Brian Carnell's Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
<html>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page001" id="page001" title="001"></a>
  <div id="titlepage">

  <h1>SECRET SOCIETIES:</h1>

  <h2>A DISCUSSION OF THEIR CHARACTER AND CLAIMS,</h2>

  <h3>BY<br />
  REV. DAVID MACDILL,<br />
  JONATHAN BLANCHARD, D. D.,<br />
  AND<br />
  EDWARD BEECHER, D. D.</h3>
 <blockquote>
  'Have no fellowship with the
  unfruitful works of darkness, but
  rather reprove them.' --EPH. v: 11.
 </blockquote>

<a class="pagenumber" name="page002" id="page002" title="002"></a>
 </div>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page003" id="page003" title="003"></a>
<div id="toc" class="tableofcontents">
 <hr />
 	<h2>CONTENTS.</h2>
 <hr />
 	<ul>
 		<li class="spacedlist"><span class="contentsheader"><a href="#b1">I. SECRET SOCIETIES: A TREATISE</a></span> by Rev. D. MacDill
 			<ul class="spacedlist">
 				<li><a href="#b1_c1">CHAPTER I</a>. <span class="contentschapter">Their Antiquity.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b1_c2">CHAPTER II</a>. <span class="contentschapter">Their Secrecy.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b1_c3">CHAPTER III</a>. <span class="contentschapter">Oaths And Promises.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b1_c4">CHAPTER IV</a>.<span class="contentschapter">Profaneness.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b1_c5">CHAPTER V</a>. <span class="contentschapter">Their Exclusiveness.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b1_c6">CHAPTER VI</a>. <span class="contentschapter">False Claims.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b1_conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>.</li>
 			</ul>
 		</li>
 		<li class="spacedlist"><span class="contentsheader"><a href="#b2">II. SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?</a></span> by Jonathan Blanchard, D. D.
 			<ul class="spacedlist">
 				<li><a href="#b2_c1">Shall Christians Join Secret Societies?</a></li>
 				<li><a href="#b2_c2">Supposing it to be Innocent, Will It Pay?</a></li>
 				<li><a href="#b2_c3">Is it Obligatory?</a></li>
 				<li><a href="#b2_c4">Is it Right?</a></li>
 			</ul>
 		</li>
 		<li class="spacedlist"><span class="contentsheader"><a href="#b3">III. REPORT TO CONGREGATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS</a></span>. by Edward Beecher, D. D.
 			<ul class="spacedlist">
 				<li><a href="#b3_c1">CHAPTER I</a>. <span class="contentschapter">The moral character of secrecy.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b3_c2">CHAPTER II</a>. <span class="contentschapter">Associations or combinations involving secrecy.</span></li>
 				<li><a href="#b3_c3">CHAPTER III</a>. <span class="contentschapter">Religious rites and worship in societies or organizations, open or secret.</span></li>
 			</ul>
 		</li>
 	</ul>
</div>

<a class="pagenumber" name="page004" id="page004" title="004"></a>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page005" id="page005" title="005"></a>
<div class="book" id="b1">
	<hr />

	 <h2>SECRET SOCIETIES.</h2>

	<div class="chaplist">
		<a href="#b1_c1">CHAPTER I</a>
		<a href="#b1_c2">CHAPTER II</a>
		<a href="#b1_c3">CHAPTER III</a>
		<a href="#b1_c4">CHAPTER IV</a>
		<a href="#b1_c5">CHAPTER V</a>
		<a href="#b1_c6">CHAPTER VI</a>
		<a href="#b1_conclusion">CONCLUSION</a>.
	</div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b1_c1">
		<div class="chaphead">CHAPTER I.</div>
		<div class="chapsubhead">Their Antiquity.</div>
		<div class="verselist"><a href="#b1_c1_v1">1</a> <a href="#b1_c1_v2">2</a> <a href="#b1_c1_v3">3</a> <a href="#b1_c1_v4">4</a></div>

		<div id="b1_c1_v1" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">1.</span> 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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c1_v2" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">2.</span> 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page006" id="page006" title="006"></a>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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c1_v3" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">3.</span> Doubtless the authors and conductors of the ancient <i>mysteries</i>
			made high pretensions, just as do <a class="pagenumber" name="page007" id="page007" title="007"></a>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 <i>design</i> 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 <i>secrecy</i>
			with which they were performed. He says: "We can assign no surer cause
			of the horrid abuses and corruptions of the mysteries than the
			<i>season</i> 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, "<i>It is a shame
			even to speak of those things which are done in secret</i>." (Eph. v:
			12.)</p>
		</div>
		<a class="pagenumber" name="page008" id="page008" title="008"></a>

		<div id="b1_c1_v4" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">4.</span> 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, "<i>Their glory is in their
			shame</i>" (Phil, iii: 19.)</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<a class="pagenumber" name="page009" id="page009" title="009"></a>
	<div class="chapter" id="b1_c2">
		<div class="chaphead">CHAPTER II.</div>
		<div class="chapsubhead">Their Secrecy.</div>
		<div class="verselist">
			<a href="#b1_c2_v1">1</a>
			<a href="#b1_c2_v2">2</a>
			<a href="#b1_c2_v3">3</a>
			<a href="#b1_c2_v4">4</a>
			<a href="#b1_c2_v5">5</a>
		</div>


		<div id="b1_c2_v1" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">1.</span> 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 <i>evil or sin in itself</i>. 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 <i>always</i> 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page010" id="page010" title="010"></a>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page011" id="page011" title="011"></a>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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c2_v2" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">2.</span> 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page012" id="page012" title="012"></a>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.</p>

			<p>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page013" id="page013" title="013"></a>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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c2_v3" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">3.</span> 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
			<a class="pagenumber" name="page014" id="page014" title="014"></a>their case, we believe the very <i>design</i> 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:</p>

			<p>"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."--<i>Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 21</i>.</p>

			<p>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page015" id="page015" title="015"></a>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:</p>

			<p>"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."--<i>Proceedings of Grand Lodge of United States</i>, 1859,
			<i>Ap., p</i>. 10.</p>

			<p>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.</p>

			<p>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page016" id="page016" title="016"></a>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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c2_v4" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">4.</span> 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>I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the
			synagogue, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said
			nothing</i>." (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.</p>

			<p>Again: The concealment of our actions is condemned in the words of the
			Most High, as recorded by the prophet: "<i>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</i>?" (Is. xxix: 15.)
			Those on whom a divine curse is thus pronounced are described as
			endeavoring to <i>hide their works in the dark</i>. This description
			applies, most assuredly, to those associations which meet only at
			night, and in rooms with <a class="pagenumber" name="page017" id="page017" title="017"></a>darkened windows, and which require their
			members solemnly to promise or swear that they will never make known
			their proceedings.</p>

			<p>Again: The inspired apostle incidentally condemns secret societies in
			denouncing the sins prevalent in his own day: "<i>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</i>."
			(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 <i>principle of secrecy</i> comes in for a share of
			his condemnation.</p>

			<p>The concealment practiced by "secret societies" is <a class="pagenumber" name="page018" id="page018" title="018"></a>inconsistent, also,
			with such declarations of the Bible as the following: "<i>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</i>."(John iii: 20, 21.) "<i>Let your light so shine before men that
			they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in
			heaven</i>." 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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c2_v5" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">5.</span> Besides, if the doings of these associations, in there secret
			meetings, are <i>good</i>, 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, <a class="pagenumber" name="page019" id="page019" title="019"></a>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.</p>

			<p>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.</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<a class="pagenumber" name="page020" id="page020" title="020"></a>
	<div class="chapter" id="b1_c3">
		<div class="chaphead">CHAPTER III.</div>
		<div class="chapsubhead">Their Oaths and Promises.</div>
		<div class="verselist"><a href="#b1_c3_v1">1</a> <a href="#b1_c3_v2">2</a> <a href="#b1_c3_v3">3</a> <a href="#b1_c3_v4">4</a> <a href="#b1_c3_v5">5</a> <a href="#b1_c3_v6">6</a> <a href="#b1_c3_v7">7</a></div>

		<div id="b1_c3_v1" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">1.</span> 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
			<a class="pagenumber" name="page021" id="page021" title="021"></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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page022" id="page022" title="022"></a>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."</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c3_v2" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">2.</span> 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page023" id="page023" title="023"></a>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page024" id="page024" title="024"></a>that caution and conscientiousness which the
			Scriptures enjoin. The apostle also condemns the conduct of those who
			"<i>understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm</i>" (1 Tim.
			i: 7.) Does not his condemnation fall on those who know not about what
			they swear, nor whereof they appeal to heaven?</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c3_v3" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">3.</span> 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 <i>know</i> 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page025" id="page025" title="025"></a>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.)</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c3_v4" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">4.</span> 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."</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c3_v5" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">5.</span> 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:</p>

