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 among
the ancient Egyptians, Hindoos, Grecians, Romans, and probably among
nearly all the pagan nations of antiquity. This fact, however is
neither proof of their utility nor of their harmlessness. Slavery,
despotism, cruelty, drunken falsehood, and all sorts of sins and
crimes have been practiced from time immemorial, but are none the less
to be reprobated on that account.

2. The facts that these associations had no existence among the
Israelites, who, alone of all the ancient nations, enjoyed the light of
Divine revelation, and that they originated and flourished among the
heathen, who were vain in their imaginations; whose foolish heart was
darkened, and whom God gave up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts (Rom. i: 21-24), is a presumptive proof that their
nature and tendency are evil. We do not claim that all the
institutions among God's ancient people were right and good; nor that
every institution among the heathen was sinful and injurious; still,
that which was so popular among those whom the Bible declares to have
been filled with all unrighteousness; that which was so pleasing to
men 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 the
ignorant heathen offered up to their unclean gods, and which was
unknown among God's chosen people, is certainly a thing to be viewed
with suspicion. A thing of so bad origin and so bad accompaniments we
should be very slow to approve. The fact that many good men see no
evil in secret societies, and that many good men have been and are
members of them, is more than counterbalanced by the fact that many
good men very decidedly disapprove of them, and that, from time
immemorial, men of vile affections and reprobate minds, men whose
inclinations and consciences were perverted by heathenish ignorance
and error, and by a corrupt and abominable religion, have been very
fond of them.

3. Doubtless the authors and conductors of the ancient _mysteries_
made high pretensions, just as do the modern advocates of secret
societies. Perhaps the original design of the ancient mysteries was to
civilize mankind and promote religion; that is, pagan superstition.
But whatever may have been the _design_ of the authors of them, it is
certain that they became schools of superstition and vice. Their
pernicious character and influence were so manifest that the ancient
Christian writers almost universally exclaimed against them. (Leland's
Chr. Rev., p. 223.) Bishop Warburton, who, in his "Divine Legation,"
maintains that the ancient mysteries were originally pure, declares
that they "became abominably abused, and that in Cicero's time the
terms mysteries and abominations were almost synonymous." The cause of
their corruption, this eminent writer declares to be the _secrecy_
with which they were performed. He says: "We can assign no surer cause
of the horrid abuses and corruptions of the mysteries than the
_season_ in which they were represented, and the profound silence in
which they were buried. Night gave opportunity to wicked men to
attempt evil actions, and the secrecy encouragement to repeat them."
(Leland's Chr. Rev., p. 194.) It seems to have been of these ancient
secret associations that the inspired Apostle said, "_It is a shame
even 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 no
argument in their favor; yet it is no uncommon thing to find their
members tracing their origin back to the heathenish mysteries of the
ancient Egyptians, Hindoos, or Grecians. (See Webb's Freemason's
Monitor, p. 39.) Since the ancient mysteries were so impure and
abominable, those who boast of their affinity with them must be
classed with them of whom the Apostle says, "_Their glory is in their
shame_" (Phil, iii: 19.)


CHAPTER II.

THEIR SECRECY.


