SECRET SOCIETIES

A Discussion of Their Character and Claims

by

REV. DAVID MACDILL, JONATHAN BLANCHARD, D. D. , AND EDWARD BEECHER, D. D. 

 'Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. ' --EPH. V: 11. 

CONTENTS. 

I. A TREATISE BY REV. D. MACDILL. 

 CHAPTER I. THEIR ANTIQUITY. CHAPTER II. THEIR SECRECY. CHAPTER III. OATHS AND PROMISES. CHAPTER IV. PROFANENESS. CHAPTER V. THEIR EXCLUSIVENESS. CHAPTER VI. FALSE CLAIMS. 

II. SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES? BY JONATHAN BLANCHARD, D. D. 

III. REPORT TO CONGREGATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS. BY EDWARD BEECHER, D. D. 

CHAPTER I. 

THEIR ANTIQUITY. 

1. Secret associations are of very ancient origin. They existed amongthe ancient Egyptians, Hindoos, Grecians, Romans, and probably amongnearly all the pagan nations of antiquity. This fact, however isneither proof of their utility nor of their harmlessness. Slavery, despotism, cruelty, drunken falsehood, and all sorts of sins andcrimes have been practiced from time immemorial, but are none the lessto be reprobated on that account. 

2. The facts that these associations had no existence among theIsraelites, who, alone of all the ancient nations, enjoyed the light ofDivine revelation, and that they originated and flourished among theheathen, who were vain in their imaginations; whose foolish heart wasdarkened, and whom God gave up to uncleanness through the lusts oftheir own hearts (Rom. I: 21-24), is a presumptive proof that theirnature and tendency are evil. We do not claim that all theinstitutions among God's ancient people were right and good; nor thatevery institution among the heathen was sinful and injurious; still, that which was so popular among those whom the Bible declares to havebeen filled with all unrighteousness; that which was so pleasing tomen whom God had given over to a reprobate mind and to vile affections(Rom. I: 26-28); that which made a part of the worship which theignorant heathen offered up to their unclean gods, and which wasunknown among God's chosen people, is certainly a thing to be viewedwith suspicion. A thing of so bad origin and so bad accompaniments weshould be very slow to approve. The fact that many good men see noevil in secret societies, and that many good men have been and aremembers of them, is more than counterbalanced by the fact that manygood men very decidedly disapprove of them, and that, from timeimmemorial, men of vile affections and reprobate minds, men whoseinclinations and consciences were perverted by heathenish ignoranceand error, and by a corrupt and abominable religion, have been veryfond of them. 

3. Doubtless the authors and conductors of the ancient _mysteries_made high pretensions, just as do the modern advocates of secretsocieties. Perhaps the original design of the ancient mysteries was tocivilize mankind and promote religion; that is, pagan superstition. But whatever may have been the _design_ of the authors of them, it iscertain that they became schools of superstition and vice. Theirpernicious character and influence were so manifest that the ancientChristian writers almost universally exclaimed against them. (Leland'sChr. Rev. , p. 223. ) Bishop Warburton, who, in his "Divine Legation, "maintains that the ancient mysteries were originally pure, declaresthat they "became abominably abused, and that in Cicero's time theterms mysteries and abominations were almost synonymous. " The cause oftheir corruption, this eminent writer declares to be the _secrecy_with which they were performed. He says: "We can assign no surer causeof the horrid abuses and corruptions of the mysteries than the_season_ in which they were represented, and the profound silence inwhich they were buried. Night gave opportunity to wicked men toattempt evil actions, and the secrecy encouragement to repeat them. "(Leland's Chr. Rev. , p. 194. ) It seems to have been of these ancientsecret associations that the inspired Apostle said, "_It is a shameeven to speak of those things which are done in secret_. " (Eph. V:12. )

4. In view of these facts, the antiquity of secret societies is noargument in their favor; yet it is no uncommon thing to find theirmembers tracing their origin back to the heathenish mysteries of theancient Egyptians, Hindoos, or Grecians. (See Webb's Freemason'sMonitor, p. 39. ) Since the ancient mysteries were so impure andabominable, those who boast of their affinity with them must beclassed with them of whom the Apostle says, "_Their glory is in theirshame_" (Phil, iii: 19. )

CHAPTER II. 

THEIR SECRECY. 

1. One of the objectionable features of all the associations of whichwe are writing is their secrecy. We do not say that secrecy is what iscalled an _evil or sin in itself_. Secrecy may sometimes be right andeven necessary. There are family secrets and secrets of State. Sometimes legislatures and church courts hold secret sessions. It isadmitted that secrecy in such cases may be right; but this does notprove that secrecy is _always_ right. The cases above-mentioned areexceptional in their character. For instance, a family may veryproperly keep some things secret; but were a family to act on theprinciple of secrecy, they would justly be condemned, and would arousesuspicions in the minds of all who know them. Were a family toendeavor to conceal every thing that is said and done by the fireside;were they to invent signs, and grips, and passwords for the purpose ofconcealment; were they to admit no one under their roof withoutexacting a solemn oath or promise that nothing seen or heard shall bemade known, every one would say there is something wrong. So, too, ifa church court would always sit in secret; were none but members atany time admitted; were all the members bound by solemn promises oroaths to keep the proceedings secret, and were they to employ signs, grips, and passwords, and to hold up horrid threats, in order tosecure concealment, such a church court would lose the confidence ofall men whose esteem is of any value. Such studious and habitualconcealment would damage the reputation of any family or church courtin the estimation of all sensible people. The same result would followin case a Legislature would endeavor, as a general thing, to concealits proceedings. As to State secrets, they generally pertain to whatis called diplomacy; and even in straightforward, manly diplomacythere is generally no effort at concealment. In our own country, Congress very often asks the President for information in regard tothe negotiations and correspondence of the Executive Department withforeign governments, and almost always the whole correspondence askedfor is laid before Congress and published to the country. It is veryseldom that the President answers the call with a declaration that thepublic welfare requires the correspondence to be kept secret. Besidesthis, the concealment is only temporary. It is never supposed that thesecrecy must be perpetual. It is true that many diplomatists--perhapsnearly all the diplomatists of Europe--do endeavor to cover up theirdoings from the light of day. It is also true that the secrecy anddeceit of diplomatists have made diplomacy a corrupt thing. Diplomacyis regarded by many as but another name for duplicity. Talleyrand, theprince of diplomatists, said "the design of language is to concealone's thoughts. " This terse sentence gives a correct idea of thepractice of secret negotiators. With regard, then, to State secrets, we remark that real statesmen do not endeavor to cover up their doingsin the dark, and that the practices of diplomatists, and thereputation they have for duplicity, are not such as should encourageindividuals or associations to endeavor to conceal their proceedings. We see nothing in the fact that there may be secrets of State tojustify studied and habitual secrecy either in individuals orassociations. 

2. The impropriety of habitual concealment may be further illustrated. An individual who endeavors to conceal the business in which he isengaged, or the place and mode of carrying it on, exposes himself tothe suspicion of his fellow-men. People lose confidence in him. Theyfeel that he is not a safe man. They at once suspect that there issomething wrong. They do not ask or expect him to make all hisbusiness affairs public. They are willing that he should say nothingabout many of his business operations. But habitual secrecy, constantconcealment, unwillingness to tell either friend or foe what businesshe follows, or to speak of his business operations, will cause any manto be regarded as destitute of common honesty. This fact shows that, in the common judgment of men, constant concealment is suspicious andwrong. Wherever it is practiced, men expect the development of someunworthy purpose. 

We regard secrecy just like homicide and other actions that in generalare very criminal. To take human life, as a general thing, is a verygreat crime; but it is right to kill a man in self-defense, and totake the life of a murderer as a punishment for his crime. Thehabitual concealment of one's actions is wrong, but it may be right atparticular times and for special reasons. It is not a dreadfullywicked thing, like the causeless taking of human life, and may bejustifiable much oftener and for less weighty reasons. Still habitualsecrecy, or secrecy, except at particular times and for specialreasons, is, according to the common judgment of men, suspicious andunjustifiable. Now, with secret societies secrecy is the general rule. They practice constant concealment. At all times and on all occasionsmust the members keep their proceedings secret. If an individual wouldthus studiously endeavor to conceal his actions; were he to throw theveil of secrecy over his business operations, refusing to speak to anyof his fellow-men concerning them, he would justly expose himself tosuspicion. His fellow-men would lose all confidence in his integrity. If habitual secrecy on the part of an individual, in regard tobusiness matters, is confessedly suspicious and wrong, it must be so, also, on the part of associations of men. There is less excuse, indeed, for concealment on the part of a number of men banded togetherthan on the part of an individual. An individual working in the darkmay do much mischief, but an association thus working can do muchmore. All those considerations which forbid individuals to shroudtheir actions in secrecy and darkness, and require them to be open, frank, and straightforward in their course, apply with equal orgreater force to associations. 

3. In the case of secret societies, the reasons for concealment setthe impropriety of it in a still stronger light. So far from therebeing any necessity or special reason to justify habitual secrecy intheir case, we believe the very _design_ of their secrecy to beimproper and sinful. We present the following quotation from a book ofhigh authority among those for whose benefit it was speciallyintended:

"If the secrets of Masonry are replete with such advantages tomankind, it may be asked, Why are they not divulged for the generalgood of society? To which it may be answered, were the privileges ofMasonry to be indiscriminately bestowed, the design of the institutionwould be subverted, and, being familiar, like many other importantmatters, would soon lose their value and sink into disregard. "--_Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 21_. 

The same author intimates that the secrecy of Masonry is designed totake advantage of "a weakness of human nature. " He admits that Masonrywould soon sink into disregard if its affairs were generally known. Although this remark is made with special reference to the giddy andunthinking, yet it is certainly not the contempt of such persons whichMasons fear. They would not care for the contempt of the giddy andunthinking, if they could retain the esteem of the thoughtful andwise. The real reason, then, for concealing the doings of Masons intheir lodges, is to recommend things which, if generally known, wouldbe regarded with contempt. The design of concealment in the case ofother secret associations, we understand to be the same. The followingis an extract from an address delivered at the national celebration ofthe fortieth anniversary of Odd-fellowship, in New York, April 26, 1859, and published by the Grand Lodge of the United States:

"But even if we do resort to the aid of the mysterious, to render ourmeetings attractive, or as a stimulant to applications for membership, surely this results, in no injury to society or individuals. "--_Proceedings of Grand Lodge of United States_, 1859, _Ap. , p. 10. _

Here, again, it is pretty plainly hinted that the design of secrecy inthe case of Odd-fellowship, is to invest it with unreal attractions, or, at least, with attractions which it would not possess, were theveil of concealment withdrawn. Here, again, as in Masonry, it isvirtually admitted that secrecy is designed to take advantage of "aweakness in human nature, " and to recommend things which, if notinvested with the attractions which secrecy throws around them, wouldsink into contempt. 

