Secret Societies by Edward Beecher Read online

  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.

  3. 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 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 worthy Odd-fellow 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 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!

  4. 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 worthy brother 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 debt. "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 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 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; but they have no right to call themselves a charitable association. 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 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 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.

  The pretentious character of secret associations 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 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 grand, and, of course, every thing and every body connected with it are grand. 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.

  These titles, however, do not give an adequate idea of the grandeur to which "sublime" Masonry ascends. They have their Right Worshipful Deputy Grand Master, their Right Worshipful Grand Treasurer [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. 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.

  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.

  6. 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 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 equality 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.

  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.

  CONCLUSION.

  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, 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.

  * * * * *

  SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?

  * * * * *

  SHALL CHRISTIANS JOIN SECRET SOCIETIES?

  "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.

  Shall Christians join societies of this kind?

  SUPPOSING IT TO BE INNOCENT, WILL IT PAY?

  First. They consume time and money. Have you considered how much? How many evenings, and whole nights, and parts of days? How many 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 will not pay.

  Secondly. They furnish inferior security for investments. As mutual insurance societies, they are irresponsible, and more liable to corruption, just because they are secret. 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. Where 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, it will not pay to join these orders.

  IS IT OBLIGATORY?

  First. Charity 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 charitable 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 benevolence.

  But, further, it is well to ask, in determining how greatly charity 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 coun
try!

  The Church of Christ is commanded to "do good unto all 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.

  Christians need not to go into them to preserve charity alive, or to find the best ways of exercising their own.

  Secondly. Morality does not depend on them. We need say nothing of "what is done of them in secret." But, looking at what is open to all, we ask, What work are they doing worthy of so much organization, 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? Membership in a lodge, not character, 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?

  Thirdly. Patriotism 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 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?