I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/secretsocietiestOOking / L / 21 K TUTTLE IKE U8StiSt OF THE omivehsity of mm Secret Societies. SECRET SOCIETIES A ■ A.V J c ( \f A THURSDAY LECTURE DELIVERED JANU^Rty |&(; pEJppRE THE STUDENTS OF OBERLIN QOlLEGE, V. AoikAA HENRY C. KING PROFESSOR IN OBERLIN COLLEGE published by O. S. KRIEREL and G. L. SMITH, ’89 O. C. ,: 2 rfiitO 3 fi Oberlin College, Jan. ioth, 1890. The undersigned, having listened with satisfaction to the lecture given in the College Chapel yesterday, by Professsor King, on Secret Organizations, hereby express our earnest desire that it be published in pamphlet form. Jas. H. Fairchild, W. G. Ballantine, L. B. Hall, Wm. G. Frost, C. H. Churchill, F. F. Jewett, Mrs. A. A. F. Johnston, A. H. Currier, G. F. Wright, John M. Ellis, James Monroe. PRESS OF OBERLIN RECORD. OBERLIN, OHIO. Secret Societies. My theme is Secret Societies; and I speak in obedience to the appointment of the Faculty. Oberlin College has a traditional position on this, as on many other questions. That position she sees no rea- son to regret, nor to retreat from. It is therefore to be maintained ; to be maintained in charity, as was her posi- tion on slavery, with no judgment upon the motives of others, but to be maintained, as an abiding witness to conscientious convictions. Oberlin does not believe that this question should furnish the bread and butter of a college course ; nor that this is the supreme reform of the day ; but she does think the question important enough to take a position concern- ing it. The grounds of our convictions as to such ques- tions, we owe it to ourselves to state here from time to time, to you. And you have a right to ask our reasons. I alone, of course, am to be held responsible for individ- ual statements ; the general position taken, I understand to be held by all the Faculty. And this is a practical question, likely to meet you men hereafter in any community; and, if you have not considered it somewhat carefully, likely then to be decided thoughtlessly, to your subsequent regret and loss. / And the question is not a small one, as to the num- bers concerned. Speaking only of Freemasons, the Brit- annica (1879) says, there are “ said to be in the world more than 10,000 lodges, and more than 1,000,000 members.” ; Meyer’s Hand Lexicon (1888) makes the number of Free- \ mason lodges 16,000, with 138 grand lodges, 74 of which 4 are in the United States. The Britannica is authority also for the statement that in 1882 the Odd Fellows in Amer- ica claimed 500,000 members. The same year the Knights of Pythias claimed a membership of over 125,000. There has been published a list of more than two hundred different secret orders of all kinds existing in the United States, though many are local and very short lived. The state- ment is made upon competent authority that to-day, Bos- ton has 571 secret lodges to 223 churches. Only an esti- mate can be made as to the number of individuals included in all these two hundred orders of America, as many be- long to more than one order; but a conservative estimate makes the number less, very likely considerably less, than two millions. But with all possible abatement, the num- ber is still very large ; the thinking man must then ask, what is the meaning of this movement? what is its tend- ency ? shall I go with the crowd unthinkingly ? or shall I move only upon conviction ? f Moreover, the very existence of so many orders of such a kind, in a free country, with the ballot in the hand of ever}’ man, is an anomaly, and provokes inquiry. And the claims the societies themselves make to power, do not make inquiry less desirable, nor less nec- essary. As long ago as 1825, the Masonic orator, Brainard, at New London, Conn., said : “ What is Masonry now ? It is powerful They [its members] are distributed, too, with the means of knowing each other, and the means of keeping secret, and the means of cooperating — in the desk, in the legislative hall, on the bench, in every gather- ing of men of business, in every party of pleasure, in every enterprise of government, in every domestic circle, in peace and in war, among its enemies and friends, in one place as well as another ; so powerful, indeed, is it, at this time, that it fears nothing from violence, either public or private ; for it has every means to learn it in season ; to counteract, defeat and punish it.” The boast was extrav- 5 agant, doubtless ; but it has been re-echoed by Masonic writers and orators many times since. A comparatively recent echo was in the letter of a grand lodge secretary, to John Dougall, after he had published in his paper, the New York Witness, an article against Masonry; a letter con- taining this characteristically insolent and blasphemous application of Scripture to Masonry : “ Whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken, but upon whomso- ever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Once again the thinking man is forced to ask himself, what such insolence as that, in a land like our’s, means ? And thus the claims of the lodges themselves, compel him to investigate the meaning of the whole lodge movement. But I perhaps owe it to the young women, to turn aside a moment, to indicate how the subject concerns them. It is no longer true, I regret to say, as Prof. Wilder of Cornell University, once contended, that “ secret societies are exclusively masculine.” For a long time, in some of the older orders, “ side degrees ” of more or less signifi- cance, intended somewhat to take the edge off woman’s natural curiosity and make her contented to remain ig- norant of the real degrees, have been given to women. Women may also have part in the Good Templars, the Grange, and some other orders. But even this is not the extent of woman’s opportunities. There are now in a number of colleges feminine fraternities, strange to say, the Alpha Phi, for example, or, in Miss Willard’s kindly eu- phemistic phrase, “ gardens of girls meeting with closed doors.” Though the recent report concerning the intro- duction of secret societies into Wellesley College, was, I am glad to say, erroneous. But, in fact, I have learned lately of a new species of the human race, the “ Frat. girl ” (the Fraternity girl) ; and, only think of it, you may become “ Frat. girls ! ” But, if you find yourselves still dissatisfied with your high privileges, and Avith your connection with this theme, let me commend to you, dear women, these touch- b ing words of comfort of Albert G. Mackey, Past General Grand High Priest and Secretary General of the Su- preme Council, 33d, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States : “ As they [women] worked not at the tem- ple, neither can they work with us. But we love and cherish them none the less And while we know that woman’s smile, like the mild beams of an April sun, re- flects a brighter splendor on the light of prosperity, and warms with grateful glow the chilliness of adversity, we regret not the less deeply, because unavailingly, that no ray of that sun can illume the recesses of our lodge, and call our weary workmen from their labors to refresh- ment ! ” 1 CLASSIFICATION OF SECRET SOCIETIES. Returning to our theme, it Ought frankly to be said, that the subject is intended to embrace all societies, of whatever kind, that have the element of secrecy as an es- sential part of their constitution. Yet it is at once al- lowed, and emphatically asserted, that secret societies dif- fer widety in aim, and in the character of their membership, and that they have all degrees of secrecy. They are not all to be sweepingly embraced under the same judgment. There are those which have only insurance in view, whose oaths and secrecy are intended chiefly better to se- cure the pa)^ment of dues, and concern only this business of the order. Such are the Royal Arcanum and the Amer- ican Legion of Honor. There are those organized for professed temperance and social purposes, whose secrecy is thought to be useful to the work proposed by the order ; such are the Good Templars, and the earlier Sons of Tem- perance. There are others with alleged patriotic aims, in which no great stress is laid on the secret charac- ter of the order, such as the Grand Army of the Repub- lic, the Sons of Veterans, and the Union Veterans’ Union. Still other orders are based on class or business inter- ests, with a more or less strong social element. In these,, 1 Mackey, Lexicon. Article, Woman. 