			<a class="pagenumber" name="page026" id="page026" title="026"></a>
			<p>"<i>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</i>." (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:
			"<i>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page027" id="page027" title="027"></a>upon earth;
			therefore, let thy words be few</i>." (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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c3_v6" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">6.</span> The <i>promise</i> 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:</p>

			<a class="pagenumber" name="page028" id="page028" title="028"></a>
			<p>"If admitted, I promise obedience to the usages and laws of the Order
			and of the Lodge." (P. 378.)</p>

			<p>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page029" id="page029" title="029"></a>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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c3_v7" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">7.</span> 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.</p>

			<p>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page030" id="page030" title="030"></a>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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page031" id="page031" title="031"></a>associations as we are considering, is,
			therefore, a step in the dark. It involves the assuming of an
			obligation to do what <i>may be</i> morally wrong, and is, therefore,
			inconsistent with the teachings of the Word of God and the principles
			of sound morality.</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<a class="pagenumber" name="page032" id="page032" title="032"></a>
	<div class="chapter" id="b1_c4">
		<div class="chaphead">CHAPTER IV.</div>
		<div class="chapsubhead">Their Profaneness.</div>
		<div class="verselist"><a href="#b1_c4_v1">1</a> <a href="#b1_c4_v2">2</a> <a href="#b1_c4_v3">3</a></div>

		<div id="b1_c4_v1" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">1.</span> 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 <i>necessary</i> connection with
			secrecy, but has generally in <i>fact</i>. 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page033" id="page033" title="033"></a>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 <i>Most Worshipful Being</i>. 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 "<i>Grand</i> High
			<a class="pagenumber" name="page034" id="page034" title="034"></a>Priest," yea, a "<i>Most Excellent</i> 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.)</p>

			<p>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 <i>triangle</i> 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page035" id="page035" title="035"></a>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.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c4_v2" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">2.</span> 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, <a class="pagenumber" name="page036" id="page036" title="036"></a>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, "<i>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</i>." (Acts
			xii: 23.) It was for the same spirit of self-glorification that the
			king of Babylon was punished with madness <a class="pagenumber" name="page037" id="page037" title="037"></a>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
			for 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 of
			heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails
			like birds' claws. (Dan. iv: 30-33.)</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c4_v3" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">2.<br /> [sic]</span>Another objectionable feature of many secret societies is,
			that they profane the <i>worship</i> of God. They claim (at least those
			which seem to embrace the most numerous membership) to be, in some
			sense, religious associations. They maintain forms of worship; their
			rituals contain prayers to be used at initiations, installations,
			funerals, consecrations, etc. They receive into membership, as we
			shall afterward see, almost all sorts of men except atheists. Being
			composed of Jews, Turks, Mohammedans, Mormons, and infidels, as well
			as of believers in Christianity, they endeavor to establish such forms
			as will be acceptable to their mongrel and motley membership. Hence
			their prayers and other forms of worship are such as may be
			consistently used by the irreligious and by infidels, and only by
			them. We do not say that no Christian prayers are offered up in
			Masonic lodges. <a class="pagenumber" name="page038" id="page038" title="038"></a>No doubt some godly men, as chaplains, offer up
			extempore prayers in the name of Christ; but such prayers are not
			Masonic. They are not authorized by the Masonic ritual; they are
			contrary to the spirit if not to the express regulations of Masonry.
			Any member would have a right to object to them, and his objections
			would have to be sustained. The only prayers which Masonry does
			authorize, and can consistently authorize, are Christless--infidel
			prayers and services. The proof of this declaration can be found in
			every Masonic manual. (See Webb's Monitor, pp. 36, 80, 189, and
			Carson's Monitor, of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, pp. 47, 61, 95,
			99.) In all the prayers thus presented, the name of Christ is
			excluded; it is excluded even from the prayers to be offered at the
			installation of the "Most Excellent Grand High Priest." (Webb's Mon.,
			pp. 183, 189.) The idea of human guilt is, also, almost entirely
			excluded from these prayers; the idea of pardon through the atonement
			of Christ is never once presented in them. In the prayer to be used at
			the funeral of a "Past Master," it is declared that admission unto
			God's "everlasting kingdom is the just reward of a pious and virtuous
			life." Every true Christian, on reflection, must see that such prayers
			are an insult to the Almighty. They are <a class="pagenumber" name="page039" id="page039" title="039"></a>just such as infidels and all
			objectors of Christ may offer.</p>

			<p>The prayers of the society of Odd-fellows are equally objectionable.
			In respect to the character of their religious services, they are to
			be classed with the Masons. Odd-fellowship knows no God but the god of
			the infidel; it recognizes the Creator of the Universe and the Father
			of men, but not the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The
			name of Christ has no more a place in the religion of Odd-fellowship,
			according to its principles and regulations, than in a heathen temple
			or 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, would
			have just as much right to pray in the name of Mohammed, or a Mormon
			in the name of Joe Smith. These are facts which, we presume, all
			acquainted with the forms and ceremonies in use among Odd-fellows will
			admit. Grosch, in his Manual, makes the following declaration: "The
			descendants of Abraham, the divers followers of Jesus, the Pariahs of
			the stricter sects, here gather round the same altar as one family,
			manifesting no differences of creed or worship; and discord and
			contention are forgotten in works of humanity and <a class="pagenumber" name="page040" id="page040" title="040"></a>peace." (Pp. 285,
			286.) This declaration has reference, of course, to <i>all</i> the members
			of the associations--believers in Christianity, Jews, Mohammedans,
			Indians, Hindoos, and infidels. How do they manage to worship so
			lovingly together in the lodge-room? Our author asserts that they
			"leave their prejudices at the door." Of course their forms of worship
			embody no "prejudices." The thing is managed in this way: Whatever is
			peculiar to Judaism is excluded from the ritual and worship of
			Odd-fellows; whatever is peculiar to Hindooism is excluded; whatever
			is peculiar to Mohammedanism is excluded; whatever is peculiar to
			Christianity is excluded; whatever is peculiar to any form of religion
			is excluded. Only so much as is held in common by Jews, Hindoos,
			Mohammedans, and Christians is allowed a place in the ritual and
			worship of Odd-fellows. But how much is held in common by these
			various classes? After every thing peculiar to each class has been
			thrown overboard, how much is left? Nothing but <i>deism</i> or
			<i>infidelity</i>. The only views held in common by the Jew, Mohammedan,
			Christian, and others are just those held by infidels. The religion of
			Odd-fellowship is <i>infidelity</i>, and its prayers are <i>infidel</i> prayers.</p>

			<p>Not only such are the prayers and religion of <a class="pagenumber" name="page041" id="page041" title="041"></a>Masonry and
			Odd-fellowship, but such <i>must</i> be the religion and prayers of all
			associations organized on their principles. The only way to welcome
			all of every creed, Jew, Mohammedan, Hindoo, etc., and make them feel
			at home in an association, is to exclude every thing offensive to the
			conscience or prejudices of any one of them. And when every thing of
			that sort has been excluded, the residuum, in every case, as every one
			must see, will be deism or infidelity. This is a serious matter.
			Christians are not free from guilt in countenancing such prayers and
			services. The tendency of such religious performances must be very
			injurious. Whoever adopts the religious, or rather irreligious, spirit
			and principles of Masonry, Odd-fellowship, and other similar
			associations must discard Christianity and the Bible. No doubt there
			are <i>some</i>, perhaps there are <i>many</i> Christians in connection with
			such associations, but they certainly do not and can not approve the
			Christless prayers of the lodge-room, much less join in them. Is it
			right for the disciples of Jesus, or even for believers in
			Christianity, as the great majority of people in this country are, to
			sustain any association which puts Christianity on a level with pagan
			superstition, which treats Jesus Christ with no more regard and
			veneration than it does Mohammed, Confucius, or Joe <a class="pagenumber" name="page042" id="page042" title="042"></a>Smith, and whose
			only religion is the religion of infidels?</p>

