. 2, Sec. 7.) Boylston,\nin his oration, though boasting of the \"charities\" of Odd-fellowship,\ndeclares that they do not wound or insult the pride of the receiver,\nfor the reason \"that the relief extended is not of grace, but of\nright.\" (Proceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, Appendix, p. 6.) Grosch, in\nhis Odd-fellows' Manual, in justifying equality in dues and in\nbenefits, says: \"He who did not pay an equivalent would feel degraded\nat receiving benefits--would feel that they were not his just due, but\nalms.\" (P. 66.) It is, hence, seen that the aid bestowed by secret\nsocieties is no more a gift of charity than the dividends of a bank or\nof a railroad company. The stockholders are entitled to their share of\nthe profits; so members of secret societies are entitled to a certain\nshare of the funds to which they have contributed. We say nothing for\nor against the propriety of this arrangement, in itself considered.\nPersons have, perhaps, a right to form themselves into a mutual\ninsurance company, to bargain with one another that they will aid each\nother in case of sickness or want; that in case of the death of any of\nthe members, their families shall be provided for by the surviving\nmembers; that only the members who continue to pay into the common\nfund a certain sum monthly or quarterly shall receive such aid; that\nno money shall be paid out of the common fund for the benefit of any\nwho are not members, or of their families; and that all diseased and\ninfirm persons, and very poor people, such as \"have no visible means\nof support,\" and are likely to need pecuniary aid, shall be excluded\nfrom the company and from its benefits. Perhaps men have a right to\nform themselves into an association with such regulations; perhaps\nthey have a right to leave \"an unworthy brother\" (a member who fails\nto pay his \"quarterly dues\") and his family to the charities of\n\"ignorant and prejudiced\" people who will not join secret societies;\nand in case of the death of such a member, to leave his poor\nheart-broken widow to beg of the same \"ignorant and prejudiced\"\noutsiders enough of money to bury his dead body decently; _but they\nhave no right to call themselves a charitable association_. It is\nprobable that many Masons, Odd-fellows, Good-fellows, etc., are kind\nto \"unworthy brethren,\" and to the poor in general; but if so, they\nare better than the associations of which they are members. Bankers\nand money-brokers, no doubt, sometimes show kindness to the poor, but\nit does not hence follow that banks and money-shaving establishments\nare charitable institutions. Neither does it follow that secret\nsocieties are charitable because their members, in case of sickness or\ndeath, are entitled to a certain portion of the funds which they\nthemselves have contributed as initiation fees and quarterly dues,\nwhile those who are in real want can not even become members. What\ncharity is there in persons pledging themselves to aid each other in\nsickness or other misfortune, and to let widows and orphans, the lame\nand the diseased, and the wretchedly poor, perish with hunger and\ncold? It may not be improper for A, B, and C to promise that they will\ntake care of each other in sickness, and that in case of the death of\none of them his dead body shall be buried by the survivors. It may,\nalso, not be improper for a man to get his life or his property\ninsured. Insurance companies have done much good. Many a man has been\nsaved from pecuniary ruin by getting his property insured, and many a\nman has secured a competence for his wife and children by getting his\nlife insured. Individuals and families have probably been oftener\nsaved from worldly ruin by insurance companies than by secret\nsocieties. The association of A, B, and C may do some good. They have\na right to agree to aid one another. They may, perhaps, have a right\nto say that D, E, and F, who are very poor, or are enfeebled by\ndisease, shall not join them, and shall not be aided by them; but they\nhave no right to represent their exclusive, selfish association as a\ncharitable one. Such a representation would be false, and the\nwickedness of making it wholly inexcusable. We do not blame\nOdd-fellows, Good-fellows, Druids, or any other association for acting\nas mutual insurance companies. We do not blame them for agreeing that\nthey will take care of each other or of each other's families. We are\nnot now blaming them for excluding from their associations and from\n\"the benefits\" disbursed by them, the blind, the lame, the diseased,\nand the very poor who have no means of support, though this feature of\nsuch associations does seem very repulsive. We are not now condemning\nthem for casting off all those who do not pay their \"dues,\" those who\nbecome very poor and can not as well as the rich who will not, and for\ncutting off all such persons from all \"benefits of whatsoever kind,\"\nthough such treatment does seem to us selfish, cruel, and mean; we do\nnot now arraign them for any of these things, however ungenerous,\nexclusive, and selfish they appear to us, but we do say that any\nassociation which thus practices, and professes, and calls itself a\ncharitable one is a cheat and a sham. Those secret societies which\nglorify themselves on account of their charities and universal\nbrotherhood and benevolence, can be acquitted of willful deceit and\nfalsehood only on the ground that they are blinded by prejudice or\nignorance, or both.