7 the secrecy is thought to be somewhat essential. to the fulfill- ment of the aims of the society. Such orders are the Patrons of Husbandry, Order of Locomotive Engineers, and the more inclusive Knights of Labor. Some of the most important orders, it is difficult accurately to classify ; for they are loltily said to be “ intended to disseminate the great principles of friendship, charity, and benevolence.” Thev have a kind of moral, more or less religious and so- cial character, with aims of relief of their members, and with much more formidable oaths. Such are the Free- masons and the Odd Fellows, and the similar, but much less important order, Knights of Pythias. Orders with distinctly political aims, whether or not avowed, have been the Knights of the Golden Circle, Ku Klux Klan or Invisible Empire, the Clan-na-Gael or United Brotherhood, and the Molly Maguires or Ancient Order of Hibernians, who perpetrated the well known outrages in Pennsylvania. How far a secret society may vary from its alleged aims is well illustrated by the fact that the avowed desire of the last named society was simply to “promote friendship among the Irish Catholics, and especially to assist one another in trade.” One fur- ther class, quite distinct, and not to be farther considered, religious and political, include the Jesuits, and Mormons that have taken the Endowment House oaths. Such a survey, which ma}^ help us to understand the extent of the secret lodge movement, must make it evi- dent that a detailed examination of different orders is im- possible ; nor is it necessary. We need only examine the claims of the most boastful of all, Freemasonry, as the oldest of all mentioned (except the Jesuits), the largest, and most conspicuous, and the practical mother of all the rest; involving other societies in her condemnation only so far as they are like her, and considering more carefully the element of secrecy, as common to all ; adverting inci- dentally to College Fraternities. Freemasonry claims to be the “ M}^stic Tie,” “that sa- 8 cred and inviolable bond which unites men of the most discordant opinions into one band of brethren, which gives but one language to men of all nations, and one altar to men of all religions.” 2 Masonry claims besides to be the guardian of most “valuable” and “sacred” “ traditions and esoteric doctrines,” whose sacred and val- uable character demand the protection of absolute se- crecy. These may be approached only through solemn ceremonies and awe-inspiring oaths. The important claims of the secret orders may perhaps be summed up in these : (i) Freemasonry, in particular, claims antiquity. (2) In common with most of the or- ders, it claims to possess certain secrets. (3) The lodges claim to be justified by the membership of good men. (4) They commonly claim to be benevolent societies. (5) They claim to be moral institutions, with only benefi- cent effects on society and on the individual. Can these claims be justified ? THE CLAIM TO ANTIQUITY. By virtue of her pretended traditions, and in spite of her own historians, even late Masonic authors and magazines continually assume Freemasonry’s great antiquity ; and the “ lectures” and “ charges” are full of the most marvellous information concerning Enoch, a “ very eminent Freemas- on ; ” Peleg, who, you may not know, was “ chief archi- tect of the tower of Babel,” and the special progenitor of the 2 1 st degree; Solomon, in remembrance of whose lodgery the seat of the Worshipful Master is called the “Oriental Chair of Solomon;” Hiram, “the widow’s son,” so touchingly commemorated in the Master’s de- gree, etc. Mackey, as late as 1872, still allows this state- ment to stand : “ Freemasonry is in its principles undoubt- edly coeval with creation ; but in its organization, as a pe- culiar institution, such as it now exists, we dare not trace it further back than to the building of King Solomon’s 2 Mackey, Lexicon. Article, Mystic Tie. 9 Temple.” The article in Johnson’s Cyclopedia, signed by a Mason, still virtually makes the same claim. Happily we may soon have done with all this nonsense as to the antiquity of Freemasonry. For the time has come when we may speak without hesitation as to the his- toric origin of this order The best Masonic, as well as other, historians agree in the matter. The Encyclopedia Britannica unhesitatingly places the origin of Speculative Freemasonry in London, June 24, 1717. Hughan, the Ma- sonic historian, says: “ Previous to i860, Freemasons, gen- erally speaking, believed the ceremonies and secrets of the then craft degrees had existed for hundreds or thou- sands of years, the majority dating from the building of Solomon’s Temple. It was difficult to prove this on doc- umentary evidence, but the excuse was ever ready that the documents were lost. It so happens, however, that modern research has discovered many of the old records, and the old Masonic charges; and the old lodge minutes, written long before, and up to 1717, prove that up to that date, modern Fremasonry and our system of degrees did not exist.” Steinbrenner, another Masonic historian, agrees in this same date, 1717. The only claim Freema- sonry has to any earlier date lies in its connection with guilds of working masons, “ the mediasvial building corpo- rations,” which were absolutely without degrees. The claim to any other antiquity is pure humbug. Dr. Dal- cho, a Mason of thirty-three degrees, and the compiler of the Masonic Constitutions of South Carolina, says that this claim to antiquity “ may make the vulgar stare, but will rather excite the contempt than the admiration of the wise.” Notwithstanding this verdict of their own histori- ans, it must not be forgotten, that all Masonic books teem with these old fictitious legends. And there is not a single degree of the entire nine degrees of the American Rite, nor of the thirty-three degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, (with possibly two exceptions) which does not make expressed or implied reference to IO these tying legends ; in the great majority of cases the very ceremonies and lectures of the degree being expressly founded upon the legend. Masonry thus is in the peculiar position of being utterly repudiated by its own historic authorities as to the historic claims made in every de- gree. It can retain its degrees at all, with any show of reason, only by allegorizing all its long-claimed traditions, and becoming a farce of farces. The development of the complex modern system of the degrees of so-called Masonry may be very briefly stated. The original London rite becomes united with the schismatic York rite, in what is now commonly called the Ancient York Rite, “ consisting of the three degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason, in- cluding as a part of the last the Holy Royal Arch.” This, Mackey says, is “the mother of all the other rites, which are but developments of its simple system.” 3 Ameri- cans, under Webb’s lead, separated the Royal Arch degree and made nine degrees, constituting what is called The American Rite. The so-called “ Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite” is not Scottish at all, but the combined product chiefly of American and French invention. In 1804, there appeared in France the Rite of Mizraim, of 90 degrees. And to meet all possible ambitions, as a climax of absurdities, there now exists in America the “ Sover- eign Sanctuary of the Royal or Egyptian Masonic Rite,” conferring 96 degrees. There has been no lack of Rites besides these ; that cannot be even mentioned. Concerning all the higher degrees, Mackey, Masonic authority it will be remembered, makes this eminently just remark: “The ingenuity of some and the vanity of oth- ers have added to these [i. e. the three degrees of the York Rite] an infinite number of high degrees and of ceremonies unknown to the original character of the in- stitution.” 4 Reference to the Britannica will show the humbugging origin of all these degrees. 