Secret Societies Part 1

Secret Societies.

by David MacDill, Jonathan Blanchard, and Edward Beecher.

CHAPTER I.

THEIR ANTIQUITY.

1. Secret a.s.sociations 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 a.s.sociations 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 G.o.d gave up to uncleanness through the l.u.s.ts 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 inst.i.tutions among G.o.d's ancient people were right and good; nor that every inst.i.tution 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 G.o.d had given over to a reprobate mind and to vile affections (Rom. i: 26-28); that which made a part of the wors.h.i.+p which the ignorant heathen offered up to their unclean G.o.ds, and which was unknown among G.o.d'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 superst.i.tion.

But whatever may have been the _design_ of the authors of them, it is certain that they became schools of superst.i.tion 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 a.s.sign 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 a.s.sociations 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 cla.s.sed 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 a.s.sociations 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 pa.s.swords 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 pa.s.swords, 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 a.s.sociations 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 a.s.sociations.

2. The impropriety of habitual concealment may be further ill.u.s.trated.

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 dest.i.tute 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 a.s.sociations 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociations.

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 inst.i.tution 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 a.s.sociations, 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-fellows.h.i.+p, 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 members.h.i.+p, 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-fellows.h.i.+p, 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 a.s.sociations is the same. We are not aware that Good-fellows, Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, and other similar a.s.sociations, 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 a.s.sociations, 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 a.s.sociation 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 G.o.d.

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 p.r.o.nounced are described as endeavoring to _hide their works in the dark_. This description applies, most a.s.suredly, to those a.s.sociations 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 fellows.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d in their parades and initiations. He says it would be a shame to speak of the rites performed by the heathen in their secret a.s.sociations in honor of Bacchus and Venus, the G.o.d of wine and the G.o.ddess of l.u.s.t, and of their other abominable deities. But whether the apostle refers to the Eleusinian, Samothracian, and other pagan mysteries, or not, the _principle of secrecy_ comes in for a share of his condemnation.

The concealment practiced by "secret societies" is inconsistent, also, with such declarations of the Bible as the following: "_For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in G.o.d_." (John iii: 20, 21.) "_Let your light so s.h.i.+ne before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven_." These are the words of our Savior, and they certainly condemn the concealment practiced by secret a.s.sociations, and all the means employed for that purpose--their signs, grips, and pa.s.swords; 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 a.s.sociations, 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 fellows.h.i.+p with them. In either case secret a.s.sociations 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 a.s.sociations whose moral character we are considering is condemned both by the common judgment of men and by the Word of G.o.d.

CHAPTER III.

THEIR OATHS AND PROMISES.

1. Another serious objection to secret a.s.sociations is the profanation by them of the oath of G.o.d. We regard such profanation as the natural result of their secrecy. When a.s.sociations 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 a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sociation endeavors to secure a numerous members.h.i.+p, 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 a.s.sociations, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d who dwelleth therein; and that to swear by heaven, is to swear by the throne of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, whether direct or indirect, in attestation of the truth of a declaration or promise, is an oath. As we have already said, a secret a.s.sociation 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 const.i.tute 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d that he will forever keep secret things about which he knows nothing. The secrets of the a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sured 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 d.a.m.ned 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 a.s.suring himself of the lawfulness of his doing so, what would he have said had the practice existed in his day of swearing by the G.o.d of heaven in regard to matters that are altogether unknown? To say the very least, such swearing is altogether inconsistent with that caution and conscientiousness which the Scriptures enjoin. The apostle also condemns the conduct of those who "_understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm_" (1 Tim.

i: 7.) Does not his condemnation fall on those who know not about what they swear, nor whereof they appeal to heaven?

3. There is another objection to taking an initiatory oath. We are expressly forbidden to take G.o.d's name in vain. To p.r.o.nounce G.o.d's name without a good reason for doing so is to take it in vain.

Certainly, to swear by the name of the living G.o.d demands an important occasion. To make an appeal to the G.o.d of heaven on some trifling occasion is a profanation of his oath and name. If the secrets of Masonry, Odd-fellows.h.i.+p, Good Templars, and similar a.s.sociations, are unimportant, their oaths, appeals to heaven, and solemn promises made in the presence of G.o.d are profane and sinful. Perhaps their boasted secrets are only signs, grips, pa.s.s-words, and absurd rites of initiation. To swear by the name of the Lord about things of this kind is certainly a violation of the third commandment. The candidate does not _know_ that the secrets about to be disclosed to him are of any importance, and he runs the risk of using G.o.d's name and oath about light and trivial things. He must be uncertain whether there is any thing of importance in hand at the time of swearing, and how can he escape the disapproval of G.o.d, since the inspired Paul declares that the doubtful eater of meat is d.a.m.ned? (Rom. xiv: 23.)

4. We have already adverted to the fact that concealment is resorted to in order to take advantage of "a weakness in human nature," and to recommend things which, if known generally, would be disregarded. Is it right to use the name and oath of G.o.d for the accomplishment of such purposes? Is it right to use the name and oath of G.o.d in order to take advantage of "a weakness in human nature," and to invest with fict.i.tious 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 circ.u.mstances will generally be avoided by those who give good heed to the command, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G.o.d in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

5. While we do not claim that there is any pa.s.sage of Scripture which expressly declares the initiatory oaths under consideration to be profane and sinful, at the same time there are many pa.s.sages which require us to beware how and when we swear:

"_But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation_." (James v: 12.) Does not this command condemn those who swear to keep secret they know not what, and to fulfill obligations which devolve upon them as members of an a.s.sociation, before they know fully what that a.s.sociation 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 G.o.d's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king.

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black; but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." These words were spoken in condemnation of those who employed oaths frequently and on improper occasions. They should make every one hesitate in regard to swearing, in any form, on his initiation into an order the obligations and operations of which have not yet been revealed to him. Once more: "_Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before G.o.d, for G.o.d is in heaven and thou upon earth; therefore, let thy words be few_." (Eccl. v: 2.) Is it not a rash thing to bind one's self by the oath of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, it certainly would be well to avoid taking such oaths as generally are required of the members of secret a.s.sociations at their initiation.

6. The _promise_ required of candidates at their initiation, whether there be an oath or not, is also, at least in many cases, improper and sinful. For instance, the "candidate for the mysteries of Masonry,"

previous to initiation, must make the declaration that he "will cheerfully conform to all the ancient established usages and customs of the fraternity." (Webb's Freemason's Monitor, p. 34.) Grosch, in his Odd-fellows' Manual, directs the candidate at his initiation as follows: "Give yourself pa.s.sively 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 members.h.i.+p, as laid down by Grosch, the applicant promises as follows:

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

These declarations, by reliable authors, plainly show that both in Masonry and Odd-fellows.h.i.+p 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 members.h.i.+p in the a.s.sociation 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 members.h.i.+p 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 d.a.m.ned for doing what he is not confident is right? The candidate for initiation into Odd-fellows.h.i.+p must "give himself pa.s.sively to his guides." Such demands indicate the spirit which secret a.s.sociations 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 pa.s.sively 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 G.o.d.