1. One of the objectionable features of all the associations of which
we are writing is their secrecy. We do not say that secrecy is what is
called an _evil or sin in itself_. Secrecy may sometimes be right and
even necessary. There are family secrets and secrets of State.
Sometimes legislatures and church courts hold secret sessions. It is
admitted that secrecy in such cases may be right; but this does not
prove that secrecy is _always_ right. The cases above-mentioned are
exceptional in their character. For instance, a family may very
properly keep some things secret; but were a family to act on the
principle of secrecy, they would justly be condemned, and would arouse
suspicions in the minds of all who know them. Were a family to
endeavor to conceal every thing that is said and done by the fireside;
were they to invent signs, and grips, and passwords for the purpose of
concealment; were they to admit no one under their roof without
exacting a solemn oath or promise that nothing seen or heard shall be
made known, every one would say there is something wrong. So, too, if
a church court would always sit in secret; were none but members at
any time admitted; were all the members bound by solemn promises or
oaths to keep the proceedings secret, and were they to employ signs,
grips, and passwords, and to hold up horrid threats, in order to
secure concealment, such a church court would lose the confidence of
all men whose esteem is of any value. Such studious and habitual
concealment would damage the reputation of any family or church court
in the estimation of all sensible people. The same result would follow
in case a Legislature would endeavor, as a general thing, to conceal
its proceedings. As to State secrets, they generally pertain to what
is called diplomacy; and even in straightforward, manly diplomacy
there is generally no effort at concealment. In our own country,
Congress very often asks the President for information in regard to
the negotiations and correspondence of the Executive Department with
foreign governments, and almost always the whole correspondence asked
for is laid before Congress and published to the country. It is very
seldom that the President answers the call with a declaration that the
public welfare requires the correspondence to be kept secret. Besides
this, the concealment is only temporary. It is never supposed that the
secrecy must be perpetual. It is true that many diplomatists - perhaps
nearly all the diplomatists of Europe - do endeavor to cover up their
doings from the light of day. It is also true that the secrecy and
deceit of diplomatists have made diplomacy a corrupt thing. Diplomacy
is regarded by many as but another name for duplicity. Talleyrand, the
prince of diplomatists, said "the design of language is to conceal
one's thoughts." This terse sentence gives a correct idea of the
practice of secret negotiators. With regard, then, to State secrets,
we remark that real statesmen do not endeavor to cover up their doings
in the dark, and that the practices of diplomatists, and the
reputation they have for duplicity, are not such as should encourage
individuals or associations to endeavor to conceal their proceedings.
We see nothing in the fact that there may be secrets of State to
justify studied and habitual secrecy either in individuals or
associations.

2. The impropriety of habitual concealment may be further illustrated.
An individual who endeavors to conceal the business in which he is
engaged, or the place and mode of carrying it on, exposes himself to
the suspicion of his fellow-men. People lose confidence in him. They
feel that he is not a safe man. They at once suspect that there is
something wrong. They do not ask or expect him to make all his
business affairs public. They are willing that he should say nothing
about many of his business operations. But habitual secrecy, constant
concealment, unwillingness to tell either friend or foe what business
he follows, or to speak of his business operations, will cause any man
to be regarded as destitute of common honesty. This fact shows that,
in the common judgment of men, constant concealment is suspicious and
wrong. Wherever it is practiced, men expect the development of some
unworthy purpose.

We regard secrecy just like homicide and other actions that in general
are very criminal. To take human life, as a general thing, is a very
great crime; but it is right to kill a man in self-defense, and to
take the life of a murderer as a punishment for his crime. The
habitual concealment of one's actions is wrong, but it may be right at
particular times and for special reasons. It is not a dreadfully
wicked thing, like the causeless taking of human life, and may be
justifiable much oftener and for less weighty reasons. Still habitual
secrecy, or secrecy, except at particular times and for special
reasons, is, according to the common judgment of men, suspicious and
unjustifiable. Now, with secret societies secrecy is the general rule.
They practice constant concealment. At all times and on all occasions
must the members keep their proceedings secret. If an individual would
thus studiously endeavor to conceal his actions; were he to throw the
veil of secrecy over his business operations, refusing to speak to any
of his fellow-men concerning them, he would justly expose himself to
suspicion. His fellow-men would lose all confidence in his integrity.
If habitual secrecy on the part of an individual, in regard to
business 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 together
than on the part of an individual. An individual working in the dark
may do much mischief, but an association thus working can do much
more. All those considerations which forbid individuals to shroud
their actions in secrecy and darkness, and require them to be open,
frank, and straightforward in their course, apply with equal or
greater force to associations.

3. In the case of secret societies, the reasons for concealment set
the impropriety of it in a still stronger light. So far from there
being any necessity or special reason to justify habitual secrecy in
their case, we believe the very _design_ of their secrecy to be
improper and sinful. We present the following quotation from a book of
high authority among those for whose benefit it was specially
intended:

"If the secrets of Masonry are replete with such advantages to
mankind, it may be asked, Why are they not divulged for the general
good of society? To which it may be answered, were the privileges of
Masonry to be indiscriminately bestowed, the design of the institution
would be subverted, and, being familiar, like many other important
matters, 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 to
take advantage of "a weakness of human nature." He admits that Masonry
would soon sink into disregard if its affairs were generally known.
Although this remark is made with special reference to the giddy and
unthinking, yet it is certainly not the contempt of such persons which
Masons fear. They would not care for the contempt of the giddy and
unthinking, if they could retain the esteem of the thoughtful and
wise. The real reason, then, for concealing the doings of Masons in
their lodges, is to recommend things which, if generally known, would
be regarded with contempt. The design of concealment in the case of
other secret associations, we understand to be the same. The following
is an extract from an address delivered at the national celebration of
the 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 our
meetings 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 in
the case of Odd-fellowship, is to invest it with unreal attractions,
or, at least, with attractions which it would not possess, were the
veil of concealment withdrawn. Here, again, as in Masonry, it is
virtually admitted that secrecy is designed to take advantage of "a
weakness in human nature," and to recommend things which, if not
invested with the attractions which secrecy throws around them, would
sink into contempt.