\n\nThe pretentious character of secret associations appears, also, in\ntheir claims to be the possessors and disseminators of knowledge and\nmorality. Their members seem to think a man can scarcely be good and\nintelligent without being \"initiated.\" Webb delares [sic] \"Masonry is\na progressive science. * * Masonry includes within its circle almost\nevery branch of polite learning.\" (Monitor, p. 53.) \"Masonry is not\nonly the most ancient, but the most moral institution that ever\nsubsisted.\" (Monitor, p. 39.) Grosch, in his Manual, speaking of the\nshining sun as an emblem, says: \"So Odd-fellowship is dispersing the\nmists from the advancing member's mind, and revealing things as they\nare; so, also, it is enlightening the world,\" etc. (Manual, p. 120.)\nThe extravagance find absurdity of these claims must be evident to\nevery prejudicial mind. It may be said, indeed, the above declarations\nexpress the opinions only of individuals, and that associations can\nnot justly be charged with the errors of their members. We maintain,\nhowever, that secret societies are responsible for the vain boasting\nof their members. They claim that their members are a chosen board, a\nselect few, who, by virtue of their association, are superior to the\nrest of mankind. Their processions and parades, their regalia and\nemblems, and their high-sounding titles are evidently designed to\nimpress the minds of their own members and of outsiders with ideas of\ntheir excellence and grandeur. Their high-sounding titles have already\nbeen adverted to as involving the sin of profaneness; but they serve\nequally well to illustrate the pretentious character of the\nassociations which employ them. Almost every officer among the Masons\nhas some great title. There is the Grand Tyler, Grand Steward, Grand\nTreasurer, Grand Secretary, Grand Chaplain, and Grand Master. The\nLodge itself is _grand_, and, of course, every thing and every body\nconnected with it are _grand_. The treasurer, though his duty be\nmerely to count and hold a little vile trash called money, is grand;\nalmost every officer is a grand man.\n\nThese titles, however, do not give an adequate idea of the _grandeur_\nto which \"sublime\" Masonry ascends. They have their Right Worshipful\nDeputy Grand Master, their Right Worshipful Grand Treasurer [sic], Most\nWorshipful Grand Master, Most Eminent Grand Commander, Thrice\nIllustrious Grand Puissant, Most Excellent Grand High Priest, etc.\n(Constitution [sic] of Grand Lodge of Ohio, Art. 5., Webb's Monitor,\npp. 187, 219, 284.) Other associations employ similar titles; indeed,\nMasonry, as the oldest association, seems to have been copied after by\nthe rest. The Odd-fellows have almost the same parades, shows, and\ntitles as the Masons. They have their aprons, ribbons, rosettes, and\ndrawn swords; and they endeavor, by these and other clap-trap means,\nto recommend their association as a grand affair. They, too, have\ntheir Right Worthy Grand Lodge, Most Worthy Grand Master, Right Worthy\nGrand Secretary, Right Worthy Grand Treasurer, Right Worthy Grand\nChaplain, etc.\n\nWe think it strange that men of sense should employ such titles. They\nwould be ridiculous even applied to the greatest and best man that\never lived. They are more ridiculous than the bombastic titles given\nto civil officers in barbarous countries. The Sublime Porte of Turkey\nis outdone in this respect by secret associations in the United\nStates.\n\n6. The absurdity of these high-sounding titles and other puerilities\nis further seen from the character of those who compose the\nassociations which employ them. They boast that they receive as\nmembers almost all sorts of men except atheists; that men of every\nreligious sect and every nation meet in their lodges as loving\nbrethren, and on a perfect equality; that they welcome the Jew, the\nArab, the Chinaman, the American savage, the infidel, and the\nChristian, provided they be sound in body and be able to support\nthemselves; yet the officers elected by the lodges or squads of such\npersons, Jews, Arabs, Chinamen, savages, infidels and Christians,\nbecome Most Eminent Grand Commanders, Thrice Illustrious Puissants,\netc. Yea, since brotherhood and _equality_ characterize these\nassociations, the Jew, the Arab, the Chinaman, and the infidel are\neligible to any office, and may become Most Worshipful Grand\nCommanders and Most Excellent Grand High Priests.\n\nAll this is calculated to produce laughter and contempt; but such is\nnot the design. The design of those who make use of these grand titles\nand other clap-trap things is to recommend their associations as an\nexcellent and grand affair. The design itself, and the means employed\nfor its accomplishment, must, certainly, be condemned by every\nunprejudiced Christian [sic] mind.