3 Mackey, Lexicon. Article, York Rite. 4 Mackey, Lexicon, pp. 412-412. The eight degrees of the Knight Templars, three given in a Commandery and five in a Council of the Trinity, are of equally fragile origin, but are in strictness to be distinguished from Freemasonry proper. Their close connection with Freemasonry is due to the fact that they are only given as appendages to the Masonic Rites. The history of other secret orders is similar. They have very commonly been founded by Freemasons, as were the Grange and the Clan-na-Gael for example, and their oaths and ceremonies are closely patterned after those of Masonry. So much for the Masonic claim to antiquity. THE CLAIM TO SECRECY. The secrets of Masonry are no secrets. What are the evidences? To begin with, we have such openly published books by Masonic authors, as Chase’s “ Digest of Masonic Law," Mackey’s “ Lexicon of Freemasonry,’’ and “ Text Book of Masonic Jurisprudence,’’ Webb’s “ Freemason’s Monitor,” etc. Such books give the Masonic claims, Masonic usages, Grand Lodge rulings, Masonic traditions, and connec- tions with the ancient mysteries, and incidentally shed not a little light on the real character of the order — much more light to the careful observer, I am persuaded, than even their authors realized, and confirming in minute par- ticulars professed expositions of the order. Of these expositions there have been no lack, and the evidences are convincing. Prichard’s “ Masonry Dis- sected,” appearing as early as 1730, gave the first three degrees of Masonry — all that then existed. The later book, “Jachin and Boaz,” gives more elaborately the same degrees. William Morgan’s “ Illustrations of Ma- sonry,” manifestly independent, testified to the same facts. A convention of seceding Masons, thirty -five in number, held in Le Roy, New York, February 19-20, 1828, nearly a year and a half after Morgan’s death, gave the first seven UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 12 degrees. An adjourned meeting of the above convention, attended by 8,000 persons, met July 4-5, 1828, at Le Roy, at which one hundred and three seceding Masons, dele- gates from ten counties, and holding degrees from the first to the twenty-first, signed a “Declaration of Inde- pendence from Masonry,” in which they gave in addition the eight degrees of the Knight Templars. Rev. Moses Thacher, himself formerly a Mason, is au- thority for the statement that in 1829 at least five hun- dred seceding Masons of different degrees, and in differ- ent parts of the country, had openly confirmed Morgan and the disclosures at Le Roy. The written renuncia- tions of thirty-six such, including prominent men and clergymen, were published in 1830. There is the further unspoken witness of those who left the lodge from that time on, of whom my grandfather was one. Upon the authority of Robert Morris, LL. D., an ex-president of a western college, an adhering Mason, and called the poet laureate of Masonry, it is said, that 45,000 of the 50,000 Masons of Morgan’s day left the lodges to return to them no more, and that 1,500 lodges gave up their charters. Nor is this all. The most important oaths have been at least four times sworn to in open court by adher- ing Masons. For example, adhering Masons swore to the oaths, including the Royal Arch oath, with its “ murder and treason not accepted,” before the court of Chenango Co., N Y. And testimony of adhering Masons was given before a committee of the Rhode Island legislature, to the oaths of the first ten degrees of Masonry. Bernard, himself a seceding Mason, summed up the evidence of this period in his “ Light on Masonry,” giving forty-eight degrees. Before publication, the Royal Arch degree was obtained through an authentic agent directly from Jeremy L. Cross, Grand Lecturer of U. S. ; the eight Templar degrees from an authenticated ritual, and the remainder of the thirty-three degrees from Dr. Fred- :> erick Dalcho, Sovereign Grand Inspector General. 5 Richardson in i860 gave sixty-two degrees. And it should be added, that the first seven degrees have been sworn to anew by two Michigan seceding Masons, who themselves had taken the entire seven, as late as 1879. Add now to this, other late renunciations, and the quiet testimony of many seceders, like Col. Geo. R. Clarke, of the Pacific Mission of Chicago, who had had thirty-two degrees of Masonry. And finally forget not, that it is the proudest boast of Masonry that she does not change, Mackey says : “ It is not in the power of any body of men to make innova- tions in Masonry.” 6 Abundant further evidence of the same kind could be quoted, but it is needless ; it needs only to be noticed that the claimed universal character of Masonry is dependent on its being unchanged. If anything can be established by human testimony, the oaths and secrets of Masonry, as they were, and as they are, are known beyond all doubt. I have been thus partic- ular in this statement of evidence (though I have given but a part of it), because 1 am tired and disgusted with the simple suggestion often made, that one outside knows nothing of masonry, and with the easy credulity that takes a vague and general denial by some single Ma- son, as entirely rebutting this piled up evidence of scores of years, and of thousands of men. But to prevent misunderstanding and clear away some honest difficulty, it may be worth while to consider more carefully these reputed denials of adhering Masons, of which so much is made. THE DENIALS OF ADHERING MASONS. And in the first place, notice that they have all sol- emnly sworn , under oaths they regard as binding, “ ever 5 See Bernard’s Preface. 6 Mackey, Lexicon. Article, Landmarks. 14 to conceal, never to reveal,” the secrets of Masonry. Now what is the Mason who is questioned directly (if he can be so questioned) concerning the accuracy of the ex- positions, to do? If he should admit their accuracy, he believes that he would have perjured himself ; he feels compelled, therefore, to resort to evasion or subterfuge if possible. Now I am not herein impugning the honesty of adhering Masons. I only point out the disagreeable dilemma in which a Mason is put in the single time, or two or three times, in his life, in which he is confronted with an absolutely explicit question (if, again, I say, such can be put — which I doubt) concerning the expositions of Masonry. He feels himself between two obligations, of which he honestly believes the obligation of his oath is the more binding. Moreover there is a further convenient subterfuge. There have been some verbal changes and different ar- rangements of phrases, and even of paragraphs, since Mor- gan’s time. None of these changes affect at all the sense ; but they make it possible for a man to say, with a show of truth, that Morgan’s exposition was not correct ; or that Freemasonry is different now. Another point ought to be made clear. President Finney and others, who have written upon this theme, bring together the objectionable points of many degrees. Now if a Mason is questioned concerning any one of these points, as to whether that is Masonry, he may honestly answer — No, so far as his knowledge goes; for he may not have taken the degree in which the point of objection is involved. It is to be remembered that many Masons are much less intelligent concerning Masonry than many whose knowledge has been obtained from books. Masons are supposed to know nothing of the degrees above those they have themselves taken, and many proceed but a lit- tle way, and make but little careful study even ol the de- grees they have taken. It may be further noticed that President Finney 5 and others make much of certain oaths of the Templar degrees; and as Knight Templarism is in strictness to be distinguished, as we have seen, from Freemasonry, so that one might have taken the entire thirty-three degrees of the Scotch Rite, and yet had none of the Templar de- grees, it would thus be easy to say honestly, that Presi- dent Finney, in his professed exposition of Freemasonry, had brought in much not in Freemasonry at all. In fact, there are so many ways of possible honest mis- understanding, and so many more of evasion and subter- fuge that would be deemed Masonically justifiable and necessary, that it is practically impossible so to frame a question as to be sure that you have obtained any infor- mation whatever from an adhering Mason. Their gen- eral denials, therefore, of the truth of these thousand times proved expositions, ought not at all to disturb us. The secrets are no secrets. You may have the secrets of all the prominent orders for a very little money spent in books. Have the sense to look up the secrets before you join any of the orders ; for a miserable lot of secrets they are. I might almost be content to rest the case here. Ma- sonry has been revealed and Masonry, as revealed, cannot be defended. And the other orders are open to much the same charges. ADMISSIONS. Before