A Discussion of Their Character and Claims

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER I.

THEIR ANTIQUITY.

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

2. The facts that these associations had no existence among the Israelites, who, alone of all
the ancient nations, enjoyed the light of Divine revelation, and that they originated and flourished
among the heathen, who were vain in their imaginations; whose foolish heart was darkened, and
whom God gave up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts (Rom. i: 21-24), is a
presumptive proof that their nature and tendency are evil. We do not claim that all the institutions
among God's ancient people were right and good; nor that every institution among the heathen
was sinful and injurious; still, that which was so popular among those whom the Bible declares
to have been filled with all unrighteousness; that which was so pleasing to men whom God had
given over to a reprobate mind and to vile affections (Rom. i: 26-28); that which made a part
of the worship which the ignorant heathen offered up to their unclean gods, and which was unknown
among God's chosen people, is certainly a thing to be viewed with suspicion. A thing of so
bad origin and so bad accompaniments we should be very slow to approve. The fact that many
good men see no evil in secret societies, and that many good men have been and are members
of them, is more than counterbalanced by the fact that many good men very decidedly disapprove
of them, and that, from time immemorial, men of vile affections and reprobate minds, men whose
inclinations and consciences were perverted by heathenish ignorance and error, and by a corrupt
and abominable religion, have been very fond of them.

3. Doubtless the authors and conductors of the ancient mysteries made high pretensions, just
as do the modern advocates of secret societies. Perhaps the original design of the ancient
mysteries was to civilize mankind and promote religion; that is, pagan superstition. But whatever
may have been the design of the authors of them, it is certain that they became schools of
superstition and vice. Their pernicious character and influence were so manifest that the ancient
Christian writers almost universally exclaimed against them. (Leland's Chr. Rev., p. 223.)
Bishop Warburton, who, in his "Divine Legation," maintains that the ancient mysteries were
originally pure, declares that they "became abominably abused, and that in Cicero's time the
terms mysteries and abominations were almost synonymous." The cause of their corruption, this
eminent writer declares to be the secrecy with which they were performed. He says: "We can
assign no surer cause of the horrid abuses and corruptions of the mysteries than the season
in which they were represented, and the profound silence in which they were buried. Night gave
opportunity to wicked men to attempt evil actions, and the secrecy encouragement to repeat
them." (Leland's Chr. Rev., p. 194.) It seems to have been of these ancient secret associations
that the inspired Apostle said, "It is a shame even to speak of those things which are done
in secret." (Eph. v: 12.)

4. In view of these facts, the antiquity of secret societies is no argument in their favor;
yet it is no uncommon thing to find their members tracing their origin back to the heathenish
mysteries of the ancient Egyptians, Hindoos, or Grecians. (See Webb's Freemason's Monitor,
p. 39.) Since the ancient mysteries were so impure and abominable, those who boast of their
affinity with them must be classed with them of whom the Apostle says, "Their glory is in their
shame" (Phil, iii: 19.)

CHAPTER II.

THEIR SECRECY.

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

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

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

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

"If the secrets of Masonry are replete with such advantages to mankind, it may be asked, Why
are they not divulged for the general good of society? To which it may be answered, were the
privileges of Masonry to be indiscriminately bestowed, the design of the institution would
be subverted, and, being familiar, like many other important matters, would soon lose their
value and sink into disregard." --Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 21.

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

"But even if we do resort to the aid of the mysterious, to render our meetings attractive,
or as a stimulant to applications for membership, surely this results, in no injury to society
or individuals." --Proceedings of Grand Lodge of United States, 1859, Ap., p. 10.

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

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

4. That the concealment of actions and principles, either by individuals or associations, is
inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, is, we think, easily shown. Thus our Savior,
on his trial, declared: "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, whither
the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing." (John xviii: 20.) An association
which claims to be laboring in behalf of true principles, and for the moral and intellectual
improvement of men, and yet conceals its operations under the impenetrable veil of secrecy,
is certainly practicing in direct opposition to the example and teaching of the Son of God.

Again: The concealment of our actions is condemned in the words of the Most High, as recorded
by the prophet: "Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their
works are in the dark; and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?" (Is. xxix: 15.) Those
on whom a divine curse is thus pronounced are described as endeavoring to hide their works
in the dark. This description applies, most assuredly, to those associations which meet only
at night, and in rooms with darkened windows, and which require their members solemnly to promise
or swear that they will never make known their proceedings.