Doubtless the design of concealment in the case of other secretassociations is the same. We are not aware that Good-fellows, GoodTemplars, Sons of Temperance, and other similar associations, have anybetter reason for working, like moles, in the dark than Masons andOdd-fellows. There is, then, as it respects secret societies, nonecessity for concealment--nothing to justify it. The real motive forit is itself improper and sinful. 

4. That the concealment of actions and principles, either byindividuals or associations, is inconsistent with the teachings of theBible, is, we think, easily shown. Thus our Savior, on his trial, declared: "_I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in thesynagogue, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I saidnothing_. " (John xviii: 20. ) An association which claims to belaboring in behalf of true principles, and for the moral andintellectual improvement of men, and yet conceals its operations underthe impenetrable veil of secrecy, is certainly practicing in directopposition to the example and teaching of the Son of God. 

Again: The concealment of our actions is condemned in the words of theMost High, as recorded by the prophet: "_Woe unto them that seek deepto hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark;and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us_?" (Is. Xxix: 15. )Those on whom a divine curse is thus pronounced are described asendeavoring to _hide their works in the dark_. This descriptionapplies, most assuredly, to those associations which meet only atnight, and in rooms with darkened windows, and which require theirmembers solemnly to promise or swear that they will never make knowntheir proceedings. 

Again: The inspired apostle incidentally condemns secret societies indenouncing the sins prevalent in his own day: "_And have no fellowshipwith the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; for itis a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret_. "(Eph. V: 11, 12. ) It is not without reason that commentatorsunderstand the shameful things done in secret, of which the apostlespeaks, to be the "mysteries" of the "secret societies" whichprevailed among the ancient heathen. They maintained religious ritesand ceremonies in honor of their imaginary deities, just as mostmodern "secret societies" make a profane use of the word and worshipof God in their parades and initiations. He says it would be a shameto speak of the rites performed by the heathen in their secretassociations in honor of Bacchus and Venus, the god of wine and thegoddess of lust, and of their other abominable deities. But whetherthe apostle refers to the Eleusinian, Samothracian, and other paganmysteries, or not, the _principle of secrecy_ comes in for a share ofhis condemnation. 

The concealment practiced by "secret societies" is inconsistent, also, with such declarations of the Bible as the following: "_For every onethat doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lesthis deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to thelight, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought inGod_. " (John iii: 20, 21. ) "_Let your light so shine before men thatthey may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is inheaven_. " These are the words of our Savior, and they certainlycondemn the concealment practiced by secret associations, and all themeans employed for that purpose--their signs, grips, and passwords;their shunning the light of day; their secret gatherings in the night, and in rooms with darkened windows; the terrible oaths and solemnpromises with which they bind their members to perpetual secrecy; thedisgraceful punishments which they threaten to inflict on any memberwho will expose their secret doings--all these things are inconsistentwith the spirit, if not the very letter, of the commands of our Saviorquoted above. 

5. Besides, if the doings of these associations, in there secretmeetings, are _good_, then it is in the violation of the expresscommand of our Savior to keep them concealed; for he tells us to letothers see our good works. In case their doings are bad, it is, perhaps, no violation of Christ's command to keep them hid; but, mostcertainly, such things ought not to be done at all. So far as themoral character of secret societies is concerned, it matters notwhether the transactions which they so studiously conceal are good orbad, sinless or wicked. If such transactions are good, the Saviorcommands that they be made known; if they are improper and sinful, hecommands us to have no fellowship with them. In either case secretassociations are to be condemned as practicing contrary to theteachings of the Bible. 

Hence, we conclude that the concealment so studiously maintained andrigidly enforced by the associations whose moral character we areconsidering is condemned both by the common judgment of men and by theWord of God. 

CHAPTER III. 

THEIR OATHS AND PROMISES. 

1. Another serious objection to secret associations is the profanationby them of the oath of God. We regard such profanation as the naturalresult of their secrecy. When associations of men endeavor to keepsecret their operations from generation to generation, they will notbe willing to trust to the honor and honesty of their members. Asimple promise of secrecy will not be deemed sufficient. Oaths orpromises, with dreadful penalties, will very likely be required of allthose who are admitted as members. Secret societies may, perhaps, exist without such oaths and promises. If the members of anassociation are few in number, or if the publication of its secretswould not be regarded as very injurious to its interests, perhaps asimple promise of secrecy will be regarded as sufficient; but wheneveran association endeavors to secure a numerous membership, and regardsa disclosure of its secrets as likely to damage its reputation orhinder its success, something more than a simple promise of secrecywill very likely be required at the initiation of members. Accordingly, some secret associations, it is known, do employ awfulsanctions in order to secure concealment. Even when the members of asecret order claim that they are not bound to secrecy by oath, butonly by a simple promise, it will, perhaps, be found on examinationthat that promise is, in reality, an oath. An appeal to God or toheaven, whether made expressly or impliedly, in attestation of thetruth of a promise or declaration, is an oath. Such an appeal may notbe regarded as an oath in our civil courts, the violator of whichwould incur the pains and penalties of perjury; yet certainly it is anoath according to the teachings of the Bible. Our Savior teaches thatto swear by the temple, is to swear by God who dwelleth therein; andthat to swear by heaven, is to swear by the throne of God, and by himthat sitteth thereon. (Matt. Xx: 23. ) We find, also, that the words, "As the Lord liveth, " is to be regarded as an oath. King David isrepeatedly said to have sworn, when he used this form of expression, in attestation of his sincerity. (1 Sam. Xx: 3; 1 Kings i: 29. ) Anappeal to God, whether direct or indirect, in attestation of the truthof a declaration or promise, is an oath. As we have already said, asecret association may exist without an oath. But we are not sure thatany does. Odd-fellows have declared that they have no initiatory oath. In the address published by the Grand Lodge of the United States, referred to before, the following declaration is made: "No oath, aswas once supposed, is administered to the candidate. " (App. ToProceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, p. 10. ) Yet Grosch, in hisOdd-fellows' Manual, speaks of an "appeal to heaven" in theinitiation, at least, into one of the degrees. (P. 306. ) Perhaps thecontradiction arises from a difference of opinion in regard to what ittakes to constitute an oath, or, perhaps, from the fact that an oathis required in initiations into some degrees, but not in others. However this may be, we know that some secret societies haveinitiatory oaths, and that nearly all administer what, in the sight ofGod, is an oath, though they may not so view it themselves. Nor do wesee any reason to discredit the declaration of Grosch that thecandidate "appeals to heaven. "

2. Now, the taking of an initiatory oath is, to say the very least ofit, of doubtful propriety. Every one who does so swears by the livingGod that he will forever keep secret things about which he knowsnothing. The secrets of the association are not imparted to him untilafter he has sworn that he will not reveal them. He is kept ignorantof them until the "brethren" are assured by his appeal to heaven thatthey can trust him. Now, the inspired apostle lays down the principlethat a man sins when he does any thing about the propriety of which heis in doubt. He declares that the eating of meats was in itself amatter of indifference, but that if any man esteem any thing unclean, to him it is unclean. He then makes the following declaration: "But hethat doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; forwhatsoever is not of faith is sin. " (Rom. Xiv: 22, 23. ) According tothis most emphatic declaration, we must have faith and confidence thatwhat we do is right, else we are blameworthy. We sin whenever we doany thing which is, according to our own judgment, of doubtfulpropriety. The man who is initiated into an oath-bound society, swearsthat he will keep secret things about which he knows nothing--thingswhich, for aught he knows, ought not to be kept secret. If the apostlecondemned, in most emphatic language, the man who would do so triviala thing as eat meat without assuring himself of the lawfulness of hisdoing so, what would he have said had the practice existed in his dayof swearing by the God of heaven in regard to matters that arealtogether unknown? To say the very least, such swearing is altogetherinconsistent with that caution and conscientiousness which theScriptures enjoin. The apostle also condemns the conduct of those who"_understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm_" (1 Tim. I: 7. ) Does not his condemnation fall on those who know not about whatthey swear, nor whereof they appeal to heaven?

3. There is another objection to taking an initiatory oath. We areexpressly forbidden to take God's name in vain. To pronounce God'sname without a good reason for doing so is to take it in vain. Certainly, to swear by the name of the living God demands an importantoccasion. To make an appeal to the God of heaven on some triflingoccasion is a profanation of his oath and name. If the secrets ofMasonry, Odd-fellowship, Good Templars, and similar associations, areunimportant, their oaths, appeals to heaven, and solemn promises madein the presence of God are profane and sinful. Perhaps their boastedsecrets are only signs, grips, pass-words, and absurd rites ofinitiation. To swear by the name of the Lord about things of this kindis certainly a violation of the third commandment. The candidate doesnot _know_ that the secrets about to be disclosed to him are of anyimportance, and he runs the risk of using God's name and oath aboutlight and trivial things. He must be uncertain whether there is anything of importance in hand at the time of swearing, and how can heescape the disapproval of God, since the inspired Paul declares thatthe doubtful eater of meat is damned? (Rom. Xiv: 23. )

4. We have already adverted to the fact that concealment is resortedto in order to take advantage of "a weakness in human nature, " and torecommend things which, if known generally, would be disregarded. Isit right to use the name and oath of God for the accomplishment ofsuch purposes? Is it right to use the name and oath of God in order totake advantage of "a weakness in human nature, " and to invest withfictitious charms things which, if seen in the clear light of day, would be regarded with indifference or contempt? The taking of oathsfor such purposes, and under such circumstances will generally beavoided by those who give good heed to the command, "Thou shalt nottake the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not holdhim guiltless that taketh his name in vain. "

5. While we do not claim that there is any passage of Scripture whichexpressly declares the initiatory oaths under consideration to beprofane and sinful, at the same time there are many passages whichrequire us to beware how and when we swear:

"_But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea beyea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation_. " (James v:12. ) Does not this command condemn those who swear to keep secret theyknow not what, and to fulfill obligations which devolve upon them asmembers of an association, before they know fully what thatassociation is, or what those obligations are? Should not every oneconsider himself admonished not to swear such an oath lest he fallinto condemnation? Again: Our Savior says, "Swear not at all; neitherby heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is hisfootstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make onehair white or black; but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay;for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil. " These words werespoken in condemnation of those who employed oaths frequently and onimproper occasions. They should make every one hesitate in regard toswearing, in any form, on his initiation into an order the obligationsand operations of which have not yet been revealed to him. Once more:"_Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty toutter any thing before God, for God is in heaven and thou upon earth;therefore, let thy words be few_. " (Eccl. V: 2. ) Is it not a rashthing to bind one's self by the oath of God to keep secret things asyet unknown, or to bind one's self to conform to unknown regulationsand usages? In view of these declarations of the Word of God, itcertainly would be well to avoid taking such oaths as generally arerequired of the members of secret associations at their initiation. 