passing to the discussion of the other claims of the lodges, let us make a number of plain admissions, that may render our argument less cumbrous. There are doubtless some legitimate demands met in these multiplied orders. For example, the demand for something to do, something to deliver from ennui , the cry of every child, “I want to be ’mused;” the demand also for fellowship, some close fellowship, a natural and most worthy instinct. It is natural too that, in a period of great combinations and of severe competition, the clash- ing of class interests should have resulted in multiplied organizations, though the very multiplication largely de- i6 stroys the benefit of any. I can quite understand, for example, the enthusiastic hope that has sometimes gath- ered about the Knights of Labor, and the Patrons of Hus- bandry. But none of these demands need perpetual secrecy. I have no belief, either, that there is in any or all of these orders any general conspiracy against society. I frankly confess that too much seems to me often to have been claimed by anti-secretists in this respect. I have already said that I do not believe that the lodges are the greatest evil of the times; nor that they have been devoid of good deeds. And I further freely admit that there have been and are many, very many, good men in the orders, even in the worst of them ; and, moreover, many ambitious and a very few great men, though the facts show that very few great men make much of the lodge. If they are eyer members, they - are likely to withdraw early, as Washing- ton did, and condemn the tendency as did he. And finally I emphasize again that very great dis- tinctions are to be made in dealing with the orders ; though I shall not be expected to-day to mete out the ap- propriate degrees of praise and blame. These frank and hearty admissions, I hope, may indi- cate that I mean to deal temperately, even if earnestly, with my subject; and before passing from these admis- sions, in the interests of a fair discussion of this perplexing question, I wish to remind you of an important inference to be drawn from one of these admissions, but an infer- ence that is frequently overlooked by the zealous reformer. There are good men in the lodge, loyal Christian men. One such man, who afterward renounced Masonry, said : “ Allow me to say that there are thousands of Masons who have taken the Master’s degree, that are deceived as to the true object and teachings of the order. I was just as honest, while a member of thes'L orders, as it regards loy- alty to God and his cause as now.” This simple testimony, that might be confirmed by others, carries an important inference that we cannot too carefully remember. Every year of thought, of experience, and of observation will convince one that nothing is so certain concerning men as that they are bundles of contradictions. They hold with- out difficulty in the same mind principles mutually con- tradictory, if they only knew it ; their principles and ap- plications are very wide apart. In short they are not log- ical at all. Christian men are to be found on all sides of even the questions seeming most clear. It is the mis- take of the reformer to suppose, that a man is as wicked as he logically ought to be, holding the principles or opin- ions he does. The inference then is just this. In point of fact, Masonry and the whole lodge system are much less dangerous than they logically ought to be, for the simple reason that the men who are in the lodges are not logical, and consequently do not believe or mean half of what they say. This is very far from saying what I shall doubt- less seem to many careless thinkers to have said, that it makes no difference what a man believes. The point is, that most men think so little as to their beliefs, that they do not really believe what they say they believe. It is not said, your creed has no effect on you; but you are probably much better or much worse than your creed. I believe that the institution of Freemasonry is detestable, and that the very organization tends to affect society un- favorably, and is practically certain more or less to affect its members for evil ; but I believe quite as strongly that probably the great majority of its members have done so little clear logical thinking upon the lodge, though some have studied it after a fashion most of their lives, that they practically do not know what it is, or what its oaths and ceremonies mean; and many good Christian men find Christianity in all of it. This ought not to make us less severe in our strictures on the institution itself; but it may give us more charity for men and more hope for the world. What now as to the i8 CLAIM OF THE LODGES TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE MEM- BERSHIP OF GOOD MEN ? This persistent claim needs careful and honest consid- eration. The presence of good men in an order does not prove the order good. But we ought to be able to ex- plain their presence. We have already seen one large explanation of the presence of good men in these orders, namely : few men think of the logical meaning of their acts. It may also be added, that there are many men of a naturally religious temperament, and with a natural love of solemn ceremonial. Every solemn awe-struck feeling is to them religious. Being scared is a religious emotion. Now the ceremonies of Masonry, for example, furnish abundant occasion for such emotions, and as most men judge more by their feelings than by thoughts or pur- poses, Masonry seems to them genuinely and helpfully re- ligious ; if they are Christians, it seems Christian. We need not marvel at this, so long as most Christians de- mand an evidence of feeling in conversion. Many more men are mildly imaginative. Without great intellect, but with a little practice, they see symbols in ev- erything. “ So it is in the moral world ” is the constant refrain of every observation. They revel in Swedenbor- gian interpretations of the most matter-of-fact things. They interpret everything. Now to such minds, Masonry and its kindred orders, with their conglomerate of sym- bols and myths, are likely to seem a veritable god-send. All elements are welcome alike to such minds. Adam, Noah, Peleg, Solomon, Hiram, Adoniram, Pythagoras, numbers, sun, moon and stars, astrology, ark of Noah, ark of the covenant, Temple and Tabernacle, the pillars at the door of the temple, the curtains of the tabernacle and all its ornaments, the orders of architecture, the letters of the alphabet, the Eleusinian mysteries, the Orphic mysteries, the mysteries of Osiris, of Isis, and of Bacchus, parallel l 9 lines, the triangle and the square, the compass, the mallet and the setting maul, the trowel, the shovel, the crow and the pickaxe, St. John the Evangelist, and St. John the Baptist (whom the two parallel lines on the floor of American lodges represent) — all are alike radiant with meaning:, and contain marvellous revelations. Now it is manifest that, in such a system, the meaning is largely de- termined by the mind. And the Christian man, with a tem- perament such as I have described, who very likely reads his Bible in much the same fashion, will be likely to find in his Freemasonry nothing unchristian. But aside from these natural explanations of how good men remain undisturbed in these orders, a thinking man may convince himself in a moment that it is impossible to provean institution good by the support of good men. If so, slavery is good ; caste is good ; the saloon is good. Carry the principle a moment into political parties. Think of the other party — the one to which you do not belong. Does the presence of good men in that other party make the party good, does it make party action good? Are not good men, and the more easily because they are good men and unsuspicious, perpetually hood- winked as to the real aim of the party policy — not in your party, of course, but in the other one? Is there not a nat- ural tendency that ambitious and unprincipled men will run the party machine? Now these natural tendencies, in political parties, to re- duce the influence of the best men in the party to a min- nimum are greatly augmented in the stronger secret soci- eties for various reasons. In the first place, good men are the most likely to become dissatisfied with the order, and fail to go on with their degrees ; but in Freemasonry, for example, a man has no vote until he has taken the third degree, and no right even of debate until he has