Again: The inspired apostle incidentally condemns secret societies in denouncing the sins prevalent
in his own day: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove
them; for it is a shame to speak of those things that are done of them in secret." (Eph. v:
11, 12.) It is not without reason that commentators understand the shameful things done in
secret, of which the apostle speaks, to be the "mysteries" of the "secret societies" which
prevailed among the ancient heathen. They maintained religious rites and ceremonies in honor
of their imaginary deities, just as most modern "secret societies" make a profane use of the
word and worship of God in their parades and initiations. He says it would be a shame to speak
of the rites performed by the heathen in their secret associations in honor of Bacchus and
Venus, the god of wine and the goddess of lust, and of their other abominable deities. But
whether the apostle refers to the Eleusinian, Samothracian, and other pagan mysteries, or not,
the principle of secrecy comes in for a share of his condemnation. These are the words of our
Savior, and they certainly condemn the concealment practiced by secret associations, and all
the means employed for that purpose--their signs, grips, and passwords; their shunning the
light of day; their secret gatherings in the night, and in rooms with darkened windows; the
terrible oaths and solemn promises with which they bind their members to perpetual secrecy;
the disgraceful punishments which they threaten to inflict on any member who will expose their
secret doings--all these things are inconsistent with the spirit, if not the very letter, of
the commands of our Savior quoted above.

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

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

CHAPTER III.

THEIR OATHS AND PROMISES.

1. Another serious objection to secret associations is the profanation by them of the oath
of God. We regard such profanation as the natural result of their secrecy. When associations
of men endeavor to keep secret their operations from generation to generation, they will not
be willing to trust to the honor and honesty of their members. A simple promise of secrecy
will not be deemed sufficient. Oaths or promises, with dreadful penalties, will very likely
be required of all those who are admitted as members. Secret societies may, perhaps, exist
without such oaths and promises. If the members of an association are few in number, or if
the publication of its secrets would not be regarded as very injurious to its interests, perhaps
a simple promise of secrecy will be regarded as sufficient; but whenever an association endeavors
to secure a numerous membership, and regards a disclosure of its secrets as likely to damage
its reputation or hinder its success, something more than a simple promise of secrecy will
very likely be required at the initiation of members. Accordingly, some secret associations,
it is known, do employ awful sanctions in order to secure concealment. Even when the members
of a secret order claim that they are not bound to secrecy by oath, but only by a simple promise,
it will, perhaps, be found on examination that that promise is, in reality, an oath. An appeal
to God or to heaven, whether made expressly or impliedly, in attestation of the truth of a
promise or declaration, is an oath. Such an appeal may not be regarded as an oath in our civil
courts, the violator of which would incur the pains and penalties of perjury; yet certainly
it is an oath according to the teachings of the Bible. Our Savior teaches that to swear by
the temple, is to swear by God who dwelleth therein; and that to swear by heaven, is to swear
by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. (Matt. xx: 23.) We find, also, that
the words, "As the Lord liveth," is to be regarded as an oath. King David is repeatedly said
to have sworn, when he used this form of expression, in attestation of his sincerity. (1 Sam.
xx: 3; 1 Kings i: 29.) An appeal to God, whether direct or indirect, in attestation of the
truth of a declaration or promise, is an oath. As we have already said, a secret association
may exist without an oath. But we are not sure that any does. Odd-fellows have declared that
they have no initiatory oath. In the address published by the Grand Lodge of the United States,
referred to before, the following declaration is made: "No oath, as was once supposed, is administered
to the candidate." (App. to Proceedings of Grand Lodge, 1859, p. 10.) Yet Grosch, in his Odd-fellows'
Manual, speaks of an "appeal to heaven" in the initiation, at least, into one of the degrees.
(P. 306.) Perhaps the contradiction arises from a difference of opinion in regard to what it
takes to constitute an oath, or, perhaps, from the fact that an oath is required in initiations
into some degrees, but not in others. However this may be, we know that some secret societies
have initiatory oaths, and that nearly all administer what, in the sight of God, is an oath,
though they may not so view it themselves. Nor do we see any reason to discredit the declaration
of Grosch that the candidate "appeals to heaven."

2. Now, the taking of an initiatory oath is, to say the very least of it, of doubtful propriety.
Every one who does so swears by the living God that he will forever keep secret things about
which he knows nothing. The secrets of the association are not imparted to him until after
he has sworn that he will not reveal them. He is kept ignorant of them until the "brethren"
are assured by his appeal to heaven that they can trust him. Now, the inspired apostle lays
down the principle that a man sins when he does any thing about the propriety of which he is
in doubt. He declares that the eating of meats was in itself a matter of indifference, but
that if any man esteem any thing unclean, to him it is unclean. (Rom. xiv: 22, 23.) According
to this most emphatic declaration, we must have faith and confidence that what we do is right,
else we are blameworthy. We sin whenever we do any thing which is, according to our own judgment,
of doubtful propriety. The man who is initiated into an oath-bound society, swears that he
will keep secret things about which he knows nothing--things which, for aught he knows, ought
not to be kept secret. If the apostle condemned, in most emphatic language, the man who would
do so trivial a thing as eat meat without assuring himself of the lawfulness of his doing so,
what would he have said had the practice existed in his day of swearing by the God of heaven
in regard to matters that are altogether unknown? To say the very least, such swearing is altogether
inconsistent with that caution and conscientiousness which the Scriptures enjoin. The apostle
also condemns the conduct of those who "understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm"
(1 Tim. i: 7.) Does not his condemnation fall on those who know not about what they swear,
nor whereof they appeal to heaven?