6. The _promise_ required of candidates at their initiation, whetherthere be an oath or not, is also, at least in many cases, improper andsinful. For instance, the "candidate for the mysteries of Masonry, "previous to initiation, must make the declaration that he "willcheerfully conform to all the ancient established usages and customsof the fraternity. " (Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 34. ) Grosch, inhis Odd-fellows' Manual, directs the candidate at his initiation asfollows: "Give yourself passively to your guides, to lead youwhithersoever they will. " (P. 91. ) Again, in regard to initiation intoa certain degree, he says: "The candidate for this degree should befirm and decided in his answers to all questions asked him, andpatient in all required of him, " etc. (P. 279. ) In the form ofapplication for membership, as laid down by Grosch, the applicantpromises as follows:

"If admitted, I promise obedience to the usages and laws of the Orderand of the Lodge. " (P. 378. )

These declarations, by reliable authors, plainly show that both inMasonry and Odd-fellowship obligations are laid on members of which, at the time, they are ignorant. Candidates for Masonry must promise toconform, yes, "cheerfully conform to all the ancient establishedusages and customs of the fraternity. " The application for membershipin the association of Odd-fellows must be accompanied by a promise ofobedience to the usages and laws both of the whole Order and of thelodge in which membership is sought. No man has a right to make such apromise until he has carefully examined the usages, and customs, andlaws referred to. While he is ignorant of them, he does not know butsome of them or all of them may be morally wrong. Before the candidatehas been initiated, he has not had an opportunity of acquaintinghimself with all the laws, usages, and customs which he promises toobey. Is not such a promise condemned by the divine injunction, "Benot rash with thy mouth?" Is not the man who promises to obeyregulations, customs, and usages before he knows fully what they areas blameworthy as the doubtful eater of meats, who, the inspiredapostle tells us, is damned for doing what he is not confident isright? The candidate for initiation into Odd-fellowship must "givehimself passively to his guides. " Such demands indicate the spiritwhich secret associations require of their members. They mustsurrender the exercise of their own judgment, and permit themselves tobe blindly led by others. No man has a right thus to surrender himselfpassively to the guidance of others. Every man is bound to actaccording to his own judgment and conscience. Before a man promises toobey any human regulations, or to conform to any usage or custom, heis bound to know what that regulation, usage, or custom is, and to seethat it is morally right. To do otherwise is to sin against conscienceand the law of God. 

7. Besides this, the promise to "preserve mysteries inviolate, " madebefore they have been made known to the promiser, is condemned bysound morality. He may have heard the declaration of others that thereis nothing wrong in "the mysteries, " but this is not sufficient tojustify him. A man is bound to exercise his own reason and consciencein regard to all questions of morality. 

No man has a right, at any time, to lay aside his reason andconscience and allow himself to be "guided passively" by others. Everyman is bound to see and decide for himself in every case of duty andmorals. We should not let the church of Christ even decide for us insuch matters, much less some association, composed, it may be, ofinfidels, Mormons, Jews, Mohammedans, and all sorts of men exceptatheists. (See pages 37, 31. ) A band of such men may have secrets veryimmoral in character, and which it would be a violation of God's lawto preserve inviolate. To promise beforehand that any "mysteries"which they may see fit to enact and practice shall be foreverconcealed, is to trifle with conscience and morality. It is useless toplead that a member can withdraw as soon as he discovers any thingwrong in the regulations and usages which he is required to obey. Every one who joins such an association as those under considerationmust make up his mind to do so before he knows what "the mysteries"are, and he must promise (either with or without an oath) that he willpreserve them inviolate before "the brethren" will intrust them tohim. The possibility of dissolving his connection with the associationafterward does not exonerate him of promising to do he knows notwhat--of laying aside his own conscience and reason, and yieldinghimself "passively" to others. The promise of secrecy and of obedienceto unknown regulations and customs, required at the initiation ofcandidates into such associations as we are considering, is, therefore, a step in the dark. It involves the assuming of anobligation to do what _may be_ morally wrong, and is, therefore, inconsistent with the teachings of the Word of God and the principlesof sound morality. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THEIR PROFANENESS. 

1. Another evil connected with secrecy, as maintained by theassociations the character of which is now under consideration, is theprofane use of sacred things in ceremonies, celebrations, andprocessions. This evil has, perhaps, no _necessary_ connection withsecrecy, but has generally in _fact_. The "secret societies" ofantiquity dealt largely in religious ceremonies. It is the frequentboast of Masons, Odd-fellows, and others, that their associationscorrespond to those of ancient times. There is, indeed, acorrespondence between them in the use of religious rites. Those ofancient times employed the rites of heathenish superstition; those ofmodern times are, perhaps, as objectionable on account of theirprostituting the religion of Christ. The holy Bible, the word of theliving God, is used by Masons as a mere emblem, like the square andcompass. The pot of incense, the holy tabernacle, the ark of thecovenant, the holy miter, and the holy breastplate are also employedas emblems, along with the lambskin and the sword pointing to a nakedheart. At the opening of lodges and during initiations, passages ofScripture are read as a mere ceremony, or as a charge to the membersin regard to their duty as Masons. Thus a perverse use of holyScripture is made in the application of it to matters to which it hasno reference whatever. (Freemason's Monitor, pp. 92, 19-181). Even thegreat Jehovah is represented in some of their ceremonies by symbols. His all-seeing eye is represented by the image of a human eye. (Freemason's Monitor, pp. 85, 290. ) Masonry also profanes the name andtitles of God. God alone is to be worshiped; he alone should beaddressed as the _Most Worshipful Being_. But Masonry requires the useof such language as follows: "The Most Worshipful Grand Master, " and"The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge. " God alone is Almighty, but Masonshave their "Thrice Illustrious and Grand Puissant, " and their "ThricePotent Grand Master. " God alone is perfect, but Masons have a "GrandLodge of Perfection" and a "Grand Elect Perfect and Sublime Mason. "(Monitor, pp. 187, 219; Monitor of Free and Accepted Rite, pp. 52. )Christ is the great High Priest, and Aaron and his successors were hisrepresentatives, but Masons have a "High Priest, " a "_Grand_ HighPriest, " yea, a "_Most Excellent_ Grand High Priest. " At theinstallation of this so-called High Priest, various passages ofScripture treating of the priesthood of Melchisedec and of Christ areused. (Webb's Monitor, pp. 178-181, 187. )

We regard these high-sounding titles as ridiculous, and as wellcalculated to excite derision and scorn; but we do not now treat ofthem in that regard. We call attention, at present, to the emblems andtitles used by Masons as profane. God did not intend his holy Word, and the Tabernacle, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the Breastplate, to be used as the symbols of Masonry. These and other holy things wereintended only for holy purposes. To use them as the Masons do is topervert and profane them. The visible representation of the all-seeingeye of God is certainly a species of idolatry, and is forbidden by thesecond commandment. Such, also, are the triangles, declared to be "abeautiful emblem of the eternal Jehovah. " (Monitor, p. 290. ) TheIsraelites, of course, did not understand that the Divine Being wasreally like their golden calf; they considered it a symbol of Deity. How much better is it to assimilate God to a _triangle_ than to acalf? The difference is just this: the latter idea is more gross thanthe former. The sin of idolatry--that is, of representing God under avisible figure--is involved in both cases. The profaneness of thetitles mentioned above must at once be evident to every reverent, considerate mind. They are such as in the Bible are ascribed only toGod and to Christ. Indeed, Masons give more exalted titles to theirsham priest than the Scriptures employ to describe the character andoffice of the great High Priest who is "made higher than the heavens. "If this is not profane, we are at a loss to know what can be profane. 