taken the second degree. Moreover, careful observation by com- petent men, extended through a series of years, indi- cates that only about one member in five attends the 20 meetings of his lodge with any regularity. Who is more likely to stay away than the sensible Christian man, dissatisfied with his lodge. Remember also, that the higher degrees are secret trom the lower ; and transactions in them are quite beyond the control of all members of lower degrees. Remember, too, that the Master and the Grand Lodge claim absolute au- thority ; and that the candidate has sworn obedience to his Masonic authorities ; and even when disgusted, as were the 45,000 in Morgan’s time, commonly regards himself as bound by his oath, and hence remains quiet and powerless, even when he believes things are wrong. It would be difficult to imagine a plan more likely to reduce the influence of the better and greater men to a mini- mum than the constitution of most secret societies. The only saving element is found in the natural characteris- tics , which have been noted, of many good men, which make them wish to go on in the foolish degrees of lodge wisdom, and which enable them to find good in even so barren a waste. The presence of good men emphatically does not prove the orders good. Is the CLAIM TO BENEVOLENCE better founded? None of the secret lodges are benevo- lent societies at all, in any proper meaning of that term. In the first place it is to be noted that, by the very terms of their constitution, their benefits are absolutely confined to their own members. They talk much of the “brotherhood of humanity;” but the brotherhood they form is an absolutely exclusive brotherhood, whose ben- efits, whatever they are, largely lie in its exclusiveness. The close fellowship, often urged, means simply that their oaths put them under peculiar and special obligations one to another, not merely for help in character, but for giv- ing the privileges of partiality ; and the privileges of a so- ciety that mean real partiality to its members in the gen- 21 eral affairs of life, that are intended to further class inter- ests as distinguished from those of society in general, not only do not look to a brotherhood of humanity, but op- pose it mightily. The argument commonly urged for joining the lodge is a selfish commercial, social, or politi- cal one. There cannot be the slightest question that they are deliberately used to aid to preferment. A single fact may indicate this. Very careful and extensiye inquiry, involving the sending out of thousands of blanks, reveals the fact that three-fourths of all public officials in the United States are members of secret orders. Does any one suppose that that is the result of the peculiarly supe- rior quality of lodge members? It is true, happily, that there are always a number of manly independent spirits, who scorn such means, and reach the highest positions with no such help. The spirit of the lodge is, the vulgar self seeking spirit. It is as far as possible removed from the manly spirit, that knows that all true growth, even for self, is in the outgo not in the income, in giving not in receiving, and that seeks a constantly broadening purpose toward all men. From any point of view the same selfish spirit of the lodge is to be seen. Freemasonry claims, for exam- ple, to possess valuable knowledge in its secrets. To begin with, its secrets are not secrets; this then is humbuggery. Further, the claimed secret knowl- edge is made up of invention and falsehood ; this is quack- ery. And in the third place, if it had any valuable knowl- edge it ought to publish it for the benefit of mankind ; it does not — this is “patent medicine.” Joseph Cook might well say, “ I do abhor the selfish, clannish spirit of secret societies.” Indeed, the claim of the lodges to be regarded as benevolent societies, has been decided for us by the courts of not less than seven states. A recent Maine decision runs: “ It (Freemasonry) is a society for mutual benefit and protection, and the ends to be attained are private 22 and personal, not public. ... It is apparent that defend- ant corporation cannot be regarded as a purely charitable institution, because it wants the essential elements of a public charity.” These decisions apply with equal force to all other secret orders. If what the lodges do for the families of members be urged, it need only be said that this is simply of the nature of a return in the way of insurance for due’s paid. And in the case of Freemasonry and Odd Fellow- ship often a very poor return. Often the chief thing in- sured seems to be a showy funeral. Only members who have taken the third degree and have kept up their dues,, are entitled to Masonic burial, or to relief for their fami- lies. The testimony of insurance commissioners is suffi- ciently emphatic as to the poor quality of insurance given by far the largest majority of all these secret orders. And their own reports tell the same story. Long watching of these reports, even including those of societies making a specialty of relief, shows that, on the average, only about one-third of the funds contributed go to relief. A per- sonal letter from a friend, a Mason of forty years standing and who has taken thirty-three degrees, says: “I do not think it a help in a financial way.” If anything more were needed to show the hollow character of the claims of the lodges to benevolence, the pitiful little showing Mackey is able to make for the so- called benevolences of the oldest of them all, Masonry,, ought to settle the question. He has no difficulty in re- counting with some detail all the prominent benevolent institutions of Masonry in the world, on a mere page and a half ; and these are exclusively for Masonic families. There are only ten such institutions that he considers worth naming, the world over, after the order had ex- isted one hundred and fifty years and reached a member- ship of some million men. Even his Southern rhetoric cannot make up for such a beggarly showing ; though he adds ecstatically : “ Relief the column of beauty, whose or- 23 naments, more precious than the lillies and pomegranates that adorned the pillars of the porch, are the widow’s tear of joy and the orphan’s prayer of gratitude.” To the unma- sonic mind it would seem that these beautiful ornaments might be better secured by an entirely prosaic but sound life insurance policy. The lodges have no claim to be considered benevolent societies. THE PUERILITY OF THE LODGES. Permit me to turn aside a moment from the course of my argument to note the childishness of the whole lodge system. There is so much of the child in us all, that in their childishness lies a great part of the attractiveness of the lodges. The secret lodge furnishes the opportunity for the grat- ification of all those suppressed longings of our childhood, the longing to belong to something, and to be able to say, “ I know something that you don’t, and I sha’nt tell the longingto wear a hieroglyphic badge; the longing to run an institution with grips and signs and pass-words; the love of fuss and feathers — of parading with full regalia and pewter swords; the longing after sounding titles — Wor- shipful Master, Sir Knight, Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret. All these longings the lodge can satisfy. One is reminded of the cheerful little ditty in “One Summer”: “And simple Childish joys, and strings, And strings.” And what a splendid obituary it makes. Plere is a genu- ine record : John Christie, Past Worshipful Grand Mas- Master of N. IT.; Past Master of St. Andrew’s and St. John’s Lodges; Past High Priest of Washington Chapter; Past Grand High Priest and Grand Rajah of Arch Chapter, State of N. H.; Past Right Eminent Grand Commander of the Grand Commandery of the State ; the oldest active member of the thirty-third degree of the Ancient and Ac- cepted Scottish Rite — is dead. Peace to his ashes. 