			<p>If secret associations did not pretend to have <i>any</i> religion or <i>any</i>
			religious services, but would, like bank and railroad companies,
			conduct their affairs without religious forms, it would be infinitely
			better.</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<a class="pagenumber" name="page043" id="page043" title="043"></a>
	<div class="chapter" id="b1_c5">
		<div class="chaphead">CHAPTER V.</div>
		<div class="chapsubhead">Their Exclusiveness.</div>
		<div class="verselist"><a href="#b1_c5_v1">1</a> <a href="#b1_c5_v2">2</a> <a href="#b1_c5_v3">3</a> <a href="#b1_c5_v4">4</a></div>

		<div id="b1_c5_v1" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">1.</span> Another objection which may be urged against secret societies in
			general, is their selfish exclusiveness.</p>

			<p>It is well known that the Christian religion has often been subjected
			to reproach by the bigotry and sectarianism of its professors. If the
			<i>Bible</i> inculcated bigotry and sectarianism, it would be a
			well-founded objection to Christianity itself; but Christianity is
			eminently catholic and democratic, and is diametrically opposed to an
			exclusive and partisan spirit. The command of Christ to his church is
			to make no distinction on account of class or condition, but to
			receive all, and especially to care for the poor, the unfortunate, the
			oppressed, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and the diseased.
			Sometimes men calling themselves Christians act so directly contrary
			to the impartial, catholic spirit and teachings of Christ as to render
			themselves unworthy of all sympathy and encouragement; but the
			exclusiveness of secret societies is, we think, <a class="pagenumber" name="page044" id="page044" title="044"></a>unparalleled in our
			day for its selfishness and meanness. They claim to be charitable and
			benevolent institutions; they assert that membership in them confers
			great honors and advantages; they profess (at least many of them) to
			act on the principle of the universal brotherhood of men and
			fatherhood of God. (Moore's Con. of Freemasonry, p. 125; Webb's
			Monitor, pp. 21, 51; Proceedings of Odd-fellows' Grand Lodge of United
			States, 1859, App., p. 6.) We say nothing now about the falsity of
			these claims and professions; but we assert that, even admitting the
			boasted honors and advantages enjoyed by members of secret
			associations, such associations are eminently exclusive and selfish.
			Of this proposition there is abundant proof.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c5_v2" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">2.</span> The Masons utterly refuse to admit as members women, slaves,
			persons not free-born, and persons having any maim, defect, or
			imperfection in their bodies; or, at least, the principles of Masonry
			forbid 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 and
			Regulations of Freemasonry, in commenting on the articles above
			referred to, makes the following declarations: "The rituals and
			ceremonies <a class="pagenumber" name="page045" id="page045" title="045"></a>of the order forbid the presence of women;" and "the law
			proclaiming her exclusion is as unrepealable as that of the Medes and
			Persians." (P. 145.) Again: "Masonry requires candidates for its
			honors to have been free by birth; no taint of slavery or dishonor
			must rest upon their origin." (P. 143.) Once more this author remarks:
			"A candidate for Masonry must be physically perfect. As under the
			Jewish economy no person who was maimed or defective in his physical
			organism, though of the tribe of Aaron, could enter upon the office of
			a priest, nor a physically defective animal be offered in sacrifice,
			so no man who is not 'perfect' in his bodily organization can legally
			be made a Mason. We have occasionally met with men having but one arm
			or one leg, who in that condition had been made Masons; and on one or
			two occasions we have found those who were <i>totally blind</i> who had
			been admitted! This is so entirely illegal, so utterly at variance
			with a law which every Mason is bound to obey, that it seems almost
			incredible, yet it is true." (P. 152.) It is, hence, seen that Masonry
			is very exclusive. No woman can be a member. This regulation excludes
			at once one half of mankind from its boasted advantages. The oppressed
			slave is excluded; the man born in slavery, though now free, is
			excluded; the <a class="pagenumber" name="page046" id="page046" title="046"></a>lame man is excluded; the man who has lost an eye is
			excluded; the man who has lost a hand is excluded; the man who has
			lost a foot is excluded; the man on whose birth any taint of dishonor
			rests is excluded; the man who is imperfect in body is excluded. No
			matter how good, patriotic, and wise such persons are, still they are
			excluded; no matter how needy such persons are, still they are
			excluded; no matter though a man have lost a hand, or foot, or eye in
			defense of his country and liberty, still he is excluded; no matter
			though 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.</p>

			<p>"If a brother should be a rebel against the state, the loyal
			brotherhood can not expel him from the lodge, and his relation to it
			remains indefeasible." (Moore's Constitutions, Art. 2.) A Mason may be
			engaged in a wicked rebellion, and may stain his soul and hands with
			innocent blood, and still he must be recognized as "a brother" and
			must continue to enjoy all the boasted rights and advantages of the
			order; but the patriot soldier who has been disabled for life in
			defense of his country and liberty is excluded. The widows and orphans
			of rebel Masons slain in battle, or righteously executed <a class="pagenumber" name="page047" id="page047" title="047"></a>on the
			scaffold, must receive "the benefits;" but the widows and orphans of
			patriot soldiers who did not choose to join the Masons, or were
			excluded 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 (provided
			they are not atheists), are eligible to the boasted honors and
			advantages of Masonry. (Moore's Constitutions, pp. 119, 123.) But if a
			man have every intellectual gift and every moral virtue, and have some
			bodily imperfection, he is excluded. A man may be as gifted and as
			learned as Milton, as incorruptible and patriotic as Washington, and
			as benevolent as Howard, but if he is physically imperfect he is
			excluded from this association, which claims to be no respecter of
			persons, but to be the patron of merit, and which professes to act on
			the principle of the universal brotherhood of men.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c5_v3" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">3.</span> Exclusiveness in about the same degree characterizes other secret
			societies. The Constitution of the Odd-fellows' Grand Lodge of Ohio
			provides that the candidate for membership must be "a free white
			person possessed of some known means of support and free from all
			infirmity or disease." (Art. 6, Sec. 1.) Substantially the same
			qualifications for membership are required by the constitutions <a class="pagenumber" name="page048" id="page048" title="048"></a>and
			laws of other secret associations. (Constitution of Ancient Order of
			Good-fellows, Art. 6, Sec. 1; Constitution of Improved Order of Red
			Men, Art. 5, Sec. 1; Constitution of United Ancient Order of Druids,
			Art. 8, Sec. 1.)</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c5_v4" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">4.</span> Not only are these associations exclusive and selfish in regard to
			receiving members; not only do they utterly refuse to admit a man,
			however good, and wise, and patriotic he may be, in case he is
			diseased or infirm, or is disabled by wounds in the service of his
			country, and is too poor and feeble to maintain himself and his
			family; not only do they exclude all such persons from membership and
			from the boasted privileges, and honors, and pecuniary benefits
			pertaining thereto, but also their regulations in regard to their
			internal affairs manifest an unchristian, anti-republican, exclusive,
			selfish spirit. For instance, Masons will not, and, indeed, according
			to their regulations, can not, bestow funeral honors upon deceased
			members who had not advanced to the third degree. Those of the first
			and second degree can not thus be honored. They are not entitled to
			funeral obsequies, nor are they allowed to attend a Masonic funeral
			procession. (Webb's Monitor, pp. 132-133.)</p>

			<p>Again: Though Masonry makes professions of universal benevolence on
			the ground "that the radiant <a class="pagenumber" name="page049" id="page049" title="049"></a>arch of Masonry spans the whole habitable
			globe;" though it declares that every true and worthy brother of the
			order, no matter what be his language, country, religion, creed,
			opinions, politics, or condition, is a legitimate object for the
			exercise of benevolence, (Masonic Constitutions, by Grand Lodge of
			Ohio, p. 80); still it is declared that "Master Masons only are
			entitled to Masonic burial or relief from the charity fund." (Masonic
			Constitutions by Grand Lodge of Ohio, p. 39.) The rulers of Masons can
			not be chosen from the members of the first or second degree. It is
			thus seen that the first two degrees serve as a sort of substratum on
			which the other degrees rest, and the "honors and benefits" are not
			intended for persons of the former.</p>