2. The Odd-fellows in profanation of holy things go about as far asthe Masons. They employ "the brazen serpent, " "the budded rod ofAaron, " "the Ark of the Covenant, " "the breastplate for the highpriest, " and other holy things as emblems of their order, along with, "the shining sun, " "the half moon, " etc. They have their "Most WorthyGrand Master, " and their "Most Excellent Grand High Priest, " and otherofficers designated by titles which should be given to God and Christalone. Indeed, as it respects emblems and titles, Masonry seems to bethe example which other secret associations have followed. In regardto the profanation of holy things, the difference between most of thesecret associations in our land is one merely of degree. Thisprofanation of the word, name, and titles of God is certainly sinfulin itself, and very injurious in its effects. What kind of ideas ofGod, and Christ, and heaven must persons have who conceive and thinkof God under the figure of three triangles; of Christ and hispriesthood as symbolized by "the Most Excellent Grand High Priest, "officiating amid the tomfooleries of Masonry and Odd-fellowship; andof heaven as a Grand Lodge-room. What ideas of the Divine Majesty andGlory must they have who are accustomed to give to the officers of asecret association, and to men who are, perhaps, destitute of faithand holiness, and who may be Jews, Turks, or infidels, as grand titlesas the Scriptures give to the God of heaven and the Savior of theworld. Besides it is very improper and sinful to give to mere men thetitles and glory which are due to God alone. We learn that it wasprecisely for this sin that the Divine displeasure was visited uponking Herod. On a certain occasion having put on his royal apparel, hesat on his throne and made a public oration. The people who heard himshouted and said, "_It is the voice of a God and not of a man; andimmediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not Godthe glory; and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost_. " (Actsxii: 23. ) It was for the same spirit of self-glorification that theking of Babylon was punished with madness and disgrace. Nebuchadnezzarwalked in his palace, and said: "Is not this great Babylon, which Ihave built for the house of my kingdom by the might of my power, andfor the honor of my majesty?" The same hour he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen; and his body was wet with the dew ofheaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nailslike birds' claws. (Dan. Iv: 30-33. )

2 [sic]. Another objectionable feature of many secret societies is, that they profane the _worship_ of God. They claim (at least thosewhich seem to embrace the most numerous membership) to be, in somesense, religious associations. They maintain forms of worship; theirrituals contain prayers to be used at initiations, installations, funerals, consecrations, etc. They receive into membership, as weshall afterward see, almost all sorts of men except atheists. Beingcomposed of Jews, Turks, Mohammedans, Mormons, and infidels, as wellas of believers in Christianity, they endeavor to establish such formsas will be acceptable to their mongrel and motley membership. Hencetheir prayers and other forms of worship are such as may beconsistently used by the irreligious and by infidels, and only bythem. We do not say that no Christian prayers are offered up inMasonic lodges. No doubt some godly men, as chaplains, offer upextempore prayers in the name of Christ; but such prayers are notMasonic. They are not authorized by the Masonic ritual; they arecontrary to the spirit if not to the express regulations of Masonry. Any member would have a right to object to them, and his objectionswould have to be sustained. The only prayers which Masonry doesauthorize, and can consistently authorize, are Christless--infidelprayers and services. The proof of this declaration can be found inevery Masonic manual. (See Webb's Monitor, pp. 36, 80, 189, andCarson's Monitor, of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, pp. 47, 61, 95, 99. ) In all the prayers thus presented, the name of Christ isexcluded; it is excluded even from the prayers to be offered at theinstallation of the "Most Excellent Grand High Priest. " (Webb's Mon. , pp. 183, 189. ) The idea of human guilt is, also, almost entirelyexcluded from these prayers; the idea of pardon through the atonementof Christ is never once presented in them. In the prayer to be used atthe funeral of a "Past Master, " it is declared that admission untoGod's "everlasting kingdom is the just reward of a pious and virtuouslife. " Every true Christian, on reflection, must see that such prayersare an insult to the Almighty. They are just such as infidels and allobjectors of Christ may offer. 

The prayers of the society of Odd-fellows are equally objectionable. In respect to the character of their religious services, they are tobe classed with the Masons. Odd-fellowship knows no God but the god ofthe infidel; it recognizes the Creator of the Universe and the Fatherof men, but not the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Thename of Christ has no more a place in the religion of Odd-fellowship, according to its principles and regulations, than in a heathen templeor an infidel club-room. It is quite likely that sometimes chaplains, officiating in the lodge-room, pray in the name of Christ; but a Turk, according to the principles and regulations of Odd-fellowship, wouldhave just as much right to pray in the name of Mohammed, or a Mormonin the name of Joe Smith. These are facts which, we presume, allacquainted with the forms and ceremonies in use among Odd-fellows willadmit. Grosch, in his Manual, makes the following declaration: "Thedescendants of Abraham, the divers followers of Jesus, the Pariahs ofthe stricter sects, here gather round the same altar as one family, manifesting no differences of creed or worship; and discord andcontention are forgotten in works of humanity and peace. " (Pp. 285, 286. ) This declaration has reference, of course, to _all_ the membersof the associations--believers in Christianity, Jews, Mohammedans, Indians, Hindoos, and infidels. How do they manage to worship solovingly together in the lodge-room? Our author asserts that they"leave their prejudices at the door. " Of course their forms of worshipembody no "prejudices. " The thing is managed in this way: Whatever ispeculiar to Judaism is excluded from the ritual and worship ofOdd-fellows; whatever is peculiar to Hindooism is excluded; whateveris peculiar to Mohammedanism is excluded; whatever is peculiar toChristianity is excluded; whatever is peculiar to any form of religionis excluded. Only so much as is held in common by Jews, Hindoos, Mohammedans, and Christians is allowed a place in the ritual andworship of Odd-fellows. But how much is held in common by thesevarious classes? After every thing peculiar to each class has beenthrown overboard, how much is left? Nothing but _deism_ or_infidelity_. The only views held in common by the Jew, Mohammedan, Christian, and others are just those held by infidels. The religion ofOdd-fellowship is _infidelity_, and its prayers are _infidel_ prayers. 

Not only such are the prayers and religion of Masonry andOdd-fellowship, but such _must_ be the religion and prayers of allassociations organized on their principles. The only way to welcomeall of every creed, Jew, Mohammedan, Hindoo, etc. , and make them feelat home in an association, is to exclude every thing offensive to theconscience or prejudices of any one of them. And when every thing ofthat sort has been excluded, the residuum, in every case, as every onemust see, will be deism or infidelity. This is a serious matter. Christians are not free from guilt in countenancing such prayers andservices. The tendency of such religious performances must be veryinjurious. Whoever adopts the religious, or rather irreligious, spiritand principles of Masonry, Odd-fellowship, and other similarassociations must discard Christianity and the Bible. No doubt thereare _some_, perhaps there are _many_ Christians in connection withsuch associations, but they certainly do not and can not approve theChristless prayers of the lodge-room, much less join in them. Is itright for the disciples of Jesus, or even for believers inChristianity, as the great majority of people in this country are, tosustain any association which puts Christianity on a level with pagansuperstition, which treats Jesus Christ with no more regard andveneration than it does Mohammed, Confucius, or Joe Smith, and whoseonly religion is the religion of infidels?

If secret associations did not pretend to have _any_ religion or _any_religious services, but would, like bank and railroad companies, conduct their affairs without religious forms, it would be infinitelybetter. 

CHAPTER V. 

THEIR EXCLUSIVENESS. 

1. Another objection which may be urged against secret societies ingeneral, is their selfish exclusiveness. 

It is well known that the Christian religion has often been subjectedto reproach by the bigotry and sectarianism of its professors. If the_Bible_ inculcated bigotry and sectarianism, it would be awell-founded objection to Christianity itself; but Christianity iseminently catholic and democratic, and is diametrically opposed to anexclusive and partisan spirit. The command of Christ to his church isto make no distinction on account of class or condition, but toreceive all, and especially to care for the poor, the unfortunate, theoppressed, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and the diseased. Sometimes men calling themselves Christians act so directly contraryto the impartial, catholic spirit and teachings of Christ as to renderthemselves unworthy of all sympathy and encouragement; but theexclusiveness of secret societies is, we think, unparalleled in ourday for its selfishness and meanness. They claim to be charitable andbenevolent institutions; they assert that membership in them confersgreat honors and advantages; they profess (at least many of them) toact on the principle of the universal brotherhood of men andfatherhood of God. (Moore's Con. Of Freemasonry, p. 125; Webb'sMonitor, pp. 21, 51; Proceedings of Odd-fellows' Grand Lodge of UnitedStates, 1859, App. , p. 6. ) We say nothing now about the falsity ofthese claims and professions; but we assert that, even admitting theboasted honors and advantages enjoyed by members of secretassociations, such associations are eminently exclusive and selfish. Of this proposition there is abundant proof. 

2. The Masons utterly refuse to admit as members women, slaves, persons not free-born, and persons having any maim, defect, orimperfection in their bodies; or, at least, the principles of Masonryforbid the admission of all such persons. (Masonic Constitutions, published by authority of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, Art. 3 and 4. )Moore, editor of the Masonic Review, in his Ancient Charges andRegulations of Freemasonry, in commenting on the articles abovereferred to, makes the following declarations: "The rituals andceremonies of the order forbid the presence of women;" and "the lawproclaiming her exclusion is as unrepealable as that of the Medes andPersians. " (P. 145. ) Again: "Masonry requires candidates for itshonors to have been free by birth; no taint of slavery or dishonormust rest upon their origin. " (P. 143. ) Once more this author remarks:"A candidate for Masonry must be physically perfect. As under theJewish economy no person who was maimed or defective in his physicalorganism, though of the tribe of Aaron, could enter upon the office ofa priest, nor a physically defective animal be offered in sacrifice, so no man who is not 'perfect' in his bodily organization can legallybe made a Mason. We have occasionally met with men having but one armor one leg, who in that condition had been made Masons; and on one ortwo occasions we have found those who were _totally blind_ who hadbeen admitted! This is so entirely illegal, so utterly at variancewith a law which every Mason is bound to obey, that it seems almostincredible, yet it is true. " (P. 152. ) It is, hence, seen that Masonryis very exclusive. No woman can be a member. This regulation excludesat once one half of mankind from its boasted advantages. The oppressedslave is excluded; the man born in slavery, though now free, isexcluded; the lame man is excluded; the man who has lost an eye isexcluded; the man who has lost a hand is excluded; the man who haslost a foot is excluded; the man on whose birth any taint of dishonorrests is excluded; the man who is imperfect in body is excluded. Nomatter how good, patriotic, and wise such persons are, still they areexcluded; no matter how needy such persons are, still they areexcluded; no matter though a man have lost a hand, or foot, or eye indefense of his country and liberty, still he is excluded; no matterthough a freedman, exhibiting bravery, and piety, and every virtue, still the "taint of slavery rests on his birth, " he is excluded. Widows and orphans are excluded. 

"If a brother should be a rebel against the state, the loyalbrotherhood can not expel him from the lodge, and his relation to itremains indefeasible. " (Moore's Constitutions, Art. 2. ) A Mason may beengaged in a wicked rebellion, and may stain his soul and hands withinnocent blood, and still he must be recognized as "a brother" andmust continue to enjoy all the boasted rights and advantages of theorder; but the patriot soldier who has been disabled for life indefense of his country and liberty is excluded. The widows and orphansof rebel Masons slain in battle, or righteously executed on thescaffold, must receive "the benefits;" but the widows and orphans ofpatriot soldiers who did not choose to join the Masons, or wereexcluded by some bodily imperfection, or by wounds received in battle, are left to the charities of "the ignorant and prejudiced. " The Jew, the Turk, the Hindoo, the American savage, and the infidel (providedthey are not atheists), are eligible to the boasted honors andadvantages of Masonry. (Moore's Constitutions, pp. 119, 123. ) But if aman have every intellectual gift and every moral virtue, and have somebodily imperfection, he is excluded. A man may be as gifted and aslearned as Milton, as incorruptible and patriotic as Washington, andas benevolent as Howard, but if he is physically imperfect he isexcluded from this association, which claims to be no respecter ofpersons, but to be the patron of merit, and which professes to act onthe principle of the universal brotherhood of men. 