24 If this is not childish enough, the oaths and ceremonies of the lodges, including those of the college fraternities, fur- nish enough more. But I shall not degrade myself by de- scribing the Masonic oaths and their horrid penalties, nor the ridiculous plight in which Masonry puts the candi- dates for its degrees. The necessary silliness of a full ex- posure of the silliness of the lodge reacts upon the ex- poser. I am content to say that, though I have no idea that Masons mean all the ridiculous and horrible rigma- role they go through, yet, even on this charitable judg- ment, careful study cannot make this rigmarole less than what a plain man might call “ infernal nonsense.” Remembering its mythical history, its multiplied and cheap degrees, its sounding titles, its smart processions and regalia, its foolish secrets, its absurd claims, and the tomfoolery of its oaths and ceremonies, can you wonder that John Wesley exclaimed : “ What an amazing banter upon mankind is Freemasonry.” The infinite activity of the lodges is suited to recall Lewis Carroll’s revised ver- sion of “ How doth the little busy bee “ How doth the little crocodile Improve his shining tail, And pour the waters of the Nile On every golden scale. How cheerfully he seems to grin, How neatly spread his claws, And welcome little fishes in, With gently smiling jaws.’ Or they are like a more ill-natured Cheshire cat, forever impishly grinning at the “infinite gullibility” of mankind. “ What fools these mortals be.” Can the final CLAIM OF THE LODGES TO BE MORAL INSTITUTIONS, with only beneficent effects on society and the individual be justified ? Their distinctive element, secrecy, is itself evil, and tends to evil. 25 We may readily admit that a certain degree of secrecy, or privacy rather, in one’s affairs is justifiable. But all se- crecy should have a reason ; should not be needlessly em- ployed; should be limited severely; and should be tempo- rary only. The burden of proof in the matter rests on the socie- ties themselves. There should be some very good reason why a society of any kind whatever should claim a se- crecy, practically unlimited and permanent, and so far as appears, utterly needless. Secrecy must justify itself. Is there any good reason? if so, what? if not, why secret? What good object needs the support or defence of perpet- ual secrecy ? Exactly what of good is offered to the mem- bers of a secret society, in its secrecy ? Now the answers of the secret societies to these in- quiries are exceedingly lame. Webb’s reply is, “Were the privileges of Masonry to be indiscriminately bestowed, the design of the institution Avould be subverted, and, be- ing familiar, like many other important matters, would soon lose their value and sink into disregard .” 7 Webb is doubtless correct in this as concerns the secrets of Masonry. They would have no attraction if not se- cret. That is, the secrecy is intended as a bait, to give a fictitious value to things not likely to have value otherwise. But this is no reason for secrecy ; it only strengthens the argument against it. Mackey’s only answer to the objection is: “Its force is immediately destroyed, when we reflect that to no worthy man need our mysteries be, for one moment, covered with the veil of concealment, for to all the deserving are our portals open.” This answer is very like Freemasonry, for it as- sumes that the only possible reason for objection is based on some selfish interest. The objection is not that / do not know the secret, and therefore the secrecy is bad ; but the objection is, whether I am in or out, this is a se- cret society, and the secrecy of a society is bad. Theob- 7 Freemason’s Monitor, p. 21. 26 jection, that is, is to the secrecy of the society, not to the secrecy of little stock secret “traditions and esoteric doc- trines.” Why should a good society with a good aim be secret ? President Seelye fails in the same way, in his mild de- fense of Amherst’s mild societies, to touch the real point of objection as to the secrecy. He says “combination is strength.” Yes, but secrecy? He speaks of “ literary culture.” Is this dependent on secrecy ? is it as good as in open societies? Senator Evarts does not think so. At a Yale alumni dinner in 1869, he said, bewailing the downfall of the open literary societies: “ Separate enclosures are found necessary, which they call, not separate pens, but se- cret societies. Until Yale College outlives that folly, it will deprive its graduates of a good part of the education that you and I had the happiness to get there.” Dr. Howard Crosby says: “I believe I am right in asserting that in most of our colleges the literary societies have been utterly ruined except as alumni centers, by the secret societies.” You Oberlin students have, in your open literary societies, a drill such as no secret society on the continent furn- ishes. President Seelye continues, the secrecy is “largely in name.” Well, why the name? He compares the secrecy of the society to the “proper privacy of families.” Now I do not suppose that the secrecy of anAmherst Frater- nity amounts to much ; but just so far as it is a secret fra- ternity, its secrecy is about as unlike the privacy of a home as could well be. This is a kind of special pleading often made for other secret societies. It needs only to be noticed that even a home, with a natural and God-given basis, that could never be entered by any one without an oath to secrecy, would be soon suspected, and not long- tolerated. President Seelye further urges that the rivalry of the societies is “ conducted openly.” Well, that is good. It is to be noted that the whole tendency of his defense is to say secret societies are good, so far as they are not se- cret. It is doubtless true, as he says, that the tone of the 27 college largely makes the tone of the societies, but only where the college influence is strong and pervasive; and even so the question still is, Is the secrecy a good or a valuable element ? No satisfactory answer from the secret societies to that question is anywhere forthcoming. Now it is worth careful notice that this defense of the secret fraternities is the best that ca be made, by a college President, and in a college where the fraternities are prob- ably the best in the country. No good cause does need the defense of perpetual se- crecy ; and no cause claims it except secret societies. The triumph of truth is in its openness. Even when indirection and secrecy in a good cause seem wise, they usually are not so, as the United States Senate is coming gradually to' believe, and if used at all, secrecy should be only temporary, and it must be able afterward to justify itself in the light. Truth need not fear, it rather courts, the light. Moreover the great defense against evil is light. The electric light has done more to better the bad quarters of our cities, than any possible increase in the police force. The safety of society is in the exposure of all things to light, through the press. Oath-bound societies interpose artificial barriers to this beneficent work of the press, and in just the proportion that they do so, they threaten the well-being of society. Furthermore, darkness and secrecy provoke and pro- mote evil. I recall one secret session of our society in college. We talked more arrant folly in that single ses- sion than in all the open ones put together. The nat- ural, practically inevitable effects of secrecy on char- acter may well be feared by any man. Dr. Howard Cros- by says: “Thirty years ago I was a member of a col- lege secret society, and while I had upright fellow-mem- bers, and we encouraged literary culture, I found the as- sociation was chiefly a temptation to vice.” That many another student has so found it, the walls of not a few 28 chapter houses could testify. The well-known Hartford Courant warmly approved Senator Evart’s protest, and urged vigorously that the college secret fraternities furn- ished a natural training in the worst kind of corrupt po- litical methods. George William Curtis bore similar tes- timony in Harper’s Magazine. The tendency of the club life, practiced in many of the fraternity houses, any care- ful observer of modern American tendencies, must feel is far from healthful in its effect on the man, and upon his subsequent home life. But it is, perhaps, the least obvious effects of the secrecy of these societies, which are most to be feared. Here certainly Dr. Crosby is a competent witness, and he says: “ They are pretenses, and thus at war with truth, candor and manliness: however well composed in their membership, however pure their meetings may be, the fact of secrecy is insidiously weakening the founda- tion of frank truthfulness in the youthful mind. There can be no more important instruction inculcated on our young men than the necessity of truthful openness, as the very warp of virtue.” If this is to be said of even college fraternities, what of other secret societies? I cannot hope that this objection will appeal to the