			<p>The exclusiveness and selfishness of other secret associations are
			also apparent from their regulations. As shown above, they exclude all
			diseased and infirm persons from membership, and of course from all
			the "benefits." They generally provide that, in case of sickness or
			disability, a member shall receive three dollars per week, and in case
			of the death of a member, the sum of thirty dollars shall be
			contributed toward defraying his funeral expenses. But all the
			associations making such regulations also provide that a member who is
			in <a class="pagenumber" name="page050" id="page050" title="050"></a>"arrears for dues" shall receive no aid in case of sickness or
			disability; and in case of the death of a member who is "in arrears
			for dues" nothing shall be contributed to defray his funeral expenses,
			and his wife and children, however destitute they may be, can receive
			no aid. In such cases, the destitute widow and orphans must not look
			to "the <i>charitable</i> association" of which the departed husband and
			father was a member, but to outsiders--yes, to "prejudiced and
			ignorant" outsiders--for aid to bury his dead body with decency.
			Grosch says, "The philosopher's stone is found by the Odd-fellow in
			three words, <i>Pay in advance</i>. There are few old members of the order
			who can not relate some case of peculiar hardship caused by
			non-payment of dues. Some good but careless brother, who neglected
			this 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 <i>most</i>
			in need, were left destitute of all <i>legal</i> claims on the funds he had
			for years been aiding to accumulate." (Monitor, p. 198, 199.) Such
			facts as these prove secret associations to be exclusive, heartless,
			selfish concerns. (See Constitution of Druids, Art. 2, Sec. 1, and
			By-laws, Art. 11, Sec. 1; Constitution of Good-fellows, Art. 16, Sec.
			1; Constitution of Amer. Prot. Asso., Art. 9, Sec. 1-5.)</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<a class="pagenumber" name="page051" id="page051" title="051"></a>
	<div class="chapter" id="b1_c6">
		<div class="chaphead">CHAPTER VI.</div>
		<div class="chapsubhead">False Claims.</div>
		<div class="verselist"><a href="#b1_c6_v1">1</a> <a href="#b1_c6_v2">2</a> <a href="#b1_c6_v3">3</a> <a href="#b1_c6_v4">4</a> <a href="#b1_c6_v5">5</a></div>

		<div id="b1_c6_v1" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">1.</span> Another very serious objection to secret societies is that they set
			up false claims. No doubt a secret association may exist without doing
			so, but the setting up of false claims is the legitimate result and
			the usual accompaniment of secrecy. The object of secrecy is
			deception. When a man endeavors to conceal his business affairs, it is
			with the design of taking advantage of the ignorance of others.
			Napoleon once remarked, "The secret of majesty is mystery." This keen
			observer knew that the false claims of royalty would become
			contemptible but for the deception which kings and queens practice on
			mankind. We have quoted above from a book, the reliability of which
			will not be called in question, to show that the design of secrecy, on
			the part of Masons, is to take advantage of "a weakness in human
			nature," and to invest with a charm things which, if generally known,
			"would sink into disregard." So, also, "the aid of the mysterious" is
			resorted to by Odd-fellows to <a class="pagenumber" name="page052" id="page052" title="052"></a>render their "meetings attractive," and
			to "stimulate applications for membership." (Proceedings of Grand
			Lodge, 1859, App., p. 10.) It will scarcely be disputed that such is
			the design of the concealment practiced by secret associations in
			general. It is thus shown that secrecy is the result of an
			unwillingness to rely upon real merit and the sober judgment of
			mankind for success, and of a desire, on the part of associations
			practicing it, to pass for what they are not. Hence, the design of
			secrecy involves hypocrisy, or something very much like it.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c6_v2" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">2.</span> But, whatever may be the <i>design</i> of secrecy, secret associations
			do set up false claims. They all, or almost all, claim to be
			charitable institutions. This is the frequent boast of Masons and
			Odd-fellows. Moore, in his "Constitutions," declares that "charity and
			hospitality are the distinguishing characteristics" of Masonry. (P.
			71.) In the charge to a "Master Mason," at his initiation, it is
			declared that "Masonic charity is as broad as the mantle of heaven and
			co-extensive with the boundaries of the world." (Masonic
			Constitutions, published by the Grand Lodge of Ohio, p. 80.) "The
			Right Worthy Grand Representative," Boylston, in his oration delivered
			in New York, April 26, 1859, declared that Odd-fellowship is "most
			generally known and commended by its <a class="pagenumber" name="page053" id="page053" title="053"></a>charities." (Proceedings of Grand
			Lodge, 1859, App., p. 6.) Such is the style in which secret
			associations glorify themselves. Such boasting, however, is not good.
			It is contrary to the command of our Savior: "Therefore, when thou
			doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the
			hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have
			glory of men." The boasting of secret associations about their
			charities is precisely what our Savior not only forbids, but also
			declares to be characteristic of hypocrites. And such boasting is,
			indeed, generally vain. When a man boasts of any thing, whether of his
			wealth, pedigree, bravery, wisdom, or honesty, there is good reason to
			suspect that his claims are not well founded. Hence, the very boasting
			of secret associations about their benevolence and charities is
			presumptive evidence that their claims to the reputation of being
			charitable institutions are hypocritical and false.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c6_v3" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">3.</span> In the first place, "the benefits" are confined to their own
			members. The excuse for secrecy, in some instances, is that it is
			necessary in order that aid may not be obtained by persons who are not
			members. In the "charge" delivered to a Master Mason at his
			initiation, he is enjoined to exercise benevolence toward "every true
			and worthy brother of <a class="pagenumber" name="page054" id="page054" title="054"></a>the Order." In Boylston's address which we have
			already quoted from several times, "the well-earned glory of
			Odd-fellows" is declared to consist in this: that "no <i>worthy
			Odd-fellow</i> has ever sought aid and been refused." (Proceedings of
			Grand Lodge, 1859, App., p. 9.) It is provided in the Constitution of
			Odd-fellows, Good-fellows, etc., that aid shall be given to members
			under certain circumstances; but it will be in vain to search in them
			for any regulation providing for relief to any but members and their
			families. The provision found in the constitution or by-laws of almost
			every secret association that members "in arrears for dues" shall not
			be entitled to "benefits," plainly shows that their vaunted "charity"
			is restricted to their own members. This would not be so bad were it
			not for the fact that they carefully exclude from membership all who
			need aid or are likely to need aid. The Masons, according to their
			Constitutions, must not receive as a member any man who is not
			"physically perfect." The constitutions of other secret orders exclude
			all who are diseased or infirm in body, or who have no means of
			support. They exclude the blind, the lame, the maimed, the diseased,
			the destitute, the widow and the orphan, and all who are wretchedly
			poor or can not support themselves, and they cut off all such persons,
			together <a class="pagenumber" name="page055" id="page055" title="055"></a>with their own members who "are in arrears," from the
			"benefits." Yet they talk about the universal brotherhood of men, and
			claim for themselves the possession of universal benevolence!</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c6_v4" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">4.</span> Still further: The relief afforded to members is not to be regarded
			as a charity. The amount granted in all cases is the same. The
			constitutions of most secret associations that give aid to members
			provide that three dollars a week shall be given in case of sickness,
			and thirty dollars in case of death. The amount given does not
			correspond to the condition of the recipient. The rich and the poor
			fare alike. The member "in arrears" is not entitled to any aid. It is
			only the <i>worthy brother</i> who is entitled to aid, and in order to be a
			worthy brother a member must punctually pay his "dues." Hence, the
			amount bestowed in case of the sickness or death of a member is to be
			regarded as a debt. The "Druids," in their Constitution, expressly
			declare that the aid given to sick members is not to be regarded in
			any other light than as the payment of a <i>debt</i>. "All money paid by
			the grove for the relief of sick members shall not be considered as
			charity, 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 <a class="pagenumber" name="page056" id="page056" title="056"></a>pride of the receiver,
			for the reason "that the relief extended is not of grace, but of
			right." (Proceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, Appendix, p. 6.) Grosch, in
			his Odd-fellows' Manual, in justifying equality in dues and in
			benefits, says: "He who did not pay an equivalent would feel degraded
			at receiving benefits--would feel that they were not his just due, but
			alms." (P. 66.) It is, hence, seen that the aid bestowed by secret
			societies is no more a gift of charity than the dividends of a bank or
			of a railroad company. The stockholders are entitled to their share of
			the profits; so members of secret societies are entitled to a certain
			share of the funds to which they have contributed. We say nothing for
			or against the propriety of this arrangement, in itself considered.
			Persons have, perhaps, a right to form themselves into a mutual
			insurance company, to bargain with one another that they will aid each
			other in case of sickness or want; that in case of the death of any of
			the members, their families shall be provided for by the surviving
			members; that only the members who continue to pay into the common
			fund a certain sum monthly or quarterly shall receive such aid; that
			no money shall be paid out of the common fund for the benefit of any
			who are not members, or of their families; and that all diseased and
			infirm persons, and <a class="pagenumber" name="page057" id="page057" title="057"></a>very poor people, such as "have no visible means
			of support," and are likely to need pecuniary aid, shall be excluded
			from the company and from its benefits. Perhaps men have a right to
			form themselves into an association with such regulations; perhaps
			they have a right to leave "an unworthy brother" (a member who fails
			to 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 poor
			heart-broken widow to beg of the same "ignorant and prejudiced"
			outsiders enough of money to bury his dead body decently; <i>but they
			have no right to call themselves a charitable association</i>. It is
			probable that many Masons, Odd-fellows, Good-fellows, etc., are kind
			to "unworthy brethren," and to the poor in general; but if so, they
			are better than the associations of which they are members. Bankers
			and money-brokers, no doubt, sometimes show kindness to the poor, but
			it does not hence follow that banks and money-shaving establishments
			are charitable institutions. Neither does it follow that secret
			societies are charitable because their members, in case of sickness or
			death, are entitled to a certain portion of the funds which they
			themselves have contributed as initiation fees and quarterly dues,
			while those who are in real <a class="pagenumber" name="page058" id="page058" title="058"></a>want can not even become members. What
			charity is there in persons pledging themselves to aid each other in
			sickness or other misfortune, and to let widows and orphans, the lame
			and the diseased, and the wretchedly poor, perish with hunger and
			cold? It may not be improper for A, B, and C to promise that they will
			take care of each other in sickness, and that in case of the death of
			one 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 property
			insured. Insurance companies have done much good. Many a man has been
			saved from pecuniary ruin by getting his property insured, and many a
			man has secured a competence for his wife and children by getting his
			life insured. Individuals and families have probably been oftener
			saved from worldly ruin by insurance companies than by secret
			societies. The association of A, B, and C may do some good. They have
			a right to agree to aid one another. They may, perhaps, have a right
			to say that D, E, and F, who are very poor, or are enfeebled by
			disease, shall not join them, and shall not be aided by them; but they
			have no right to represent their exclusive, selfish association as a
			charitable one. Such a representation would be false, and the
			wickedness of making it wholly inexcusable. We do <a class="pagenumber" name="page059" id="page059" title="059"></a>not blame
			Odd-fellows, Good-fellows, Druids, or any other association for acting
			as mutual insurance companies. We do not blame them for agreeing that
			they will take care of each other or of each other's families. We are
			not 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 of
			such associations does seem very repulsive. We are not now condemning
			them for casting off all those who do not pay their "dues," those who
			become very poor and can not as well as the rich who will not, and for
			cutting off all such persons from all "benefits of whatsoever kind,"
			though such treatment does seem to us selfish, cruel, and mean; we do
			not now arraign them for any of these things, however ungenerous,
			exclusive, and selfish they appear to us, but we do say that any
			association which thus practices, and professes, and calls itself a
			charitable one is a cheat and a sham. Those secret societies which
			glorify themselves on account of their charities and universal
			brotherhood and benevolence, can be acquitted of willful deceit and
			falsehood only on the ground that they are blinded by prejudice or
			ignorance, or both.</p>