3. Exclusiveness in about the same degree characterizes other secretsocieties. The Constitution of the Odd-fellows' Grand Lodge of Ohioprovides that the candidate for membership must be "a free whiteperson possessed of some known means of support and free from allinfirmity or disease. " (Art. 6, Sec. 1. ) Substantially the samequalifications for membership are required by the constitutions andlaws of other secret associations. (Constitution of Ancient Order ofGood-fellows, Art. 6, Sec. 1; Constitution of Improved Order of RedMen, Art. 5, Sec. 1; Constitution of United Ancient Order of Druids, Art. 8, Sec. 1. )

4. Not only are these associations exclusive and selfish in regard toreceiving members; not only do they utterly refuse to admit a man, however good, and wise, and patriotic he may be, in case he isdiseased or infirm, or is disabled by wounds in the service of hiscountry, and is too poor and feeble to maintain himself and hisfamily; not only do they exclude all such persons from membership andfrom the boasted privileges, and honors, and pecuniary benefitspertaining thereto, but also their regulations in regard to theirinternal affairs manifest an unchristian, anti-republican, exclusive, selfish spirit. For instance, Masons will not, and, indeed, accordingto their regulations, can not, bestow funeral honors upon deceasedmembers who had not advanced to the third degree. Those of the firstand second degree can not thus be honored. They are not entitled tofuneral obsequies, nor are they allowed to attend a Masonic funeralprocession. (Webb's Monitor, pp. 132-133. )

Again: Though Masonry makes professions of universal benevolence onthe ground "that the radiant arch of Masonry spans the whole habitableglobe;" though it declares that every true and worthy brother of theorder, no matter what be his language, country, religion, creed, opinions, politics, or condition, is a legitimate object for theexercise of benevolence, (Masonic Constitutions, by Grand Lodge ofOhio, p. 80); still it is declared that "Master Masons only areentitled to Masonic burial or relief from the charity fund. " (MasonicConstitutions by Grand Lodge of Ohio, p. 39. ) The rulers of Masons cannot be chosen from the members of the first or second degree. It isthus seen that the first two degrees serve as a sort of substratum onwhich the other degrees rest, and the "honors and benefits" are notintended for persons of the former. 

The exclusiveness and selfishness of other secret associations arealso apparent from their regulations. As shown above, they exclude alldiseased and infirm persons from membership, and of course from allthe "benefits. " They generally provide that, in case of sickness ordisability, a member shall receive three dollars per week, and in caseof the death of a member, the sum of thirty dollars shall becontributed toward defraying his funeral expenses. But all theassociations making such regulations also provide that a member who isin "arrears for dues" shall receive no aid in case of sickness ordisability; and in case of the death of a member who is "in arrearsfor dues" nothing shall be contributed to defray his funeral expenses, and his wife and children, however destitute they may be, can receiveno aid. In such cases, the destitute widow and orphans must not lookto "the _charitable_ association" of which the departed husband andfather was a member, but to outsiders--yes, to "prejudiced andignorant" outsiders--for aid to bury his dead body with decency. Grosch says, "The philosopher's stone is found by the Odd-fellow inthree words, _Pay in advance_. There are few old members of the orderwho can not relate some case of peculiar hardship caused bynon-payment of dues. Some good but careless brother, who neglectedthis small item of duty until he was suddenly called out of this life, was found to be not beneficial, and his widow and orphans, when _most_in need, were left destitute of all _legal_ claims on the funds he hadfor years been aiding to accumulate. " (Monitor, p. 198, 199. ) Suchfacts as these prove secret associations to be exclusive, heartless, selfish concerns. (See Constitution of Druids, Art. 2, Sec. 1, andBy-laws, Art. 11, Sec. 1; Constitution of Good-fellows, Art. 16, Sec. 1; Constitution of Amer. Prot. Asso. , Art. 9, Sec. 1-5. )

CHAPTER VI. 

FALSE CLAIMS. 

1. Another very serious objection to secret societies is that they setup false claims. No doubt a secret association may exist without doingso, but the setting up of false claims is the legitimate result andthe usual accompaniment of secrecy. The object of secrecy isdeception. When a man endeavors to conceal his business affairs, it iswith the design of taking advantage of the ignorance of others. Napoleon once remarked, "The secret of majesty is mystery. " This keenobserver knew that the false claims of royalty would becomecontemptible but for the deception which kings and queens practice onmankind. We have quoted above from a book, the reliability of whichwill not be called in question, to show that the design of secrecy, onthe part of Masons, is to take advantage of "a weakness in humannature, " and to invest with a charm things which, if generally known, "would sink into disregard. " So, also, "the aid of the mysterious" isresorted to by Odd-fellows to render their "meetings attractive, " andto "stimulate applications for membership. " (Proceedings of GrandLodge, 1859, App. , p. 10. ) It will scarcely be disputed that such isthe design of the concealment practiced by secret associations ingeneral. It is thus shown that secrecy is the result of anunwillingness to rely upon real merit and the sober judgment ofmankind for success, and of a desire, on the part of associationspracticing it, to pass for what they are not. Hence, the design ofsecrecy involves hypocrisy, or something very much like it. 

2. But, whatever may be the _design_ of secrecy, secret associationsdo set up false claims. They all, or almost all, claim to becharitable institutions. This is the frequent boast of Masons andOdd-fellows. Moore, in his "Constitutions, " declares that "charity andhospitality are the distinguishing characteristics" of Masonry. (P. 71. ) In the charge to a "Master Mason, " at his initiation, it isdeclared that "Masonic charity is as broad as the mantle of heaven andco-extensive with the boundaries of the world. " (MasonicConstitutions, published by the Grand Lodge of Ohio, p. 80. ) "TheRight Worthy Grand Representative, " Boylston, in his oration deliveredin New York, April 26, 1859, declared that Odd-fellowship is "mostgenerally known and commended by its charities. " (Proceedings of GrandLodge, 1859, App. , p. 6. ) Such is the style in which secretassociations glorify themselves. Such boasting, however, is not good. It is contrary to the command of our Savior: "Therefore, when thoudoest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as thehypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may haveglory of men. " The boasting of secret associations about theircharities is precisely what our Savior not only forbids, but alsodeclares to be characteristic of hypocrites. And such boasting is, indeed, generally vain. When a man boasts of any thing, whether of hiswealth, pedigree, bravery, wisdom, or honesty, there is good reason tosuspect that his claims are not well founded. Hence, the very boastingof secret associations about their benevolence and charities ispresumptive evidence that their claims to the reputation of beingcharitable institutions are hypocritical and false. 

3. In the first place, "the benefits" are confined to their ownmembers. The excuse for secrecy, in some instances, is that it isnecessary in order that aid may not be obtained by persons who are notmembers. In the "charge" delivered to a Master Mason at hisinitiation, he is enjoined to exercise benevolence toward "every trueand worthy brother of the Order. " In Boylston's address which we havealready quoted from several times, "the well-earned glory ofOdd-fellows" is declared to consist in this: that "no _worthyOdd-fellow_ has ever sought aid and been refused. " (Proceedings ofGrand Lodge, 1859, App. , p. 9. ) It is provided in the Constitution ofOdd-fellows, Good-fellows, etc. , that aid shall be given to membersunder certain circumstances; but it will be in vain to search in themfor any regulation providing for relief to any but members and theirfamilies. The provision found in the constitution or by-laws of almostevery secret association that members "in arrears for dues" shall notbe entitled to "benefits, " plainly shows that their vaunted "charity"is restricted to their own members. This would not be so bad were itnot for the fact that they carefully exclude from membership all whoneed aid or are likely to need aid. The Masons, according to theirConstitutions, must not receive as a member any man who is not"physically perfect. " The constitutions of other secret orders excludeall who are diseased or infirm in body, or who have no means ofsupport. They exclude the blind, the lame, the maimed, the diseased, the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and all who are wretchedlypoor or can not support themselves, and they cut off all such persons, together with their own members who "are in arrears, " from the"benefits. " Yet they talk about the universal brotherhood of men, andclaim for themselves the possession of universal benevolence!