Doubtless the design of concealment in the case of other secret
associations is the same. We are not aware that Good-fellows, Good
Templars, Sons of Temperance, and other similar associations, have any
better reason for working, like moles, in the dark than Masons and
Odd-fellows. There is, then, as it respects secret societies, no
necessity for concealment - nothing to justify it. The real motive for
it is itself improper and sinful.

4. That the concealment of actions and principles, either by
individuals or associations, is inconsistent with the teachings of the
Bible, is, we think, easily shown. Thus our Savior, on his trial,
declared: "_I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the
synagogue, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said
nothing_." (John xviii: 20.) An association which claims to be
laboring in behalf of true principles, and for the moral and
intellectual improvement of men, and yet conceals its operations under
the impenetrable veil of secrecy, is certainly practicing in direct
opposition to the example and teaching of the Son of God.

Again: The concealment of our actions is condemned in the words of the
Most High, as recorded by the prophet: "_Woe unto them that seek deep
to 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 as
endeavoring to _hide their works in the dark_. This description
applies, most assuredly, to those associations which meet only at
night, and in rooms with darkened windows, and which require their
members solemnly to promise or swear that they will never make known
their proceedings.

Again: The inspired apostle incidentally condemns secret societies in
denouncing the sins prevalent in his own day: "_And have no fellowship
with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; for it
is a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret_."
(Eph. v: 11, 12.) It is not without reason that commentators
understand the shameful things done in secret, of which the apostle
speaks, to be the "mysteries" of the "secret societies" which
prevailed among the ancient heathen. They maintained religious rites
and ceremonies in honor of their imaginary deities, just as most
modern "secret societies" make a profane use of the word and worship
of God in their parades and initiations. He says it would be a shame
to speak of the rites performed by the heathen in their secret
associations in honor of Bacchus and Venus, the god of wine and the
goddess of lust, and of their other abominable deities. But whether
the apostle refers to the Eleusinian, Samothracian, and other pagan
mysteries, or not, the _principle of secrecy_ comes in for a share of
his condemnation.

The concealment practiced by "secret societies" is inconsistent, also,
with such declarations of the Bible as the following: "_For every one
that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest
his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the
light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in
God_." (John iii: 20, 21.) "_Let your light so shine before men that
they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in
heaven_." These are the words of our Savior, and they certainly
condemn the concealment practiced by secret associations, and all the
means 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 solemn
promises with which they bind their members to perpetual secrecy; the
disgraceful punishments which they threaten to inflict on any member
who will expose their secret doings - all these things are inconsistent
with the spirit, if not the very letter, of the commands of our Savior
quoted above.

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

Hence, we conclude that the concealment so studiously maintained and
rigidly enforced by the associations whose moral character we are
considering is condemned both by the common judgment of men and by the
Word of God.


CHAPTER III.

THEIR OATHS AND PROMISES.