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nWe have thus briefly stated the objectionable features of what are\ngenerally called secret societies. It is mainly to their secrecy,\noaths, and promises, their profanation of holy things, their\nexclusiveness and their setting up of false claims, to which we\nobject. These are the things objected to in the foregoing treatise. We\nhave written without any feeling of unkindness, and we trust, also,\nwithout prejudice. We had intended to urge additional considerations\nto show the evil nature and tendency of secret societies; but we have\nbeen restrained by the fear of swelling our treatise beyond a proper\nsize.\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n     SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nSHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?\n\n\"With charity for all and with malice toward none,\" we bring this\nquestion to all those who would serve Christ. We mean by \"secret\nsocieties\" not literary, scientific, or college associations, which\nmerely use privacy as a screen against intrusion, but those affiliated\nand centralized \"orders\" spreading over the land, professing\nmysteries, practicing secret rites, binding by oaths, admitting by\nsigns and pass-words, solemnly pledging their members to mutual\nprotection, and commonly constructed in \"degrees,\" each higher one\nimposing fresh fees, oaths, and obligations, and swearing the\ninitiated to secrecy even from lower \"degrees\" in the same Order.\n\nShall Christians join societies of this kind?\n\nSUPPOSING IT TO BE INNOCENT, WILL IT PAY?\n\n_First_. They consume time and money. Have you considered how much?\nHow many evenings, and whole nights, and parts of days? How many\ndollars in fees, dues, fines, expenses, and diminished proceeds from\nbroken days? Will it pay? Can you not lay out this amount of time and\nmoney more profitably?--a plain man's question. They propose helping\nyou to \"friends,\" \"business,\" in \"moral reform,\" in \"sickness, death,\nand bereavement;\" but can you not get as much of such good in ways\npointed out to you by Christ, your best and wisest friend?--ways which\nwill yield you more of personal cultivation, spiritual good, earthly\nprofit, social and domestic happiness, and openings for usefulness. If\nso, these orders are unprofitable, and _will not pay_.\n\n_Secondly_. They furnish inferior security for investments. As _mutual\ninsurance societies_, they are irresponsible, and more liable to\ncorruption, _just because they are secret_. Do they make \"reports\" to\nthe public or the Legislature? Do they make any adequate \"report\" to\nthe mass even of their own members? Millions and millions are known to\nhave gone into the treasury of a single one of these organizations. No\ndividends are declared, no expenditures published. _Where_ is the\nmoney? Were it not safer to invest the same amount in companies where\nevery proceeding is open to public eye and public judgment? Would you\nnot, then, be safer? If so, _it will not pay_ to join these orders.\n\nIS IT OBLIGATORY?\n\n_First. Charity_ has no need of them. They are not truly charitable\ninstitutions. \"Mutual insurance societies\" they may be, though of an\ninferior sort, as we have seen; but that does not elevate them into\n_charitable_ institutions. To bestow on your widow and orphans, your\nsickness, and funeral some pittance, or the whole of what you paid\nduring health and life, is not _benevolence_.\n\nBut, further, it is well to ask, in determining how greatly _charity_\ndepends on them, how broadly they go forth among the poor outside\ntheir membership. During the anti-masonic excitement of 1826-1830 some\ntwo thousand lodges suspended. The resultant suffering was less,\nperhaps, than what would follow the suspension of a single soup\nassociation, any winter, in some city. Blot out the whole, and how\nsmall the injury to the charities of the country!\n\nThe Church of Christ is commanded to \"do good unto _all_ men\"--\"to\nremember the poor.\" It is engaged in this work. It blows no\ntrumpet--it does not parade its charities; but it shrinks from\ncomparison with no one of these orders, nor with all of them combined.\n_Christians_ need not to go into them to preserve _charity_ alive, or\nto find the best ways of exercising their own.\n\n_Secondly. Morality_ does not depend on them. We need say nothing of\n\"what is done of them in secret.\" But, looking at what is open to all,\nwe ask, What _work_ are they doing worthy of so much organization, and\nexpense, and time to reclaim the fallen, to banish vice, and to save\nits victim? We have heard them refusing him admission or cutting him\noff, but we have not heard of any considerable aid which they have\ngiven to public or private morality. And, further, do we not find them\nnarrowing the circle of obligation, substituting attachment and duty\nto an order for love and obligations to mankind? _Membership_ in a\nlodge, _not character_, is held to make one \"worthy,\" opening the way\nto favor and society. But can all this be done without sensibly\nweakening the fundamental supports of morality, without lessening its\nbroad requirements?