4. Still further: The relief afforded to members is not to be regardedas a charity. The amount granted in all cases is the same. Theconstitutions of most secret associations that give aid to membersprovide that three dollars a week shall be given in case of sickness, and thirty dollars in case of death. The amount given does notcorrespond to the condition of the recipient. The rich and the poorfare alike. The member "in arrears" is not entitled to any aid. It isonly the _worthy brother_ who is entitled to aid, and in order to be aworthy brother a member must punctually pay his "dues. " Hence, theamount bestowed in case of the sickness or death of a member is to beregarded as a debt. The "Druids, " in their Constitution, expresslydeclare that the aid given to sick members is not to be regarded inany other light than as the payment of a _debt_. "All money paid bythe grove for the relief of sick members shall not be considered ascharity, but as the just due of the sick. " (Art. 2, Sec. 7. ) Boylston, in his oration, though boasting of the "charities" of Odd-fellowship, declares that they do not wound or insult the pride of the receiver, for the reason "that the relief extended is not of grace, but ofright. " (Proceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, Appendix, p. 6. ) Grosch, inhis Odd-fellows' Manual, in justifying equality in dues and inbenefits, says: "He who did not pay an equivalent would feel degradedat receiving benefits--would feel that they were not his just due, butalms. " (P. 66. ) It is, hence, seen that the aid bestowed by secretsocieties is no more a gift of charity than the dividends of a bank orof a railroad company. The stockholders are entitled to their share ofthe profits; so members of secret societies are entitled to a certainshare of the funds to which they have contributed. We say nothing foror against the propriety of this arrangement, in itself considered. Persons have, perhaps, a right to form themselves into a mutualinsurance company, to bargain with one another that they will aid eachother in case of sickness or want; that in case of the death of any ofthe members, their families shall be provided for by the survivingmembers; that only the members who continue to pay into the commonfund a certain sum monthly or quarterly shall receive such aid; thatno money shall be paid out of the common fund for the benefit of anywho are not members, or of their families; and that all diseased andinfirm persons, and very poor people, such as "have no visible meansof support, " and are likely to need pecuniary aid, shall be excludedfrom the company and from its benefits. Perhaps men have a right toform themselves into an association with such regulations; perhapsthey have a right to leave "an unworthy brother" (a member who failsto pay his "quarterly dues") and his family to the charities of"ignorant and prejudiced" people who will not join secret societies;and in case of the death of such a member, to leave his poorheart-broken widow to beg of the same "ignorant and prejudiced"outsiders enough of money to bury his dead body decently; _but theyhave no right to call themselves a charitable association_. It isprobable that many Masons, Odd-fellows, Good-fellows, etc. , are kindto "unworthy brethren, " and to the poor in general; but if so, theyare better than the associations of which they are members. Bankersand money-brokers, no doubt, sometimes show kindness to the poor, butit does not hence follow that banks and money-shaving establishmentsare charitable institutions. Neither does it follow that secretsocieties are charitable because their members, in case of sickness ordeath, are entitled to a certain portion of the funds which theythemselves have contributed as initiation fees and quarterly dues, while those who are in real want can not even become members. Whatcharity is there in persons pledging themselves to aid each other insickness or other misfortune, and to let widows and orphans, the lameand the diseased, and the wretchedly poor, perish with hunger andcold? It may not be improper for A, B, and C to promise that they willtake care of each other in sickness, and that in case of the death ofone of them his dead body shall be buried by the survivors. It may, also, not be improper for a man to get his life or his propertyinsured. Insurance companies have done much good. Many a man has beensaved from pecuniary ruin by getting his property insured, and many aman has secured a competence for his wife and children by getting hislife insured. Individuals and families have probably been oftenersaved from worldly ruin by insurance companies than by secretsocieties. The association of A, B, and C may do some good. They havea right to agree to aid one another. They may, perhaps, have a rightto say that D, E, and F, who are very poor, or are enfeebled bydisease, shall not join them, and shall not be aided by them; but theyhave no right to represent their exclusive, selfish association as acharitable one. Such a representation would be false, and thewickedness of making it wholly inexcusable. We do not blameOdd-fellows, Good-fellows, Druids, or any other association for actingas mutual insurance companies. We do not blame them for agreeing thatthey will take care of each other or of each other's families. We arenot now blaming them for excluding from their associations and from"the benefits" disbursed by them, the blind, the lame, the diseased, and the very poor who have no means of support, though this feature ofsuch associations does seem very repulsive. We are not now condemningthem for casting off all those who do not pay their "dues, " those whobecome very poor and can not as well as the rich who will not, and forcutting off all such persons from all "benefits of whatsoever kind, "though such treatment does seem to us selfish, cruel, and mean; we donot now arraign them for any of these things, however ungenerous, exclusive, and selfish they appear to us, but we do say that anyassociation which thus practices, and professes, and calls itself acharitable one is a cheat and a sham. Those secret societies whichglorify themselves on account of their charities and universalbrotherhood and benevolence, can be acquitted of willful deceit andfalsehood only on the ground that they are blinded by prejudice orignorance, or both. 

The pretentious character of secret associations appears, also, intheir claims to be the possessors and disseminators of knowledge andmorality. Their members seem to think a man can scarcely be good andintelligent without being "initiated. " Webb delares [sic] "Masonry isa progressive science. * * Masonry includes within its circle almostevery branch of polite learning. " (Monitor, p. 53. ) "Masonry is notonly the most ancient, but the most moral institution that eversubsisted. " (Monitor, p. 39. ) Grosch, in his Manual, speaking of theshining sun as an emblem, says: "So Odd-fellowship is dispersing themists from the advancing member's mind, and revealing things as theyare; so, also, it is enlightening the world, " etc. (Manual, p. 120. )The extravagance find absurdity of these claims must be evident toevery prejudicial mind. It may be said, indeed, the above declarationsexpress the opinions only of individuals, and that associations cannot justly be charged with the errors of their members. We maintain, however, that secret societies are responsible for the vain boastingof their members. They claim that their members are a chosen board, aselect few, who, by virtue of their association, are superior to therest of mankind. Their processions and parades, their regalia andemblems, and their high-sounding titles are evidently designed toimpress the minds of their own members and of outsiders with ideas oftheir excellence and grandeur. Their high-sounding titles have alreadybeen adverted to as involving the sin of profaneness; but they serveequally well to illustrate the pretentious character of theassociations which employ them. Almost every officer among the Masonshas some great title. There is the Grand Tyler, Grand Steward, GrandTreasurer, Grand Secretary, Grand Chaplain, and Grand Master. TheLodge itself is _grand_, and, of course, every thing and every bodyconnected with it are _grand_. The treasurer, though his duty bemerely to count and hold a little vile trash called money, is grand;almost every officer is a grand man. 

These titles, however, do not give an adequate idea of the _grandeur_to which "sublime" Masonry ascends. They have their Right WorshipfulDeputy Grand Master, their Right Worshipful Grand Treasurer [sic], MostWorshipful Grand Master, Most Eminent Grand Commander, ThriceIllustrious Grand Puissant, Most Excellent Grand High Priest, etc. (Constitution [sic] of Grand Lodge of Ohio, Art. 5. , Webb's Monitor, pp. 187, 219, 284. ) Other associations employ similar titles; indeed, Masonry, as the oldest association, seems to have been copied after bythe rest. The Odd-fellows have almost the same parades, shows, andtitles as the Masons. They have their aprons, ribbons, rosettes, anddrawn swords; and they endeavor, by these and other clap-trap means, to recommend their association as a grand affair. They, too, havetheir Right Worthy Grand Lodge, Most Worthy Grand Master, Right WorthyGrand Secretary, Right Worthy Grand Treasurer, Right Worthy GrandChaplain, etc. 

We think it strange that men of sense should employ such titles. Theywould be ridiculous even applied to the greatest and best man thatever lived. They are more ridiculous than the bombastic titles givento civil officers in barbarous countries. The Sublime Porte of Turkeyis outdone in this respect by secret associations in the UnitedStates. 

6. The absurdity of these high-sounding titles and other puerilitiesis further seen from the character of those who compose theassociations which employ them. They boast that they receive asmembers almost all sorts of men except atheists; that men of everyreligious sect and every nation meet in their lodges as lovingbrethren, and on a perfect equality; that they welcome the Jew, theArab, the Chinaman, the American savage, the infidel, and theChristian, provided they be sound in body and be able to supportthemselves; yet the officers elected by the lodges or squads of suchpersons, Jews, Arabs, Chinamen, savages, infidels and Christians, become Most Eminent Grand Commanders, Thrice Illustrious Puissants, etc. Yea, since brotherhood and _equality_ characterize theseassociations, the Jew, the Arab, the Chinaman, and the infidel areeligible to any office, and may become Most Worshipful GrandCommanders and Most Excellent Grand High Priests. 

All this is calculated to produce laughter and contempt; but such isnot the design. The design of those who make use of these grand titlesand other clap-trap things is to recommend their associations as anexcellent and grand affair. The design itself, and the means employedfor its accomplishment, must, certainly, be condemned by everyunprejudiced Christian [sic] mind. 

CONCLUSION. 

We have thus briefly stated the objectionable features of what aregenerally called secret societies. It is mainly to their secrecy, oaths, and promises, their profanation of holy things, theirexclusiveness and their setting up of false claims, to which weobject. These are the things objected to in the foregoing treatise. Wehave written without any feeling of unkindness, and we trust, also, without prejudice. We had intended to urge additional considerationsto show the evil nature and tendency of secret societies; but we havebeen restrained by the fear of swelling our treatise beyond a propersize. 

 * * * * *

 SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?

 * * * * *

SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?

"With charity for all and with malice toward none, " we bring thisquestion to all those who would serve Christ. We mean by "secretsocieties" not literary, scientific, or college associations, whichmerely use privacy as a screen against intrusion, but those affiliatedand centralized "orders" spreading over the land, professingmysteries, practicing secret rites, binding by oaths, admitting bysigns and pass-words, solemnly pledging their members to mutualprotection, and commonly constructed in "degrees, " each higher oneimposing fresh fees, oaths, and obligations, and swearing theinitiated to secrecy even from lower "degrees" in the same Order. 

Shall Christians join societies of this kind?

SUPPOSING IT TO BE INNOCENT, WILL IT PAY?

_First_. They consume time and money. Have you considered how much?How many evenings, and whole nights, and parts of days? How manydollars in fees, dues, fines, expenses, and diminished proceeds frombroken days? Will it pay? Can you not lay out this amount of time andmoney more profitably?--a plain man's question. They propose helpingyou to "friends, " "business, " in "moral reform, " in "sickness, death, and bereavement;" but can you not get as much of such good in wayspointed out to you by Christ, your best and wisest friend?--ways whichwill yield you more of personal cultivation, spiritual good, earthlyprofit, social and domestic happiness, and openings for usefulness. Ifso, these orders are unprofitable, and _will not pay_. 

_Secondly_. They furnish inferior security for investments. As _mutualinsurance societies_, they are irresponsible, and more liable tocorruption, _just because they are secret_. Do they make "reports" tothe public or the Legislature? Do they make any adequate "report" tothe mass even of their own members? Millions and millions are known tohave gone into the treasury of a single one of these organizations. Nodividends are declared, no expenditures published. _Where_ is themoney? Were it not safer to invest the same amount in companies whereevery proceeding is open to public eye and public judgment? Would younot, then, be safer? If so, _it will not pay_ to join these orders. 

IS IT OBLIGATORY?

_First. Charity_ has no need of them. They are not truly charitableinstitutions. "Mutual insurance societies" they may be, though of aninferior sort, as we have seen; but that does not elevate them into_charitable_ institutions. To bestow on your widow and orphans, yoursickness, and funeral some pittance, or the whole of what you paidduring health and life, is not _benevolence_. 

