CHARACTER OF MASONRY.—NO. 3.
By S. A. Gilley
We believe that secrecy tends always to evil; and that as a principle it is at direct variance with the Christian religion. While we recognize the right of privacy, the keeping to one's self of that which concerns not another, we assert, that when persons in any of the relations of life pledge to keep from all others their transactions, there is already good reason to suspect some evil design; and when this pledge of secrecy is made the basis of an organization, it is indeed an evil, greater or less, according to the extent and purpose of such society. Rogues and criminals will seek protection in secrecy but good men need no human shelter but their own innocence. “He that doeth good cometh to the light.” We wish to call attention to the so-called “secrets of Masonry.” In doing this we shall be met with the inquiry: “How may we know that what you tell us of Masonry is truth? How are we to know that your exposition of its character is correct?” We will at once answer these inquiries. As our exposition, or revelation, of the oaths, obligations, &c., of Masonry agrees in every essential particular with those already made by Stearns, Morgan, Bernard, Finney Rouayne, and others, to prove any of them correct and truthful, is to prove them all so. If two or more parties tell the same story, in the proof that confirms the one, is confirmation of all. Now to the question, “How may we know that the revelations of Masonry are correct?” Answer: 1st, By the testimony of adhering Masons, made in court under oath, and against their will. Such testimony was brought out in the State of New York in the official investigations and trials that followed the abduction of Wm. Morgan. Again and again, in the years 1826 to 1828, were Masons brought to the stand, and under oath called upon to testify of Masonry; and while some refused to answer, and were committed for contempt of court, all who did reply, swore that Morgan's work gave Masonry correctly. In New Berlin, Chenango Co., N. Y., a man was arrested and brought into court for giving “theatrical exhibitions” without license from the village officers; said “exhibition” consisting in no more or less than an open Masonic Lodge in which a candidate was initiated publicly, in the interests of an anti-Masonic movement then being made. He was cleared by showing from the oaths of officers and members of the Lodge in that place, that his manner of initiating, his administration of obligations and penalties, were correct as then practiced in their Lodge. This was April 13 and 14, 1831. We give a brief extract from a “Report to the Legislature of Pennsylvania,” June 13, 1830, made by one of its committees, through Thaddeus Stevens, its chairman: “The committee issued subpoenas for about one hundred witnesses, embracing men of all ranks in society and of every grade of Masonry within the commonwealth. Among the number were all the present, and many of the past, officers of the Grand Lodge, who were required to produce the books, papers, and records, of the Grand Lodge over which they presided, that the testimony by which the institution was to be adjudged might not be supposed to proceed from unskillful or perjured lips. The testimony is highly important, and establishes the following propositions: That the revelations of Free Masonry made by Bernard, Morgan, Allyn, and other seceding Masons, are genuine expositions of the forms, ceremonies, oaths, and obligations, of Free Masonry, as practiced in Pennsylvania as well as the rest of the civilized world.” Notice, this testimony is from adhering Masons who were members of the Grand Lodge when they thus unwillingly swore to the truth. Other like cases might be cited. Again, 2d, their correctness may be known from the testimony of seceding Masons. On the 4th of July, 1776, fifty-six good and brave men declared thirteen British colonies to be “independent States;” on the 4th of July, 1828, at Le Roy, N. Y., one hundred and three equally good and brave men, with as much of reason and right, severed their allegiance to Masonry, and publishing its evils to the world for their security, pledged to each other “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.” Are they not worthy to be believed? Other secessions from the Lodge have followed, and the writer has before him a list of the names and addresses of one hundred and thirty-two who have seceded from the Lodge, and who testify that the expositions of Masonry now before the people are correct. These witnesses are living men, some of them high in authority. Objection: “Oh! but they are perjured.” Not unless they have told the truth. But they are not perjured. Paley says, “Promises are not binding when the performance is unlawful.” Rev. Thomas Scott says, “Rash oaths are above all things to be avoided; but if men are entangled by them, they ought rather to infringe the sinful oath than add sin to sin, and ruin to their own souls.” In other words, if a thing is wrong, an oath to do that wrong thing will not make the doing of it right; and to break such sinful oath is a duty. We have one good reason for receiving the testimony of seceding Masons in the fact that they persist in declaring their revelations to be correct, even in the midst of severest Masonic persecution; facing slander, reproach, and abuse of every sort, even death itself, they still “cry aloud, and spare not.” The writer has a lively consciousness of what is meant by “daring to stand by the truth” in this matter. Amid revilings and opposition, he counts it an honor to be identified with such men as Stearns, Bernard, Gerritt Smith, Pres. C. G. Finney, Baird, Rathbun, and Rouayne, with a host of others who are living to-day, as well as with John Hancock, James Madison, J. Q. Adams, Wm. H. Seward, Wm. Wirt, Daniel Webster, and their co-laborers. Here, then, is your authority for believing the revelations of Masonry before you; “will not this suffice?” We will now pass on to the “ante-room,” and prepare to enter upon our tour of inspection there.