\n\n_Thirdly. Patriotism_ has no need of them. They tend to destroy\ncitizenship, to exalt love of an order above the love of country. The\nboast during the late rebellion was sometimes heard that their\nmembers, owing to the oaths of mutual protection, were safer among the\nrebels than other captives. Was the converse true? Were rebels, being\nFreemasons, safe or safer against restraint and due punishment when,\nfalling captive to those of their order? How far does all this extend?\nTo courts and suits at law? Are criminals as safe or safer before\njudge and jury of their order? Have rebellion and vice found greater\nsecurity here? This boast is confession--confession that the ties of\nan order are stronger and more felt than is consistent with a proper\nlove of country. Is justice thus to be imperiled? Are securities of\nproperty and rights thus to be imperiled? Must we beggar ourselves by\npaying fees and dues to one another of these orders, now becoming more\nplentiful every decade, to make sure of standing on equal footing and\nimpartiality with others, in the courts and elsewhere, and imagine\nthat all this is helpful to patriotism or even consistent with it?\n\n_Fourthly. Religion_ has no need of them. \"The church is the pillar\nand ground of the truth.\" \"The gates of hell shall not prevail against\nit.\" The preaching of Christ and him crucified is and must continue to\nbe the wisdom of God and the power of God unto salvation. _Religion_,\nthen, has no need of these secret orders.\n\nWe come now to this: Neither charity, morality, patriotism, nor\nreligion imposes obligations on us to join them. _It will not pay_ was\nour first fact. We have now reached this other, that _no consideration\nof duty_ requires it. But,\n\nIS IT RIGHT?\n\n_First. Christ, our Master, neither instituted nor countenanced these\norders_. Reviewing his whole earthly ministry, he said (John xviii:\n20): \"I spake openly to the world;\" and \"in secret have I said\nnothing.\" By this double affirmation he strongly suggested his\npreference for _open, unsecret_ ways and proceedings.\n\n_Secondly. In those rites, proceedings, and regalia which do appear,\nthese orders are frivolous_, belittling, and unworthy of respect. If\nthe revealed are such, what must the unrevealed be?\n\n_Thirdly. These orders stand convicted of deceit and falsehood_. They\nprofess secrets and mysteries worth buying. Hundreds of high-minded\nmen, of irreproachable character and integrity, who have, therefore,\n\"renounced these hidden things of dishonesty,\" testify over their own\nsignatures, that their secrets are but signs, pass-words, ceremonies,\netc., covering nothing but emptiness and vanity.\n\n_Fourthly. These orders are unfriendly to domestic happiness and\nwell-being_, breaking in upon the sacred confidence and unity of\nhusband and wife, pledging him to conceal from her the proceedings of\nperhaps fifty nights yearly, thus often sowing seeds of distrust,\nfilling his breast with what must not be divulged to her, involving\nhim in affairs and habits not unfrequently injurious to the best\ninterests and state of the family.\n\n_Fifthly. These orders are hostile to the heavenly-mindedness, the\nspirituality of those who join them_. We speak from much testimony.\n\"Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed.\" The prudent man\nforeseeth the evil, but the foolish pass on and are punished. This\nvoice of one is that of many concurring wise, faithful, and godly men,\nviz.: \"I am afraid of these secret societies; they have sucked the\nspirituality out of all the members in our church who have joined\nthem.\" Young, promising Christians have often been blighted by them.\nThe fervor of piety, interest in the church and its work, interest in\nChrist and his people, interest in God's Word and Spirit, all the\nvarious elements of an earnest life of faith and heavenly-mindedness\nhave been blighted in these lodges. And in urging this, we appeal to\nso many witnesses, and cover so wide a field of observation, as to\nmake it certain that this is not the exceptional but the ordinary\nresult.\n\n_Sixthly. These orders tend to destroy Christian fellowship_. Let them\ngrow until a given church is broken into squads, each pledged to\nsecrets from the other, but bound within itself by special ties; give\nto each its own weekly meeting, mysteries, rites, signs, grips,\npass-words; let each be sworn to provide for, protect, shield, and\nlove its own adherents above others, and is not \"_church fellowship_\"\nannihilated? Can the Spirit of Christ flow freely from member to\nmember through such partitions? Is this \"one body in Christ, and every\none members one of another?