			<p>The pretentious character of secret associations <a class="pagenumber" name="page060" id="page060" title="060"></a>appears, also, in
			their claims to be the possessors and disseminators of knowledge and
			morality. Their members seem to think a man can scarcely be good and
			intelligent without being "initiated." Webb delares [sic] "Masonry is a
			progressive science. * * Masonry includes within its circle almost
			every branch of polite learning." (Monitor, p. 53.) "Masonry is not
			only the most ancient, but the most moral institution that ever
			subsisted." (Monitor, p. 39.) Grosch, in his Manual, speaking of the
			shining sun as an emblem, says: "So Odd-fellowship is dispersing the
			mists from the advancing member's mind, and revealing things as they
			are; so, also, it is enlightening the world," etc. (Manual, p. 120.)
			The extravagance find absurdity of these claims must be evident to
			every prejudicial mind. It may be said, indeed, the above declarations
			express the opinions only of individuals, and that associations can
			not justly be charged with the errors of their members. We maintain,
			however, that secret societies are responsible for the vain boasting
			of their members. They claim that their members are a chosen board, a
			select few, who, by virtue of their association, are superior to the
			rest of mankind. Their processions and parades, their regalia and
			emblems, and their high-sounding titles are evidently designed to
			impress the minds of their own members and of outsiders <a class="pagenumber" name="page061" id="page061" title="061"></a>with ideas of
			their excellence and grandeur. Their high-sounding titles have already
			been adverted to as involving the sin of profaneness; but they serve
			equally well to illustrate the pretentious character of the
			associations which employ them. Almost every officer among the Masons
			has some great title. There is the Grand Tyler, Grand Steward, Grand
			Treasurer, Grand Secretary, Grand Chaplain, and Grand Master. The
			Lodge itself is <i>grand</i>, and, of course, every thing and every body
			connected with it are <i>grand</i>. The treasurer, though his duty be
			merely to count and hold a little vile trash called money, is grand;
			almost every officer is a grand man.</p>

			<p>These titles, however, do not give an adequate idea of the <i>grandeur</i>
			to which "sublime" Masonry ascends. They have their Right Worshipful
			Deputy Grand Master, their Right Worshipful Grand Treaurer [sic], Most
			Worshipful Grand Master, Most Eminent Grand Commander, Thrice
			Illustrious 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 by
			the rest. The Odd-fellows have almost the same parades, shows, and
			titles as the Masons. <a class="pagenumber" name="page062" id="page062" title="062"></a>They have their aprons, ribbons, rosettes, and
			drawn swords; and they endeavor, by these and other clap-trap means,
			to recommend their association as a grand affair. They, too, have
			their Right Worthy Grand Lodge, Most Worthy Grand Master, Right Worthy
			Grand Secretary, Right Worthy Grand Treasurer, Right Worthy Grand
			Chaplain, etc.</p>

			<p>We think it strange that men of sense should employ such titles. They
			would be ridiculous even applied to the greatest and best man that
			ever lived. They are more ridiculous than the bombastic titles given
			to civil officers in barbarous countries. The Sublime Porte of Turkey
			is outdone in this respect by secret associations in the United
			States.</p>
		</div>

		<div id="b1_c6_v5" class="verse">
			<p><span class="versenum">6.<br /> [sic]</span>The absurdity of these high-sounding titles and other puerilities
			is further seen from the character of those who compose the
			associations which employ them. They boast that they receive as
			members almost all sorts of men except atheists; that men of every
			religious sect and every nation meet in their lodges as loving
			brethren, and on a perfect equality; that they welcome the Jew, the
			Arab, the Chinaman, the American savage, the infidel, and the
			Christian, provided they be sound in body and be able to support
			themselves; yet the <a class="pagenumber" name="page063" id="page063" title="063"></a>officers elected by the lodges or squads of such
			persons, Jews, Arabs, Chinamen, savages, infidels and Christians,
			become Most Eminent Grand Commanders, Thrice Illustrious Puissants,
			etc. Yea, since brotherhood and <i>equality</i> characterize these
			associations, the Jew, the Arab, the Chinaman, and the infidel are
			eligible to any office, and may become Most Worshipful Grand
			Commanders and Most Excellent Grand High Priests.</p>

			<p>All this is calculated to produce laughter and contempt; but such is
			not the design. The design of those who make use of these grand titles
			and other clap-trap things is to recommend their associations as an
			excellent and grand affair. The design itself, and the means employed
			for its accomplishment, must, certainly, be condemned by every
			unprejudiced Christian [sic] mind.</p>
		</div>
	</div>


<div class="chapter" id="b1_conclusion">
		<div class="chaphead">CONCLUSION.</div>
		<div id="b1_conclusion_v1" class="verse">
			<p>We have thus briefly stated the objectionable features of what are
			generally called secret societies. It is mainly to their secrecy,
			oaths, and promises, their profanation of holy things, their
			exclusiveness and their setting up of false claims, to which we
			object. These are the things objected to in the foregoing treatise. We
			have written without any feeling of unkindness, and we trust, also,
			<a class="pagenumber" name="page064" id="page064" title="064"></a>without prejudice. We had intended to urge additional considerations
			to show the evil nature and tendency of secret societies; but we have
			been restrained by the fear of swelling our treatise beyond a proper
			size.</p>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>

<a class="pagenumber" name="page065" id="page065" title="065"></a>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page066" id="page066" title="066"></a>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page067" id="page067" title="067"></a>
<div class="book" id="b2">
</div>	<hr />
	 <h2>SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?</h2>