1. Another serious objection to secret associations is the profanation
by them of the oath of God. We regard such profanation as the natural
result of their secrecy. When associations of men endeavor to keep
secret their operations from generation to generation, they will not
be willing to trust to the honor and honesty of their members. A
simple promise of secrecy will not be deemed sufficient. Oaths or
promises, with dreadful penalties, will very likely be required of all
those who are admitted as members. Secret societies may, perhaps,
exist without such oaths and promises. If the members of an
association are few in number, or if the publication of its secrets
would not be regarded as very injurious to its interests, perhaps a
simple promise of secrecy will be regarded as sufficient; but whenever
an association endeavors to secure a numerous membership, and regards
a disclosure of its secrets as likely to damage its reputation or
hinder its success, something more than a simple promise of secrecy
will very likely be required at the initiation of members.
Accordingly, some secret associations, it is known, do employ awful
sanctions in order to secure concealment. Even when the members of a
secret order claim that they are not bound to secrecy by oath, but
only by a simple promise, it will, perhaps, be found on examination
that that promise is, in reality, an oath. An appeal to God or to
heaven, whether made expressly or impliedly, in attestation of the
truth of a promise or declaration, is an oath. Such an appeal may not
be regarded as an oath in our civil courts, the violator of which
would incur the pains and penalties of perjury; yet certainly it is an
oath according to the teachings of the Bible. Our Savior teaches that
to swear by the temple, is to swear by God who dwelleth therein; and
that to swear by heaven, is to swear by the throne of God, and by him
that sitteth thereon. (Matt. xx: 23.) We find, also, that the words,
"As the Lord liveth," is to be regarded as an oath. King David is
repeatedly said to have sworn, when he used this form of expression,
in attestation of his sincerity. (1 Sam. xx: 3; 1 Kings i: 29.) An
appeal to God, whether direct or indirect, in attestation of the truth
of a declaration or promise, is an oath. As we have already said, a
secret association may exist without an oath. But we are not sure that
any 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, as
was once supposed, is administered to the candidate." (App. to
Proceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, p. 10.) Yet Grosch, in his
Odd-fellows' Manual, speaks of an "appeal to heaven" in the
initiation, at least, into one of the degrees. (P. 306.) Perhaps the
contradiction arises from a difference of opinion in regard to what it
takes to constitute an oath, or, perhaps, from the fact that an oath
is required in initiations into some degrees, but not in others.
However this may be, we know that some secret societies have
initiatory oaths, and that nearly all administer what, in the sight of
God, is an oath, though they may not so view it themselves. Nor do we
see any reason to discredit the declaration of Grosch that the
candidate "appeals to heaven."

2. Now, the taking of an initiatory oath is, to say the very least of
it, of doubtful propriety. Every one who does so swears by the living
God that he will forever keep secret things about which he knows
nothing. The secrets of the association are not imparted to him until
after he has sworn that he will not reveal them. He is kept ignorant
of them until the "brethren" are assured by his appeal to heaven that
they can trust him. Now, the inspired apostle lays down the principle
that a man sins when he does any thing about the propriety of which he
is in doubt. He declares that the eating of meats was in itself a
matter of indifference, but that if any man esteem any thing unclean,
to him it is unclean. He then makes the following declaration: "But he
that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. xiv: 22, 23.) According to
this most emphatic declaration, we must have faith and confidence that
what we do is right, else we are blameworthy. We sin whenever we do
any thing which is, according to our own judgment, of doubtful
propriety. The man who is initiated into an oath-bound society, swears
that he will keep secret things about which he knows nothing - things
which, for aught he knows, ought not to be kept secret. If the apostle
condemned, in most emphatic language, the man who would do so trivial
a thing as eat meat without assuring himself of the lawfulness of his
doing so, what would he have said had the practice existed in his day
of swearing by the God of heaven in regard to matters that are
altogether unknown? To say the very least, such swearing is altogether
inconsistent with that caution and conscientiousness which the
Scriptures 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 what
they swear, nor whereof they appeal to heaven?

3. There is another objection to taking an initiatory oath. We are
expressly forbidden to take God's name in vain. To pronounce God's
name 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 important
occasion. To make an appeal to the God of heaven on some trifling
occasion is a profanation of his oath and name. If the secrets of
Masonry, Odd-fellowship, Good Templars, and similar associations, are
unimportant, their oaths, appeals to heaven, and solemn promises made
in the presence of God are profane and sinful. Perhaps their boasted
secrets are only signs, grips, pass-words, and absurd rites of
initiation. To swear by the name of the Lord about things of this kind
is certainly a violation of the third commandment. The candidate does
not _know_ that the secrets about to be disclosed to him are of any
importance, and he runs the risk of using God's name and oath about
light and trivial things. He must be uncertain whether there is any
thing of importance in hand at the time of swearing, and how can he
escape the disapproval of God, since the inspired Paul declares that
the doubtful eater of meat is damned? (Rom. xiv: 23.)

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

5. While we do not claim that there is any passage of Scripture which
expressly declares the initiatory oaths under consideration to be
profane and sinful, at the same time there are many passages which
require 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 be
yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation_." (James v:
12.) Does not this command condemn those who swear to keep secret they
know not what, and to fulfill obligations which devolve upon them as
members of an association, before they know fully what that
association is, or what those obligations are? Should not every one
consider himself admonished not to swear such an oath lest he fall
into condemnation? Again: Our Savior says, "Swear not at all; neither
by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his
footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black; but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay;
for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." These words were
spoken in condemnation of those who employed oaths frequently and on
improper occasions. They should make every one hesitate in regard to
swearing, in any form, on his initiation into an order the obligations
and 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 to
utter 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 rash
thing to bind one's self by the oath of God to keep secret things as
yet unknown, or to bind one's self to conform to unknown regulations
and usages? In view of these declarations of the Word of God, it
certainly would be well to avoid taking such oaths as generally are
required of the members of secret associations at their initiation.