But, further, it is well to ask, in determining how greatly _charity_depends on them, how broadly they go forth among the poor outsidetheir membership. During the anti-masonic excitement of 1826-1830 sometwo thousand lodges suspended. The resultant suffering was less, perhaps, than what would follow the suspension of a single soupassociation, any winter, in some city. Blot out the whole, and howsmall the injury to the charities of the country!

The Church of Christ is commanded to "do good unto _all_ men"--"toremember the poor. " It is engaged in this work. It blows notrumpet--it does not parade its charities; but it shrinks fromcomparison with no one of these orders, nor with all of them combined. _Christians_ need not to go into them to preserve _charity_ alive, orto find the best ways of exercising their own. 

_Secondly. Morality_ does not depend on them. We need say nothing of"what is done of them in secret. " But, looking at what is open to all, we ask, What _work_ are they doing worthy of so much organization, andexpense, and time to reclaim the fallen, to banish vice, and to saveits victim? We have heard them refusing him admission or cutting himoff, but we have not heard of any considerable aid which they havegiven to public or private morality. And, further, do we not find themnarrowing the circle of obligation, substituting attachment and dutyto an order for love and obligations to mankind? _Membership_ in alodge, _not character_, is held to make one "worthy, " opening the wayto favor and society. But can all this be done without sensiblyweakening the fundamental supports of morality, without lessening itsbroad requirements?

_Thirdly. Patriotism_ has no need of them. They tend to destroycitizenship, to exalt love of an order above the love of country. Theboast during the late rebellion was sometimes heard that theirmembers, owing to the oaths of mutual protection, were safer among therebels than other captives. Was the converse true? Were rebels, beingFreemasons, safe or safer against restraint and due punishment when, falling captive to those of their order? How far does all this extend?To courts and suits at law? Are criminals as safe or safer beforejudge and jury of their order? Have rebellion and vice found greatersecurity here? This boast is confession--confession that the ties ofan order are stronger and more felt than is consistent with a properlove of country. Is justice thus to be imperiled? Are securities ofproperty and rights thus to be imperiled? Must we beggar ourselves bypaying fees and dues to one another of these orders, now becoming moreplentiful every decade, to make sure of standing on equal footing andimpartiality with others, in the courts and elsewhere, and imaginethat all this is helpful to patriotism or even consistent with it?

_Fourthly. Religion_ has no need of them. "The church is the pillarand ground of the truth. " "The gates of hell shall not prevail againstit. " The preaching of Christ and him crucified is and must continue tobe the wisdom of God and the power of God unto salvation. _Religion_, then, has no need of these secret orders. 

We come now to this: Neither charity, morality, patriotism, norreligion imposes obligations on us to join them. _It will not pay_ wasour first fact. We have now reached this other, that _no considerationof duty_ requires it. But, IS IT RIGHT?

_First. Christ, our Master, neither instituted nor countenanced theseorders_. Reviewing his whole earthly ministry, he said (John xviii:20): "I spake openly to the world;" and "in secret have I saidnothing. " By this double affirmation he strongly suggested hispreference for _open, unsecret_ ways and proceedings. 

_Secondly. In those rites, proceedings, and regalia which do appear, these orders are frivolous_, belittling, and unworthy of respect. Ifthe revealed are such, what must the unrevealed be?

_Thirdly. These orders stand convicted of deceit and falsehood_. Theyprofess secrets and mysteries worth buying. Hundreds of high-mindedmen, of irreproachable character and integrity, who have, therefore, "renounced these hidden things of dishonesty, " testify over their ownsignatures, that their secrets are but signs, pass-words, ceremonies, etc. , covering nothing but emptiness and vanity. 

_Fourthly. These orders are unfriendly to domestic happiness andwell-being_, breaking in upon the sacred confidence and unity ofhusband and wife, pledging him to conceal from her the proceedings ofperhaps fifty nights yearly, thus often sowing seeds of distrust, filling his breast with what must not be divulged to her, involvinghim in affairs and habits not unfrequently injurious to the bestinterests and state of the family. 

_Fifthly. These orders are hostile to the heavenly-mindedness, thespirituality of those who join them_. We speak from much testimony. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed. " The prudent manforeseeth the evil, but the foolish pass on and are punished. Thisvoice of one is that of many concurring wise, faithful, and godly men, viz. : "I am afraid of these secret societies; they have sucked thespirituality out of all the members in our church who have joinedthem. " Young, promising Christians have often been blighted by them. The fervor of piety, interest in the church and its work, interest inChrist and his people, interest in God's Word and Spirit, all thevarious elements of an earnest life of faith and heavenly-mindednesshave been blighted in these lodges. And in urging this, we appeal toso many witnesses, and cover so wide a field of observation, as tomake it certain that this is not the exceptional but the ordinaryresult. 

_Sixthly. These orders tend to destroy Christian fellowship_. Let themgrow until a given church is broken into squads, each pledged tosecrets from the other, but bound within itself by special ties; giveto each its own weekly meeting, mysteries, rites, signs, grips, pass-words; let each be sworn to provide for, protect, shield, andlove its own adherents above others, and is not "_church fellowship_"annihilated? Can the Spirit of Christ flow freely from member tomember through such partitions? Is this "one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another?"

_Seventhly. These orders tend to subject the church to "the world" insome of its dearest interests_. For example: When a few leadingmembers join a neighboring lodge, and make vows to the "strange"brotherhood, how easy for that lodge to interfere secretly butcontrollingly in its discipline of members, or in its selection ordismission of a pastor! These suggestions are not merely imaginary. Subjection of the church, in this way, to the cunning craftiness ofevil and designing men is no mere dream. 

_Eighthly. These orders dishonor Christ_. Those claims which he makesfor himself are disallowed. He is required to disappear or find aplace amidst other objects for worship. There is a _necessity_, because these orders are designed for adherents of all religions. Werethey on the footing of an insurance company or a merchants' exchange, or any similar body, this fact would not be so. But they profess toinclude religion among their elements, and its services, in whole orin part, among their ceremonies. They have prayers and solemnreligious rites. And in these _Christ is dishonored_. His exclusiveclaims are disallowed or ignored, and this not by accident, but of setpurpose. Out of twenty-three forms of prayer in the "New MasonicTrestle-Board, " (Boston edition, 1850, ) only one even alludes to him, and that one in a non-committal way. These secret orders are underbonds not to honor Christ as he claims, lest the Jew, or the Deist, orthe Mohammedan, all of whom they seek to enroll in equal membership, should be offended. When the higher "degrees" of Masonry allude toChrist and Christianity, it is but as one amidst many equals. Werepeat it: Did these orders stand on the same footing with mercantileor other bodies in this matter, this objection might go for nothing;but they do not. Unlike them, they profess to have religious services. Indeed, they often boast of their religiousness, and avow their fullequality in this with the church of God itself! Yet, if you join them, their "constitutions" prohibit you acknowledging, in their boastedreligious services, what Christ, your Lord, not only claims forhimself, but commands you to give unto him: that glory which is due tohis holy name. Are they, then, not _Anti-christ_ in this thing? Andcan you, without sin, consent to it, or uphold institutions whichforbid you and others, in religious services, to honor him as your Godand Savior, and which thus place him on the same level with Zoroaster, Confucius, or Mohammed?

_Ninthly. These orders--the things now alleged being true--impede thecause and kingdom of God, and are, therefore, hostile to the largest, best, and deepest interests of mankind_. Recognizing this, churches, conferences, associations, synods, and many eminently godly men, living and dead, have put forth their solemn testimony against them. Great lawyers, like Samuel Dexter; great patriots and statesmen, likeAdams, and Webster, and Everett; great communities, like the Americanpeople from 1826 to 1830, have united to declare them not only "wrongin their very principles, " but "noxious to mankind. " But manyChristians, rising higher and standing on "a more sure word ofprophecy, " have discovered in them the enemies of the Gospel and ofthe cross of Christ. Following him, their great exemplar inphilanthropy as in godliness, who did nothing in secret, they refuseto have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, choosingrather to reprove them. 

Shall Christians join secret societies?

Will it pay? Are they under obligation to do so? Fellow-disciple, brother man, have you doubt on these questions? If it will not pay; ifyou are under no obligation to do it; if you have any doubt of itsrightfulness, it is most assuredly your duty to refuse any connectionwith them. 

We have no wish to press our reasoning beyond just limits. We havesought to avoid extreme statements. We now ask you whether, in thelight of what has been brought to view, the weight of argument is notagainst your joining these orders and lending them aid? Even shouldyou be able to stand up against their tendency to lower your personalpiety and injure your Christian character, have we not here one ofthose cases where many brothers are offended or made weak? The LordJesus has said, "Whoso offends one of these little [or weak] ones, itwere better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck andhe were drowned in the depths of the sea. " Will you, then, howeversafe yourself, be the means, by your example, of bringing weakerbrethren into such dangers? "We, then, that are strong ought to bearthe burdens of the weak, and not please ourselves. " "It is goodneither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do any thing wherebythy brother stumbleth or is offended [caused to sin] or is made weak. "These words are not ours; they are God's. 

Christian disciple, decide this question of secret societies withcandor, with solemn prayer, and with a purpose to please God. 

 * * * * *

A PAPER ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS OFTHE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES, AT THEIR MEETING IN OTTAWA, 1866. 

 * * * * *

The topics committed to us involve the following points:

 1. The moral character of secrecy. Is it an element of an invariable moral character? and, if so, what? and, if not, what are the decisive criteria of its character?

 2. Associations or combinations involving secrecy. Are they of necessity right or wrong? If not, what are the decisive criteria?

 3. Religious rites and worship in societies or organizations, open or secret. Are any kind allowable? and, if so, what?

I. Secrecy, Its character. 

A presumption against secrecy arises from the known fact thatevil-doers of all kinds resort to secrecy. This is for two reasons:(1. ) To avoid opposition and retribution; and, (2, ) to avoid exposureto disgrace. The adulterer seeks secrecy; so do the thief and thecounterfeiter; so do conspirators for evil ends. 

Secrecy, whenever resorted to for evil ends, is wrong. But may it notbe resorted to for good ends? and is it not recognized as often wiseand right in the Word of God? We answer in the affirmative. There is acertain degree of reserve, or secrecy, that should invest everyindividual. Our whole range of thought and feeling ought not to bepromiscuously made known. There is a degree of secrecy necessary inthe order, social intercourse, and discipline of the family. There issecrecy needed in dealing with faults and sins. Christ adopts thisprinciple in his discipline. He says, "Tell him his fault between himand thee alone. If he repents, conceal it. " There are confidentialcommunications for important ends, or for council. 