	<div class="chaplist"><a href="#b2_c1">Shall Christians Join Secret Societies?</a> <a href="#b2_c2">Supposing it to be Innocent, Will It Pay?</a> <a href="#b2_c3">Is it Obligatory?</a> <a href="#b2_c4">Is it Right?</a></div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b2_c1">
		<div class="chaphead">SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?</div>
			<div class="verse" id="b2_c1_v1">
			<p>"With charity for all and with malice toward none," we bring this
			question to all those who would serve Christ. We mean by "secret
			societies" not literary, scientific, or college associations, which
			merely use privacy as a screen against intrusion, but those affiliated
			and centralized "orders" spreading over the land, professing
			mysteries, practicing secret rites, binding by oaths, admitting by
			signs and pass-words, solemnly pledging their members to mutual
			protection, and commonly constructed in "degrees," each higher one
			imposing fresh fees, oaths, and obligations, and swearing the
			initiated to secrecy even from lower "degrees" in the same Order.</p>

			<p>Shall Christians join societies of this kind?</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b2_c2">
		<div class="chaphead">SUPPOSING IT TO BE INNOCENT, WILL IT PAY?</div>

		<div class="verse" id="b2_c2_v1">
			<p><i>First</i>. They consume time and money. Have you considered how much?
			How many evenings, and whole nights, and parts of days? How many
			<a class="pagenumber" name="page068" id="page068" title="068"></a>dollars in fees, dues, fines, expenses, and diminished proceeds from
			broken days? Will it pay? Can you not lay out this amount of time and
			money more profitably?--a plain man's question. They propose helping
			you to "friends," "business," in "moral reform," in "sickness, death,
			and bereavement;" but can you not get as much of such good in ways
			pointed out to you by Christ, your best and wisest friend?--ways which
			will yield you more of personal cultivation, spiritual good, earthly
			profit, social and domestic happiness, and openings for usefulness. If
			so, these orders are unprofitable, and <i>will not pay</i>.</p>

			<p><i>Secondly</i>. They furnish inferior security for investments. As <i>mutual
			insurance societies</i>, they are irresponsible, and more liable to
			corruption, <i>just because they are secret</i>. Do they make "reports" to
			the public or the Legislature? Do they make any adequate "report" to
			the mass even of their own members? Millions and millions are known to
			have gone into the treasury of a single one of these organizations. No
			dividends are declared, no expenditures published. <i>Where</i> is the
			money? Were it not safer to invest the same amount in companies where
			every proceeding is open to public eye and public judgment? Would you
			not, then, be safer? If so, <i>it will not pay</i> to join these orders.</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b2_c3">
		<a class="pagenumber" name="page069" id="page069" title="069"></a>
		<div class="chaphead">IS IT OBLIGATORY?</div>
		<div class="verse" id="b2_c3_v1">
			<p><i>First. Charity</i> has no need of them. They are not truly charitable
			institutions. "Mutual insurance societies" they may be, though of an
			inferior sort, as we have seen; but that does not elevate them into
			<i>charitable</i> institutions. To bestow on your widow and orphans, your
			sickness, and funeral some pittance, or the whole of what you paid
			during health and life, is not <i>benevolence</i>.</p>

			<p>But, further, it is well to ask, in determining how greatly <i>charity</i>
			depends on them, how broadly they go forth among the poor outside
			their membership. During the anti-masonic excitement of 1826-1830 some
			two thousand lodges suspended. The resultant suffering was less,
			perhaps, than what would follow the suspension of a single soup
			association, any winter, in some city. Blot out the whole, and how
			small the injury to the charities of the country!</p>

			<p>The Church of Christ is commanded to "do good unto <i>all</i> men"--"to
			remember the poor." It is engaged in this work. It blows no
			trumpet--it does not parade its charities; but it shrinks from
			comparison with no one of these orders, nor with all of them combined.
			<i>Christians</i> need not to go into them to preserve <i>charity</i> alive, or
			to find the best ways of exercising their own.</p>

			<p><i>Secondly. Morality</i> does not depend on them. <a class="pagenumber" name="page070" id="page070" title="070"></a>We need say nothing of
			"what is done of them in secret." But, looking at what is open to all,
			we ask, What <i>work</i> are they doing worthy of so much organization, and
			expense, and time to reclaim the fallen, to banish vice, and to save
			its victim? We have heard them refusing him admission or cutting him
			off, but we have not heard of any considerable aid which they have
			given to public or private morality. And, further, do we not find them
			narrowing the circle of obligation, substituting attachment and duty
			to an order for love and obligations to mankind? <i>Membership</i> in a
			lodge, <i>not character</i>, is held to make one "worthy," opening the way
			to favor and society. But can all this be done without sensibly
			weakening the fundamental supports of morality, without lessening its
			broad requirements?</p>

			<p><i>Thirdly. Patriotism</i> has no need of them. They tend to destroy
			citizenship, to exalt love of an order above the love of country. The
			boast during the late rebellion was sometimes heard that their
			members, owing to the oaths of mutual protection, were safer among the
			rebels than other captives. Was the converse true? Were rebels, being
			Freemasons, 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 before
			judge and <a class="pagenumber" name="page071" id="page071" title="071"></a>jury of their order? Have rebellion and vice found greater
			security here? This boast is confession--confession that the ties of
			an order are stronger and more felt than is consistent with a proper
			love of country. Is justice thus to be imperiled? Are securities of
			property and rights thus to be imperiled? Must we beggar ourselves by
			paying fees and dues to one another of these orders, now becoming more
			plentiful every decade, to make sure of standing on equal footing and
			impartiality with others, in the courts and elsewhere, and imagine
			that all this is helpful to patriotism or even consistent with it?</p>

			<p><i>Fourthly. Religion</i> has no need of them. "The church is the pillar
			and ground of the truth." "The gates of hell shall not prevail against
			it." The preaching of Christ and him crucified is and must continue to
			be the wisdom of God and the power of God unto salvation. <i>Religion</i>,
			then, has no need of these secret orders.</p>

			<p>We come now to this: Neither charity, morality, patriotism, nor
			religion imposes obligations on us to join them. <i>It will not pay</i> was
			our first fact. We have now reached this other, that <i>no consideration
			of duty</i> requires it. But,</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b2_c4">
		<div class="chaphead">IS IT RIGHT?</div>
		<div class="verse" id="b2_c4_v1">
			<p><i>First. Christ, our Master, neither instituted nor countenanced these
			orders</i>. <a class="pagenumber" name="page072" id="page072" title="072"></a>Reviewing his whole earthly ministry, he said (John xviii:
			20): "I spake openly to the world;" and "in secret have I said
			nothing." By this double affirmation he strongly suggested his
			preference for <i>open, unsecret</i> ways and proceedings.</p>

			<p><i>Secondly. In those rites, proceedings, and regalia which do appear,
			these orders are frivolous</i>, belittling, and unworthy of respect. If
			the revealed are such, what must the unrevealed be?</p>

			<p><i>Thirdly. These orders stand convicted of deceit and falsehood</i>. They
			profess secrets and mysteries worth buying. Hundreds of high-minded
			men, of irreproachable character and integrity, who have, therefore,
			"renounced these hidden things of dishonesty," testify over their own
			signatures, that their secrets are but signs, pass-words, ceremonies,
			etc., covering nothing but emptiness and vanity.</p>

			<p><i>Fourthly. These orders are unfriendly to domestic happiness and
			well-being</i>, breaking in upon the sacred confidence and unity of
			husband and wife, pledging him to conceal from her the proceedings of
			perhaps fifty nights yearly, thus often sowing seeds of distrust,
			filling his breast with what must not be divulged to her, involving
			him in affairs and habits not unfrequently injurious to the best
			interests and state of the family.</p>

			<p><i>Fifthly. These orders are hostile to the heavenly-mindedness, <a class="pagenumber" name="page073" id="page073" title="073"></a>the
			spirituality of those who join them</i>. We speak from much testimony.
			"Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed." The prudent man
			foreseeth the evil, but the foolish pass on and are punished. This
			voice of one is that of many concurring wise, faithful, and godly men,
			viz.: "I am afraid of these secret societies; they have sucked the
			spirituality out of all the members in our church who have joined
			them." Young, promising Christians have often been blighted by them.
			The fervor of piety, interest in the church and its work, interest in
			Christ and his people, interest in God's Word and Spirit, all the
			various elements of an earnest life of faith and heavenly-mindedness
			have been blighted in these lodges. And in urging this, we appeal to
			so many witnesses, and cover so wide a field of observation, as to
			make it certain that this is not the exceptional but the ordinary
			result.</p>