\"\n\n_Seventhly. These orders tend to subject the church to \"the world\" in\nsome of its dearest interests_. For example: When a few leading\nmembers join a neighboring lodge, and make vows to the \"strange\"\nbrotherhood, how easy for that lodge to interfere secretly but\ncontrollingly in its discipline of members, or in its selection or\ndismission of a pastor! These suggestions are not merely imaginary.\nSubjection of the church, in this way, to the cunning craftiness of\nevil and designing men is no mere dream.\n\n_Eighthly. These orders dishonor Christ_. Those claims which he makes\nfor himself are disallowed. He is required to disappear or find a\nplace amidst other objects for worship. There is a _necessity_,\nbecause these orders are designed for adherents of all religions. Were\nthey on the footing of an insurance company or a merchants' exchange,\nor any similar body, this fact would not be so. But they profess to\ninclude religion among their elements, and its services, in whole or\nin part, among their ceremonies. They have prayers and solemn\nreligious rites. And in these _Christ is dishonored_. His exclusive\nclaims are disallowed or ignored, and this not by accident, but of set\npurpose. Out of twenty-three forms of prayer in the \"New Masonic\nTrestle-Board,\" (Boston edition, 1850,) only one even alludes to him,\nand that one in a non-committal way. These secret orders are under\nbonds not to honor Christ as he claims, lest the Jew, or the Deist, or\nthe Mohammedan, all of whom they seek to enroll in equal membership,\nshould be offended. When the higher \"degrees\" of Masonry allude to\nChrist and Christianity, it is but as one amidst many equals. We\nrepeat it: Did these orders stand on the same footing with mercantile\nor other bodies in this matter, this objection might go for nothing;\nbut they do not. Unlike them, they profess to have religious services.\nIndeed, they often boast of their religiousness, and avow their full\nequality in this with the church of God itself! Yet, if you join them,\ntheir \"constitutions\" prohibit you acknowledging, in their boasted\nreligious services, what Christ, your Lord, not only claims for\nhimself, but commands you to give unto him: that glory which is due to\nhis holy name. Are they, then, not _Anti-christ_ in this thing? And\ncan you, without sin, consent to it, or uphold institutions which\nforbid you and others, in religious services, to honor him as your God\nand Savior, and which thus place him on the same level with Zoroaster,\nConfucius, or Mohammed?\n\n_Ninthly. These orders--the things now alleged being true--impede the\ncause and kingdom of God, and are, therefore, hostile to the largest,\nbest, and deepest interests of mankind_. Recognizing this, churches,\nconferences, associations, synods, and many eminently godly men,\nliving and dead, have put forth their solemn testimony against them.\nGreat lawyers, like Samuel Dexter; great patriots and statesmen, like\nAdams, and Webster, and Everett; great communities, like the American\npeople from 1826 to 1830, have united to declare them not only \"wrong\nin their very principles,\" but \"noxious to mankind.\" But many\nChristians, rising higher and standing on \"a more sure word of\nprophecy,\" have discovered in them the enemies of the Gospel and of\nthe cross of Christ. Following him, their great exemplar in\nphilanthropy as in godliness, who did nothing in secret, they refuse\nto have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, choosing\nrather to reprove them.\n\nShall Christians join secret societies?\n\nWill it pay? Are they under obligation to do so? Fellow-disciple,\nbrother man, have you doubt on these questions? If it will not pay; if\nyou are under no obligation to do it; if you have any doubt of its\nrightfulness, it is most assuredly your duty to refuse any connection\nwith them.\n\nWe have no wish to press our reasoning beyond just limits. We have\nsought to avoid extreme statements. We now ask you whether, in the\nlight of what has been brought to view, the weight of argument is not\nagainst your joining these orders and lending them aid? Even should\nyou be able to stand up against their tendency to lower your personal\npiety and injure your Christian character, have we not here one of\nthose cases where many brothers are offended or made weak? The Lord\nJesus has said, \"Whoso offends one of these little [or weak] ones, it\nwere better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck and\nhe were drowned in the depths of the sea.\" Will you, then, however\nsafe yourself, be the means, by your example, of bringing weaker\nbrethren into such dangers? \"We, then, that are strong ought to bear\nthe burdens of the weak, and not please ourselves.\" \"It is good\nneither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do any thing whereby\nthy brother stumbleth or is offended [caused to sin] or is made weak.\"\nThese words are not ours; they are God's.\n\nChristian disciple, decide this question of secret societies with\ncandor, with solemn prayer, and with a purpose to please God.\n\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA PAPER ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS OF\nTHE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES, AT THEIR MEETING IN OTTAWA, 1866.