6. The _promise_ required of candidates at their initiation, whether
there be an oath or not, is also, at least in many cases, improper and
sinful. For instance, the "candidate for the mysteries of Masonry,"
previous to initiation, must make the declaration that he "will
cheerfully conform to all the ancient established usages and customs
of the fraternity." (Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 34.) Grosch, in
his Odd-fellows' Manual, directs the candidate at his initiation as
follows: "Give yourself passively to your guides, to lead you
whithersoever they will." (P. 91.) Again, in regard to initiation into
a certain degree, he says: "The candidate for this degree should be
firm and decided in his answers to all questions asked him, and
patient in all required of him," etc. (P. 279.) In the form of
application for membership, as laid down by Grosch, the applicant
promises as follows:

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

These declarations, by reliable authors, plainly show that both in
Masonry and Odd-fellowship obligations are laid on members of which,
at the time, they are ignorant. Candidates for Masonry must promise to
conform, yes, "cheerfully conform to all the ancient established
usages and customs of the fraternity." The application for membership
in the association of Odd-fellows must be accompanied by a promise of
obedience to the usages and laws both of the whole Order and of the
lodge in which membership is sought. No man has a right to make such a
promise until he has carefully examined the usages, and customs, and
laws referred to. While he is ignorant of them, he does not know but
some of them or all of them may be morally wrong. Before the candidate
has been initiated, he has not had an opportunity of acquainting
himself with all the laws, usages, and customs which he promises to
obey. Is not such a promise condemned by the divine injunction, "Be
not rash with thy mouth?" Is not the man who promises to obey
regulations, customs, and usages before he knows fully what they are
as blameworthy as the doubtful eater of meats, who, the inspired
apostle tells us, is damned for doing what he is not confident is
right? The candidate for initiation into Odd-fellowship must "give
himself passively to his guides." Such demands indicate the spirit
which secret associations require of their members. They must
surrender the exercise of their own judgment, and permit themselves to
be blindly led by others. No man has a right thus to surrender himself
passively to the guidance of others. Every man is bound to act
according to his own judgment and conscience. Before a man promises to
obey any human regulations, or to conform to any usage or custom, he
is bound to know what that regulation, usage, or custom is, and to see
that it is morally right. To do otherwise is to sin against conscience
and the law of God.

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

No man has a right, at any time, to lay aside his reason and
conscience and allow himself to be "guided passively" by others. Every
man is bound to see and decide for himself in every case of duty and
morals. We should not let the church of Christ even decide for us in
such matters, much less some association, composed, it may be, of
infidels, Mormons, Jews, Mohammedans, and all sorts of men except
atheists. (See pages 37, 31.) A band of such men may have secrets very
immoral in character, and which it would be a violation of God's law
to preserve inviolate. To promise beforehand that any "mysteries"
which they may see fit to enact and practice shall be forever
concealed, is to trifle with conscience and morality. It is useless to
plead that a member can withdraw as soon as he discovers any thing
wrong in the regulations and usages which he is required to obey.
Every one who joins such an association as those under consideration
must 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 will
preserve them inviolate before "the brethren" will intrust them to
him. The possibility of dissolving his connection with the association
afterward does not exonerate him of promising to do he knows not
what - of laying aside his own conscience and reason, and yielding
himself "passively" to others. The promise of secrecy and of obedience
to unknown regulations and customs, required at the initiation of
candidates into such associations as we are considering, is,
therefore, a step in the dark. It involves the assuming of an
obligation to do what _may be_ morally wrong, and is, therefore,
inconsistent with the teachings of the Word of God and the principles
of sound morality.


CHAPTER IV.

THEIR PROFANENESS.


