Secret Associations by J. W. Morton

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · Nov 11, 1875

Secret Associations.

By J. W. Morton

BY THE REV. J. W. MORTON.

One class of voluntary societies will be recognized by the general designation at the head of this article. In judging of their character, it is necessary to attend to an important distinction, which is often overlooked between privacy and secrecy. “Every family,” say the advocates of secret orders, “has its secrets, which its members are not at liberty to divulge; so with most churches; and even legislatures and civil courts often sit with closed doors.” But the privacy which the family or the church seeks to guard, is founded in the nature of things, and is an expression of that modesty which is a most beautiful ornament of human nature in its best estate. It is of spontaneous growth, and its development is the natural result of social refinement. No “well regulated” family ever thinks of placing its members under an oath of secrecy, or even a solemn pledge not to divulge private family affairs. It is taken for granted that “nature herself” teaches this duty; and that common sense will determine with sufficient accuracy, the extent to which this privacy should be carried. And what is true of the family is also true, to a more limited extent, it may be, of the church, the business firm, the public or private corporation, and even the State. With this privacy, dictated alike by common sense and natural modesty, we have no controversy; nor can any objection be offered against any association, on account of its observance of the natural laws by which this privacy is secured and protected. In fact, we do not admit that the well regulated family or church is in any proper sense secret. A secret association is one whose members are bound, either by an oath or a solemn pledge, to conceal from all those outside of the organization, such things as are not required to be kept secret by any natural or revealed law.

All secret societies are not alike. Some conceal a large body of principles; others their rites and ceremonies; others their various signs, grips, and pass-words, and their ordinary proceedings. In so far as the following objections lie against the principle of secrecy, pure and simple, they apply to all, of course. Some of them, however, derive their chief force from other characteristic features beside secrecy, and apply only to the societies possessing those features. All secret associations are objectionable; but all are not equally so.

1. They shun investigation. Whether it be their moral and religious principles, their initiation and other ceremonies, their signs and other pass-words, or their ordinary proceedings, from all knowledge of which the outside world is debarred, it is morally impossible that any of these things should receive that rigid and thorough investigation which their importance demands. We do not see how any great improvement can be hoped for in a secret association, where all discussion is likely to be on one side.

The church is strengthened by her controversies with the outside world, as the oak is firmly rooted by means of the storms that bend its mighty trunk, and sway its spreading branches, and try the tenacity of its rootlets. A secret society will not discuss its secret principles; therefore these principles, whatever be their character, must be practically unfruitful. No such society ever was or can be a living power in the community, outside of its own organization.

Who could for a moment imagine our Saviour becoming a member of a secret order. What a sublime self-vindication was that which he offered, when he stood before the high priest accused of blasphemy by those who could not bring a reputable witness to substantiate their charge: “I spake openly to the world, I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing.” Had Jesus been a member of a secret order, and a frequenter of the lodge, this sublime testimony to the truth could have had no place in the inspired record; and how weak, in comparison, must have been his defense.

2. Many of them are anti-republican in their forms of administration. This is not to be wondered at. Many secret orders now in vogue, originated and had their principles and ritual mostly settled, during the darker ages of the world, before republicanism had become popular. Hence, the high-sounding titles bestowed upon officers of some of these societies. These are either meaningless, or they are such as no American citizen should consent to wear. The internal government of many of these societies is despotic and arbitrary to the last degree.

3. Some of them are rivals of the church and even of the State. That is, they claim powers that belong, by divine appointment, to those other institutions. In illustrating this point it will be sufficient to allude to the well known principles of Free Masonry, which is at once the most powerful and the most objectionable of secret societies, if we except its special rivals, the secret orders in the bosom of the Romish Church.

That Free Masonry is a rival of the church is evident from the fact that it proposes to secure to its members the salvation of their souls, and that, too, without reference to the atonement of Christ. That it is a rival of the State—a wheel within a wheel—is shown by the fact that it claims the highest prerogative of the civil magistrate, as God’s vicegerent on earth, the right of life and death. It claims the power to punish its apostate members with death, as well as with the various forms of torture. This right is not at present insisted upon, but it has never been abandoned; and in one noted case it was claimed and exercised less than fifty years ago. We are aware that some Free Masons deny that William Morgan was murdered by competent Masonic authority; but it is a fact of history, that his abductors and murderers were clothed with all the authority that the lodge could confer; and to deny this is to cast undeserved reproach upon their memory. Mr. Thurlow Weed has shed some light upon this subject, in a late printed communication in which he informs us, in substance, that the murderers of Morgan were men who moved in the most respectable society, and who could not have had the least idea that there was anything wrong in killing him. The reason of this is plain enough. They felt about it just as the Jews did, when they stood before Pilate, clamoring for the blood of Jesus. “We have a law,” said they, “and by our law he ought to die.” Just so in effect, said the Free Masons of New York: “We have a law, and by our law Morgan ought to die;” and as the State of New York would not execute their law for them, they concluded that they would execute it themselves.

4. They accomplish less good than they might and would accomplish if they were stripped of their secret character. We do not deny that some secret societies have done and are doing some good. Perhaps the very worst of them may have done some good. We would not assert that even the Jesuits, with all their faults, have never done any good. But we do assert, without fear of contradiction, that if the Jesuit Fathers would abandon their secrecy and intrigues, and would pursue whatever worthy ends they set before themselves in the open light of day, they would accomplish infinitely greater good, and lift a heavy reproach from themselves and their church.

Any man can certainly gain all that he seeks in a better way than by joining a secret society. For instance, if he seeks security against loss of income by accident or sickness, let him employ the proper form of insurance, and he will secure his object at less expense, in proportion to the accruing benefit, and he will have an evening each week left free for the family circle, the reading room, the library, the lecture, or the prayer-meeting.

5. They interfere with personal liberty. Every secret society, of necessity, requires those whom it initiates to give a solemn pledge that they will keep secret certain things, which at the time are unknown to them. Whether these things are proper to be kept secret or not, is a question which a conscientious person not only has a right to ask, but which it is his duty to ask, before giving any such pledge. We do not say that it is always and necessarily wrong to promise secrecy, though it should be avoided as much as possible; but he who swears, or solemnly promises, that he will keep secret that of which he is at the time ignorant, has surrendered his own right and duty of private judgment, and has despised his birthright. All this is sometimes justified by the shallow idea that in this matter you show your brethren confidence. But, who has demanded, and who but God has a right to demand this implicit confidence? “Cursed be he that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm; and whose heart departeth from the living God.”

The above are some of the stronger objections to secret societies; to all of which, perhaps you are ready to reply: “Well, these objections may be well founded, as it regards Free Masonry, and some others, but they have no application to my society. I belong to the Good Templars, and we certainly have no secrets to which a conscientious person need object.” To which we answer that our objections are not merely to the subject matter of the secrets, but to the fact that a person should be bound at all to keep secret he knows not what. To some this may seem a very trivial thing; but it involves all there is of manhood—even the wide difference between freedom and bondage. We know that many good people are members of secret orders, but we cannot admit that it is possible for persons so situated to exemplify the highest type of manhood; for of the model man it is emphatically true, that he cannot “serve two masters;” he cannot recognize, at the same time, an implicit and unreasoning submission both to his God and to his brethren of the lodge.