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nThe topics committed to us involve the following points:\n\n  1. The moral character of secrecy. Is it an element of an invariable\n  moral character? and, if so, what? and, if not, what are the\n  decisive criteria of its character?\n\n  2. Associations or combinations involving secrecy. Are they of\n  necessity right or wrong? If not, what are the decisive criteria?\n\n  3. Religious rites and worship in societies or organizations, open\n  or secret. Are any kind allowable? and, if so, what?\n\n\n\n\nI. Secrecy, Its character.\n\n\nA presumption against secrecy arises from the known fact that\nevil-doers of all kinds resort to secrecy. This is for two reasons:\n(1.) To avoid opposition and retribution; and, (2,) to avoid exposure\nto disgrace. The adulterer seeks secrecy; so do the thief and the\ncounterfeiter; so do conspirators for evil ends.\n\nSecrecy, whenever resorted to for evil ends, is wrong. But may it not\nbe resorted to for good ends? and is it not recognized as often wise\nand right in the Word of God? We answer in the affirmative. There is a\ncertain degree of reserve, or secrecy, that should invest every\nindividual. Our whole range of thought and feeling ought not to be\npromiscuously made known. There is a degree of secrecy necessary in\nthe order, social intercourse, and discipline of the family. There is\nsecrecy needed in dealing with faults and sins. Christ adopts this\nprinciple in his discipline. He says, \"Tell him his fault between him\nand thee alone. If he repents, conceal it.\" There are confidential\ncommunications for important ends, or for council.\n\nConcealment may be used as a defense against enemies, as in the case\nof the spies of Joshua, or the messengers of David, or when Elisha hid\nhimself by the brook Oherith, by God's order. So God hides the good in\nhis secret place and under his wings.\n\nSecrecy is opposed to ostentation and love of human applause. Hence,\nalms and prayer are to be in secret. God also resorts to secrecy in an\neminent degree. He hides himself. He dwells in thick darkness. It is\nhis glory to conceal his designs. In part, this is inevitable by\nreason of his greatness; in part, he resorts to it of set purpose.\n\nIt is a special honor and blessing of the good that he discloses his\nsecrets to them.\n\nSecrecy, then, is not of necessity wrong. Its character depends upon\nthe ends for which it is used, and the circumstances and spirit in\nwhich it is used. There is a secrecy of wisdom, love, and justice, as\nwell as a secrecy of selfish, malevolent, and evil deeds.\n\n\n\n\nII. Secret societies.\n\n\nOf these there may be two degrees.\n\n1. Where not only the proceedings of the society are secret, but even\nthe existence of such a society is concealed.\n\n2. Where the existence is avowed, and the signs and proceedings only\nare secret.\n\nIn associations, secrecy may be resorted to in both these ways for\nevil ends. Men may combine in associated societies to prey on the\ncommunity, and the existence of such societies be hidden.\nCounterfeiters, horse-thieves, burglars, may thus associate for wrong,\nin the deepest secrecy.\n\nSo, too, secret associations whose existence is avowed may combine for\nselfish ends, and in derogation of the common rights of the social\nsystem. They may defend their members, to the injury of justice, in\nour courts. They may interfere with the management of churches and\nsocieties. They may bring an influence of intimidation to bear on\npublic men. They may disseminate false principles of religion and\nmorals. They may co-operate for political ends, and to effect\nrevolutions.\n\nAnd yet it is no less true that, in certain circumstances, secret\nsocieties of both kinds may be resorted to for good ends.\n\nSecret societies may be rightfully resorted to for common council and\nunited action, in the fear of God and with prayer, in a very dangerous\nstate of the body politic, to resist incumbent evils, and the\nexistence of such societies not be disclosed, if the state of the case\nwould thus give them greater power for good. So, as a defense against\nknown disloyal secret organizations, secret loyal leagues were\nrightfully resorted to as a means of united and concentrated action\nagainst organized disloyalty. And if, in resisting moral evils,\nsecrecy gives power and advantage in devising measures to resist vice\nand crime, it is not sinful to resort to it.\n\nAll boards of trust generally have secret sessions, and legislative\nbodies resort to secret sessions rightfully, if the state of affairs\ndemands it. It will be seen that secrecy is justified and demanded by\npeculiar circumstances or obvious ends to be gained. The reason of the\ncase, therefore, is against secrecy, and in favor of open action,\nwhere no such justification can be made out. It is the nature of truth\nand right to be open. All things tend to it. There is nothing covered\nor concealed that shall not finally be proclaimed.