Concealment may be used as a defense against enemies, as in the caseof the spies of Joshua, or the messengers of David, or when Elisha hidhimself by the brook Oherith, by God's order. So God hides the good inhis secret place and under his wings. 

Secrecy is opposed to ostentation and love of human applause. Hence, alms and prayer are to be in secret. God also resorts to secrecy in aneminent degree. He hides himself. He dwells in thick darkness. It ishis glory to conceal his designs. In part, this is inevitable byreason of his greatness; in part, he resorts to it of set purpose. 

It is a special honor and blessing of the good that he discloses hissecrets to them. 

Secrecy, then, is not of necessity wrong. Its character depends uponthe ends for which it is used, and the circumstances and spirit inwhich it is used. There is a secrecy of wisdom, love, and justice, aswell as a secrecy of selfish, malevolent, and evil deeds. 

II. Secret societies. 

Of these there may be two degrees. 

1. Where not only the proceedings of the society are secret, but eventhe existence of such a society is concealed. 

2. Where the existence is avowed, and the signs and proceedings onlyare secret. 

In associations, secrecy may be resorted to in both these ways forevil ends. Men may combine in associated societies to prey on thecommunity, and the existence of such societies be hidden. Counterfeiters, horse-thieves, burglars, may thus associate for wrong, in the deepest secrecy. 

So, too, secret associations whose existence is avowed may combine forselfish ends, and in derogation of the common rights of the socialsystem. They may defend their members, to the injury of justice, inour courts. They may interfere with the management of churches andsocieties. They may bring an influence of intimidation to bear onpublic men. They may disseminate false principles of religion andmorals. They may co-operate for political ends, and to effectrevolutions. 

And yet it is no less true that, in certain circumstances, secretsocieties of both kinds may be resorted to for good ends. 

Secret societies may be rightfully resorted to for common council andunited action, in the fear of God and with prayer, in a very dangerousstate of the body politic, to resist incumbent evils, and theexistence of such societies not be disclosed, if the state of the casewould thus give them greater power for good. So, as a defense againstknown disloyal secret organizations, secret loyal leagues wererightfully resorted to as a means of united and concentrated actionagainst organized disloyalty. And if, in resisting moral evils, secrecy gives power and advantage in devising measures to resist viceand crime, it is not sinful to resort to it. 

All boards of trust generally have secret sessions, and legislativebodies resort to secret sessions rightfully, if the state of affairsdemands it. It will be seen that secrecy is justified and demanded bypeculiar circumstances or obvious ends to be gained. The reason of thecase, therefore, is against secrecy, and in favor of open action, where no such justification can be made out. It is the nature of truthand right to be open. All things tend to it. There is nothing coveredor concealed that shall not finally be proclaimed. 

On the other hand, if secrecy is resorted to without reason; if it ismade the basis of false pretences; if it assumes the existence ofsomething that is not, then it is not defensible. If it involves aprofession of information to be communicated, and influences for goodto be exerted, that do not exist, then it is a species of intellectualswindling which admits of no defense. The sciences and arts, the Bibleand nature, are open to all. So is the book of history. What newscience, or art, or history, or religion is there for secret societiesto disclose?

III. Religious rites or worship in societies, open or secret--are anyallowable? and, if so, what?

In order to answer this question, we need to consider certainfundamental and vital principles of Christianity. 

 1. All men, as depraved and guilty, need regeneration and pardon through the intervention of Christ. 

 2. There is access to the true God only through Christ: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but through me. "

 3. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. "

All Christian churches are based on these truths, and the center andculmination of their worship is this recognition of Christ in theSacrament as the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world. Christ, too, is the center of the worship of heaven. 

Hence, if Christians associate with others in worship, it can rightlybe only on the ground that the worship centers in Christ, andacknowledges him as Lord, to the glory of the Father. 

Hence, if, for the sake of extending an organization, men are admittedof all religions--Pagans, Mohammedans, Deists, Jews--and if, for thesake of accommodating them with a common ground of union, Christ isignored, and the God of nature or of creation is professedlyworshiped, and morality inculcated solely on natural grounds, thensuch worship is not accepted by the real God and Father of theuniverse, for he looks on it as involving the rejection and dishonor, nay, the renewed crucifixion of his Son. As to Christ, he tolerates noneutrality. He who is not for him is against him. These principles donot involve the question of secrecy. They hold true of all societies, open or secret. 

If, on such anti-Christian grounds, prayers are framed, ritesestablished, and chaplains appointed, ignoring Christ and hisintercession, God regards it as a mockery and an insult to himself andhis church. In it is revealed the hatred of Satan to Christ. By itChrist is dethroned and Satan exalted. 

These principles do not exclude worship and prayer from societies. Inany societies, true worship in the name of Christ will be accepted. 

Let us now apply these principles to the societies of Free Masonry, the modern mother of secret societies. Concerning these we hold it tobe plain:

That they have neither science nor art to impart as a reward ofmembership. The time was when there was a society, or societies, ofworking masons, coming down from the old Roman empire, and extendingthrough the middle ages. These were societies of great power, andwrought great works. The cathedrals of the middle ages were eacherected by such a corporation, and attest their skill and energy. 

But these corporations of working masons have passed away, and Masonryis now, even in profession, only theoretical, and in fact, so far asthis art is concerned, is not even this. It does not teach the theoryof architecture. The transition took place in 1717, after a period ofdecline in the lodges of working masons. All pretences to a historyback of this, or to any connection with Solomon or Hiram, are merefalse pretences and delusion for effect. No art is taught and noscience is communicated by the system. 

Practical ends, then, alone remain; and, in fact, the founders of thesystem avowed "brotherly love, relief, and truth" as these ends. Thecultivation of social intercourse is also avowed as an end bydefenders of the system. But such ends as these furnish no goodreasons for secrecy; nor is secrecy favorable to a wise and economicaluse of the income of such bodies for purposes of benevolence. An openand public acknowledgment of receipts and expenditures is needed as asafeguard against a dishonest and wasteful expenditure of funds. 

Nor is this all. The secrecy of the order, taken in connection withthe principle of hierarchal concentration, and with the administrationof extra-judicial oaths of obedience and secrecy, renders it, as asystem, liable to great abuses in the perversion of justice, in theoverriding of national law, and the claims of patriotism. 

But the most serious view of the case lies in the fact that itprofesses to rest on a religious basis, and to have religious temples, yet is avowedly based on a platform that ignores Christ andChristianity as supreme and essential to true allegiance to the realGod of the universe. Its worship, therefore, taken as a system, is inrivalry to and in derogation of Christ and Christianity. 

And, as a matter of fact, this and similar systems are by manyregarded as a substitute for the church, or as superior to it. Moreover, devotion to them absorbs time and interest due to thechurch, and paralyzes Christians by association with worldly men, andby the malignant power of the spirit of the world. 

This system, and those who imitate its hierarchal and centralizingorganization, also give power to those hierarchal principles andsystems against which Congregationalism has ever protested ascorrupting and enslaving the church. 

The system also cultivates a love of swelling titles, and of gaudydecorations and display in dress, that are hostile to the genius ofour Constitution, and to true republican and Christian dignity andsimplicity. 

From this system other organizations have borrowed much, and some donot essentially differ from it in practical working. 

Other organizations, however, for the ends of temperance reform, haveadopted modes of organization, display in dress, and secret signs forthe purposes of recognition and defense. The ends and proceedings ofthese temperance societies are so well known that it is often deniedthat they are secret societies; yet they do, avowedly for purposes ofdefense, resort to secrecy, and have imitated modes of dress andorganization found in Masonry. And members of Masonic lodges declarethat they involve, in fact, all the principles of Masonicorganizations, and rely on them ultimately leading to their own order. 

While we recognize the true devotion of the members of these societiesto the cause of temperance, and acknowledge and commend their activeefforts to resist the progress of one of the greatest evils of theage, we yet can not concede the wisdom or desirableness of a resort toprinciples and modes of action which tend to create a current towardother secret organizations not aiming at their ends, nor actuated bytheir spirit of temperance reform. 

In conclusion, we respectfully present the Association the followingprinciples foradoption [sic]:

 _Resolved_, 1. That in dealing with secret organizations, this Association recognizes the need of a careful statement of principles and a wise discrimination of things that differ. 

 2. That there are some legitimate concealments of an organized character--such as the privacies of the family and business firms, the temporary concealment of public negotiations at critical stages, the occasional withdrawal of scandals which could only disturb and demoralize communities, and the secrecy of military combinations; nor are we prepared totally to condemn all private plans and arrangements between good and true citizens, in great emergencies, to resist the machinations of the wicked. 

 3. That organizations whose whole object and general method are well understood, and are known to be laudable and moral--such as associations for purely literary or reformatory purposes--are not to be sweepingly condemned by reason of a thin veil of secrecy covering their precise methods of procedure; yet we deem that outer veil of secrecy to be unwise and undesirable, inasmuch as it holds out needless temptations to deeds of darkness, and gives unnecessary countenance to other and unlawful combinations; and, whenever the act of membership involves an _unconditional_ oath or promise of submission, adhesion, and concealment, under all circumstnces [sic], that compact is a grave moral wrong. 

 4. That there are certain other wide-spread organizations--such as Freemasonry--which, we suppose, are in their nature hostile to good citizenship and true religion, because they exact initiatory oaths of blind compliance and concealment incompatible with the claims of equal justice toward man and a good conscience toward God; because they may easily, and sometimes have actually, become combinations against the due process of law and government; because, while claiming a religious character, they, in their rituals, deliberately withhold all recognition of Christ as their only Savior, and of Christianity as the only true religion; because, while they are, in fact, nothing but restricted partnerships or companies for mutual insurance and protection, they ostentatiously parade this characterless engagement as a substitute for brotherly love and true benevolence; because they bring good men in confidential relations to bad men; and because, while in theory, they supplant the church of Christ, they do also, in fact, largely tend to withdraw the sympathy and active zeal of professing Christians from their respective churches. Against all connections with such associations we earnestly advise the members of our churches, and exhort them, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. "