1. Another evil connected with secrecy, as maintained by the
associations the character of which is now under consideration, is the
profane use of sacred things in ceremonies, celebrations, and
processions. This evil has, perhaps, no _necessary_ connection with
secrecy, but has generally in _fact_. The "secret societies" of
antiquity dealt largely in religious ceremonies. It is the frequent
boast of Masons, Odd-fellows, and others, that their associations
correspond to those of ancient times. There is, indeed, a
correspondence between them in the use of religious rites. Those of
ancient times employed the rites of heathenish superstition; those of
modern times are, perhaps, as objectionable on account of their
prostituting the religion of Christ. The holy Bible, the word of the
living God, is used by Masons as a mere emblem, like the square and
compass. The pot of incense, the holy tabernacle, the ark of the
covenant, the holy miter, and the holy breastplate are also employed
as emblems, along with the lambskin and the sword pointing to a naked
heart. At the opening of lodges and during initiations, passages of
Scripture are read as a mere ceremony, or as a charge to the members
in regard to their duty as Masons. Thus a perverse use of holy
Scripture is made in the application of it to matters to which it has
no reference whatever. (Freemason's Monitor, pp. 92, 19-181). Even the
great 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 and
titles of God. God alone is to be worshiped; he alone should be
addressed as the _Most Worshipful Being_. But Masonry requires the use
of such language as follows: "The Most Worshipful Grand Master," and
"The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge." God alone is Almighty, but Masons
have their "Thrice Illustrious and Grand Puissant," and their "Thrice
Potent Grand Master." God alone is perfect, but Masons have a "Grand
Lodge 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 his
representatives, but Masons have a "High Priest," a "_Grand_ High
Priest," yea, a "_Most Excellent_ Grand High Priest." At the
installation of this so-called High Priest, various passages of
Scripture treating of the priesthood of Melchisedec and of Christ are
used. (Webb's Monitor, pp. 178-181, 187.)

We regard these high-sounding titles as ridiculous, and as well
calculated to excite derision and scorn; but we do not now treat of
them in that regard. We call attention, at present, to the emblems and
titles 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 were
intended only for holy purposes. To use them as the Masons do is to
pervert and profane them. The visible representation of the all-seeing
eye of God is certainly a species of idolatry, and is forbidden by the
second commandment. Such, also, are the triangles, declared to be "a
beautiful emblem of the eternal Jehovah." (Monitor, p. 290.) The
Israelites, of course, did not understand that the Divine Being was
really like their golden calf; they considered it a symbol of Deity.
How much better is it to assimilate God to a _triangle_ than to a
calf? The difference is just this: the latter idea is more gross than
the former. The sin of idolatry - that is, of representing God under a
visible figure - is involved in both cases. The profaneness of the
titles mentioned above must at once be evident to every reverent,
considerate mind. They are such as in the Bible are ascribed only to
God and to Christ. Indeed, Masons give more exalted titles to their
sham priest than the Scriptures employ to describe the character and
office 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 as
the Masons. They employ "the brazen serpent," "the budded rod of
Aaron," "the Ark of the Covenant," "the breastplate for the high
priest," and other holy things as emblems of their order, along with,
"the shining sun," "the half moon," etc. They have their "Most Worthy
Grand Master," and their "Most Excellent Grand High Priest," and other
officers designated by titles which should be given to God and Christ
alone. Indeed, as it respects emblems and titles, Masonry seems to be
the example which other secret associations have followed. In regard
to the profanation of holy things, the difference between most of the
secret associations in our land is one merely of degree. This
profanation of the word, name, and titles of God is certainly sinful
in itself, and very injurious in its effects. What kind of ideas of
God, and Christ, and heaven must persons have who conceive and think
of God under the figure of three triangles; of Christ and his
priesthood as symbolized by "the Most Excellent Grand High Priest,"
officiating amid the tomfooleries of Masonry and Odd-fellowship; and
of heaven as a Grand Lodge-room. What ideas of the Divine Majesty and
Glory must they have who are accustomed to give to the officers of a
secret association, and to men who are, perhaps, destitute of faith
and holiness, and who may be Jews, Turks, or infidels, as grand titles
as the Scriptures give to the God of heaven and the Savior of the
world. Besides it is very improper and sinful to give to mere men the
titles and glory which are due to God alone. We learn that it was
precisely for this sin that the Divine displeasure was visited upon
king Herod. On a certain occasion having put on his royal apparel, he
sat on his throne and made a public oration. The people who heard him
shouted and said, "_It is the voice of a God and not of a man; and
immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God
the glory; and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost_." (Acts
xii: 23.) It was for the same spirit of self-glorification that the
king of Babylon was punished with madness and disgrace. Nebuchadnezzar
walked in his palace, and said: "Is not this great Babylon, which I
have built for the house of my kingdom by the might of my power, and

1 2 3