\n\nOn the other hand, if secrecy is resorted to without reason; if it is\nmade the basis of false pretences; if it assumes the existence of\nsomething that is not, then it is not defensible. If it involves a\nprofession of information to be communicated, and influences for good\nto be exerted, that do not exist, then it is a species of intellectual\nswindling which admits of no defense. The sciences and arts, the Bible\nand nature, are open to all. So is the book of history. What new\nscience, or art, or history, or religion is there for secret societies\nto disclose?\n\n\n\n\nIII. Religious rites or worship in societies, open or secret--are any\nallowable? and, if so, what?\n\n\nIn order to answer this question, we need to consider certain\nfundamental and vital principles of Christianity.\n\n  1. All men, as depraved and guilty, need regeneration and pardon\n  through the intervention of Christ.\n\n  2. There is access to the true God only through Christ: \"I am the\n  way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but\n  through me.\"\n\n  3. \"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; but he\n  that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.\"\n\nAll Christian churches are based on these truths, and the center and\nculmination of their worship is this recognition of Christ in the\nSacrament as the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world.\nChrist, too, is the center of the worship of heaven.\n\nHence, if Christians associate with others in worship, it can rightly\nbe only on the ground that the worship centers in Christ, and\nacknowledges him as Lord, to the glory of the Father.\n\nHence, if, for the sake of extending an organization, men are admitted\nof all religions--Pagans, Mohammedans, Deists, Jews--and if, for the\nsake of accommodating them with a common ground of union, Christ is\nignored, and the God of nature or of creation is professedly\nworshiped, and morality inculcated solely on natural grounds, then\nsuch worship is not accepted by the real God and Father of the\nuniverse, for he looks on it as involving the rejection and dishonor,\nnay, the renewed crucifixion of his Son. As to Christ, he tolerates no\nneutrality. He who is not for him is against him. These principles do\nnot involve the question of secrecy. They hold true of all societies,\nopen or secret.\n\nIf, on such anti-Christian grounds, prayers are framed, rites\nestablished, and chaplains appointed, ignoring Christ and his\nintercession, God regards it as a mockery and an insult to himself and\nhis church. In it is revealed the hatred of Satan to Christ. By it\nChrist is dethroned and Satan exalted.\n\nThese principles do not exclude worship and prayer from societies. In\nany societies, true worship in the name of Christ will be accepted.\n\nLet us now apply these principles to the societies of Free Masonry,\nthe modern mother of secret societies. Concerning these we hold it to\nbe plain:\n\nThat they have neither science nor art to impart as a reward of\nmembership. The time was when there was a society, or societies, of\nworking masons, coming down from the old Roman empire, and extending\nthrough the middle ages. These were societies of great power, and\nwrought great works. The cathedrals of the middle ages were each\nerected by such a corporation, and attest their skill and energy.\n\nBut these corporations of working masons have passed away, and Masonry\nis now, even in profession, only theoretical, and in fact, so far as\nthis art is concerned, is not even this. It does not teach the theory\nof architecture. The transition took place in 1717, after a period of\ndecline in the lodges of working masons. All pretences to a history\nback of this, or to any connection with Solomon or Hiram, are mere\nfalse pretences and delusion for effect. No art is taught and no\nscience is communicated by the system.\n\nPractical ends, then, alone remain; and, in fact, the founders of the\nsystem avowed \"brotherly love, relief, and truth\" as these ends. The\ncultivation of social intercourse is also avowed as an end by\ndefenders of the system. But such ends as these furnish no good\nreasons for secrecy; nor is secrecy favorable to a wise and economical\nuse of the income of such bodies for purposes of benevolence. An open\nand public acknowledgment of receipts and expenditures is needed as a\nsafeguard against a dishonest and wasteful expenditure of funds.\n\nNor is this all. The secrecy of the order, taken in connection with\nthe principle of hierarchal concentration, and with the administration\nof extra-judicial oaths of obedience and secrecy, renders it, as a\nsystem, liable to great abuses in the perversion of justice, in the\noverriding of national law, and the claims of patriotism.\n\nBut the most serious view of the case lies in the fact that it\nprofesses to rest on a religious basis, and to have religious temples,\nyet is avowedly based on a platform that ignores Christ and\nChristianity as supreme and essential to true allegiance to the real\nGod of the universe. Its worship, therefore, taken as a system, is in\nrivalry to and in derogation of Christ and Christianity.