heedless, but it will appeal with power to the men who aim at the highest, and mean to run no risks of any kind in character. The secret society, in college and out, easily lends itself as an instrument of evil. Therefore Chief Justice John Marshall, himself a Mason, said: -‘.The institution of Ma- sonry ought to be abandoned as one capable of much evil, and incapable of producing any good which might not be effected by safe and open means;” and Charles Francis Ad- ams said : “ A more perfect agent for the devising and ex- ecution of conspiracies against church and state could scarcely be conceived.” It was not because Freemasonry was itself a general conspiracy against the public good, but because its character as a secret society made it an easy instrument of evil, that Charles Sumner had to say: “ I find two powers here in Washington in harmony, and 2 9 both are antagonistic to our free institutions, and tend to centralization and anarchy, Freemasonry and slavery ; ” and that General C. H. Howard had to testify, of per- sonal knowledge, that the disguises of the Ku-Klux-Klan were often kept in Masonic lodges. The secret lodges, moreover, must abide the test of the effects on the Church, on the State, on the Home, on the Individual himself. What of the effect on the church ? This is a Christian nation ; an institution tending on the whole against the interests of the church, is against the nation. No doubt the attitude of the individual lodges varies greatly with the community ; and we have seen how many Christian men may not find the lodges unchris- tian. But it is to be noticed that the more pretentious the moral and religious claims of such an institution, the greater hindrance is it likely to be to true religion ; for the more likely it is to furnish a refuge and excuse to many as a substitute for a genuine acceptance of Chris- tianity; and no observant pastor not in the lodge can doubt this practical effect in many cases. It would not be difficult to show that in their form, many of the oaths of the lodges are, as John Quincy Adams said, such as “a common cannibal would be ashamed of,” or they are simple folly; and in either case they are blas- phemous. A Christian man, who means to act intelli- gently in what he does, and who really thinks what his words mean, can hardly enter or stay in the two more prominent orders, Freemasonry, and Odd Fellowship. Freemasons constantly assert, that if a man lived up to the teachings of Masonry, he would be a good enough Christian. I can hardly think Christian Masons have thought what this means, for Freemasonry and all the prominent lodges, with the very aim of making a basis on which Christians and non-Christians may meet, deliber- ately leave Christ out of all their prayers and all Scrip- 30 ture used. I know of no Christianity without Christ, and no Christian who finds some other way than Christ good enough. Yet the lodges, it has been well said, ‘‘allow a priesthood without piety, a membership without morality, and a hope of heaven without holiness of heart.” As to the fellowship of the lodges, let me simply voice for every Christian the testimonies of two men, neither of whom can be suspected of fanaticism, but whose loyalty to high standards of Christianity is undoubted — Dr. Thomas Arnold, of Rugby, and the evangelist, Dr. George F. Pentecost. Dr. Arnold writes in answer to an inquiry of a friend: “These half-heathen clubs, including, above all, Freemasonry, are I think utterly unlawful for a Chris- tian man. The } 7 are close brotherhoods, formed with those who are not in a close sense our brethren .” 8 And Dr. Pentecost in a late volume says: “This course of false al- liance (“with unbelievers in all manner of secret socie- ties”) is doing more mischief to individual Christian men by turning their hearts away from God and his service, and to the church by depleting and robbing her of her male membership than any other one enemy of Christ.” The lodge cannot abide the test of its influence on the church. What are we to say of the effects of the lodge on the State ? Whatever may be said under other governments, there is no excuse for the existence of any oath-bound secret society under a republican form of government. A re- public, with the ballot in the hand of every man, offers no justification for a secret society, and a republic is more directly antagonized than any other form of government by such societies. For a republic needs a unified society, a society that holds no claim that can interfere with the claims of citizenship, that allows no class interest to over- ride the interest of the whole. Now secret lodges are simply clannish cliques ; and the tendency of cliques is 8 Life, Vol. II. p. 230. 3i undemocratic and unrepublican ; and so far as the}' have influence at all tend against unity, tend to disintegrate society. Whether the society has a political aim or not, it is sure to be used for political preferment, as our his- tory repeatedly shows. Few dangers seem to me greater than the present tendency of various elements of the na- tion to perpetuate themselves as cliques or classes. Per- manent lines drawn on a variety of subjects, threaten seri- ous evil. We want no German vote, no Irish vote, no Southern vote, no Soldier vote, no Grand Army vote, no Grange vote, no Freemason vote, no Catholic vote, no Congregationalist vote even (if there were any danger of that) — no vote of any class of any kind putting the inter- ests of a class above the interests of the nation. We want only the vote of simple, genuine, loyal American citizens. But the vote of all others, to be regarded with suspicion and serious misgiving, is the vote that can be secretly ordered and secretly controlled. General Grant wel- said : “All secret, oath-bound political parties are dangerl ous to any nation, no matter how pure or how patriotic the motives and principles which first bring them together.” The oath -bound secret society naturally tends to a di- vided allegiance. I do not wish to go into a detailed examination of oaths ; but I say deliberately, with the oaths of all three before me, that the oaths of the Molly Maguires or the Clan-na- gael are to be preferred to the oaths of even the mere Master’s degree of Freemasonry. The greater protection against Freemasonry and its kindred orders lies, notin the superior character of their oaths, but in the composite character of their membership. This composite character of their membership is a real protection against evil from these secret orders; so that, in this point of view, it may even be said, that the larger the societies the less danger- ous they are. But no such allowance may be made for their oaths. The Court that condemned the Mormon Endowment House Oaths, logically must condemn in the 32 same terms certain of the Masonic oaths. In spite of ini- tial assurances that the oaths involve nothing calculated to interfere with the political or religious duties of a candi- date for membership, and in spite even of express oaths of intended obedience to the government, like those of the fifth degree of the American Rite of Masonry, the manifest inconsistency of other oaths, and the acts and utterances of secret orders hardly leave one at liberty to doubt the naturally harmful effect of these oaths on the allegiance the citizen owes to his government. The claim made on both sides in our Civil War as to the helpfulness of Freemasonry, virtually assumes the truthfulness of this charge. I do not suppose that Freemasons, for example, as a body are intentionally disloyal ; but a society in which such an utterance as this, from a Grand Lodge Report of Missouri, 1867, can go without the severest re- buke, cannot be a wholesome influence in the nation : “ Not only do we know no North, no South, no East, no West, but we know no government save our own. To every government save that of Masonry, and to each and all alike we are foreigners ; we are a nation of men only, bound to each other by Masonic ties, as citizens of the world, and that world the world of Masonry. Brethren to each other all the world over, foreigners to all the world beside.” I do not mistake here the customary Ma- sonic buncombe, but the sentiment is wholly bad. The way in which the oaths of even college secret soci- eties may interfere with the citizen’s duty in our courts was plainly seen in the investigation following Leggett’s death at Cornell University, and very recently at Wis- consin University. But