			<p><i>Sixthly. These orders tend to destroy Christian fellowship</i>. Let them
			grow until a given church is broken into squads, each pledged to
			secrets from the other, but bound within itself by special ties; give
			to each its own weekly meeting, mysteries, rites, signs, grips,
			pass-words; let each be sworn to provide for, protect, shield, and
			love its own adherents above others, and is not "<i>church fellowship</i>"
			annihilated? Can the Spirit of Christ flow freely <a class="pagenumber" name="page074" id="page074" title="074"></a> from member to
			member through such partitions? Is this "one body in Christ, and every
			one members one of another?"</p>

			<p><i>Seventhly. These orders tend to subject the church to "the world" in
			some of its dearest interests</i>. For example: When a few leading
			members join a neighboring lodge, and make vows to the "strange"
			brotherhood, how easy for that lodge to interfere secretly but
			controllingly in its discipline of members, or in its selection or
			dismission of a pastor! These suggestions are not merely imaginary.
			Subjection of the church, in this way, to the cunning craftiness of
			evil and designing men is no mere dream.</p>

			<p><i>Eighthly. These orders dishonor Christ</i>. Those claims which he makes
			for himself are disallowed. He is required to disappear or find a
			place amidst other objects for worship. There is a <i>necessity</i>,
			because these orders are designed for adherents of all religions. Were
			they on the footing of an insurance company or a merchants' exchange,
			or any similar body, this fact would not be so. But they profess to
			include religion among their elements, and its services, in whole or
			in part, among their ceremonies. They have prayers and solemn
			religious rites. And in these <i>Christ is dishonored</i>. His exclusive
			claims are disallowed or ignored, and this not by accident, but of set
			purpose. Out of twenty-three <a class="pagenumber" name="page075" id="page075" title="075"></a>forms of prayer in the "New Masonic
			Trestle-Board," (Boston edition, 1850,) only one even alludes to him,
			and that one in a non-committal way. These secret orders are under
			bonds not to honor Christ as he claims, lest the Jew, or the Deist, or
			the Mohammedan, all of whom they seek to enroll in equal membership,
			should be offended. When the higher "degrees" of Masonry allude to
			Christ and Christianity, it is but as one amidst many equals. We
			repeat it: Did these orders stand on the same footing with mercantile
			or 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 full
			equality in this with the church of God itself! Yet, if you join them,
			their "constitutions" prohibit you acknowledging, in their boasted
			religious services, what Christ, your Lord, not only claims for
			himself, but commands you to give unto him: that glory which is due to
			his holy name. Are they, then, not <i>Anti-christ</i> in this thing? And
			can you, without sin, consent to it, or uphold institutions which
			forbid you and others, in religious services, to honor him as your God
			and Savior, and which thus place him on the same level with Zoroaster,
			Confucius, or Mohammed?</p>

			<a class="pagenumber" name="page076" id="page076" title="076"></a>
			<p><i>Ninthly. These orders--the things now alleged being true--impede the
			cause and kingdom of God, and are, therefore, hostile to the largest,
			best, and deepest interests of mankind</i>. 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, like
			Adams, and Webster, and Everett; great communities, like the American
			people from 1826 to 1830, have united to declare them not only "wrong
			in their very principles," but "noxious to mankind." But many
			Christians, rising higher and standing on "a more sure word of
			prophecy," have discovered in them the enemies of the Gospel and of
			the cross of Christ. Following him, their great exemplar in
			philanthropy as in godliness, who did nothing in secret, they refuse
			to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, choosing
			rather to reprove them.</p>

			<p>Shall Christians join secret societies?</p>

			<p>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; if
			you are under no obligation to do it; if you have any doubt of its
			rightfulness, it is most assuredly your duty to refuse any connection
			with them.</p>

			<a class="pagenumber" name="page077" id="page077" title="077"></a><p>We have no wish to press our reasoning beyond just limits. We have
			sought to avoid extreme statements. We now ask you whether, in the
			light of what has been brought to view, the weight of argument is not
			against your joining these orders and lending them aid? Even should
			you be able to stand up against their tendency to lower your personal
			piety and injure your Christian character, have we not here one of
			those cases where many brothers are offended or made weak? The Lord
			Jesus has said, "Whoso offends one of these little [or weak] ones, it
			were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck and
			he were drowned in the depths of the sea." Will you, then, however
			safe yourself, be the means, by your example, of bringing weaker
			brethren into such dangers? "We, then, that are strong ought to bear
			the burdens of the weak, and not please ourselves." "It is good
			neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do any thing whereby
			thy brother stumbleth or is offended [caused to sin] or is made weak."
			These words are not ours; they are God's.</p>

			<p>Christian disciple, decide this question of secret societies with
			candor, with solemn prayer, and with a purpose to please God.</p>
		</div>
	</div>


<a class="pagenumber" name="page078" id="page078" title="078"></a>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page079" id="page079" title="079"></a>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page080" id="page080" title="080"></a>
<a class="pagenumber" name="page081" id="page081" title="081"></a>
<div class="book" id="b3">
	<hr />
	<h2>A PAPER ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS OF
	THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES, AT THEIR MEETING IN OTTAWA, 1866.</h2>

	<div class="chaplist"><a href="#b3_c1">CHAPTER I</a> <a href="#b3_c2">CHAPTER II</a> <a href="#b3_c3">CHAPTER III</a></div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b3_intro">
		<div class="verse" id="b3_intro_v1">
			<p>The topics committed to us involve the following points:</p>
			<div class="indentedlist">

				<p><a href="#b3_c1">1. The moral character of secrecy</a>. Is it an element of an invariable
				 moral character? and, if so, what? and, if not, what are the
				 decisive criteria of its character?</p>

				<p><a href="#b3_c2">2. Associations or combinations involving secrecy</a>. Are they of
				 necessity right or wrong? If not, what are the decisive criteria?</p>

				<p><a href="#b3_c3">3. Religious rites and worship in societies or organizations, open
				 or secret</a>. Are any kind allowable? and, if so, what?</p>
			</div>
		</div>
	</div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b3_c1">
		<div class="chaphead">I. Secrecy, Its character.</div>
		<div class="verse" id="b3_c1_v1">
			<p>A presumption against secrecy arises from the known fact that
			evil-doers of all kinds resort to secrecy. This is for two reasons:
			(1.) To avoid opposition and retribution; and, (2,) to avoid exposure
			<a class="pagenumber" name="page082" id="page082" title="082"></a>to disgrace. The adulterer seeks secrecy; so do the thief and the
			counterfeiter; so do conspirators for evil ends.</p>

			<p>Secrecy, whenever resorted to for evil ends, is wrong. But may it not
			be resorted to for good ends? and is it not recognized as often wise
			and right in the Word of God? We answer in the affirmative. There is a
			certain degree of reserve, or secrecy, that should invest every
			individual. Our whole range of thought and feeling ought not to be
			promiscuously made known. There is a degree of secrecy necessary in
			the order, social intercourse, and discipline of the family. There is
			secrecy needed in dealing with faults and sins. Christ adopts this
			principle in his discipline. He says, "Tell him his fault between him
			and thee alone. If he repents, conceal it." There are confidential
			communications for important ends, or for council.</p>

			<p>Concealment may be used as a defense against enemies, as in the case
			of the spies of Joshua, or the messengers of David, or when Elisha hid
			himself by the brook Oherith, by God's order. So God hides the good in
			his secret place and under his wings.</p>

			<p>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 an
			eminent <a class="pagenumber" name="page083" id="page083" title="083"></a>degree. He hides himself. He dwells in thick darkness. It is
			his glory to conceal his designs. In part, this is inevitable by
			reason of his greatness; in part, he resorts to it of set purpose.</p>

			<p>It is a special honor and blessing of the good that he discloses his
			secrets to them.</p>

			<p>Secrecy, then, is not of necessity wrong. Its character depends upon
			the ends for which it is used, and the circumstances and spirit in
			which it is used. There is a secrecy of wisdom, love, and justice, as
			well as a secrecy of selfish, malevolent, and evil deeds.</p>
		</div>
	</div>


	<div class="chapter" id="b3_c2">
		<div class="chaphead">II. Secret societies.</div>
		<div class="verse" id="b3_c2_v1">

			<p>Of these there may be two degrees.</p>

			<div class="indentedlist">

				<p>1. Where not only the proceedings of the society are secret, but even
				the existence of such a society is concealed.</p>

				<p>2. Where the existence is avowed, and the signs and proceedings only
				are secret.</p>
				</div>