\n\nAnd, as a matter of fact, this and similar systems are by many\nregarded as a substitute for the church, or as superior to it.\nMoreover, devotion to them absorbs time and interest due to the\nchurch, and paralyzes Christians by association with worldly men, and\nby the malignant power of the spirit of the world.\n\nThis system, and those who imitate its hierarchal and centralizing\norganization, also give power to those hierarchal principles and\nsystems against which Congregationalism has ever protested as\ncorrupting and enslaving the church.\n\nThe system also cultivates a love of swelling titles, and of gaudy\ndecorations and display in dress, that are hostile to the genius of\nour Constitution, and to true republican and Christian dignity and\nsimplicity.\n\nFrom this system other organizations have borrowed much, and some do\nnot essentially differ from it in practical working.\n\nOther organizations, however, for the ends of temperance reform, have\nadopted modes of organization, display in dress, and secret signs for\nthe purposes of recognition and defense. The ends and proceedings of\nthese temperance societies are so well known that it is often denied\nthat they are secret societies; yet they do, avowedly for purposes of\ndefense, resort to secrecy, and have imitated modes of dress and\norganization found in Masonry. And members of Masonic lodges declare\nthat they involve, in fact, all the principles of Masonic\norganizations, and rely on them ultimately leading to their own order.\n\nWhile we recognize the true devotion of the members of these societies\nto the cause of temperance, and acknowledge and commend their active\nefforts to resist the progress of one of the greatest evils of the\nage, we yet can not concede the wisdom or desirableness of a resort to\nprinciples and modes of action which tend to create a current toward\nother secret organizations not aiming at their ends, nor actuated by\ntheir spirit of temperance reform.\n\nIn conclusion, we respectfully present the Association the following\nprinciples foradoption [sic]:\n\n  _Resolved_, 1. That in dealing with secret organizations, this\n  Association recognizes the need of a careful statement of principles\n  and a wise discrimination of things that differ.\n\n  2. That there are some legitimate concealments of an organized\n  character--such as the privacies of the family and business firms,\n  the temporary concealment of public negotiations at critical stages,\n  the occasional withdrawal of scandals which could only disturb and\n  demoralize communities, and the secrecy of military combinations;\n  nor are we prepared totally to condemn all private plans and\n  arrangements between good and true citizens, in great emergencies,\n  to resist the machinations of the wicked.\n\n  3. That organizations whose whole object and general method are well\n  understood, and are known to be laudable and moral--such as\n  associations for purely literary or reformatory purposes--are not to\n  be sweepingly condemned by reason of a thin veil of secrecy covering\n  their precise methods of procedure; yet we deem that outer veil of\n  secrecy to be unwise and undesirable, inasmuch as it holds out\n  needless temptations to deeds of darkness, and gives unnecessary\n  countenance to other and unlawful combinations; and, whenever the\n  act of membership involves an _unconditional_ oath or promise of\n  submission, adhesion, and concealment, under all circumstnces [sic],\n  that compact is a grave moral wrong.\n\n  4. That there are certain other wide-spread organizations--such as\n  Freemasonry--which, we suppose, are in their nature hostile to good\n  citizenship and true religion, because they exact initiatory oaths\n  of blind compliance and concealment incompatible with the claims of\n  equal justice toward man and a good conscience toward God; because\n  they may easily, and sometimes have actually, become combinations\n  against the due process of law and government; because, while\n  claiming a religious character, they, in their rituals, deliberately\n  withhold all recognition of Christ as their only Savior, and of\n  Christianity as the only true religion; because, while they are, in\n  fact, nothing but restricted partnerships or companies for mutual\n  insurance and protection, they ostentatiously parade this\n  characterless engagement as a substitute for brotherly love and true\n  benevolence; because they bring good men in confidential relations\n  to bad men; and because, while in theory, they supplant the church\n  of Christ, they do also, in fact, largely tend to withdraw the\n  sympathy and active zeal of professing Christians from their\n  respective churches. Against all connections with such associations\n  we earnestly advise the members of our churches, and exhort them,\n  \"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.\"","title":"Secret Societies: A Discussion of Their Character and Claims","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":17211}