I fear most for the nation, from the natural and practically certain, though unconscious, effects of these secret orders. The discriminating testimony of Daniel Webster may be allowed to state the case : “All secret associations, the members of which take upon themselves extraordinary obligations to one another, and are bound together by 33 secret oaths, are naturally sources of jealousy and just alarm to oth- ers ; are especially unfavorable to harmony and mutual confidence among men living together under popular institutions, and are dangerous to the general cause of civil liberty and just government. Under the influ- ence of this conviction I heartily approved the law, lately enacted in the State of which I am a citizen, for abolishing all such oaths and obligations.” With these words of Webster take this vigorous pro- test from a journal of quite unusual discernment, the Pub- lic Ledger , of Philadelphia: “Notwithstanding the presence of thousands of otherwise innocent men in the Masonic lodge, it is well understood that a ring within a ring runs the order, and the order in turn runs such innocent socie- ties as the Good Templars, Red Men, and nearly or quite all the so-called secret beneficiary societies . The danger arising from such conspiracies is not imaginary but real. If the truth were known we are suffering from nothing so much as from this evil. And the worst of all is that good men who have gone into the various secret lodges are being used for ends of which they little dream.” Once for all it may be said, the great objection to be urged against the minor and least secret orders is here to be seen. Membership in them shuts a man’s mouth against the principle of secrecy ; brings him into the general lodge system ; opens a natural door to the other orders, more objectionable; and makes the man an unconscious agent of ring rule; and so far as the order is secret at all, tends to a selfish, clannish and divisive spirit in society. The good man may well hesitate to cast his influence in any way in favor of the secret lodge. That similar effects, in college life and government, flow from the college secret fraternities might be easily shown, premising that the fraternities differ greatlv in different colleges ; but of the natural tendency there can be no doubt. Let this single testimony of Prof. Burt G. Wilder, of Cornell University, suffice. In 1873 he said in a letter to the N. Y. Tribune'. “ What I have seen and heard during five years warrants me in affirming that nine-tenths of the mischief and immorality of the earlier years of Cornell University was directly due to the pres- 34 ence and influence of secret society men who came here from other institutions for the avowed purpose of engraft- ing branches of their parent tree upon our young and otherwise perfectly healthy organization. And, further, speaking not as a professor, but as a citizen and member of the University, I feel no hesitation in adding that the larger proportion of all the disturbances which have in any way effected the comfort of students, of faculty, and of citizens, have been either originated or carried out, or both, by means of secret organizations.” It was the dawn of a wholesomer and manlier day for Harvard College, when, under the lead of Edward Everett, in connection with John Quincy Adams and Story, the oldest and most famous of all college secret fraternities, the. Phi Beta Kappa, was in 1831, so far as Harvard was concerned, made from that time an open society. And this early ac- tion has kept Harvard clear of any large influence of the Fraternities to the present. Society and the state have reason to deplore the exist- ence of secret orders. I may not pause to speak, as I had intended, of the influence of secret societies on the home and on the indi- vidual. I only ask, how can a man who loves his home, and knows what a freeman is, demean himself to join a society of which its highest authorities boastingly say, as does Pearson (Sovereign Grand Inspector General), “ If we would be Masons, we must yield private judgment,” or as does Norris, “ This surrender of free will to Masonic au- thority is absolute and perpetual ? ” How can a man, who respects his free will and its responsibilities, consent to take any oath, the contents of which he does not. know ? How can a man willingly put himself under the restraint of fear involved in such obligations? How can a man who intends to be honest consent to be a part of the quackery of the lodges? How can a man who, in manly independence, wishes no success that is not the legitimate 35 reward of his own character, abilities or exertions, wish to enter a system built on the very idea of partial, selfish interests? How can a man, who believes in impartial jus- justice, and in a genuine brotherhood of men, believe at all in a false brotherhood, whose very existence is depend- ent on its exclusiveness? How can a man who knows his own and his fellows’ weakness, wish to subject himself to the needless temptation of secrecy and darkness? And how can a man who means to be clean, and who loves pu- rity and integrity, consent, needlessly, deliberately, to take into familiar, close, obligated, oath-bound, fellowship men whose touch is pollution? And yet there is scarcely a se- cret order on the broad earth, that does not openly harbor many such characters, very often high in their councils. I confess that for myself, I like rather the staunch inde- pendent manliness of Wm. H. Seward’s words: “ Before I would place my hand between the hands of other men in a se- cret lodge, order, class or council, and, bending on my knees before them, enter into any combination with them for any object, personal or political, good or bad, I would pray to God that that hand and that knee might be paralyzed, and that I might become an object of pity and even the mockery of my fellow-men,” Recognizing marked differences in secret societies as a whole, I have denied the claim of the secret lodges to an- tiquity ; I have denied their claim to possess secret knowledge ; I have denied their claim to be justified by the membership of good men, and have shown, without condemning their motives, how the honest membership of such men is possible ; I have denied their claim to be benevolent societies: I have adverted to their childish- ness : and endeavored to show that in spite of moral aims or claims, the single distinctive element of secrecy, with what this involves, makes the whole lodge system in- jurious in its effects on society and the individual. My duty this afternoon has not been a pleasant one ; 1 do not enjoy differing with my fellow-men, and I would gladly have chosen a more agreeable theme ; but we may not choose in duty. 36 I have not dwelt, as I easily might, on the horrors of the system ; I have made no attempt to show, as would also be easy, the objectionable elements of individual oaths and their particular effects. I have chosen rather to deal with the subject on a broader ground. Secret so- cieties are to be condemned as unbearably foolish in their origin, their development, and historic claims ; as inex- pressibly childish in their performances ; as selfish and exclusive in their constitution and aims ; and in view of the largest interests of society, the Church, and the State, are to be condemned simply as secret. If I seem to any one of you to have been over-nice in my discriminations, and objections to the secret orders, I can only reply with a recent writer on social etiquette, “ that every person has clearly the lawful right to deter- mine for himself at what point below the highest point he is content to let his social culture stop.” Secret societies cannot claim the support of the highest in any man. The ethics of the lodge seem to me much like the eth- ics of evolution, of which Courtenay says: “ But it is un- deniable that in some senses the new morality speaks smooth things in our ears — things easy to be understood by our common clay. Let us then pull down our private barns, and build larger social co-operative [secret society] ones; and let us say to the Tribal Soul, that it has many goods laid up for many years, that it may eat, drink, and be both selfishly and altruistically merry — unless, indeed, we have not yet banished the haunting suspicion that somewhere, or somehow, or somewhen, either from na- ture, or fate, or fortune, or God, there may be borne in upon us the intolerable irony of that voice — “ Thou Fool.” s \ \ f