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

			<p>So, too, secret associations whose existence is avowed may combine for
			selfish ends, and in derogation <a class="pagenumber" name="page084" id="page084" title="084"></a>of the common rights of the social
			system. They may defend their members, to the injury of justice, in
			our courts. They may interfere with the management of churches and
			societies. They may bring an influence of intimidation to bear on
			public men. They may disseminate false principles of religion and
			morals. They may co-operate for political ends, and to effect
			revolutions.</p>

			<p>And yet it is no less true that, in certain circumstances, secret
			societies of both kinds may be resorted to for good ends.</p>

			<p>Secret societies may be rightfully resorted to for common council and
			united action, in the fear of God and with prayer, in a very dangerous
			state of the body politic, to resist incumbent evils, and the
			existence of such societies not be disclosed, if the state of the case
			would thus give them greater power for good. So, as a defense against
			known disloyal secret organizations, secret loyal leagues were
			rightfully resorted to as a means of united and concentrated action
			against organized disloyalty. And if, in resisting moral evils,
			secrecy gives power and advantage in devising measures to resist vice
			and crime, it is not sinful to resort to it.</p>

			<p>All boards of trust generally have secret sessions, and legislative
			bodies resort to secret sessions rightfully, if the state of affairs
			demands it. <a class="pagenumber" name="page085" id="page085" title="085"></a>It will be seen that secrecy is justified and demanded by
			peculiar circumstances or obvious ends to be gained. The reason of the
			case, therefore, is against secrecy, and in favor of open action,
			where no such justification can be made out. It is the nature of truth
			and right to be open. All things tend to it. There is nothing covered
			or concealed that shall not finally be proclaimed.</p>

			<p>On the other hand, if secrecy is resorted to without reason; if it is
			made the basis of false pretences; if it assumes the existence of
			something that is not, then it is not defensible. If it involves a
			profession of information to be communicated, and influences for good
			to be exerted, that do not exist, then it is a species of intellectual
			swindling which admits of no defense. The sciences and arts, the Bible
			and nature, are open to all. So is the book of history. What new
			science, or art, or history, or religion is there for secret societies
			to disclose?</p>
		</div>
	</div>

	<div class="chapter" id="b3_c3">

		<div class="chaphead">III. Religious rites or worship in societies, open or secret--are any
		allowable? and, if so, what?</div>
		<div class="verse" id="b3_c3_v1">

			<p>In order to answer this question, we need to consider certain
			fundamental and vital principles of Christianity.</p>

			<div class="indentedlist">

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

				<a class="pagenumber" name="page086" id="page086" title="086"></a>
				 <p>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."</p>

				 <p>3. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; but he
				 that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."</p>
				</div>

			<p>All Christian churches are based on these truths, and the center and
			culmination of their worship is this recognition of Christ in the
			Sacrament as the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world.
			Christ, too, is the center of the worship of heaven.</p>

			<p>Hence, if Christians associate with others in worship, it can rightly
			be only on the ground that the worship centers in Christ, and
			acknowledges him as Lord, to the glory of the Father.</p>

			<p>Hence, if, for the sake of extending an organization, men are admitted
			of all religions--Pagans, Mohammedans, Deists, Jews--and if, for the
			sake of accommodating them with a common ground of union, Christ is
			ignored, and the God of nature or of creation is professedly
			worshiped, and morality inculcated solely on natural grounds, then
			such worship is not accepted by the real God and Father of the
			universe, for he looks on it as involving the rejection and dishonor,
			nay, the renewed crucifixion of his Son. As to Christ, he tolerates no
			neutrality. He <a class="pagenumber" name="page087" id="page087" title="087"></a>who is not for him is against him. These principles do
			not involve the question of secrecy. They hold true of all societies,
			open or secret.</p>

			<p>If, on such anti-Christian grounds, prayers are framed, rites
			established, and chaplains appointed, ignoring Christ and his
			intercession, God regards it as a mockery and an insult to himself and
			his church. In it is revealed the hatred of Satan to Christ. By it
			Christ is dethroned and Satan exalted.</p>

			<p>These principles do not exclude worship and prayer from societies. In
			any societies, true worship in the name of Christ will be accepted.</p>

			<p>Let us now apply these principles to the societies of Free Masonry,
			the modern mother of secret societies. Concerning these we hold it to
			be plain:</p>

			<p>That they have neither science nor art to impart as a reward of
			membership. The time was when there was a society, or societies, of
			working masons, coming down from the old Roman empire, and extending
			through the middle ages. These were societies of great power, and
			wrought great works. The cathedrals of the middle ages were each
			erected by such a corporation, and attest their skill and energy.</p>

			<p>But these corporations of working masons have passed away, and Masonry
			is now, even in profession, only theoretical, and in fact, so far as
			this art <a class="pagenumber" name="page088" id="page088" title="088"></a>is concerned, is not even this. It does not teach the theory
			of architecture. The transition took place in 1717, after a period of
			decline in the lodges of working masons. All pretences to a history
			back of this, or to any connection with Solomon or Hiram, are mere
			false pretences and delusion for effect. No art is taught and no
			science is communicated by the system.</p>

			<p>Practical ends, then, alone remain; and, in fact, the founders of the
			system avowed "brotherly love, relief, and truth" as these ends. The
			cultivation of social intercourse is also avowed as an end by
			defenders of the system. But such ends as these furnish no good
			reasons for secrecy; nor is secrecy favorable to a wise and economical
			use of the income of such bodies for purposes of benevolence. An open
			and public acknowledgment of receipts and expenditures is needed as a
			safeguard against a dishonest and wasteful expenditure of funds.</p>

			<p>Nor is this all. The secrecy of the order, taken in connection with
			the principle of hierarchal concentration, and with the administration
			of extra-judicial oaths of obedience and secrecy, renders it, as a
			system, liable to great abuses in the perversion of justice, in the
			overriding of national law, and the claims of patriotism.</p>

			<p>But the most serious view of the case lies in the <a class="pagenumber" name="page089" id="page089" title="089"></a>fact that it
			professes to rest on a religious basis, and to have religious temples,
			yet is avowedly based on a platform that ignores Christ and
			Christianity as supreme and essential to true allegiance to the real
			God of the universe. Its worship, therefore, taken as a system, is in
			rivalry to and in derogation of Christ and Christianity.</p>

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

			<p>This system, and those who imitate its hierarchal and centralizing
			organization, also give power to those hierarchal principles and
			systems against which Congregationalism has ever protested as
			corrupting and enslaving the church.</p>

			<p>The system also cultivates a love of swelling titles, and of gaudy
			decorations and display in dress, that are hostile to the genius of
			our Constitution, and to true republican and Christian dignity and
			simplicity.</p>

			<p>From this system other organizations have borrowed much, and some do
			not essentially differ from it in practical working.</p>

			<a class="pagenumber" name="page090" id="page090" title="090"></a>
			<p>Other organizations, however, for the ends of temperance reform, have
			adopted modes of organization, display in dress, and secret signs for
			the purposes of recognition and defense. The ends and proceedings of
			these temperance societies are so well known that it is often denied
			that they are secret societies; yet they do, avowedly for purposes of
			defense, resort to secrecy, and have imitated modes of dress and
			organization found in Masonry. And members of Masonic lodges declare
			that they involve, in fact, all the principles of Masonic
			organizations, and rely on them ultimately leading to their own order.</p>

			<p>While we recognize the true devotion of the members of these societies
			to the cause of temperance, and acknowledge and commend their active
			efforts to resist the progress of one of the greatest evils of the
			age, we yet can not concede the wisdom or desirableness of a resort to
			principles and modes of action which tend to create a current toward
			other secret organizations not aiming at their ends, nor actuated by
			their spirit of temperance reform.</p>

			<p>In conclusion, we respectfully present the Association the following
			principles foradoption [sic]:</p>

			<div class="indentedlist">

				 <p><i>Resolved</i>, 1. That in dealing with secret organizations, this
				 Association recognizes the need of a <a class="pagenumber" name="page091" id="page091" title="091"></a>careful statement of principles
				 and a wise discrimination of things that differ.</p>

				<p> 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.</p>

				<p> 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 <i>unconditional</i> oath or promise of
				 submission, adhesion, and concealment, under all circumstnces [sic],
				 that compact is a grave moral wrong.</p>

				<a class="pagenumber" name="page092" id="page092" title="092"></a>
				<p> 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."</p>
		 </div>
	 </div>
</div>
</div>
</html>